hello frania i never mentioned anything yet about charles vii it had no contridicting in factn with salic law as it was only succestion for the private norm and in fact had nothing to do with france it was used as a cover up rather then a legal law in a council held in i never even started with the legality of the traty yet i also mentioned reliable sources aout the existence of the doble mnarchy like the angevin empire because it was destroyed that dosent mean we say the angevin empire never existed i starting with preface of how the double monarchy came about or there would have been no reason to create it if henry wasnt a french king i didnt take sides and i am just mentioning what historions state and check the sources you said that frenchmen never had regognized the legitimacy of henry vi when the northen frenchmen and the burgundians including the duke of brittiny and the pope regognized henry it wasnt until the mid s when there began a rise of french inscurtions because henry was expelled that does not mean he didnt have legitimacy to rule france please be exat in my article in which it is one sided the french regency for henry did exist if you happen to remember john the duke of bedford i see nothing against npov because i never mentioned charles at all exept when i said he was king as well you make it sound that charles was completely inane when he was half insane the french king also had his wife as a regent in order to rule for him anyway charles vi was incompetent of ruling and thats why he had a regent who was present during the treaty i promise frania that i will also expose the right of charles but i cant dot this in one day because you must understand i have to mention henry as king of france first in order for it to make sense on how it was formed i am not pushingfor anyside