   Hello David Thanks for your reply and you are most welcome.If you want to enter in these conversations go ahead.Like all Humans we learn from others so nobody is going to hastle you for getting something wrong.When you feel you know a good bit and are confident post your POV and argues and everybody will treat it with respect.There also French arguements aswell concerning the treaty of troyes because they thought it was illegal because Charles VI treated the kingdom as private land but was royal property passed on by legitimate succestion.Charles VII  disinheritence was legal but the next legitimate ruler in the line was the duke of Orleons and so on.The treaty of troyes had in effect ended salic law to all the further claimints so the English would have needed a predescent in which it is understanble and the peasent most off all could uinderstand and defend.The English predescent used an example of the first monarchy by Rome.In Rome the republic was transferd to the roman emperors by the people and soveriegn(singuler or collective).Armed with this awsome predescent the English needed ratification in order to change the fundemental law of succestion to a different line.I still though wouldnt declare the entire treaty legal but it is understandable on that predescent.Concerning Salic Law now.Salic Law originated from germany on the floods of Sallbe and so wasnt a french law but a german law and so this was upheld by English Lawyers for a century since Edward III declared himeself king of France in Ghent(Belgium).In 1317 there was a council held in France in order to ensure the succestion if the Capetian dynasty was ever to be wiped out.One of the capetian kings was suprised at the wealth of the kinghts templer so he accused them of heresy.Thousands of Knoghts whom were members were killed all over France and there was a majour one in Paris where a Knight Templer cursed the Capetian King and all his descendents through his line.One by One each of the remaining capetian Kings died subsequently after the other.In 1328 salic law was given a false predescent and an extrainterption.Salic Law which was later discoverd in the 16th century by a french monk had in fact nothing to do with succestion of thrones.Believe it or not,this was the fact.When it was made during Charmaglens reign it was only to do with succestion of private land or the private norm,not with thronws.In 1317 the french interpted salic law as no wommen can succeded(nothing about through women).In 1328 they added through women.Therefore Philip IV basicly succeded through acceptence of the land and his legitimacy was utterly quistionable and controverstial.To be authentic however the English lawyers only debated that the law lied in Germany not the salic law which was far later rediscoverd.Lets just look however why the french didnt want an English king.The reason was because England was only emerging and seen by the frech and the richer countries of Europe as a Barberious,Rebilious backwash.No way were the french going to accept an English King,not Edward III.Historions however have always debated the seriousness of Edwards claim.Meaning did he actually think he wanted to concilidate France or using his legitimite claim as a pretext to gain more land.The latter was most notable as he took an extended Aquataine at the treaty of Breitigny 1360.It wasnt really that much in the eyes of frenchmen but it did severly attack french honour since there french king John II was captured by the black prince of Wales at Poitiers in 1357 and ransomed at the same treaty for up to 4 times Frances annual gross.I got this caculation from an article on wikipedia which I know unfortunitly fail to remember.Goodbye David and thanks again for your reply.  