NO PEACE TREATY WAS REACHED at Bruges because the English were determined to retain their former possessions in France under their own sovereignty, while Charles V was equally determined to regain the sovereignty of Guienne yielded at Brétigny. His lawyers argued that the yielding of sovereignty had been invalid because it violated the sacred oath of homage, therefore the Black Prince and the King of England had been guilty of rebellion comparable to that of Lucifer against God. While this satisfied Charles's life-long care to exhibit a lawful case, it failed to impress the English.
No peace treaty was achieved at Bruges due to conflicting interests between the English and Charles V. The English sought to maintain their previously held territories in France, while Charles V aimed to reclaim sovereignty over Guienne, which had been ceded at Brétigny. The legal arguments presented by Charles's lawyers contended that the surrender of sovereignty was invalid, equating the actions of the Black Prince and the King of England to acts of rebellion akin to Lucifer's against God.
Despite Charles's desire to present a strong legal case for his claims, this reasoning did not resonate with the English side. Their determination to hold onto their possessions in France remained firm, highlighting the deep-rooted tensions and unresolved grievances that made reconciliation impossible during this period. Ultimately, the diplomatic efforts at Bruges were unsuccessful, underscoring the complexities of medieval territorial disputes.
