Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by VVD0D95, Oct 3, 2015.

  1. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Balthasar Charles, was the heir of King Philip IV of Spain, and lived between 1629-1646 dying at the age of sixteen, forcing his father to remarry. What might have happened had he not caught smallpox, and survived?
     
  2. REICHFURST Never say never

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    Firstly, he goes to marry his cousin Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria, with whom he was already betrothed (in OTL she married her death fiance's father Philip IV), probably in 1648. Due to the consanguinity, they probably had the same problems that his father and Maria Anna had in OTL: several miscarriages, stillbirths and children who died very early; however, being both young and healthy they probably had more chances to produce at least one heir.
     
  3. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Hmm interesting, the policy of marrying within the family, it kind shows to me why most royals became bat shit insane. Idiots
     
  4. Janprimus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    North Brabant, The Netherlands
    Even before the Reformation available marriage partners of a sufficient Royal or High Noble/Princely rank were limited. Then as a time went on, dynasties went extinct and were inherited, which limited the the pool of available candidates. The effect of the Reformation was that this pool became dangerously small.
    Nor was it only marrying within the family, they often married with the (same) related families too, for instance Bourbon and Habsburg.
    Royals took it to an extreme level, but nobles, patricians occasionally did the same for the sake of keeping it in the family.
     
  5. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Indeed which could have led to a lot of their instability as well. It certainly did in the Habsburgs. Besides, wasn't such a thing considered a sin in their bible? Oh wait, they're supposedly only answerable to God, lol, logic fail
     
  6. Just a Rube Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    To be fair, they did generally have to get a dispensation from the Pope (Protestants didn't have that loophole, but Protestant monarchs tended to be less particular in their marriage partners; consider the number of British consorts from various minor German principalities).
     
  7. Janprimus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    North Brabant, The Netherlands
    That's were the Reformation added additional problems, many German princely houses, in part to counter the Catholic Imperial dynasty (don't forget that the 3 ecclesiastical Prince Electors were Catholic), were Protestant.
    Once Religious tensions eventually gradually eased after 1648, conversions did occur. In fact a number of minor German princely houses had Protestant and Catholic branches.
     
  8. jlk7e Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    In the 1640s, there actually weren't very many Catholic rulers of minor (secular) German principalities. Besides the Habsburgs, you have the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria and Pfalz-Neuburg, the House of Lorraine, and the House of Baden-Baden, and that's more or less it as far as the old princely houses go. There's also a few new princely houses, but it doesn't seem like there was much intermarriage between them and the most powerful dynasties. Additional Catholic dynasties are the Bourbons in France, the Braganzas in Portugal, the Vasas of Poland, and various Italian dynasties - Savoy, Farnese, Gonzaga, Este, Medici. And that's more or less all that's available. Because of the much larger number of Protestant old princely houses in the Holy Roman Empire, it was never as much of a problem for Protestant rulers.
     
  9. jb3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    One benefit of having Balthasar Charles (would he be King Balthasar I or Charles II?) and Maria Anna having just ONE single child, girl or boy, who survives to adulthood and produces any heir, girl or boy, (which is very possible since even Maria Anna and her uncle had Margaret Theresa, who was also the wife of HER uncle Leopold, and they also managed to produce a single daughter who survived to adulthood) is that it would butterfly the entire War of Spanish Succession (and the outcomes of that) as we know it, since there would be no Philip of Anjou vs Charles of Austria for the Spanish throne.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  10. isabella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    I think the best point of making Balthasar Carlos surviving and marry Maria Anna are:
    1) Balthasar is a son of Philip IV 's first weddding and a full brother of Maria Theresa (Queen of France as wife of Louis XVI) so her husband can not claim anything at his father-in-law's death
    2) Philip IV at the death of Elisabeth will still likely remarry and with his son alive he will end marrying a princess much less related to him than his OTL second wife (who will be his daughter-in-law instead) and so producing much healthier kids with her (and still a daughter from this second marriage can marry her second cousin Emperor Leopold) likely either the Grande Mademoiselle or a German princess and if Carlos and Mariana had the same kind of trouble in having healthy children who Philip and Mariana (and also Leopold and Margarita) had in OTL failing their line at least the Spain will have other male legitimate heirs with an indisputable biggest claim than Maria Theresa and her French descendants had....
    You can have this kind of line of succession:

    sons of Carlos and Mariana
    daughters of Carlos and Mariana
    sons of Philip and ATL second wife
    daughters of Philip and ATL second wife (at leaat the ones who do not renounce their rights of successions marrying)
    Maria Theresa, Queen of France and her descendants (who likely will remain far away from the Spanish throne)
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  11. isabella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Likely if Balthasar and Mariana heir will be female an Habsburg husband will be quickly found for her (likely a spanish half-uncle for a daughter, an austrian or spanish cousin for a granddaughter) ...
     
  12. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Interesting, so would he reign as Balthasar I, then?
     
  13. Janprimus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    North Brabant, The Netherlands
    Nope he'd be (TTL) Charles II.
     
  14. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Okay why not Balthasar?
     
  15. Janprimus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    North Brabant, The Netherlands
    Given the regnal names used by the Spanish Habsburg (which mostly is derived from their Burgundian heritage), Philip and Charles seem much more likely than Balthasar.
    Kings of France or England usually had a limited number of regnal names too.
     
  16. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Hmm interesting, very interesting
     
  17. jb3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Why was he given the name Balthasar Carlos then instead of the other way around? It's not like the Spanish kings had any problems with naming several sons with the same first name (with the subsequent names different).
     
  18. Kellan Sullivan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Perhaps born on the Feast of the Epiphany or something else connected with the three Magi (one of whom is named Baltasar?)?