Is it possible to have a independent Burgundy?

If Charles the Bold would have been crowned in Trier it would have involved the Emperor and the Elector-Archbishop of Trier (Archchancellor of Burgundy (Arelat)). Simply because a self-promotion wouldn't be recognized and probably would have resulted in a real 'monster' coalition (at least France and the entire Empire) against the upstart duke.

And about the names of a kingdom, Brabant was the heir of the duchy of Lower Lotharingia (they still were duke of Lothier and they also ended up with the rival duchy of Limburg) as such Brabant wasn't that minor among the 'countries' in the Netherlands (but could be considered the premier duchy of the region). Although admittedly the Burgundian dukes prefered Burgundy, Lotharingia and Frisia (Friesland) as their new kingdom. Like I mentioned earlier the county of Holland and the duchy of Gelre had a claim on Friesland/Frisia.
And looking to the Burgundian promotion from the position of the emperor, who had to give Charles his crown, a kingdom of Friesland/Frisia and even Brabant is far more likely than Burgundy; maybe (and I mean maybe) Lotharingia could be possible, but this isn't a likely outcome.

And about the marriage of Mary and Maximilian, this probably isn't butterflied away on the contrary the negotiations about his crown and the marriage of his daughter were all part of the same negotiations. IOTL when the Emperor left Trier in 1473, Charles reacted by ending the marriage negotiations with the emperor. ( Before the dead of duke Nicholas of Lorraine in 1473, he also seemed to have been considered a potential husband for Mary the Rich). When Charles died IOTL, Mary still wasn't bethroted and could choose between Maximilian and a son of Louis XI, who had been the rival of her father. Mary ended up choosing for Maximilian and their short (5 year) marriage seemed to have been happy, IIRC there is an anecdote that they were secretly earlier wed by an ordinary pastor (priest) before their official wedding.


I think your probably right about Maximillian... If Charles wants a Kingdom he will need the favour of the Emperor so that marriage would probably still be on....

but if Margaret of York were to have born a son and potential heir then perhaps Nicholas of Lorraine's pursuit bears more fruit earlier, failing that there is Rene II which might improve the situation between the two to the point that there is no war between the two and the Austrians and Swiss mercs don't enter the picture.
 
Thanks for all of the ideas, I am definitely going to write that timeline after. I will probably be use the birth of Philip II (or Charles II still haven't decided) and the coronation of Charles I at Trier, and finally defeating the swiss at Grandson. But there some things that still have to be decided before I begin writing, like the name of the kingdom I think that Arles, Netherlands, or Lotharingia, I honestly don't think he would crown himself king of Brabant (a minor duchy, he would want something more grand than that.), or Frisia (he doesn't have any of Frisia, and means he would have a claim on another Holy Roman state which would be unacceptable to the emperors). Also would Louis XI go to war with Charles because of his promotion to king along with the Swiss, Bar, Austria and Lorraine, If so that means he would have to have the full support of the emperor. Also would having a male heir stop the marriage between Mary and Maxmillian (I was toying with the idea of butterflying away Charles V, and Philip II). Also I will have Charles live to play a major role in the war of the roses or the war of english succession but on which side I don't know?

Like Janprimus noted, it would be Philip IV if that was the name you decided to go with.

As to the name of the Kingdom, the dukes of Burgundy didn't pick that name for no reason, and you might want to keep it so as not to lose the reader. Just a thought.

I'm not sure about Louis XI; it really depends on whether he thinks that he can take on the Emperor with those allies, because if the Emperor is Suzerain of Burgundy I can't see him standing by while it is eaten up.

Like the others said, Mary will still probably marry Maximilian to strengthen ties between Burgundy and the Emperor.

mcdnab brought up a good point, Charles's son claim on the English throne is tenuous at best, I see him more in a supporting role if a "War of English Succession" does break out, especially when you consider all of his enemies on the continent. Do remember though, that Louis XI died in August of 1483 while Edward IV died in June of 1483, so if he is slow to take sides then when he dies, France will basically be neutralized. This is because his son, Charles VIII, is still a boy and so Louis XI's older daughter and her husband would rule as regent.
 
Like Janprimus noted, it would be Philip IV if that was the name you decided to go with.

As to the name of the Kingdom, the dukes of Burgundy didn't pick that name for no reason, and you might want to keep it so as not to lose the reader. Just a thought.

I'm not sure about Louis XI; it really depends on whether he thinks that he can take on the Emperor with those allies, because if the Emperor is Suzerain of Burgundy I can't see him standing by while it is eaten up.

Like the others said, Mary will still probably marry Maximilian to strengthen ties between Burgundy and the Emperor.

mcdnab brought up a good point, Charles's son claim on the English throne is tenuous at best, I see him more in a supporting role if a "War of English Succession" does break out, especially when you consider all of his enemies on the continent. Do remember though, that Louis XI died in August of 1483 while Edward IV died in June of 1483, so if he is slow to take sides then when he dies, France will basically be neutralized. This is because his son, Charles VIII, is still a boy and so Louis XI's older daughter and her husband would rule as regent.

If Charles the Bold is still alive when Louis the XI dies he will be able to play a key role during the regency Of Anne and the Duke of Bourbon, perhaps wresting some concessions of his own from the Regents
 
If Charles the Bold is still alive when Louis the XI dies he will be able to play a key role during the regency Of Anne and the Duke of Bourbon, perhaps wresting some concessions of his own from the Regents

He would have only been fifty years old in 1483, so if death at the battlefield can be avoided then keeping him alive until then shouldn't be much of a problem.
 
Charles is going to be around till the regency, I plan to have him live till 1487. Also I now think it is needed to have Mary marry Maximillian. I thin I will also name the kingdom Burgundy for simplicity sake, do u guy think should name it something else, or keep Burgundy as not to lose the reader?
 
Charles is going to be around till the regency, I plan to have him live till 1487. Also I now think it is needed to have Mary marry Maximillian. I think I will also name the kingdom Burgundy for simplicity sake, do u guy think should name it something else, or keep Burgundy as not to lose the reader?
Well even if this kingdom formally has another name (which is plausible), it is not unlikely that that kingdom will be known as Burgundy, although that will change in the long run.
 
I am curious how Henry Tudor would act in a succession crisis that had the added dynamic Burgundian interference?
 
I am curious how Henry Tudor would act in a succession crisis that had the added dynamic Burgundian interference?
Well if IIRC the distant Lancastrian claim to the English throne of the house of Burgundy came from a legitimate descendant(not the house of Beaufort) of John of Gaunt (Ghent), and any son of Charles the Bold and Margaret, although low on the Yorkist line of succession, would have had much more means to pursue his claim than the De la Poles...
 
Last edited:
Well if IIRC the distant Lancastrian claim to the English throne of the house of BUrgundy came from a legitimate descendant(not the house of Beaufort) of John of Gaunt (Ghent), and any son of Charles the Bold and Magaret, although low on the Yorkist line of succession, would have had much more means to pursue his claim than the De la Poles...

So your saying he really wouldn't have been much of a factor?
 
So your saying he really wouldn't have been much of a factor?

Not necessarily, some may perceive Charles the Bold as being too foreign (not English), but a ATL son of Charles and Margaret would be the most likely 'Burgundian' claimant. And an alternative could be that Charles the Bold supports his Yorkist brother in law against Henry Tudor.
On the other hand Henry Tudor could (and probably woukd) still end up with backing of the rival of Burgundy, France; anyway the ATL end war of the Roses is going to be more interesting.
 
Actually it makes a real difference to England. And I think improves the chances of a Gloucester regency in England rather than a coup but i don't want to over egg the issue.
For a couple of reasons - Charles the Bold was not a particularly strong supporter of his brother in law and his wife was probably closer to her brother George and Richard. Charles and Edward hadn't really had good relations since Edward's treaty with France in the mid 1470's - Charles in OTL of course died soon after.
However with a surviving son by Margaret of York - the chance of the French dumping Elizabeth of York in 1482/3 is less likely although Anne of Brittany is still a possible for Charles VII - Louis XI's decision was largely motivated by the Burgundian situation and coming to terms with the widowed Maximillian, which means that at her fathers death the young Elizabeth of York might already be in France as Dauphine (Louis XI outlived Edward IV by a couple of months), that significantly reduces the chances of Richard of Gloucester's usurpation because the young Edward V has stronger allies internationally than he did in otl.
Prior to Edward IV's death Richard of Gloucester's relations with the Queen and her family was pretty good - it's highly likely that Buckingham and in particular Lord Hastings who did have axes to grind with the Queen's family motivated and pushed Richard into action (combined with his own ambition however unpopular that view of him is now).
If Edward V survives then his surviving sisters (Elizabeth, Cecily, Anne and Catherine) become more marriagable as does his younger brother Richard of York) - Edward had been highly ambitious for his children and only his greed had really failed to get anything concrete on paper - the intention was Elizabeth of York for Charles VII of France, Cecily for James IV of Scotland (and various Scandinavian monarchs), Anne for Philip the Fair, Catherine for Juan Prince of the Asturias and Bridget (who was an infant at her father's death) seems likely to have been promised to the church very early. The Prince of Wales was intended to marry Anne of Brittany.
The Breton Duke got himself heavily involved in the arguement between the Duke of Orleans and the French regent which might in this scenario make a marriage with England and a surviving Edward V more attractive. Also England under a Richard of Gloucester Regency becomes in many ways a more reliable and honourable ally - Richard had deplored his brother's willingness to abandon his allies. A surviving Charles the Bold might well think his son would be well suited to an English Royal cousin - also if Richard is pressing for a Breton marriage for the teenaged King an alliance with Burgundy is going to be vital. Mary of Burgundy's children assuming she still maries Maximillian are going to be less attractive to both England and France in any scenario in which Charles the Bold has a male heir.
Charles the Bold's Lancastrian claim was extremely weak - it was a female line descent through his mother Isabella of Portugal who was the daughter of Philippa Queen of Portugal eldest daughter of John of Gaunt - however she had numerous male line descendants with a stronger claim than Charles the Bold.
 
I think I am going to the kingdom Call it Lotharingia, for historically reason, and the added prestige of reviving a empty throne. As for the war of English Succession I think I will have Charles arrive on the scene after Richard III is dead, Gathering support from the yorkist to place his son on the throne. John de la Pole will gather the group of Yorkist who believe that he is rightfully king and gather those who do not want to see a Lotharingian on the throne of the england. Henry IV will champion the house Lancaster as he tries to claim the throne with french support while Charles and John fight it out for the head of the yorkist. Then I plan to have Charles defeat Henry IV and place his son Phillip IV/I as king of England but in a Poland-Lithuanian deal. Though I will have Lotharingian control of england end in 1527, in which another royal house will take over briefly till, the Lotharingian take over it in 1548. But ultimate Lotharingian control over Britain(I will have the king that restores the Valois to England conquer Scotland) will end when 1631 when a Cromwell-esque figure deposes the king (thus bringing the end to house Valois,I think I will have the Lotharingian side of the family die out around the same time). What do u guys think of that plan? I will try to have a update out this week but, things are getting a bit crazy with exams around the corner.
 
I still see a few problems - assuming that Richard III's usurpation goes ahead which as i said before is debateable because a Burgundian heir changes the european marriage market in favour of Edward IV's daughters giving Edward V a stronger chance of survival.

Its really important to recognise that by the 1480's there was little surviving York v Lancaster nobility - the key Lancastrians were dead and gone - Henry Tudor's mother was a key figure at the Yorkist court and got on rather well with the royal family in fact she'd spent a lot of time trying to cut some deal with Edward IV to get her son home.

The events of the 1480's were more a fresh civil war between supporters of the various factions within the Yorkist nobility.

Richard III's wife died in 1484 which makes him a single childless monarch in his early thirties - there is little question that he is going to try and remarry with potential new allies. Henry Tudor Earl of Richmond had already made one failed attempt his claim is weak and as in otl he guarantees that he will marry Elizabeth of York if he succeeds - with French support he stands a good chance just as in OTL. If Charles is making noises on behalf of his wife and her son then French support for Henry Tudor becomes even stronger. Assuming Henry VII succeeds and as in OTL marries Elizabeth of York in the winter of 1486 and her pregnancy is confirmed soon after then Charles the Bold has a problem. Many of the Yorkist nobility backed Henry VII because of the marriage and John de la Pole did not rebel until the following year - initially he was very visible at Henry's court and was present as a key figure at Prince Arthur's christening - it was only the appearances of pretenders (real or otherwise) of Elizabeth of York's missing brothers that prompted the final Battle of Stoke in 1487 and Henry's resulting behaviour towards the nobility that prompted other rebellions which could loosely be considered Yorkist risings on behalf of various claimants.

If Elizabeth of York has married Charles VIII in 1482/3 prior to her father's death and Richard III's usurpation and the presumed murder of her brother's goes ahead then it becomes even more problematic - because I suspect many Yorkists, even those who still favour what they regard as the legitimacy of Edward IV's children, will tolerate Richard III in preference to a Valois succession and unification of the crown's under Elizabeth of York's children (assuming her and Charles VIII have any). Given there is now no motive for French support of Henry Tudor - he becomes a footnote in history his weak claim vanishes. Any rebellion now is far more likely to be a domestic one to push the claims of Edward Earl of Warwick (as Edward VI) as the last male Plantagenet and having a stronger claim than his Uncle Richard III - in the event of Richard not remarrying or dying then that is what I suspect what would happen. De la Pole never claimed the throne between Richard's death and his own death his ambitions seem to have been aimed far more at being the power behind the throne.

To be honest the Burgundian claim is so weak that I can't see him bothering in any other way than as a power broker or to prevent the French.

I would, if you'll forgive me, suggest that a better alternative if you want to end up with some kind of Anglo Burgundian union is for it to follow our TL in England until the Buckingham rebellion in late 1483 and after that failed to have the Burgundian court appalled at the rumours of Richard's murder of his nephews (they were common in France by late 83 early 84) and have Charles and his wife indicate their desire to overturn Richard III and restore Edward IV's line united with their beloved son and heir Philip - that would have been highly attractive to the bitter and angry Queen Dowager still in Sanctuary in Westminster, have her eldest son Thomas Marquess of Dorset flee to Burgundy instead of France - acting as intermediary and you might be able to have a new Battle of Bosworth - followed by the accession of Philip I (in right of his new wife - Elizabeth of York). In that scenario I think the English Parliament will demand some level of autonomy and perhaps go so far as to insist that Philip is giving the crown matrimonial with Elizabeth being nominally Queen Regnant. Think the new King will still face as many problems in England as Henry Tudor did and he will be perceived as foreign and unwelcome and will still face rumours of a surviving Edward V or Richard Duke of York (now with French instead of Burgundian backing). France in that scenario is going to feel incredibly threatened and I suspect Charles VIII will neglect his ambitions in Italy in order to push to destroy the Anglo Burgundian union.
 
If Charles VIII doesn't get involved in Northern Italy, I wonder what kind of butterflies that creates? And could France successfully destroy an Anglo-Burgundian Union at the time?
 
I did a TL on a independant Burgundy a while back- though under the name of Lotharingaria.

Henry V wins the 100YW and Burgundy steadily grows in size and wealth. Come a new duke with big ideas and he decides to declare himself a kingdom with Papal support, France and the Empire are too preoccupied with each other and various internal affairs to care too much- though France does eventually manage to conquer Burgundy proper, the rich Low Countries are able to hold out.

I just don't see French Burgundy being independant and attached to the Low Countries...if it isn't part of France and is a rival kingdom then its right on the firing line, its way too close to Paris and far too much in the core French lands.

I think name with Lotharingaria is really the one. Classical revivalism to show legitamacy was big in this time period (look at Prince Arthur) and that is certainly more fitting than Burgundy, more accurate and it panders to the Dutch.
 
Top