Marry Thou, O Happy Austria

I'm not sure if this thread has been posted before, but here we go. I was reading the other day about the act by which King Philip II of Spain ceded the government of the Spanish Netherlands to his daughter, Isabel, and her husband, the Archduke Albert VII of Austria. Isabel and Albert were to rule the Netherlands as joint sovereigns, and the crown of the Spanish Netherlands was to pass to their son and descendants in the male line.
If they had a girl, said infanta/archduchess? was to marry either the king of Spain (Castile, Aragon, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, Portugal and Milan) or, if he was already married, his brother. And failing that, a prince (most likely an Austrian archduke?) approved of by the king in Madrid.
Now, here's my POD, question, whatever you would like to call it: what if by ceding government to Isabel and Albert, Philip set a precedent by which the younger sons of the Spanish king were sent as viceroys to the former kingdoms. Mind you, only the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Sicily, and Portugal; not places like Galicia or Leon &c.

I know Isabel had three children OTL, the Archdukes/Infantes Philip (born 1605) and Albert (born 1607), and a daughter, Archduchess/Infanta Anna Mauritia (born 1608/1609). However, all three children died in infancy.

Now, if Anna Mauritia were to live, and marry, say, the younger brother of King Philip IV of Spain, Don-Infante Fernando (born 1609) who in any case became Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, and thus continue aforementioned line of Albert and Isabel (useless for the Imperial succession - since it's through females BEFORE the Pragmatic Sanctions of Leopold I and Charles VI).
And after this, Philip IV's youngest brother, Don Carlos, is married off to an archduchess from Austria, perhaps, and sent off to Lisbon (as Albert was before he married Isabel) or Naples (as Juan of Austria the Younger was) to act as the king's viceroy there.

I realize this idea is probably highly unlikely since Fernando was made a cardinal - but then again, Albert had been the Archbishop of Toledo (the highest clerical office in Spain), both Holy Roman Emperors Leopold had originally been destined for the church (Leopold II's anticlericalism was said to be a result of this).

Any thoughts?
 
It's not necessarily useless for the Imperial succession. That crown is elective.

The Austrian hereditary lands go by Salic Law, but don't automatically go with the Imperial throne - the two had been separated as recently as Charles V's day. Also, if their ruling line fails, they are imperial fiefs and the Emperor can reassign them as he chooses - perhaps giving them to one of his sons or even to himself. That, after all, is how the Habsburgs acquired them in the first place.
 
It's not necessarily useless for the Imperial succession. That crown is elective.

The Austrian hereditary lands go by Salic Law, but don't automatically go with the Imperial throne - the two had been separated as recently as Charles V's day. Also, if their ruling line fails, they are imperial fiefs and the Emperor can reassign them as he chooses - perhaps giving them to one of his sons or even to himself. That, after all, is how the Habsburgs acquired them in the first place.

The Imperial throne was practically hereditary. The only time the throne wasn't held by a Habsburg was during Maria Teresa's reign and even then she got her husband elected after Charles VII's death.

The Idea is unlikely but cool. The problem with that is that would mean that all the European Spanish empire would be ruled by different branches of the Habsburgs. Considering how hard the Spanish fought to keep the empire intact before and during the Spanish Succession war U doubt making either autonomous or independent kingdoms out of, say Naples of Portugal, would go over well. I'm not quite sure why Philip II gave the Netherlands to his daughter and son-in-law but I think it had something to do with of how rebellious the whole area was ( the Dutch rebellion). So Philips actions were more of an exception rather that the rule.

Also if the younger sons are just made viceroys it would give those sons a power base if they wanted to either declare themselves king of whatever kingdom their governing or use it as a spring board to take the Spanish throne.
 
@ emperorconstantine “I'm not quite sure why Philip II gave the Netherlands to his daughter and son-in-law but I think it had something to do with of how rebellious the whole area was ( the Dutch rebellion). So Philips actions were more of an exception rather that the rule."

But Portugal and Naples also rebelled against rule from Madrid in much the same way the Dutch did. Granted the Portuguese and Dutch were more successful (especially since they both had native and/or charismatic leaders) though the duc de Guise left Naples after pronouncing the Napolitani ungovernable. But if the infantes were to be sent as viceroys a la Bonaparte (Louis' maintenance of native interests + Elisa's flair for government) to Lisbon and Naples, it stands to reason that with his relatives on the ground in Naples and Lisbon, maybe the Neapolitan dogeate? And John of Braganzas rebellions could be nipped in the bud???
 
Well the Burgundian Netherlands was a part of the heritage of the house of Habsburg-Burgundy and Charles V, the father of Phillip II, was very proud of his Burgundian heritage. IIRC Charles V at old age told Phillip II in his political testament, 'nuestra patria es la Borgoña' ((more or less) our fatherland is Burgundy).

Besides Philip II originally intended her to marry a monarch, in fact for a while she was betrothed to her cousin emperor Rudolph II. Giving her and her husband archduke Albert, the Burgundian Netherlands, was a kind of consolation price. Another point of resentment in the Burgundian Netherlands, even among the 'loyal' Catholic states, that Philip II had never lived up to the promise he made to the Estates General, when he visited the Burgundian Netherlands as the heir of Charles V, that he would frequently visit it. However that is rather symbolic, when compared with other policy mistakes; all in all Philip II never had the same connection with the Burgundian Netherlands as his father Charles V. A native monarch would be better able to address those issues, but that would also apply to Portugal and the Spanish Italian possessions.
Another benefit could be that it could help to somewhat lessen the threat felt by France and the Burgundian circle also might have been furthest removed from the goals and aims of Phlip II (also when compared to Portugal, Sicily, Naples, Sardinia and Milan).
 
Last edited:
So then what if we scrap the idea of Hapsburg satellites (appointing his relatives to positions of power didn't exactly work for Napoleon) but still keep the idea of Albert and Isabel's child(ren) surviving. Who would the boys marry?
 
Just read something interesting - D. Felipe II want as against partitioning the Spanish empire as I thought - esp. since he not only appointed Dona Isabel as Viceroy in Brussels, he also propped three of his Savoyard grandchildren onto thrones (if only for life) in the empire. He gave Margarita of Savoy, Dowager Duchess of Mantua the rule of Portugal; and Prince Filippo Emanuele and then Prince Emanuele of Savoy the governorship of Sicily and Sardinia
 
Top