Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
bit of a random question for those knowledgeable on the period:
what would've happened had Philipp the Magnanimous had died prior to 1562 (when he wrote the testament dividing the Hessian territories amongst his four sons and formed Kassel, Marburg, Rheinfels and Darmstadt)? Up until that point, FWIG, he intended his eldest son to inherit the lot (the eldest, Wilhelm IV, certainly seems to have regarded this as the case). While Philipp had set aside portions for his younger sons, AFAICM, those were in the "non Hessian" territories (like Katzenelnbogen) rather than dividing the landgraviate. It was only in 1562 that he seems to have "changed his mind" (not sure what caused it). But if he had died during the period when Karl V was holding him hostage (when Wilhelm IV was acting as regent of Hesse anyway), for instance, how would this have affected the future of the "Hessian" state? All of the sons only married after their father had partitioned the inheritance(Wilhelm IV in 1566, Ludwig of Marburg in 1563, Philipp II of Rheinfels in 1569 and Georg I of Darmstadt in 1572), and I doubt that they would remain single (Wilhelm IV, Ludwig and Georg's all seem to have been "love matches"- Wilhelm met his wife at Ludwig's wedding, for instance. Ludwig met his wife during a random meeting with her uncle/dad).
Or would there be a Hessian civil war between the younger (and seemingly disinherited) sons challenging Wilhelm IV getting "all the marbles".
@Jan Olbracht @VVD0D95 @isabella @Vitruvius @Space Oddity
what would've happened had Philipp the Magnanimous had died prior to 1562 (when he wrote the testament dividing the Hessian territories amongst his four sons and formed Kassel, Marburg, Rheinfels and Darmstadt)? Up until that point, FWIG, he intended his eldest son to inherit the lot (the eldest, Wilhelm IV, certainly seems to have regarded this as the case). While Philipp had set aside portions for his younger sons, AFAICM, those were in the "non Hessian" territories (like Katzenelnbogen) rather than dividing the landgraviate. It was only in 1562 that he seems to have "changed his mind" (not sure what caused it). But if he had died during the period when Karl V was holding him hostage (when Wilhelm IV was acting as regent of Hesse anyway), for instance, how would this have affected the future of the "Hessian" state? All of the sons only married after their father had partitioned the inheritance(Wilhelm IV in 1566, Ludwig of Marburg in 1563, Philipp II of Rheinfels in 1569 and Georg I of Darmstadt in 1572), and I doubt that they would remain single (Wilhelm IV, Ludwig and Georg's all seem to have been "love matches"- Wilhelm met his wife at Ludwig's wedding, for instance. Ludwig met his wife during a random meeting with her uncle/dad).
Or would there be a Hessian civil war between the younger (and seemingly disinherited) sons challenging Wilhelm IV getting "all the marbles".
@Jan Olbracht @VVD0D95 @isabella @Vitruvius @Space Oddity
Ireland wasn't unified, and English involvement wasn't total. The areas the English actually reached were impacted rather substantially in ways that went beyond royal authority. The parts they didn't reach weren't affected so heavily.
Who else could Catherine of Austria have married, if not for John III of Portugal?
@isabella @Kellan Sullivan ?
@isabella @Kellan Sullivan ?
Much depend by the reason for which she had NOT married John III of Portugal
VVD0D95
Banned
What would the consequences be if Pedro V of Portugal survived and secondly how much power did he have? Wikipedia gives him quite a lot.
@Kellan Sullivan @anyone else
@Kellan Sullivan @anyone else
a surviving York dynasty would actually be useful in this regard. Since a) the Yorks were the primary royal landowners in Ireland (Edward IV was 10th Earl of Ulster, and had also inherited the claim to the earldom of Louth via his Mortimer ancestry) and b) most of the Tudor "repression" in the late 1490s/1500s was to put down the Irish who had backed Lambert Simnel (Warwick was Earl of Dublin and one of the "theories" about the dukedom of Clarence is that it was tied to Co. Clare rather than the honour of Clare in England) and Perkin Warbeck. Now, the wheels on the royal bus in Ireland started coming off with Richard III's seizure of power in 1483 when the Burkes rebelled (AFAIK, this wasn't related to Dickon's coup, but a separate event). Unfortunately, the whole "Richard III-Bosworth-Henry VII" drama playing out in England meant that it wasn't dealt with quickly. If there hadn't been a "distraction" (say Edward IV survived), the then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland would have had royal backing to deal with the Burkes (after all, once the Burkes seized the royal town of Galway and demanded ransom, the king would have little choice to get involved). Instead, there was the Burke's terrorizing pro-royalist Connaught, then the Tudor repression of the pro-Yorkist Simnel-Warbeck uprising (as seen by the fact that Poynings Law passed with the vote of only three Irish peers- the remaining lords hadn't been summoned due to involvement/support for Simnel-Warbeck, and only one of those is known to have been incapacitated due to his age (the Talbot earl of Shrewsbury who held the earldom of Waterford was also not summoned back from France AIUI), culminating in the royalist victory at the Battle of Knockdoe in 1504.
So...just a thought: Edward IV survives. Hears of Burke's seizure of Galway. Sends trusty Richard of Gloucester to "deal with the Irish" (after all, lets give credit where credit is due, Dickon was capable, having been sent up north to deal with the Scots). Then, we go Ricardian and Edward IV and his sons die while Richard is in Ireland, leaving Richard III as the last Yorkist male standing. His son, Edward of Middleham (who inherits dad's martial skill as well as grandpa Warwick's political skill), and he gets made "duke of Ireland" by his dad and left as Lord Lieutenant in Dublin. Later, Edward succeeds as "Edward V, King of England and Ireland", and instead of sending heirs to Ludlow (a practice only started by Edward IV), they send the heirs to Dublin instead.
Least, that's my interpretation. Those more knowledgeable about Irish history of the time (Burke's, Simnel, Warbeck's rebellions can correct me).
Would it be possible for a southern equivalent of the Erie Canal to be built where the AUS breaks up by 1800? I know Virginia had several attempts IOTL (most notably the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and its predecessor of sorts in the Potawmack Canal) but none were nearly as successful as the Erie Canal.
I was wondering something for my TL, but I suspect it would require a far earlier POD than 1826:
Would itbe at all possible for thr Methodist Church (or even their Moravian predecessors) to reconcile with or become part of the Catholic Church. Not understanding the nuts and bolts of Methodist/Moravian theology, I can't think of a reason aside from that the Methodists dont have bishops and they allow their priests to marry.
Any thoughts?
@FalconHonour @Nuraghe @isabella @VVD0D95 @The_Most_Happy @Jan Olbracht
Would itbe at all possible for thr Methodist Church (or even their Moravian predecessors) to reconcile with or become part of the Catholic Church. Not understanding the nuts and bolts of Methodist/Moravian theology, I can't think of a reason aside from that the Methodists dont have bishops and they allow their priests to marry.
Any thoughts?
@FalconHonour @Nuraghe @isabella @VVD0D95 @The_Most_Happy @Jan Olbracht
VVD0D95
Banned
Think if you’re meaning the British Methodist it would likely need something akin to Weslyian theology to be different. As from what I understand the founders wanted to purify the Church of England rather than go back to rome
Near impossible and still remain recognizable Methodist.
The idea of reconciliation but maintaining a distinct identity is not a problem, recently their have been some moves to incorporate Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church. Though it has not risen to the degree of creating an separate rite which has happened with many Eastern Churches though it generally causes a split in the Eastern Church.
Before we get into the major issues of sola scriptoria and sola fide there is, as you put it, the bishop problem. In Roman Catholicism priests do not act on their own authority. Everything flows from their bishop. And the bishops authority descends from the Apostles, without bishops you don't have a Church.
The marrying priests are not an issue. Roman Rite priests can't marry because of pastoral tradition not theology (there are reasons behind the tradition it isn't just random). In fact most of not all Eastern Catholic Rites allow married men to become priests (you can't go the other way around and can't become a bishop though).
I'm not familiar enough with traditional Moravian theology to comment on that.
I'm sorry Kellan, I did some research on this possibility and I came to the conclusion that a much earlier Pod is needed (I would say around the great counter-reform operation in post-30YW Hapsburg Bohemia) but in any case seeing what Otl happened in Italy ( where they joined with the Waldensians ) with the Methodists I would say that they would find it easier to join the Lutherans ( for the reason that they both have serious diatribes with the Calvinists ) than with the Catholics ( of course their direct intervention in social questions can be a point in important common but the theological difference terrifyingly separates them )
VVD0D95
Banned
What is needed tk keep the first Mexican empire alive?
@Sarthak @Nuraghe @Kellan Sullivan @Noblesse Oblige
@Sarthak @Nuraghe @Kellan Sullivan @Noblesse Oblige
I've got a query in related to that last post actually.
What might have been needed to be done to keep the Federal Provinces of Central America (Or United States of Central America as some called it) as a single unified entity to this day, and what kind of regional (or even global) effects might such have come about from such?
What might have been needed to be done to keep the Federal Provinces of Central America (Or United States of Central America as some called it) as a single unified entity to this day, and what kind of regional (or even global) effects might such have come about from such?
Here are the most important powers that the Constitutional Charter of 1826 give to the Monarch:
-Nominating Peers without a fixed number.
-Summoning the General Courts extraordinarily in between Sessions, when the Good of the Kingdom so requests.
-Sanctioning the Decrees and Resolutions of the General Courts, so that they have the force of Law.
-Prolonging or postponing the General Courts, and dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, in cases where the salvation of the State requires it, immediately calling another to replace it.
-Appointing and dismissing Ministers of State freely.
-Suspending Magistrates with a justified cause.
-Forgiving and moderating the penalties imposed on the convicted.
-Granting Amnesty in an urgent case, and when so advised by his/her humanity, and the good of the State.
-To summon the new ordinary Cortes Gerais on the second of March of the fourth year of the existing Legislature in the Kingdom of Portugal; and in the Domains in the previous year.
-Appoint Bishops and provide Ecclesiastical Benefits.
-Appoint Magistrates.
- Appoint the Commanders of the Land and Sea Forces, and remove them, when the Good of the State so requests.
-Appoint Ambassadors, and more Diplomatic and Commercial Agents.
-Directing Political Negotiations with Foreign Nations.
-Make Offensive and Defensive Alliance Treaties, Subsidy and Commerce Treaties, taking them after concluded to the knowledge of the General Courts, when the interest and security of the State allow it. If Treaties concluded in peacetime involve the assignment or exchange of the Kingdom's Territory or Possessions, to which the Kingdom is entitled, they will not be ratified without having been approved by the General Courts.
-Declare War and make Peace, communicating to the Assembly the communications that are compatible with the interests and security of the State.
In practice, in the 19th Century, the Monarch would choose the Government because what he would was nominate someone to form a Government, the Government would be formed and then the Chamber of Deputies would be dissolved and elections called and the Government would win. Once this Government concluded it's term of 4 years (only one or two in 50-something did this), new elections were called. More often some scandal would force the Government to resign and the process described above would be repeated.
With this in mind, a good King could appoint the proper people to form Governments and Peter V was quite meddlesome. In my opinion, the Portuguese left was a bit better than the right that Ferdinand II and Maria II favored but which Peter V despised but eventually, both would stagnate in a rotation of power that the regime promoted with rather corrupt Prime-Ministers. Peter could, however, find decent people and have them form Governments, bypassing the Parties.
VVD0D95
Banned
Intetesting so quite a bit of opening there for the crown to have influence and power. Which given the chaotic nature of government you’ve outlined is probably necessary no?