Philip I, Holy Roman Emperor?

IOTL Charles V had the electors of the Empire elect his brother, the future Ferdinand I, to become the King of the Romans in 1531 due to his fear that his own children wouldn't make it to adulthood and thus be unable to become the Emperor. However he was wrong and his eldest son, Philip, survived and took over the western Hapsburg posessions whilst Ferdinand continued on to become Holy Roman Emperor.

WI Charles had waited though? Let's say that he trusts that God will allow his 4 year old son, Philip, to live into adulthood, thus he never has his brother elected as the Roman King?
 
Well, as Philip of Swabia apparently made himself called Philipp II to honour the roman emperor Philip I...Maybe we would have Philip III? :D

Now that's a thought. I didn't know that on Philip of Swabia.

Do you think Philip (the current one) would be able to handle the situation for the Empire better than he did Spain (the Black Legend may be a lie, but the man was a paperwork obsessed micromanager)?
 
Do you think Philip (the current one) would be able to handle the situation for the Empire better than he did Spain (the Black Legend may be a lie, but the man was a paperwork obsessed micromanager)?

Well, this man was raised in the imperial bureaucracy, so there's a bit of truth indeed. But, ruling Spain was a hell of job : not enough talking about regular tensions or revolts in Aragon, the Portuguese problem, the protestants, the New World, the English, the Valois, the Netherlands etc.

You had so many problems that if someone else could have done better, it would need some incredible luck. Philip II choose the solution of absolutism, that gave good results later (for France by exemple), but rather "new" at the era and still influence by imperial bureaucracy and strict catholicism.
 
Well, this man was raised in the imperial bureaucracy, so there's a bit of truth indeed. But, ruling Spain was a hell of job : not enough talking about regular tensions or revolts in Aragon, the Portuguese problem, the protestants, the New World, the English, the Valois, the Netherlands etc.

You had so many problems that if someone else could have done better, it would need some incredible luck. Philip II choose the solution of absolutism, that gave good results later (for France by exemple), but rather "new" at the era and still influence by imperial bureaucracy and strict catholicism.

Agreed on Spain's position. Philip certainly did all that was within his power to make it work, the fact that he might not have been the best man for the job gets into personal issues.

The main thing I can think of that would matter here - does Charles leave Spain to Philip, or does he pass him over and give it to someone else? That might be problematic to do, but it might be possible.

I do not envy Philip if he he has both the empire's and Spain's problems, though.
 
Charles V will only give lands to a member of his dynasty. However the Spanish kingdoms and the Burgundian Inheritance were the wealthiest and most powerful parts of the Habsburg dominions.
Maybe Charles V fathers another son, or he marries princess Anne of Bohemia & Hungary instead of his brother Ferdinand, while Ferdinand marries someone else. Ferdinand could instead be made the representative of Charles in the Spanish kingdoms and eventually his heir of the Spanish kingdoms (the Crown of Castille & the Crown of Aragon, but he will certainly won't receive more, so ITTL the duchy of Milan (if in Habsburg hands) would definitely stay with the senior Imperial line), probably only feasible if in such a TL if Charles manages to become king of (the whole of) Hungary and Bohemia.

I agree that Charles leaving his son with the same problems he had, is unlikely, unless his son is the only surviving male member of the house of Habsburg.

Not the original question, but a surviving Philip the Fair (the father of Charles V and Ferdinand I) as Holy Roman Emperor could be interesting too.
 
Last edited:
IOTL Charles V had the electors of the Empire elect his brother, the future Ferdinand I, to become the King of the Romans in 1531 due to his fear that his own children wouldn't make it to adulthood and thus be unable to become the Emperor. However he was wrong and his eldest son, Philip, survived and took over the western Hapsburg posessions whilst Ferdinand continued on to become Holy Roman Emperor.

Do you have a source for it? Because everything I've read about it is that the German nobility was tired of having an Emperor that was too busy having to deal with both Spain and the HRE, and so they pratically forced Charles to make Ferdinand his heir.
 
Top