Valois "Kingdom of Frisia" in 1473?

You will probably know that Charles the Bold or Burgundy desiered a royal title and convinced the HREmperor Frederick III to crown him at the cathedral of Trier in September 1473. Nothing came of it, since, (to quote the Wiki) the "ceremony, however, did not take place owing to the Emperor's precipitate flight by night (September 1473), occasioned by his displeasure at the Duke's attitude."

This is not about the question what might have happened if the coronation had taken place, it is about a purely formal aspect:

While English-language texts mostly state that it would have been the Kingdom of Burgundy or the Kingdom of Arles, German-language texts usually claim that it would have been the Kingdom of Frisia, sometimes with the additional info that it would have contained the explicit right/obligation to subdue the Frisian chieftains between Zuiderzee and Weser.

Do you happen to have further information that might solve this small riddle?
 

ingemann

Banned
You will probably know that Charles the Bold or Burgundy desiered a royal title and convinced the HREmperor Frederick III to crown him at the cathedral of Trier in September 1473. Nothing came of it, since, (to quote the Wiki) the "ceremony, however, did not take place owing to the Emperor's precipitate flight by night (September 1473), occasioned by his displeasure at the Duke's attitude."

This is not about the question what might have happened if the coronation had taken place, it is about a purely formal aspect:

While English-language texts mostly state that it would have been the Kingdom of Burgundy or the Kingdom of Arles, German-language texts usually claim that it would have been the Kingdom of Frisia, sometimes with the additional info that it would have contained the explicit right/obligation to subdue the Frisian chieftains between Zuiderzee and Weser.

Do you happen to have further information that might solve this small riddle?

If choosing between English and German sources on the HRE always go with the German ones, especially when it's the matter of names. We could easily have seen a Königreich Friesland, which would have translated into English as the kingdom of Burgundy, especially as the crown he would likely have gotten would be the crown of the Kingdom of Arles.
 

ingemann

Banned
I thought he was trying to get himself crowned King of Lotharingia? Or was that his farther or something?

It really didn't matter, he wanted be king and taking a historical crown was the most legitime way to become so. it would also mean that he only had to convince the emperor to crown him and didn't need the Popes support.
 
I thought he was trying to get himself crowned King of Lotharingia? Or was that his farther or something?

Oh yes, that is another suggestion how his crown would have been called.

BTW, I have found at least fourdifferent account why the coronation fell through:

1) The emperor was apalled by the extravagant luxury Charles was displaying.
2) The electors were angry that Charles had longer ermine tails at his garments than they had.
3) The emperor had given parts of Alsace as security for a loan to Charles. Now he wanted to repay the loan and reclaim the territory, but Charles denied that at their meeting in Trier.
4) Charles desired that not only the emperor but also the electors formally consented to his elevation to king, whioch Frederick regarded as violation of his imperial prerogatives.

Certainly there are even more different stories out there in different textbooks ...
 
Charles the Bold was Duke of Brabant and by extension Lord of Frisia. The Dukes of Brabant had exercised varying degrees of power in the area over the years, and Charles himself tried to project power there. He demanded the submission of all of Frisia during his reign, but only one or two towns complied. His failure to follow up on his demands there was probably for the best. Dealing with unruly Frisians would not have been in his best interests.

What Charles was offered was a so called "territorial kingdom" based on any one of his territories. It could have been Burgundy, Frisia, Brabant or even Lotharingia, as the Dukes of Brabant were also titular dukes of Lotharingia/Lower Lorraine. In other words; both the sources you mention are correct, but perhaps reflect the cultural bias of the author in that they only mention one or two of the alternatives.

Charles himself seemed to prefer the idea of becoming King of Burgundy, but he was notoriously indecisive in the negotiations.

Many of the proposals involved large swathes of territory that were to be attached to this new kingdom as fiefs. Frisia, Savoy and Cleves were the recurring demands, regardless of the actual title of the kingdom.

Oh yes, that is another suggestion how his crown would have been called.

BTW, I have found at least fourdifferent account why the coronation fell through:

1) The emperor was apalled by the extravagant luxury Charles was displaying.
2) The electors were angry that Charles had longer ermine tails at his garments than they had.
3) The emperor had given parts of Alsace as security for a loan to Charles. Now he wanted to repay the loan and reclaim the territory, but Charles denied that at their meeting in Trier.
4) Charles desired that not only the emperor but also the electors formally consented to his elevation to king, whioch Frederick regarded as violation of his imperial prerogatives.

Certainly there are even more different stories out there in different textbooks ...
1) Doesn't seem likely to me. Philip the Good impressed and won the friendship of the Emperor with the exact same type of extravagant luxury.

2) I doubt the Emperor would care much. He was negotiating more or less entirely out of self-interest, and a few butthurt electors probably wouldn't make him change his mind.

3) That was Sigismund, duke of Tyrol, not Emperor Frederick. It was indeed a sore issue, but not one likely to cause serious friction between the two.

4) This doesn't sound unlikely, but was probably only be part of the reason.

Anyway, discussing Charles' crowning or lack thereof always ends up dominating these Burgundy threads, and that didn't seem to be what you wanted to discuss here, so I'll cut it short.
 
Last edited:
@ Westphalian: Kuld von Reyn already answered most of it. However even though the dukes of Brabant (formally duke of Lotharingia (Lothier), Brabant and (since 1288 Limburg (conveniently since the also had a claim on (de facto titular) Lower Lotharingia )) did value their Lotharingian heritage. However lord of Friesland is more connected with the title count of Holland & Zeeland, though the duke of Gelre had their own claim too.

@Ingemann: another name for the kingdom of Arles was Burgundy, which probably would have been the name of this creation. The duke of Burgundy, as free count (palatine) of Burgundy still controlled a part of that kingdom of Arles/Burgundy, so even that would be possible. That's not most of the territory, but the Ascanian duchy of Saxony was also much smaller than the previous 'Stem' duchy of Saxony. So potentially Burgundy (previously Arles, but that wouldn't make much sense for such a state), like Saxony could end up moving too.
OTOH options such as Friesland/Frisia or Brabant could be safer in diplomatic terms.
 
'Frisia' would have been a fairly insulting crown to grant him, which, given it didn't happen, makes sense to write from a German perspective.

You better believe the Duke expected Lotharingia or Burgundy. The implications and the prestige would have been considerably greater.
 
'Frisia' would have been a fairly insulting crown to grant him, which, given it didn't happen, makes sense to write from a German perspective.

You better believe the Duke expected Lotharingia or Burgundy. The implications and the prestige would have been considerably greater.

I think you're mistaken here. Besides insulting for whom and from which perspective? Philip the Good or Charles the Bold is the one requesting a crown from the HRE. Any emperor won't want to insult the empire nor the majority of the imperial princes, not hurting relations with France too much will be preferable too, besides titles such as Burgundy and Lotharingia (implicitly) belong to the emperor, so the emperor, Frederick III of Habsburg, is the one the duke of Burgundy ought not to insult. Originally such titles implied being the liege over a larger territory, but boundaries could be specified with a title grant. For instance (at least) all imperial territories currently held by the duke of Burgundy would be a part of such a kingdom.

OTOH Friesland/Frisia was a historic kingdom, there was a kingdom of Frisians in pre Carolingian conquest times (600 - 734), furthermore the area was larger than the current Dutch province and the broader region. Roughly speaking it encompassed the modern day Dutch provinces of North Holland, South Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland and Groningen, and German East Frisia. In other words by no means insulting; and also a title, which would cause less issues with imperial princes, since in territorial terms it implies less claims on territories not controlled by Burgundy. BTW the duke of Burgundy was a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire for his imperial possessions, just like he held French fiefs as a vassal of the kingdom of France.
An alternative would be to elevate Brabant to a kingdom.
 
Last edited:
I think you're mistaken her. Besides insulting for whom and from which perspective? Philip the Good or Charles the Bold is the one requesting a crown from the HRE.

Yes, which he has to do given he wants a crown in imperial lands. But certainly not Frisia! He wants one of the Carolingian crowns; preferably Lotharingia. It's the most prestigious, the one that gives him the most de-jure claims, and the one that makes him most equal to France.

Besides titles such as Burgundy and Lotharingia (implicitly) belong to the emperor
Which is part of why he has to ask; mind you, and yes, it would have been an important concession to make, I don't say otherwise. Which is why Burgundy wanted it. The Duke didn't want a king-title for the sake of having one, it had to have real meaning, real claims, and equivalence to France. He was strong enough to challenge the Emperor, his early demise notwithstanding, and had proven he believed in 'might makes right'. It's reasonable to believe the Emperor might have felt all of Frisia, Lotharingia and Burgundy could be lost to the Empire forever de-facto if he didn't compromise.

OTOH Friesland/Frisia was a historic kingdom, there was a kingdom of Frisians in pre Carolingian conquest times (600 - 734), furthermore the area was larger than the current Dutch province and the broader region. Roughly speaking it encompassed the modern day Dutch provinces of North Holland, South Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland and Groningen, and German East Frisia. In other words by no means insulting; and also a title, which would cause less issues with imperial princes, since in territorial terms it implies less claims on territories not controlled by Burgundy.
At the time, he owns virtually all of it, and it seems like only a matter of time before the Netherlands are fully under his heel. But more importantly, Frisia is absolutely not as important a crown as Lotharingia or Burgundy. Those grant him legitimacy to rule up the Rhine, or as south as Arles, and give him solid claims on French-ruled land; they are inherently much better in addition to the fact that the ex-Carolingian crowns were still seen as a solid notch above the others, especially by the French.

BTW the duke of Burgundy was a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire for his imperial possessions, just like he held French fiefs as a vassal of the kingdom of France.
I'm well aware! And I'm still convinced the Duke would have been offended if he had been offered Frisia. One of his strategic desires was to legitimize his expansionism in the Lorraine and Alsace, and as Duke of Burgundy, he did not see the Lowlands as the heart of his realm carved by the sword. He wanted to be on equal grounds with Paris. Frisia doesn't cut it. The reason why the Emperor was seriously entertaining the notion of granting him a crown in the first place was because of his de facto power; a form of appeasement, in large part. I don't think that if he had ultimately decided to go ahead with that, he would have risked going with Frisia. The Duke might have taken it if that's all that was on offer, but he would have been bitter about it; not very effective appeasement.

Of course, once the Emperor had decided NOT to do it, it made no sense to let records reflect that he even entertained the notion of parting with one of the Carolingian crowns. At that point, writing it was about Frisia makes entire sense for the Emperor, even if it's not true. And that explains why the sources differ.
 
Last edited:
The reason why the Emperor was seriously entertaining the notion of granting him a crown in the first place was because of his de facto power; a form of appeasement, in large part. I don't think that if he had ultimately decided to go ahead with that, he would have risked going with Frisia. The Duke might have taken it if that's all that was on offer, but he would have been bitter about it; not very effective appeasement.
This is incorrect. More or less every single offer made by the Emperor required the marriage of Mary to Maximilian. Emperor Frederick was only willing to negotiate if it meant that the kingdom granted to Charles would eventually end up back in Habsburg hands. This was part of the reason why the negotiations broke down to begin with.

Emperor Frederick was not a man who'd give up something just to "appease" someone. He might pretend that he was considering the possibility of maybe doing something along those lines at an unspecified time in the future, but he would never seriously consent to anything that would (permanently) weaken the position of the house of Habsburg in any way imaginable.
 
This is incorrect. More or less every single offer made by the Emperor required the marriage of Mary to Maximilian. Emperor Frederick was only willing to negotiate if it meant that the kingdom granted to Charles would eventually end up back in Habsburg hands. This was part of the reason why the negotiations broke down to begin with.

Emperor Frederick was not a man who'd give up something just to "appease" someone. He might pretend that he was considering the possibility of maybe doing something along those lines at an unspecified time in the future, but he would never seriously consent to anything that would (permanently) weaken the position of the house of Habsburg in any way imaginable.

Yes, that's true. It was a shrewd thing to ask for, all things considered, but it doesnt change the fact that this wouldn't have been on the table at all if it wasn't for Burgundy's expansion and military prowess. Even factoring in this trick, offering Lotharingia or Burgundy (which I remain convinced was what was actually discussed) wouldn't have happened if there was no need to contain and retain Burdundy.

Let's not forget that even under that scenario, if Charles had been willing to marry his female heir for Lotharingia or Burgundy, it was still a hell of gamble for the Emperor. Margaret of York is 27 and even if her union to Charles hasnt produced children yet, thats not guarantee for the future. If, once crowned, Charles does have a male heir, Mary's marriage becomes worthless in terms of inheritances, becoming a simple alliance. I dont know why Charles and Margaret had no children, but you can be sure that if my female heir was the price to pay for my crown, I'd have redoubled efforts to fix that and pray for a boy.
 
I'm not sure it would be that bitter to have a "lesser" crown. Yes, it would be nice to have something involving even more potential claims - but being a king in and of itself puts Charles in an elite company and on some level equal to France (Paris might disagree, but Paris can find some way that any of the options make him, at best, second to Paris and Aachen).

So while I can see Charles trying to get one of those, the Emperor might have only been willing to offer "King of Frisia" - and well, Charles has to take it or find another avenue for his ambitions.
 
It's not like the title of the kingdom actually mattered much anyway. What lands were to be de jure included in the kingdom would have been decided in the negotiations. This isn't a game of Crusader Kings where being king automatically makes you the de jure league of a bunch of territories your new kingdom held over 500 years ago.

Charles' minimum demands were Lorraine, Frisia, Cleves and Savoy. Even if he "only" became king of Frisia, those territories would still have been included as fiefs of the new kingdom. (The Emperor also seemed willing to agree to those demands, and there was heavy Burgundian influence in all of the territories in question except Frisia already.)
 
Firstly you do know that also Philip the Good had similar negotiations with the emperor. Whereas both he and his son Charles the Bold were proud, Philip was a more realistic politician.

Yes, which he has to do given he wants a crown in imperial lands. But certainly not Frisia! He wants one of the Carolingian crowns; preferably Lotharingia. It's the most prestigious, the one that gives him the most de-jure claims, and the one that makes him most equal to France.

Again Friesland/Frisia was considered to be a historic kingdom and thus certainly an option. He, I assume you mean Charles the Bold, initially wanted to become king of the Romans, thus by Papal coronation become emperor and outrank the king of France. A territorial kingdom, considered in negotiations with both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold would be different. It would make grant them the same rank as the king of France, Denmark etc., but just like the kingdom of Bohemia, such a kingdom would be an imperial fief. Prestige comes from the higher rank, and as such resurrecting a 'historic' or historic kingdom would help.
Another point is granting most de jure claims, that exactly why the emperor is hesitant to do so, since the imperial princes, especially those involved won't be too pleased by that.

Which is part of why he has to ask; mind you, and yes, it would have been an important concession to make, I don't say otherwise. Which is why Burgundy wanted it. The Duke didn't want a king-title for the sake of having one, it had to have real meaning, real claims, and equivalence to France. He was strong enough to challenge the Emperor, his early demise notwithstanding, and had proven he believed in 'might makes right'. It's reasonable to believe the Emperor might have felt all of Frisia, Lotharingia and Burgundy could be lost to the Empire forever de-facto if he didn't compromise.

Regardless of the title, for any title inside the Empire, the emperor will be involved, often the Pope too. Recognized independent rulers outside the Empire could request a Crown from the Pope and/or Emperor. Except might didn't make everything right in this era, for instance they, well their lands, were wealthier than many kingdoms. In a sense diplomatic recognition makes right. I disagree on the being king bit, Philip in that regard was more realistic than Charles, who was susceptible for the symbolic value of being a king (in general). Charles by no means was being able to challenge the Emperor, maybe one on one, but that basically meant that Charles would have been surrounded by enemies, the Emperor and the king of France would under such a scenario join forces against him and he can't win from all his then enemies.
Still the Emperor wanted to bring the Low Countries (mostly, but not all, a part of the HRE) closer to the Empire again. One thing he did want to prevent at all cost, is France getting the entire Burgundian inheritance; though if they ally, the easiest deal would be to assign each their nominal fiefs.

At the time, he owns virtually all of it, and it seems like only a matter of time before the Netherlands are fully under his heel. But more importantly, Frisia is absolutely not as important a crown as Lotharingia or Burgundy. Those grant him legitimacy to rule up the Rhine, or as south as Arles, and give him solid claims on French-ruled land; they are inherently much better in addition to the fact that the ex-Carolingian crowns were still seen as a solid notch above the others, especially by the French.

That he owns a lot of it, is especially, why offering this historic Crown makes sense, since that is the deal most likely to be acceptable for the imperial princes and the Emperor, who needs to grant the crown. IIRC Philip the Good was granted the title imperial vicar west (left) of the Rhine. Lotharingia not only connects with Lorraine, but also with the legacy of Brabant & Limburg, the 'heirs' of Lower Lotharingia (just like Lorraine is the 'heir' of Upper Lotharingia). As I wrote earlier, the duke of Burgundy, as 'free' count palatine of Burgundy already held a fief of the kingdom of Burgundy (Arelat). Furthermore like the duchy of Saxony was reduced, when in was enfeoffed again to a new dynasty in 1180, so will probably also be a newly enfeoffed kingdom of Burgundy, certainly with respect to any claims on other imperial princes. In that regard Burgundy would work best with large nominal parts of that kingdom conquered by France. OTOH connecting the Lower (Low Countries) and Upper parts of the Burgundian Lands is more valuable, which would give more value to Lotharingia. However regardless which name, Lorraine could be made a vassal of that kingdom, though even that won't be a popular move and the emperor certainly won't transfer all vassal fiefs desired by Charles, but all fiefs already held by Philip or Charles certainly would have been a part of it.
Regarding Carolingian heritage, that too was important for Lotharingian 'heirs' like the duchies Brabant & Limburg (in personal union), but so was the Frisian kingdom in the counties of Holland & Zeeland (in personal union) and the duchy of Gelre (which had some Lotharingian claims too).
Anyway IMHO you're undervaluing the kingdom of Friesland/Frisia (as is my impression you probably think I overvalue it ;)).

I'm well aware! And I'm still convinced the Duke would have been offended if he had been offered Frisia. One of his strategic desires was to legitimize his expansionism in the Lorraine and Alsace, and as Duke of Burgundy, he did not see the Lowlands as the heart of his realm carved by the sword. He wanted to be on equal grounds with Paris. Frisia doesn't cut it. The reason why the Emperor was seriously entertaining the notion of granting him a crown in the first place was because of his de facto power; a form of appeasement, in large part. I don't think that if he had ultimately decided to go ahead with that, he would have risked going with Frisia. The Duke might have taken it if that's all that was on offer, but he would have been bitter about it; not very effective appeasement.

It all depends on which point during the negotiations, Charles started out unrealistically wanting to become king of the Romans (heir of the Empire). Philip for instance was less concerned about the title, but with any extra vassal fiefs attached to it. Charles seems to put it a bit anachronistically more 'Romantic', but if Friesland or Brabant would enable him to achieve most of his desires...
But the Low Countries with Flanders, Brabant and Holland, were the heart of his realm, since that's were most the money came from. I admit that it was a strategic desire of Burgundy to connect their Upper and Lower Lands. Ultimately deciding to carve things out by the sword is IMHO what was the final nail in his coffin, Charles overplayed his hand.
A crown of an imperial fief would have made him a king, so equal in rank, but not in prestige. Any historic crown Friesland, Burgundy or Lotharingia would have made it a bit less parvenu, which is something that would accompany a totally new kingdom. The latter is probably what the emperor initially had in mind.
I'd say approachment and not appeasement, the goal was to draw Burgundy closer to the empire not to appease the Great Duke of the West.

Of course, once the Emperor had decided NOT to do it, it made no sense to let records reflect that he even entertained the notion of parting with one of the Carolingian crowns. At that point, writing it was about Frisia makes entire sense for the Emperor, even if it's not true. And that explains why the sources differ.

We don't know, at various points and with different negotiations within two reigns various options were considered and we all know none came to fruiting. Not only sources differ, but in some cases one could sometimes wonder, if the cultural background of certain authors played a role too.

Another thing, which I noticed in our little discussion too, is point of view; what makes sense for the duke of Burgundy doesn't (always) apply to the Emperor and vice versa.
 
Top