What happens if the House of Burgundy survived?

Let's say Margaret of York produced a healthy boy, so no Burgundian inheritance for the Habsburgs. What would the new duke, let's call him Charles II do when entire Europe is caught up in the Reformation? Would there be any intermarriage between Tudor England and Burgundy? Would they engage in colonial venture like the OTL United Provinces? And last but not least, what would the French religious war be like when Burgundy is not under Habsburg rule?
 
A successor with a Burgundian defeat similar to IOTL? It's not going to stop Louis XI even for a second. Burgundy was a defeated apanage falling in commise (meaning that when a lord pissed too much the king, this one usually claimed back the lands. A bit like it was done on Plantagenets).

Well, I'd tend to say they would be close to Imperial court at this point, would it be only to prevent the big blue blob advance in Flanders. That plus regional policies would make me think they'll keep to the Catholic side, without encountering the same issue than Spanish Hapsburg in northern Netherlands.

Eventually, you may see an ongoing English/*Netherlands alliance trough Valois-Bourgogne, would it be only trough the continuation of the late medieval alliance with Flanders.

I tend to think you'd end with a more or less phagocyting alliance with Lorraine, pursuing the goal of forming a continued territory.
A territory, that depending who you're asking, could look like this (red borders) or like this (black borders).
Eventually Burgundy could gain a title and relatively unified power on it (while being cautious to not piss municipal autonomies : at this point Netherlands would be their main resource and economical heart)

We discussed there a bit about a surviving Burgundy-Flanders (that would be far more Flanders than Burgundy, as for the latter being totally taken over). It's a bit long, but one of the few constructive arguments between two different takes on an ATL (and I don't say that only because I participated :D).

France religious wars would be certainly butterflied, at least how they happened IOTL. Historically, it was dependent of so many factors that would be modified by this PoD.
 
A successor with a Burgundian defeat similar to IOTL? It's not going to stop Louis XI even for a second. Burgundy was a defeated apanage falling in commise (meaning that when a lord pissed too much the king, this one usually claimed back the lands. A bit like it was done on Plantagenets).

Well, I'd tend to say they would be close to Imperial court at this point, would it be only to prevent the big blue blob advance in Flanders. That plus regional policies would make me think they'll keep to the Catholic side, without encountering the same issue than Spanish Hapsburg in northern Netherlands.

Eventually, you may see an ongoing English/*Netherlands alliance trough Valois-Bourgogne, would it be only trough the continuation of the late medieval alliance with Flanders.

I tend to think you'd end with a more or less phagocyting alliance with Lorraine, pursuing the goal of forming a continued territory.
A territory, that depending who you're asking, could look like this (red borders) or like this (black borders).
Eventually Burgundy could gain a title and relatively unified power on it (while being cautious to not piss municipal autonomies : at this point Netherlands would be their main resource and economical heart)

We discussed there a bit about a surviving Burgundy-Flanders (that would be far more Flanders than Burgundy, as for the latter being totally taken over). It's a bit long, but one of the few constructive arguments between two different takes on an ATL (and I don't say that only because I participated :D).

France religious wars would be certainly butterflied, at least how they happened IOTL. Historically, it was dependent of so many factors that would be modified by this PoD.
It's the Age of Discovery, would they try their luck in the New World and Orient like OTL United Provinces?
 
It's the Age of Discovery, would they try their luck in the New World and Orient like OTL United Provinces?

Given the butterflies, it's hard to say. I don't see why not (critically with Netherlands being a trade hub), but the outcome would probably be different (would it be only because you may have a very different relationship with Spain there).
 
If Henry III still dies without a son, wouldn't ATL duke of Burgundy press his claim to the French throne? I think the Valois-Burgundy line is much closer than the Bourbon line. Is there an luck for the underdog Henry of Navarre?
 
If Henry III still dies without a son, wouldn't ATL duke of Burgundy press his claim to the French throne? I think the Valois-Burgundy line is much closer than the Bourbon line. Is there an luck for the underdog Henry of Navarre?

Henry III's death, reign, and probably existance would be butterflied away ITTL as the French religious wars at least how they happened (as said in an earlier post).

Butterflied away, if you're not familiar with the concept as it's used on AH.com, means that because a change happens, it would have growing impact and consequences around it, up to changing other events more and more importantly.

As for claims to the throne, Valois-Bourgogne was a princely french house, but definitely not the closer at the time of the PoD : Valois-Orléans, Valois-Angoulême, Valois-Anjou were closer (without the still possible newer allohhistorical branches)
 
Henry III's death, reign, and probably existance would be butterflied away ITTL as the French religious wars at least how they happened (as said in an earlier post).

Butterflied away, if you're not familiar with the concept as it's used on AH.com, means that because a change happens, it would have growing impact and consequences around it, up to changing other events more and more importantly.

As for claims to the throne, Valois-Bourgogne was a princely french house, but definitely not the closer at the time of the PoD : Valois-Orléans, Valois-Angoulême, Valois-Anjou were closer (without the still possible newer allohhistorical branches)
I know, I'm just saying they'd have a better claim than the Bourbons.
 
I know, I'm just saying they'd have a better claim than the Bourbons.

Giving that Valois-Burgundy didn't existed at this moment IOTL, and that you probably won't end with the same situation ITTL, I fail to see how "better" it would be.

We could as well argue of the superior rights of Herbertiens after the death of Henri III.
 
Giving that Valois-Burgundy didn't existed at this moment IOTL, and that you probably won't end with the same situation ITTL, I fail to see how "better" it would be.

We could as well argue of the superior rights of Herbertiens after the death of Henri III.
They were in fact better than the Bourbons in terms of lineage, what are you saying? They don't have a better than the Bourbons? I fail to see the otherwise.
 
They were in fact better than the Bourbons in terms of lineage
At the death of Henri III, they weren't better than Bourbons.

Unless someone was planning to raise them as zombies, they couldn't have a claim on the throne as they died. They passed on, they were no more, they ceased to be, they expired and went to meet their maker, they were stiff, bereft of life and resting in peace.

It's as absurd than arguing your dead uncle have a better claim to your adoptive grand-father inheritence.
 
Giving that Valois-Burgundy didn't existed at this moment IOTL, and that you probably won't end with the same situation ITTL, I fail to see how "better" it would be.

We could as well argue of the superior rights of Herbertiens after the death of Henri III.

At the death of Henri III, they weren't better than Bourbons.

Unless someone was planning to raise them as zombies, they couldn't have a claim on the throne as they died. They passed on, they were no more, they ceased to be, they expired and went to meet their maker, they were stiff, bereft of life and resting in peace.

It's as absurd than arguing your dead uncle have a better claim to your adoptive grand-father inheritence.
I was clearly talking about Burgundy having a much claim than Bourbons if they had survived, I wasn't trying to say that they would have higher claims than other cadet branches of House of Valois. It's amazing how you tend to get emotional about these civil discussions, so I will no respond to this post, nobody has time to waste by engaging meaningless arguments with a compulsive character.
 
I was clearly talking about Burgundy having a much claim than Bourbons if they had survived
And if they survived, the OTL situation with Henri III dying (or even existing in first place) wouldn't appear, being butterflied away.
Their claim to the throne being then basically useless (critically when it came to much closer branches before them).

nobody has time to waste by engaging meaningless arguments with a compulsive character.
If it fits you. I will point to you that the "compulsive character" was the only to "waste time" trying to answer you so far, but I guess pointing politeness is wasted on you.
 
If Henry III still dies without a son, wouldn't ATL duke of Burgundy press his claim to the French throne? I think the Valois-Burgundy line is much closer than the Bourbon line. Is there an luck for the underdog Henry of Navarre?

In 1483, this Duke of Burgundy would be 3rd in line to the throne, after Charles VIII, Louis, Duc d'Orleans and Charles, Comte d'Alencon. All of these men had children after the PoD
1) Charles VIII had 4 children and died early. With a PoD in the 70s or 80s, his accident would be easily avoided and his ATL children may survive where his OTL one didn't. Plus, he's going to have more kids if he doesn't walk into a door.
2) If Charles VIII has a surviving son, Louis d'Orleans won't annul his first marriage to get with the Duchess of Brittany. He may try to remarry anyway, though, and if he succeeds, he may marry a woman who isn't so prone to stillbirths. Hence, he may have surviving sons. Even if Charles VIII somehow dies on time without a son, then there's no reason why one of Louis' surviving children won't be born male.
3) Angouleme isn't definitely going to have only one son, either.

Thus, it is by no means likely that the House of Valois will become extinct in the 16th century, or ever. If the Burgundians survive, then by the same token, the three guys ahead of them in the succession have every chance of doing so.

Tl;dr - What LSCatalina said but without the aggro: yeah, the Burgundy's would have a better claim than the Bourbons, but only in the same way that the Bourbon-Conti branch would have a better claim than the Courtenays.
 
I agree, that the a Burgundy defeated by France, would be in trouble to maintain most of their French fiefs. Even when technically, and that even was disputed at times (from the Burgundian side), only the duchy of Burgundy proper was an appanage directly granted to the house of Valois-Burgundy. They gained the vast majority of their fiefs by other means.
Nonetheless, depending on the circumstances, that might lead to a somewhat different outcome, with respect to territories gained due to marriage or inheritance, their principal appanage and French fiefs gained by conquest and peace treaties are lost no matter what.
IMHO Burgundy is in a good position to keep the following French fiefs the counties of Flanders, possibly Artois and Charolais.
They'll lose the duchy of Burgundy, but won't stop using the title.

They also held a number of imperial fiefs: duke of Lothier, Brabant, Limburg, Luxembourg and Guelders; count palatine (AKA free count) of Burgundy (Franche Comté); margrave of Namur; count of Holland, Zeeland, Hainaut and Zutphen.

Together with their remaining French Fiefs, this will be more like other important members of the Holy Roman Empire, than it will be like France, so a kind of Burgundian Hereditary Lands. Much more dominated by Flanders, Brabant and Holland, than what will remain of their French territories, however in terms of culture, specifically court culture, they will remain 'Burgundian' though. In other words les pays de par deça (Burgundian Netherlands) definitely became more important than les pays de par delà (their southern Burgundian lands (ducal and comital Burgundy etc.), beforehand both were of value.
Given how trade oriented Flanders, Holland and Brabant (Antwerpen is a Brabantian town), I do see them getting involved in the age of exploration.

I also agree, that 'Burgundy' and Lorraine will eventually strive to unite their lands, IMHO it doesn't matter, whether Lorraine is ruled by the house of Valois-Anjou or Lorraine (Vaudemont).

The house of Valois-Burgundy was a rather junior and distant branch of the house of Valois, but the house of Bourbon was even more distant. So a lot will depend on butterflies.
In an ATL were the house of Valois-Burgundy ends up being the last remaining branch of the house of Valois, they end up with a good claim on the throne of France. However they might not be favoured by the French nobility (too imperial).
If the previous king leaves behind a daughter or a sister and she ends up marrying a Capetian, who's claim is only weaker than the Burgundian one; then we might have a war of the French succession on our hands.
 
Top