What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
Know what would be funny?
A TL where Spain not only never gets the Habsburg but also the spanish royal family replaces them on the HRE, not because Spain wants it or is making any effort to get the german throne, but completely by accident
Like they just die
And the spanish are like "eh, I guess its free real estate"
Getting everything through intermarriage
A TL where Spain not only never gets the Habsburg but also the spanish royal family replaces them on the HRE, not because Spain wants it or is making any effort to get the german throne, but completely by accident
Like they just die
And the spanish are like "eh, I guess its free real estate"
Getting everything through intermarriage
I hope this Spanish dynasty would be better in avoiding the endogamy than the Habsburgs was.
Yes, you~You want Queen Julia marrying with an Spanish royal?
Thank you!
TBF any dynasty would have done that last part.
One that is 100% accurate
For added cursedness they get it through the line of Margaret of Austria the sister of Phillip the Fair, for essentially a literal reverse of OTL
With a Viriato reborn!Esentially Lusitania becomes real again then?
To add to Spain's bad luck, we can say that they were given the wrong Habsburg who should have been young Ferdinand, a boy raised in Spain since childhood by the previous king and namesake grandfather to rule Spain instead of the German prince who was his brother but fate decided to kill his grandfather before his plan succeeded.
I had heard that the Habsburgs had inherited their endogamic practice from the iberians Trastamaras...
Well, there was Alfonso X of Castile, who actually did support an Imperial bid for himself OTL for several years, though made no effort to travel to Germany to enforce these claims. Perhaps Richard of Cornwall isn't available to steal his thunder? Alfonso actually got more votes than Richard if memory serves, it's just that Richard was on the ground and Alfonso wasn't, so it was much easier for Richard to undermine him.
In truth, the inbreeding was something the Habsburgs inherited from the Iberian dynasties, not the other way around. The various Iberian dynasties routinely flouted the consanguinity laws from the early Middle Ages, and the level of inbreeding only got more extreme as the centuries went on. The marriage between Alfonso IX of Leon and Theresa of Portugal (who were first cousins) would have been unthinkable in France or Germany at the same time. Castile later gives us the first double-first cousin marriage I know of in Medieval Europe in the form of Alfonso XI's marriage to Maria of Portugal. That's not even getting into Alfonso V of Portugal marrying his niece.
So I don't expect an alternative Spanish dynasty to be less inbred than the Habsburgs were. They'd been inbreeding first and second cousins for centuries at that point, and although uncle-niece marriages (the most damaging ones from a genetic perspective) were not yet common, the groundwork had been laid for such matches to be acceptable.
So basically like IOTL except with a different family? It would likely still result in OTL results
Hmmm... trying to wrap my brain around this and frankly it's giving me a bit of a headache
but I'm not certain that an uncle-niece (or aunt-nephew) pairing would be more genetically deleterious than a double-first-cousin pairing...In the former case, at least there's some more genetic separation (as one of the niece/nephew's parents would hopefully have no "blood" connection with the uncle/aunt's family), whereas with a double-first-cousin union, the couple share the exact same set of grandparents
In either case, it's all a bit "ick" but I do find it interesting for some reason...
I think mathematically uncle-niece and double-first-cousin marriages are equally bad, since the individuals share 25% of their DNA (on average) with each other. What you make up for with the genetic separation in uncle-niece marriages (as you mentioned with the non-related parent) you lose due to the generation skip. Double-first-cousins allows for at least one generation for recombination to take place (and with it a possible mutation of some kind), whereas you lose out on that recombination with uncle-niece relationships since you're a generation closer to the common ancestor(s).Hmmm... trying to wrap my brain around this and frankly it's giving me a bit of a headache
In the former case, at least there's some more genetic separation (as one of the niece/nephew's parents would hopefully have no "blood" connection with the uncle/aunt's family), whereas with a double-first-cousin union, the couple share the exact same set of grandparents
In either case, it's all a bit "ick" but I do find it interesting for some reason...
This is going sound odd but ''non predatory predators'' seems to be a thing for great powers if world war 1 is averted. I know this site has a lot has of opinions regarding the affects of the world wars and how they affected how conquest for the sake of conquest was seen.
However one weird thing is if world war 1 is averted or at least minimized then the glory hungry, conquest yearning, imperialist states seem to accept their place in the sun and no longer continue pushing they've been doing for centuries.
For example in Europe we have Austria which recently annexed Bosnia, was following a decades long plan of making all the Slav's surrounding them clients at best if not future subjects and in a proxy war with Russia using Polish rebels. You have Greece in a arms race with the Ottomans, fighting Bulgarian insurgents and preparing for another war while feuding with Italy.
No say war scares, mobilizations, economic conflicts that was apart of life pre world war was apart of European life.
It's sorta having the cake and eating it in a world where war for the sake of national gain and honor is expected if not encourage part of the order it and weirdly ends up if anything more peaceful than ever before for some reason.
However one weird thing is if world war 1 is averted or at least minimized then the glory hungry, conquest yearning, imperialist states seem to accept their place in the sun and no longer continue pushing they've been doing for centuries.
For example in Europe we have Austria which recently annexed Bosnia, was following a decades long plan of making all the Slav's surrounding them clients at best if not future subjects and in a proxy war with Russia using Polish rebels. You have Greece in a arms race with the Ottomans, fighting Bulgarian insurgents and preparing for another war while feuding with Italy.
No say war scares, mobilizations, economic conflicts that was apart of life pre world war was apart of European life.
It's sorta having the cake and eating it in a world where war for the sake of national gain and honor is expected if not encourage part of the order it and weirdly ends up if anything more peaceful than ever before for some reason.
Also mentioning, if there is no WW1 the "Golden age" of European culture continues for a bit, so yeah - they are not going to leave a lot of the pre-WW1 behaviors like those mentioned for a time at least
The Norman Yoke as a whole seems to be a pretty popular on this site as a way of looking at English History before the hundreds year war, and while at least a bit of it is valid it can get a bit overwrought at times. No I am not going to deny that William the Conqueror was a brutal asshole, and did a whole lot of shit that fucked over England in the long run(Though TBH my only regret is that he didn't annex the place into France), the idea of England being ruled over by a bunch of French Noblemen from their estates on the continent who couldn't speak a lick of English for the better part of the Middle Ages isn't actually all that true(Once heard somebody describe it as colonisation.....). While the Kings of the house of Normandy and the first two Plantagenets fit this stereotype well(Though by Henry I, the King was King of England first and duke of Normandy second), all the kings after don't really.
Richard the Lionheart the last king to actually spend all his time in his continental possessions knew at least enough English to compose poetry in the language(To me anyway its sounds fishy he would bother writing a poem in a language he couldn't even speak but hey what do I know), his brother John was the first Plantagent King that we can confirm spoke English(IIRC one of the complaints John brought against his brothers chancellor William Longchamp was that he couldn't speak English), and after him the Plantagenets spent like their entire reigns in England proper.
Edward I only visited Gascony the last English possession in France like once or twice throughout his entire reign with him spending the vast majority of his reign focused on British affairs. He also tried to garner support for his war against King Phillip IV of France by arguing to Parliament that it would harm the English language, Now while this didn't actually work that well. It is important because it proves that not only were members of Parliament an extremely privileged class expected to know how to speak English, but the King himself thought(Wrongly or not) that people cared enough about it to support a war against the Kingdom for the sake of it. This argument was also brought up again in the Hundred Year's war during the reign of his grandson Edward III so clearly Edward himself wasn't a one off.
While yes the Kings of England did usually speak French as a first language(The French were still considered foreigners though, even those from Gascony. In contrast according to sources by the 12th century the Norman settlers and Anglo Saxons had become basically indistingushable ) during this period, they were most often born in England, lived their and ruled over their possessions in France and Ireland from English Soil. If this was colonisation then the Normans clearly weren't very good at it.
Richard the Lionheart the last king to actually spend all his time in his continental possessions knew at least enough English to compose poetry in the language(To me anyway its sounds fishy he would bother writing a poem in a language he couldn't even speak but hey what do I know), his brother John was the first Plantagent King that we can confirm spoke English(IIRC one of the complaints John brought against his brothers chancellor William Longchamp was that he couldn't speak English), and after him the Plantagenets spent like their entire reigns in England proper.
Edward I only visited Gascony the last English possession in France like once or twice throughout his entire reign with him spending the vast majority of his reign focused on British affairs. He also tried to garner support for his war against King Phillip IV of France by arguing to Parliament that it would harm the English language, Now while this didn't actually work that well. It is important because it proves that not only were members of Parliament an extremely privileged class expected to know how to speak English, but the King himself thought(Wrongly or not) that people cared enough about it to support a war against the Kingdom for the sake of it. This argument was also brought up again in the Hundred Year's war during the reign of his grandson Edward III so clearly Edward himself wasn't a one off.
While yes the Kings of England did usually speak French as a first language(The French were still considered foreigners though, even those from Gascony. In contrast according to sources by the 12th century the Norman settlers and Anglo Saxons had become basically indistingushable ) during this period, they were most often born in England, lived their and ruled over their possessions in France and Ireland from English Soil. If this was colonisation then the Normans clearly weren't very good at it.