WI: Archduke Albert and Infanta Isabella have a son

Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (1566-1633) was the eldest daughter of Philip II of Spain and his third wife Elisabeth de Valois. In 1599, she was married to her cousin Albert VII, Archduke of Austria (1559-1621), son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II and Maria of Spain. As she had agreed with her father, Isabella & her husband also became rulers of the Hapsburg Netherlands from that moment on.

OTL, Albert and Isabella left no children behind and, as a result, the Hapsburg Netherlands were returned to Spain (being inherited by Isabella's nephew, King Philip IV). However, what would be the consequences of a son being born to Isabella & Albert?
 
Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (1566-1633) was the eldest daughter of Philip II of Spain and his third wife Elisabeth de Valois. In 1599, she was married to her cousin Albert VII, Archduke of Austria (1559-1621), son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II and Maria of Spain. As she had agreed with her father, Isabella & her husband also became rulers of the Hapsburg Netherlands from that moment on.

OTL, Albert and Isabella left no children behind and, as a result, the Hapsburg Netherlands were returned to Spain (being inherited by Isabella's nephew, King Philip IV). However, what would be the consequences of a son being born to Isabella & Albert?

A lot depends on when the son is born.
The younger he is at the time of the death of his uncle HRE Matthias, King of Hungary(-Croatia) & Bohemia, in 1618/9, the less likely he would be to succeed him.
It also makes the Onnate Treaty less likely.
Phillip III of Spain would likely press harder his claims to Hungary and Bohemia and to be HRE which will impact the Reformation.
I'm not sure what OTL Ferdinand II would do.
 
Habsburg Burgundy (like Franche Comté) and the Burgundian Netherlands (Archdukes Isabella & Albert ruled the Burgundian Circle) will be the third Habsburg power, so they will be unlikely to succeed as Holy Roman Emperor, unless the main imperial Austrian Habsburg branch only has a minor as heir. Though a bit more important than Lorraine & Bar they face a similar French threat.

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view it's late in the Dutch revolt so reuniting the Netherlands will be hard, but not impossible.
Another POD a generation before for instance Charles V has a second son and gives the Burgundian Circe to him; or alternatively Maximilian II of Habsburg (son of HRE Ferdinand I) and Mary (daughter of HRE Charles V) are granted the Burgundian Circle upon their marriage. Either way IMHO keeping the Burgundian Circle (with the Netherlands) intact will have a better starting point than IOTL.
 
Janprimus said:
Habsburg Burgundy (like Franche Comté) and the Burgundian Netherlands (Archdukes Isabella & Albert ruled the Burgundian Circle) will be the third Habsburg power, so they will be unlikely to succeed as Holy Roman Emperor, unless the main imperial Austrian Habsburg branch only has a minor as heir.

I'm not so sure it is that unlikely for the Netherlands' Hapsburg to get the Holy Roman Crown. A key figure would be Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor from 1612 to 1618. Matthias and Albert were brothers, both being sons of Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor. OTL, since none of them had children, the Holy Roman Crowned was given to their cousin Ferdinand (son of Charles II of Austria and OTL Emperor Ferdinand II).

From what I recall, Matthias did everything he could not to have the powder keg known as the Thirty Years' War explode right into the Hapsburg's face. As a result, he tried his best to avoid being suceeding by Ferdinand II but since he and Albert failed to father children, they couldn't prevent the rise of an arch-catholic Emperor.

If Albert were to have a son, Matthias could see Albert's bloodline as an acceptable alternative. It will depend a lot on Albert & Matthias' relations, the education of the young son of Albert & Isabella as well as his age upon Matthias' death but it makes room for the Holy Roman Crown not to end up on Ferdinand II's head.
 
I'm not so sure it is that unlikely for the Netherlands' Hapsburg to get the Holy Roman Crown. A key figure would be Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor from 1612 to 1618. Matthias and Albert were brothers, both being sons of Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor. OTL, since none of them had children, the Holy Roman Crowned was given to their cousin Ferdinand (son of Charles II of Austria and OTL Emperor Ferdinand II).

From what I recall, Matthias did everything he could not to have the powder keg known as the Thirty Years' War explode right into the Hapsburg's face. As a result, he tried his best to avoid being suceeding by Ferdinand II but since he and Albert failed to father children, they couldn't prevent the rise of an arch-catholic Emperor.

If Albert were to have a son, Matthias could see Albert's bloodline as an acceptable alternative. It will depend a lot on Albert & Matthias' relations, the education of the young son of Albert & Isabella as well as his age upon Matthias' death but it makes room for the Holy Roman Crown not to end up on Ferdinand II's head.

Looks like your right, unless Matthias has an ATL heir (maybe Matthias needs to remarry ITTL).
In which case the main Austrian Habsburg branch and the 'Burgundian Netherlands' Habsburg would have merged, since the line of Albert was indeed more closely related to Matthias than OTL Ferdinand, so Albert and his line could have succeeded Matthias in Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia and Austria and be a favorite to win the imperial election.

However if they for some reason would remain separate, then IMHO I guess it would be as I described in my previous post.
 
In which case the main Austrian Habsburg branch and the 'Burgundian Netherlands' Habsburg would have merged, since the line of Albert was indeed more closely related to Matthias than OTL Ferdinand, so Albert and his line could have succeeded Matthias in Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia and Austria and be a favorite to win the imperial election.

However if they for some reason would remain separate, then IMHO I guess it would be as I described in my previous post.

Maybe an arrangement could be done, where the "Burgundian" branch receives the Imperial throne, while the "Austrian" gets Hungary and Bohemia, keeping their Electorate? But I suppose that the Spanish branch would be more favorable to the "Burgundians" than to the Austrians.
 
Maybe an arrangement could be done, where the "Burgundian" branch receives the Imperial throne, while the "Austrian" gets Hungary and Bohemia, keeping their Electorate? But I suppose that the Spanish branch would be more favorable to the "Burgundians" than to the Austrians.

The line of Albert, a brother of Matthias, is from a more senior line than IOTL Ferdinand II. Ferdinand II was the eldest son of archduke Charles of Inner Austria, who was the third son of Ferdinand I. Whereas both Matthias and Albert, where sons of Maximilian II, the eldest son of Ferdinand I.

In many ways the Burgundian branch isn't much different from the branches ruling in Inner Austria, Further Austria and the imperial branch ruling in Austria proper; since Albert, the husband of Isabella is himself from the Austrian branch. IMHO an arrangement wouldn't be that needed, furthermore it's not unlikely that Matthias will be involved in the upbringing of his ATL nephew and heir. And a son of Isabella and Albert is a cousin (and a nephew of the previous one) of the king of 'Spain', a much closer relative than Ferdinand II IOTL.
 
Last edited:
Edit (I've looked this up a bit more): Isabella & Albert had three children, Philip (1605), Albert (1607)and Anna Mauritia (either 1608 or 1609), however all three died during their infancy.

So they did have sons, but none of them reached adulthood, which would change the question (but doesn't really affect the answers) to: WI: Archduke Albert and Infanta (and archduchess) Isabella have a surviving son.
 
Last edited:
Janprimus said:
Edit (I've looked this up a bit more): Isabella & Albert had three children, Philip (1605), Albert (1607)and Anna Mauritia (either 1608 or 1609), however all three died during their infancy.

So they did have sons, but none of them reached adulthood, which would change the question (but doesn't really affect the answers) to: WI: Archduke Albert and Infanta (and archduchess) Isabella have a surviving son.

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew Albert & Isabella didn't had any successors, but I didn't know it was because all of their children died in Infancy.

It does changes the question and brings it to an interesting level: the eldest of those three children, Philip, would be 14 in 1619 when Emperor Matthias dies... I wonder how that would play out on Matthias' succession. Maybe Albert becomes Emperor until his son comes of age?

It also expands the question on how history is going to be affected if one or more of Albert & Isabella's children lives up to adulthood, depending on who survives infancy and who doesn't.
 
IOTL Albert died in 1621, which would mean that his eldest son would have been 16, which IIRC is still too young to be elected king of the Romans or Holy Roman emperor, you IIRC need to 18 years or older.

Furthermore Albert did inherit Austria proper and Further Austria from his brother Matthias and he briefly ruled these territories, before he gave them to (llater HRE (there also is different archduke)) Ferdinand II.
If Albert has a son or even two healthy sons, than I doubt that he would have gave these away so easily (he knew that his other 'Burgundian' lands would return to the Spanish branch).

If Albert has heirs of his own, this IMHO would change his actions, but Matthias might have a different preferred heir too. The other male members of the main branch of the Austrian Habsburgs (descendants of Maximilian II) also gave up their succession rights to Ferdinand II in the Oñate treaty, because they were childless. With the survival of Philip and/or Albert, they are the legitimate heirs of the main branch, so they would inherit Austria, Further Austria, Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia; and Albert indeed becomes a good candidate for the position of emperor. Either Albert manages to live a few years longer, until his son is old enough to be elected or an uncle like Ferdinand II will have to be the Habsburg candidate. The territory of Philip or Albert will make sure, that they're the most influential in the empire and if need be, that they can sidetrack Ferdinand II like IOTL Rudolph II.

Add to this the good connections Isabella and Albert have with the Spanish branch, and the succession within the house of Habsburg could be different than IOTL.
 
IOTL Albert died in 1621, which would mean that his eldest son would have been 16, which IIRC is still too young to be elected king of the Romans or Holy Roman emperor, you IIRC need to 18 years or older.

I dont think that is true. Joseph I was elected King of the Romans when he was only 12.
 
IOTL Albert died in 1621, which would mean that his eldest son would have been 16, which IIRC is still too young to be elected king of the Romans or Holy Roman emperor, you IIRC need to 18 years or older.

Furthermore Albert did inherit Austria proper and Further Austria from his brother Matthias and he briefly ruled these territories, before he gave them to (llater HRE (there also is different archduke)) Ferdinand II.
If Albert has a son or even two healthy sons, than I doubt that he would have gave these away so easily (he knew that his other 'Burgundian' lands would return to the Spanish branch).

If Albert has heirs of his own, this IMHO would change his actions, but Matthias might have a different preferred heir too. The other male members of the main branch of the Austrian Habsburgs (descendants of Maximilian II) also gave up their succession rights to Ferdinand II in the Oñate treaty, because they were childless. With the survival of Philip and/or Albert, they are the legitimate heirs of the main branch, so they would inherit Austria, Further Austria, Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia; and Albert indeed becomes a good candidate for the position of emperor. Either Albert manages to live a few years longer, until his son is old enough to be elected or an uncle like Ferdinand II will have to be the Habsburg candidate. The territory of Philip or Albert will make sure, that they're the most influential in the empire and if need be, that they can sidetrack Ferdinand II like IOTL Rudolph II.

Add to this the good connections Isabella and Albert have with the Spanish branch, and the succession within the house of Habsburg could be different than IOTL.

Let's assume it is Philip who survives. In which case it's likely that Albert will become HRE.

According to Wikipedia there was an Act of Cession where the HRE states swore to accept Phillip III of Spain as Albert's heir. ATL this won't be necessary. It also changes Phillip III's attitude towards the Netherlands since it'd be clear that barring accidents he won't inherit them along with Albert's Austrian lands, making conflict with the Dutch less likely or at least reducing it somewhat.

With Albert's health failing in 1620 both Phillip III and Ferdinand of Austria will move to claim Bohemia, Hungary, and the HRE. If Phillip III still dies c21 before Albert tho Albert may die earlier as a result of the increased stress from 1618 his son Philip IV may take up that mantle instead of the dutch conflict. In any case the early OTL 30YW now includes a succession war aspect.

Could there therefore be an absent throne until Philip of the Netherlands is elected as a compromise? Would Ferdinand be given Austria as compensation?
 
I dont think that is true. Joseph I was elected King of the Romans when he was only 12.

You're right Joseph I was elected at the age of 12. I've read 18 somewhere, maybe that refers to the age where he can really assume power, and until that age there could be some sort of regency with the imperial vicars, if the previous Holy Roman Emperor leaves an underage King of the Romans?
 
You're right Joseph I was elected at the age of 12. I've read 18 somewhere, maybe that refers to the age where he can really assume power, and until that age there could be some sort of regency with the imperial vicars, if the previous Holy Roman Emperor leaves an underage King of the Romans?

That would seem to secure Albert's son as HRE then.
Which may make for a less hostile 30YW if he's less archcatholic than Ferdinand.
 
You're right Joseph I was elected at the age of 12. I've read 18 somewhere, maybe that refers to the age where he can really assume power, and until that age there could be some sort of regency with the imperial vicars, if the previous Holy Roman Emperor leaves an underage King of the Romans?

Well, in the other hand, it seems that Joseph was the first underage King of the Romans elected, so there was no precedent. Probably Leopold I made this step in order to secure the Habsburg succession. But in the case of Albert there would be a Habsburg competitor (Ferdinand II).

Also, it's not clear if there would be an election for a King of the Romans. Charles V was never elected to it (he was directly elected Emperor) and so was Matthias. What was the law that ruled such successions at the time?
 
Let's assume it is Philip who survives. In which case it's likely that Albert will become HRE.

According to Wikipedia there was an Act of Cession where the HRE states swore to accept Phillip III of Spain as Albert's heir. ATL this won't be necessary. It also changes Phillip III's attitude towards the Netherlands since it'd be clear that barring accidents he won't inherit them along with Albert's Austrian lands, making conflict with the Dutch less likely or at least reducing it somewhat.

With Albert's health failing in 1620 both Phillip III and Ferdinand of Austria will move to claim Bohemia, Hungary, and the HRE. If Phillip III still dies c21 before Albert tho Albert may die earlier as a result of the increased stress from 1618 his son Philip IV may take up that mantle instead of the dutch conflict. In any case the early OTL 30YW now includes a succession war aspect.

Could there therefore be an absent throne until Philip of the Netherlands is elected as a compromise? Would Ferdinand be given Austria as compensation?

Albert maybe even with Matthias might have already taken care that the son or sons of Albert Philip and Albert can inherit Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia and Austria; the HRE will be more difficult, but like Gonzaga mentioned Joseph I was also elected at the age of 12.

Either way Albert and Isabella will be more involved in imperial politics, since their offspring are the heirs of the main Austrian branch of the Habsburgs. And TTL the king of Spain will be less inclined to accept Ferdinand II over his much closer relatives Isabella & Albert and their ATL surviving children.
 
After Maximilian I got the right from the Pope to assume the imperial title without an imperial coronation (formally) as emperor-elect, a King of the Romans was only elected during the reign of an emperor to ensure the succession. If the Holy Roman Emperor died, before a King of the Romans was elected, than the Electors would have to elect a new emperor.
 
That would seem to secure Albert's son as HRE then.
Which may make for a less hostile 30YW if he's less archcatholic than Ferdinand.

While Albert and Isabella activelly promoted the Counter-Reformation in their territories they also created legislation that tolerated their presence, as long as they didn't have public worship. So probably he was less fanatic than Ferdinand indeed.
 
We seem to be more or less agreeing on the fact that Albert and his sons have more chances of inheriting Matthias' possessions and have better chances of ending up with the Imperial crown.

What would happen to OTL Ferdinand II in this case? And how would that affect European politics? More specifically, how would France see this?
 
What would happen to OTL Ferdinand II in this case? And how would that affect European politics? More specifically, how would France see this?

He would be only the Archduke of Inner Austria, unless Albert's son (Philip??) give him something else or he marries a heiress. He could become an Imperial governor for some of Philip's territories, or could try to be elected for the Polish throne (very unlikely though).
 
Top