WI Frederick II Hohenstaufen is never born?

When Constance of Sicily gave birth to Frederick II in 1194 she was already 40 years old, and many didn't expect she could still have children. So, WI she didn't get pregnant, or if she has a miscarriage and Frederick is never born? What would be the consequences for Sicily and the HRE?

IOTL she wanted her son to be raised as a Sicilian, and didn't want any involvement with Imperial matters (of course it didn't work). So, after her husband Henry VI dies in 1197, who could be chosen by the queen as the new Sicilian monarch? And, without Frederick II, could Otto IV keep the Imperial throne, or someone would depose him?
 
Although this may seem absurd at first glance, this is the most likely warrant of a strong central authority in the HRE in my eyes.

Whatever happens to Sicily - there may be a heir in Constance's family, from Roger's side, or from Rethel - it will stay apart from the Empire. This means that the Emperor can concetrate on his problems in other places, in Northern Italy, say.

Moreover, the Hohenstaufen dynasty is terminated thus.
This makes the situation of powers relatively easy, at least North of the Alps:

The House of Welf is the only family at this point strong enough to claim the throne.
This may change in one generation, with the Ascanians and Wittelsbachs rising fast, and the Zähringers and Babenbergs still in the game.
But for the time being, there is no alternative to them, and after the next Emperor their claim is consolidated.

More speculation: When it is clear that the Hohenstaufens die out, then Otto IV. may have the patience to wait for the death of Henry VI.and be elected or have a son of his elected Emperor ...
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Although this may seem absurd at first glance, this is the most likely warrant of a strong central authority in the HRE in my eyes.
Oh most definitly. None of Fredericks decrees shifting authorities to the local powers, and most likely also no interregnum. This WILL mean a stronger central authority.

Hm. Who inherits the Staufen family lands in Swabia etc.? Could the Welfs declare that an "erledigtes Lehen" and make it hence imperial domain? That would greatly fortify their position...
 
Hm. Who inherits the Staufen family lands in Swabia etc.? Could the Welfs declare that an "erledigtes Lehen" and make it hence imperial domain? That would greatly fortify their position...


As an external consultant from the Realm of Hindsight I would advice them to feoff it to the Zähringers, in exchange for their renunciation of all claims to Burgundy.
That would satisfy their desire for power to some extent at the least cost ..
 
There's also Ottokar I of Bohemia to consider.
He or later his son could make a play to be Emperor. At the very least they could be a significant power in the east especially if similar circumstances re Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola work out.
 
About Sicily, as Constance was the last descendent of Roger II, than the succession line theoretically should fall to the descendents of the daughters of Roger I of Sicily, all 13 of them married to foreigners or lesser nobles. So, it would be a mess to discover who would have a higher claim to the throne.

One thing Constace could probably make in order to secure a safer succession is to marry again and make her husband inherited the crown through the marriage. At least it would giver her the advantage of chosing the successor she wanted. Or, as Sicily was a Papal fief, the Pope could simply choose a new king.
 
About Sicily, as Constance was the last descendent of Roger II, than the succession line theoretically should fall to the descendents of the daughters of Roger I of Sicily, all 13 of them married to foreigners or lesser nobles. So, it would be a mess to discover who would have a higher claim to the throne.

I browsed a bit into that branch of the family - and I agree that it's stirring up a hornets' nest. Nobody of the seems to have a realistic chance on his own. It's up to the greater powers to either support one nobleman with a dubious claim, or try to get it for themselves.

One thing Constace could probably make in order to secure a safer succession is to marry again and make her husband inherited the crown through the marriage. At least it would giver her the advantage of chosing the successor she wanted. Or, as Sicily was a Papal fief, the Pope could simply choose a new king.

But at least Byzantium, if not also the German Emperor and/or the Plantagenets will try to exert some influence regardless of whether they have the Pope's support or not.
 
I tried to read up to that time for a different reason, and the most complicated thing to tell for me is what the Pope's radius of power is.
What do you think, how firm was his grip on the individual Italian territories?
 
I tried to read up to that time for a different reason, and the most complicated thing to tell for me is what the Pope's radius of power is.
What do you think, how firm was his grip on the individual Italian territories?

I'm not sure, but we are talking about the times of Innocent III, a very political Pope who managed to strenght the power of the Church, so I would expect that in Italy his influence would be huge.
 
I'm guessing that Constance would marry a relative with a distant claim that was acceptable to the Pope. Looking at the genealogy the Auvergne Counts and Dauphins are descendants of one Emma of Sicily a daughter of Roger I's 1st marriage - they're the only descendants of his first marriage that I can find. Indeed they are the only descendants I can find!
 
I'm guessing that Constance would marry a relative with a distant claim that was acceptable to the Pope.

The PoD I understood was that Frederic II. was not born to Constanze and Emperor Henry VI. when they were already married. Henry was assassinated 14 years after Frederic's birth, when Constanze was already dead for a decade. So it seems like little opportunity for another marriage, in addition to her age.
 
The PoD I understood was that Frederic II. was not born to Constanze and Emperor Henry VI. when they were already married. Henry was assassinated 14 years after Frederic's birth, when Constanze was already dead for a decade. So it seems like little opportunity for another marriage, in addition to her age.

What? Henry died in 1197, one year before Constance's death. Frederick was born in 1194. Constance would have a short window of one year to find a husband who could be the next king of Sicily.
 
This may also allow the Kingdom of Jerusalem to persist for just a bit longer. Fred was a hugely destabilizing influence down there. The end result, I think, could be a firmer union between Acre and Cyprus. Not enough to resist the final Muslim onslaught, but maybe enough to ensure that it ends with more of a bang than a whimper. The entire history of the later Crusades will be different, in fact, without Fred to organize his various blunders.
 
What? Henry died in 1197, one year before Constance's death.

Oops. Of course, I was accidentially referring to his brother Philipp's death.


Constance would have a short window of one year to find a husband who could be the next king of Sicily.

Right. Then the offsprings of her husband in a second marriage could be regarded as having a sensible claim, a plausible scenario.

But of course, it is also highly possible that she doesn't find another husband, that her widower doesn't find another wife, that they don't have children, or that none of these children suvives until adulthood without being banned for crimes -
and that would leave us with exactly the same messy situation as before :D


This may also allow the Kingdom of Jerusalem to persist for just a bit longer. Fred was a hugely destabilizing influence down there.

Do you mean, by binding ressources to the Italian (and German) conflicts?
 
Last edited:
Just an idea: could it be possible to the Pope claim the crown of Sicily to him, as the kingdom was a Papal fief? In 1198 Innocent III annexed the Duchy of Spoleto to direct Papal rule based on this. As Constance died this same year, and with the necessity of strenght the Church's power against the Emperor, could Innocent declare Sicily under Papal rule, making the Pope the ruler of all Southern Italy?
 
Just an idea: could it be possible to the Pope claim the crown of Sicily to him, as the kingdom was a Papal fief? In 1198 Innocent III annexed the Duchy of Spoleto to direct Papal rule based on this. As Constance died this same year, and with the necessity of strenght the Church's power against the Emperor, could Innocent declare Sicily under Papal rule, making the Pope the ruler of all Southern Italy?

Possibly. How successful would he be? I can't see the Pope ruling all of Sicily for long. At some point at least the Island would come under someone else.
 
Just other idea about the Sicilian succession: considering that the Church was one of the main supporters of Tancred's take over of the throne in 1189, and that his sons still had some support from Rome, could Innocent declare Maria, the eldest sister of Roger III and William III, as the new queen after Constance's death? By 1198 she and her mother were living in exile in Alsace, and at least until the early 1200's they sent petitions to the Pope to recognize her claim to the throne. Could it be possible?
 
Top