WI: Independent Hapsburg Netherlands?

That is correct. The problem is though that you need a Hapsburger to be relatively tollerant towards protestantism, while his Austrian and Spanish relatives will be pushing towards less tollerance. Will he be able to control himself? Hapsburg history speaks against it, but he is far away from the pope and his relatives so he might be.

Another problem is that a large part of the Netherlands isn't terribly happy to be part of the Netherlands; they would rather do whatever they want. This is true for the areas that Charles V conquered (Gelre, Friesland, Groningen, Overijsel) but the same is true for a place like Holland. They will still resent being ruled by one ruler, wether he is Spanish or he rules from Brabant. They will rebel the moment they don't think they are getting what they want and they will get support from neighbouring regions, like France, England, or German states like Cleves/Julich/etc.

A Dutch ruler will have a hard time and needs to be a great diplomat and this is a hard age for any ruler with the rise of the cities and merchants, the decline of nobility and appearance of protestantism. Sure a civil war isn't unavoidable, but you need a lot of skill as a ruler.
It also depends on

Yes, I can certainly see the Hapsburg Netherlands falling into the sort of multi-decade religious/civil war that afflicted France around the same time. The longer it goes on, and the more the protestant side gains (with Holland, Zeeland, and Antwerp, they will probably have the advantage) the more likely it is that either 1) The ruling Hapsburg monarch (or his heir) agrees to convert to Protestantism, or 2) the Protestants find some relative of the Hapsburg monarch to be a pretender. Whichever "side" wins, I think we can all agree that both will still have significant political power, and will have to find some sort of modus vivendi that they can both tolerate for the Hapsburg Netherlands to survive.


To the whole Holland deal yes I agree they didn't like external influence, and in general the Netherlands was just greater Holland. But there's a few aspect which should be remembered Karl V left Holland alone so much that the conquest of Gelre, Groningen, Overijsel (and earlier Utrecht) was complete financed and lead by Holland. If the Emperor are smart he leave them alone and only call to them when he need to extent his influence in the area. Especially because he can get more than enough money out of Brabant, Zeeland (was very rich until the collapse of the Rhine trade in the 80 and 30 year war) and Flandern where his control was a lot greater (to say nothing of his other possesions). So Holland will likely be force the Emperor use to "free" Münsterland from Protestant oppression (after which it goes the way of Utrecht, which was a former ecclessial estate). Ironic the fact that Holland get interest and power in Münsterland will make it easier for the Emperor to control them, because they don't want to lose the money they have put into conquer it.

Thought Munster was a Bishopric, unless your talking about the Anabaptist rebellion. But that was the 1530s, and Charles V's second son will just be a baby then, so I think this would unfold more or less like OTL. Though if the Netherlands' monarch later converts to Protestantism, he might try to free it from "Catholic oppression". The idea I had in mind was for the Hapsburg Netherlands to gradually expand into its south and east during the 16th-18th centuries, eventually taking or inheriting (among other places) Munster, Oldberg, Julich, Cleves, Mark, Berg*, and Trier. This would give alt-Netherlands several times the territory and population of OTL, allowing it to be a world power in a way our Netherlands never really could.

*If I'm not mistaken, these four territories make up the Ruhr, the ownership of which would be hugely beneficial to alt-Netherlands after the Industrial Revolution

Yes I agree it take skills, but only mediocre ones, only Philip II fanatism and lack of understanding of the Netherlands let him alienate enough to a full scale revolt. So long as the Alt. Emperor know his limitations, he can make it work.

Don't know, I suspect there would eventually be a blow-up of some kind. The Hapsburg Netherlands will have to adopt some degree of religious toleration no matter what faith the government is.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Thought Munster was a Bishopric, unless your talking about the Anabaptist rebellion. But that was the 1530s, and Charles V's second son will just be a baby then, so I think this would unfold more or less like OTL. Though if the Netherlands' monarch later converts to Protestantism, he might try to free it from "Catholic oppression".

Yes Münsterlands was a Bishoric but until the late 16th century it shift between pro- and anti-Lutheran Bishops (the guy whom killed the Anababtist was pro-Lutheran), it was only with the counterreformation that it finally became fully recatholised. So until the late 16th century the Emperor can use this as a excuse to take it over.

The idea I had in mind was for the Hapsburg Netherlands to gradually expand into its south and east during the 16th-18th centuries, eventually taking or inheriting (among other places) Munster, Oldberg, Julich, Cleves, Mark, Berg*, and Trier. This would give alt-Netherlands several times the territory and population of OTL, allowing it to be a world power in a way our Netherlands never really could.

*If I'm not mistaken, these four territories make up the Ruhr, the ownership of which would be hugely beneficial to alt-Netherlands after the Industrial Revolution

You're fully correct a small part of the Easten Ruhr lies in Duchy of Westphalen but else it lies Cleve-Berg

And yes a Burgundian inherience which spread into the Rhineland has the full potential for being a worldpower. Of course likely the greater focus on expantions in Germany will result in a smaller colonial empire (if any*).

*Because of their relationship with the Spanish.

Don't know, I suspect there would eventually be a blow-up of some kind. The Hapsburg Netherlands will have to adopt some degree of religious toleration no matter what faith the government is.

Yes that's unavoidable.
 
Yes Münsterlands was a Bishoric but until the late 16th century it shift between pro- and anti-Lutheran Bishops (the guy whom killed the Anababtist was pro-Lutheran), it was only with the counterreformation that it finally became fully recatholised. So until the late 16th century the Emperor can use this as a excuse to take it over.

Thanks

You're fully correct a small part of the Easten Ruhr lies in Duchy of Westphalen but else it lies Cleve-Berg

And yes a Burgundian inherience which spread into the Rhineland has the full potential for being a worldpower. Of course likely the greater focus on expantions in Germany will result in a smaller colonial empire (if any*).

*Because of their relationship with the Spanish.
I imagine they would still build a colonial empire in India/Indonesia-IIRC the Spanish weren't really interested in that region, as they already had America.

And the relationship with the Spanish goes down the tubes if the country turns protestant. Since I've mentioned this a couple times, here's how I think it might happen:

1556-Maximillian I becomes the second Hapsburg Duke* of the Netherlands, on the abdication his father Charles V.
*Or more accurately, Duke of Brabant, Count of Flanders, and ruler of all the various polities that make up the Netherlands. Thats too hard to type over and over again though :)

1550's-1560's-Calvinism gradually spreads throughout the Netherlands. Maximillian's attempts to centralize his domains anger several provinces (especially Holland and Freisland) which feel their rights are being threatened. Many merchants and bughers feel Maximillian favors the landed aristocracy too much. Both of these groups are drawn toward Calvinist ideas

1567-In order to combat the growing influence of Calvinism and shore up his authority, Maximillian officially institutes the Dutch Inquisition, modeled on the one in Spain run by his brother Phillip. Over the next two years, the inquisition arrests thousands, and executes several hundred people, including a few prominent nobles. Many feel that an inordinant amount of the convicted are enemies of Maximillian, and the Inquisition becomes extremely unpopular. Anti-Catholic sentiment increases among the populace, and the Calvinists see a record number of converts

1569-Calvinist revolt in Holland and Friesland, led by William the Silent. Quickly put down, but William escapes and many rebels scatter. Rebel privateers based in England begin harrassing Dutch shipping.

1571-1573-Second Calvinist revolt. Rebels take control of the entire shore of the Zuider Zee and use flooding to halt Maximillian's troops. Massacres of Calvinists in Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, and Amsterdam (before its fall to the rebels). Beginning of the Dutch wars of religion

1570's-1600's Dutch wars of religion. Though the Royal, Catholic side has the advantage at first, the Protestants are supported by England, French Hugeonots, and several surrounding German states. Gradually, they take control of Holland, Freisland, Antwerp, and most of the northern and coastal Netherlands.

1582-Maximillian dies, and his son Phillip inherits the throne

1602-Phillip dies. Protestants refuse to recognize his son Ferdinand as legitament Duke

1605-Ferdinand and the Calvinists agree to end the war on the following terms
-Ferdinand agrees to convert to Calvinism.

-Ferdinand agrees to recognize the traditional rights of the provinces

-Ferdinand agrees to convene the States-General once yearly. The States General will be required to approve all new taxes, all laws affecting the power of the provinces, and all laws affecting religion

-The inheritence laws are changed to prevent a non-Calvinist from becoming Duke in the future

-All subjects of the Netherlands (including Catholics) are guaranteed free practice of their religion, the right of Habeas Corpus, and the right to a fair trial (to prevent any future Dukes from starting another inquisition)

-One-fourth of the membership of the States-General will be Catholic

Ferdinand would prove to be an able diplomat, and he and his successors restored some power to the Dukes (though not as much as they held before the Wars of Religion). Over time, the relationship between the States-General and the Duke came to resemble that of the British King and his Parliament across the Channel. Spain and Austria were furious at this turn of events, and were often enemies of the Netherlands into the 18th century. The Dukes of the Netherlands would go on, over the next couple centuries, to expand their holdings in the Rhineland, the Americas, and the Indies. With the coming of industrialization and the discovery of coal under a previously unremarkable district of the Dutch Rhineland known as the Ruhr, the Netherlands status as a world power was assured.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
and a Protestant Habsburg, though borderline ASB would be pure awesome
*twitches violently*
Protestant Habsburgs are not ASB... Repeat Not ASB!

Maximilian II wanted to convert ITOL, and for AH just look at the above proposal for a reasonable Calvinist route or my current TL All Hail Germania, which has what basically equates to Lutheran Austrian Habsburgs.
 
*twitches violently*
Protestant Habsburgs are not ASB... Repeat Not ASB!

Maximilian II wanted to convert ITOL, and for AH just look at the above proposal for a reasonable Calvinist route or my current TL All Hail Germania, which has what basically equates to Lutheran Austrian Habsburgs.

ok i'm sorry about the habsburg part, though i said borderline, meaning almost...


also interesting proposal Mirza Khan
 
ok i'm sorry about the habsburg part, though i said borderline, meaning almost...


also interesting proposal Mirza Khan

How do you think the 30 years war would go in this world? France probably feels less threatened by the Hapsburgs than OTL, since the entire Netherlands is held by a protestant branch of the family that the other two branches would be opposed to. The Calvinist government would most likely ally with the other Protestant powers in the war, and I expect that this will mean one of the Hapsburg branches (either the Spanish or the Austrians) will try to claim the Netherlands (with the excuse of "restoring" all of Charles V's inheritance to Catholic hands). France will not want this to succeed, and will probably still jump in on the Protestant side like OTL. (But they'd probably try to get some of the Low Countries/Franche Comte for themselves later on in the 17th century)
 
What if Charles V has two boys instead of only Philip? Sure, the Spanish throne would be seen as the most important inheritance, so the eldest one would be king of Spain, but wouldn't Charles grant to his second son Burgundy as a compensation? Also, would he probably push to make his "Dutch" son the next Emperor instead of Ferdinand?

Wouldn't it make more sense if Charles V gives his second son the kingdoms of Sicily, Naples (& Jerusalem (titular)) and Sardinia and the duchy of Milan (Italian Habsburgs)? The Burgundian inheritance, which lacks a ''Royal''crown could be given to a third son or if there isn't a third son to the daughter of Charles V Maria of Spain and her husband Maximilian II upon their marriage. Obviously with the provision that if Maria & Maximilian fail to have male offspring, that it would return to the Spanish Habsburg branch, otherwise this would mean that the Burgundian inheritance ultimately goes to the Austrian Habsburgs.
 

Susano

Banned
Wouldn't it make more sense if Charles V gives his second son the kingdoms of Sicily, Naples (& Jerusalem (titular)) and Sardinia and the duchy of Milan (Italian Habsburgs)?
No, because Sicily+Naples+Sardinia belong to the Crown of Aragon and Spain would throw a righteous fit if Charles wee to begin to divide Spanish land.

As it is, dividing it Spain-Austria-Burgundy would be exactly along the inheritances the Habsburg have gained in the last two generations.
 
king?

Why? Spain didnt have one, either, officialy. It would be the amalgmation of the Duchies of Guelders, Brabant, Luxemburg and Limburg, the Free County of Burgundy (that would be along, most likely), the Principalities of Utrecht and Cambrai, the Counties of Holland, Flanders, Hainaut, Namur and Zealand, and the Lordships (I think they were just Lordships) of Drenthe, Frisia and Groningen. Thats how states inside the HRE worked...

The Burgundian inheritance was an amalgation of territories (including the titular duchy of Burgundy and the duchy of Lothier), which were in a process of becoming a state. Obviously this was a process with mixed results, for instance the death of Charles the Bold and the succession of Mary the Rich meant that some progress was undone (many states had some of their privileges restored etc.).

However the idea for a crown for these lands was not new and I'm sure that Charles V knew this as well. Both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold had negotiations with the emperor about a crown. Burgundy and Lotharingia weren't possible, because those titles implied overlordship over other territories in the empire, which weren't theirs (and/or were associated with office of emperor). Another option was ''reviving'' the by then mostly myhtical kingdom of Friesland (Frisia), which also conflicted with imperial claims, however this was a much more viable option. Another option given by the imperial negotiator was to elevate(raise) the duchy of Brabant to a kingdom, which would include all the territories held by the dukes of Burgundy (within the empire).

On the one hand most of the electors did not like the idea, however Frederick III did mention that it was his imperial prerogative to award a royal crown, although he probably wasn't thrilled by the idea of rewarding a possible rival of his house for the office of emperor either. On the other hand both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold* (*= actually Charles original ambition was to be elected king of the Romans) initially made outrageous terrotorial demands and weren't thrilled by the formal suzerainity of the empire over their new kingdom. Both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold hesitated because even with their crown, they would have remained a vassal of the empire; obviously the emperor could not and would not go any further.

If for some reason Charles V decides to give this second son the Burgundian inheritance, but fails to get this son elected as the next king of the Romans, because the electors prefer the son of his brother Ferdinand; Charles could have contemplated such an idea. In OTL the negotiations over which Habsburg candidate would succeed Ferdinand as king of the Romans really hurt the relation between Charles and Ferdinand; upto that point Ferdinand was very loyal and they were (relatively) close. If Charles V would have done this* (obviously some bribes would be needed), he most likely would have elevated (raised) an existing title to a kingdom, which would include the entire Burgundian circle and this kingdom would have remained a autonomous part of the empire. (Maybe his ITTL his second son is his favourite?)

On the other hand their will be resistance against this move, however Ferdinand could have agreed on this as a part of the negotiations for the next king of the Romans as a concession. This does not mean, that this would have been easy, but it was not impossible.
Such a precedent could have implications for the future. If ITTL something similar occurs as OTL Brandenburg-Prussia, a weak emperor could be forced to award more crowns in the empire; although even a crown for Brabant was based on the fact that Brabant was considered one of the ''heirs'' of the kingdom of Lotharingia. However a new less prestigious king title based upon an earlier entity (Brabant > Lotharingia), could be less offensive for states within the empire such as the duchy of Lorraine.

BTW the duchy of Gelre and the county of Holland had a claim on Friesland. Or Charles V chooses to elevate the title of 'lord of the Netherlands' to 'king of the Netherlands' (based upon the ''precedent'' of Lotharingia and Friesland). On the other hand it is most certain that even ITTL, regions of the empire, with no claim on a historic precedent of a kingdom (within the empire), no matter how vague, could not be awarded a crown within the empire.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Could you please use paragraphs, this wall of text makes the post somewhat difficult to read...

Now, yes, there were of course designs for a royal crown. This had not much to do with the Netherlands forming an own state. The system of the 17 Provinces already did that IOTL without any royal crown. That was my main point: An united crown for those territories is not necessary, as most larger HRE states were a collection of different territories.

The royal crown sought had more to do with gaining rank than with unifying the Netherlands, and really most German states have tried over time: Bohemia (the original trendsetter, so to say), Bavaria in the 9th and 10th century, Burgundy (well, semi-German as a semi-HRE state), Bavaria under Maximilian II Emmanuel, Brandenburg (this one successfully, of course, when they gained recognition for a Prussian crown), Hannover, Saxony (those two gained foreign royal crowns)... it really was nothing exclusively Burgundian. Any time a realm gained powerful enough some ruler would try to go for the royal dignity - for the simple reason that the medieval and early modern Europe was all about rank and stature.

These days its different of course - Liechtenstein could declare itself a Kingdom, and as it is a souvereign state, other countries would recognice the change in style. But back then, such ambitions were major projects of diplomacy, for the purpose of rank alone.

Anyways, as for your scenario, there is the small problem that a coalition of princes eventually de facto chased Charles V out and installed Ferdinand as his successor. Charles then tried to install his (eldest!) son Philip as successor to Ferdinand, but those schemes for a "Spanish Succession" were hugely unpopular in Germany. A major reason why Charles tried was to keep the empire together, so I doubt he would further split the Spanish part of the succession. And furthermore - if he tries before the Princes Uprising to elevate a son to royal rank, then most likely the Princes would also do something about that, and afterwards he isnt Emperor anymore, and hence does not have the power to do so.

. On the other hand it is most certain that even ITTL, regions of the empire, with no claim on a historic precedent of a kingdom (within the empire), no matter how vague, could not be awarded a crown within the empire.
There is as said a historic precedent: Bohemia. A kingdom within a kingdom (the German Kingdom, that is).
 
Glad to see this got bumped up, as I have a different possibility for an independent Habsburg Netherlands.

What if Archduke Albrecht and Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain, had a surviving child together? Philip II gave the remainder Habsburg Netherlands to the couple as part of Isabella's dowry, with the condition that if the couple did not have a surviving child the territories revert to the Spanish Crown. So let's say that Archduke Philip, their first son born in 1605, survives and therefore Belgium comes into existence 200 years early. Effects?
 
Glad to see this got bumped up, as I have a different possibility for an independent Habsburg Netherlands.

What if Archduke Albrecht and Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain, had a surviving child together? Philip II gave the remainder Habsburg Netherlands to the couple as part of Isabella's dowry, with the condition that if the couple did not have a surviving child the territories revert to the Spanish Crown. So let's say that Archduke Philip, their first son born in 1605, survives and therefore Belgium comes into existence 200 years early. Effects?
Well the Dutch are still fighting their war of independence and i doubt they would let that stop them. If it means they can't count on Spanish soldiers, I suspect they soon lose the Netherlands.
 
Could you please use paragraphs, this wall of text makes the post somewhat difficult to read...

Now, yes, there were of course designs for a royal crown. This had not much to do with the Netherlands forming an own state. The system of the 17 Provinces already did that IOTL without any royal crown. That was my main point: An united crown for those territories is not necessary, as most larger HRE states were a collection of different territories.

The royal crown sought had more to do with gaining rank than with unifying the Netherlands, and really most German states have tried over time: Bohemia (the original trendsetter, so to say), Bavaria in the 9th and 10th century, Burgundy (well, semi-German as a semi-HRE state), Bavaria under Maximilian II Emmanuel, Brandenburg (this one successfully, of course, when they gained recognition for a Prussian crown), Hannover, Saxony (those two gained foreign royal crowns)... it really was nothing exclusively Burgundian. Any time a realm gained powerful enough some ruler would try to go for the royal dignity - for the simple reason that the medieval and early modern Europe was all about rank and stature.

These days its different of course - Liechtenstein could declare itself a Kingdom, and as it is a souvereign state, other countries would recognice the change in style. But back then, such ambitions were major projects of diplomacy, for the purpose of rank alone.

Anyways, as for your scenario, there is the small problem that a coalition of princes eventually de facto chased Charles V out and installed Ferdinand as his successor. Charles then tried to install his (eldest!) son Philip as successor to Ferdinand, but those schemes for a "Spanish Succession" were hugely unpopular in Germany. A major reason why Charles tried was to keep the empire together, so I doubt he would further split the Spanish part of the succession. And furthermore - if he tries before the Princes Uprising to elevate a son to royal rank, then most likely the Princes would also do something about that, and afterwards he isnt Emperor anymore, and hence does not have the power to do so.


There is as said a historic precedent: Bohemia. A kingdom within a kingdom (the German Kingdom, that is).

I see your point about the paragraphs:eek:.

If Charles V would consider a crown for this second son, it could be on the basis that this would make him equal to his brother and cousin* (*= until he becomes emperor). That these possessions happen to be the Burgundian circle, including the Low Countries, is only an coincidence.

About the trendsetters: Bohemia, did have dukes, which received a none heriditary royal crown as a reward from the emperor. Ottokar I succeeded to make his crown hereditary, by political manoeuvering (know when to switch sides;)) during a German civil war. About this precedent the population of Bohemia was Czech (so not German); furthermore some could argue, that Bohemia only was a part of the Empire and never a part the German kingdom.

The Burgundian dukes wanted the Royal rank, because they as dukes were more powerful than a number of kings. Basically they (only) used Lotharingia and Friesland as a justification for such a promotion. However this would also have an effect on how such a kingdom would be named.

Together with the pope, the emperor had the imperial prerogative to grant a crown. Since the Burgundian dukes had a lot of territory within the empire, they needed to ask the emperor for a crown. Ironically this was probably also the reason why it was complicated. Awarding a crown to an independent noble (such as the duke of Prussia in OTL, although he was not created king, but recognised as king by the emperor) outside the empire would have been easier; awarding a crown within the empire had implications for the balance of power within the empire.
Remarks by Frederick III about his imperial prerogative to award a royal crown, basically served his intention to counter the electors. The electors wanted to protect their rights, by influencing the emperor, how he should use his imperial rights; obviously the emperor saw the problem, but he also needed to protect his own imperial rights.

OTL Charles gave up his Austrian lands to Ferdinand (improving Ferdinand's odds to inherit Bohemia & Hungary) and had to agree with the election of Ferdinand as king of Romans, formally so that Ferdinand could rule during the frequent absences of Charles V; unofficially Ferdinand already ruled the empire during the absence of his brother. Actually Charles V abscences were a problem in every part of his possessions, this meant he had to travel a lot. Another problem was that Charles was quite rigid in his policies; Ferdinand was much more pragmatic.

The 'Spanish' succession is one of the reasons, why 'Burgundy' and Milan both stayed with the Spanish Habsburgs. When Charles V had to decide, who would receive the duchy of Milan, Ferdinand had his own (a family) ambitions. Perhaps a more equal division of the Habsburg possessions, in exchange for the duchy of Milan, 'Burgundy' could be given to Maria of Spain and Maximilian II. Obviously for this to happen the 'Spanish' succession* needs to be averted or resolved on much more friendly terms.

(*= many question why Charles V wanted this, because he of all people should have known that controlling all those lands was a huge task and extremely hard)

Since Charles V never had a second (adult) son, there is no way of knowing if and how he would have divided his personal empire. First of all a 'Burgundian' succession probably is more popular than the 'Spanish' succession. However this does not avert a possible confrontation between Charles V and Ferdinand.

The main reason why I suggested to give this second son the Italian possessions is to avoid these imperial problems, furthermore there would be no need to create a new royal crown (and to get it recognized). However this would probably require a POD, where the estates of the Crown of Aragon refuse to accept Charles V as their king and he has to conquer it by force.

So if Charles V should decide to give this second son the Burgundian Inheritance, but fails to make this son the Habsburg candidate for the title of King of the Romans (and later emperor-elect); he might try to create this Royal title as a consolation prize. To avoid confusion any new kingdom would have stayed a part of the empire, similar to the kingdom of Bohemia but without an electoral vote (however they might try to get the electoral status in the future). This will be hard thing to do, although Ferdinand might agree or be forced to a concession during negotiations about a new king of the Romans. Imperial princes probably wouldn't like it and try to oppose it.

So one question remains did Charles V and Ferdinand have fewer imperial authority than Frederick III? A part of the answer is that Charles V and Ferdinand had a larger powerbase, but on the other hard they faced a religiously divided Empire.
 
Glad to see this got bumped up, as I have a different possibility for an independent Habsburg Netherlands.

What if Archduke Albrecht and Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain, had a surviving child together? Philip II gave the remainder Habsburg Netherlands to the couple as part of Isabella's dowry, with the condition that if the couple did not have a surviving child the territories revert to the Spanish Crown. So let's say that Archduke Philip, their first son born in 1605, survives and therefore Belgium comes into existence 200 years early. Effects?

Sadly this does not include all the Burgundian Habsburg Netherlands. If something similar could have happened with Maria of Spain (daughter of Charles V) and her husband Maximilian (son of Ferdinand), obviously under the similar condition. There would be a better possibility, however this would effectively mean that the Habsburg Netherlands would have passed from the Spanish Habsburgs to the Austrian Habsburgs. Giving it to the other daughter of Charles V would have meant that these territories were lost for the house of Habsburg.
 
MK,

That's an interesting TL you've got there.

How do the other branches of the Hapsburgs react to one of their kin going Protestant?

And if the other Hapsburg lines die out, what would happen if the Protestants are the ones who are their inheritors?

You might have a succession war, if Austria and Spain bar their "heretical" kin from the succession and then their dynasties die.
 
MK,

That's an interesting TL you've got there.

How do the other branches of the Hapsburgs react to one of their kin going Protestant?

And if the other Hapsburg lines die out, what would happen if the Protestants are the ones who are their inheritors?

You might have a succession war, if Austria and Spain bar their "heretical" kin from the succession and then their dynasties die.

Thanks. I'm writing this out as a formal TL here-I'll try and get an update up tonight, its been a little while :)

Edit: The outline a few posts above is just a ROUGH OUTLINE I came up with on the fly several months ago. If you go over from this thread to the one I linked, feel free to make any suggestions or comments you have. I don't want people to think my TL is already written.
 
Last edited:
BTW on last remark about the Maria & Maximilian II option.

I did some reading and appears that upto 1548 OTL Charles V did consider giving the Burgundian Netherlands (and Franche Comté) to his daughter Maria and her husband Maximilian II. Reasons given for this were that Charles V saw how vunerable the Low countries were for invasions and foreign influences; furthermore it was hard to rule the Netherlands from Spain, so Charles V considered a much closer relation of the Netherlands with the Empire (under Austrian Habsburg rule). When Charles V failed to get Philip II elected as the next king of the Romans, probably because Charles V felt that this would have been better for his vision on the future of the empire (probably connected with the policy to use towards protestantism).
 
Top