WI: Kingdom of Burgundy

Assuming that Charles the Bold had some sons with either of his three wives and was able to secure Burgundy the title of Kingdom, what would the Kingdom's future look like in terms of continental ambitions, colonial aspirations, allies, enemies, etc.?
 
Assuming that Charles the Bold had some sons with either of his three wives and was able to secure Burgundy the title of Kingdom, what would the Kingdom's future look like in terms of continental ambitions, colonial aspirations, allies, enemies, etc.?

It would, in my opinion, likely be squeezed out by France and various German powers, until it was left as a kingdom up in the Low Countries, like an earlier more centralized Netherlands. Probably then join the colonial race looking to N. America.
 
depends ... is it going to be more squeezed in the north or the south? ... could bring arguments for both really
 
depends ... is it going to be more squeezed in the north or the south? ... could bring arguments for both really

Well, I'm assuming that when it starts out it's going to look like this

Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png


So not so much squeezed at the start but what other countries have in store for it I can't say
 
obiously it starts like that because its charles the bold what he's asking is are they more likely to go for the north or south. France, Austria and the other German powers that is.
 
obiously it starts like that because its charles the bold what he's asking is are they more likely to go for the north or south. France, Austria and the other German powers that is.

What German powers (besides Austria)?

France is going to be a considerable problem - gaining a king title isn't going to make Charles immune to the fact the King of France is going to resent a former vassal deciding to set himself up as an independent ruler.
 
obiously it starts like that because its charles the bold what he's asking is are they more likely to go for the north or south. France, Austria and the other German powers that is.

Which is why I said

So not so much squeezed at the start but what other countries have in store for it I can't say

Seeing as Germany wouldn't be formed for a while and this butterflies away Austria's landgrab via marriage to Charles' daughter, Germany's power projection into the area is far off. Instead, you might see Burgundy expanding more in the Rhineland or the German controlled portions of the Netherlands and Dutch/Frisian speaking areas.

As for France, well, I can't say. Ideally they'd be trying to get the Burdundian core and Lorraine ASAP, but, they might be beaten back.
 
What German powers (besides Austria)?

France is going to be a considerable problem - gaining a king title isn't going to make Charles immune to the fact the King of France is going to resent a former vassal deciding to set himself up as an independent ruler.

There might be some issues, but then again the main branch of the house of Valois (with Valois-Orleans) and Valois-Burgundy already had a feud.

Anyway Philip the Good or Charles the Bold wouldn't really be totally independent. They might secure a Royal Crown of the Holy Roman Emperor, but that would only encompass their imperial holdings and such a kingdom would be an imperial fief (like Bohemia). Anything more would not be acceptable for the HRE, likewise they won't change the status of formally French fiefs. Sure the king of France wouldn't be thrilled, but by doing so the HRE stays and acts within his capacity as HRE (and liege).
Anyway that were the proposals or rather suggestions made by the imperial Chancellor. Though Charles the Bold original ambition was to become king of the Romans...

Certainly Charles the Bold seemed to have dreamed over a completely independent kingdom, but a Papal grant is unlikely, since that would upset France and the HRE, so that only leaves the HRE. Regarding the latter case I already wrote about that, but no emperor will turn imperial fiefs into an independent kingdom (unless he really wants to be replaced;)).

The real change would be a promotion in rank and a formal autonomy in the HRE, but ironically the price of the Crown would be less de facto Independence (since with the Crown comes a more formal relation with HRE as imperial fief).
 
There might be some issues, but then again the main branch of the house of Valois (with Valois-Orleans) and Valois-Burgundy already had a feud.

Anyway Philip the Good or Charles the Bold wouldn't really be totally independent. They might secure a Royal Crown of the Holy Roman Emperor, but that would only encompass their imperial holdings and such a kingdom would be an imperial fief (like Bohemia). Anything more would not be acceptable for the HRE, likewise they won't change the status of formally French fiefs. Sure the king of France wouldn't be thrilled, but by doing so the HRE stays and acts within his capacity as HRE (and liege).
Anyway that were the proposals or rather suggestions made by the imperial Chancellor. Though Charles the Bold original ambition was to become king of the Romans...

Yeah. I think Charles is going to take it as "Ha, I'm a king. Suck on that." unfortunately for him. He doesn't seem like he'd consider himself still a vassal to both France and the Emperor once he's crowned, but I could be wrong.

Certainly Charles the Bold seemed to have dreamed over a completely independent kingdom, but a Papal grant is unlikely, since that would upset France and the HRE, so that only leaves the HRE. Regarding the latter case I already wrote about that, but no emperor will turn imperial fiefs into an independent kingdom (unless he really wants to be replaced;)).

The real change would be a promotion in rank and a formal autonomy in the HRE, but ironically the price of the Crown would be less de facto Independence (since with the Crown comes a more formal relation with HRE as imperial fief).
Would the Emperor (Frederick III?) really be able to control Charles?
 
Yeah. I think Charles is going to take it as "Ha, I'm a king. Suck on that." unfortunately for him. He doesn't seem like he'd consider himself still a vassal to both France and the Emperor once he's crowned, but I could be wrong.

Would the Emperor (Frederick III?) really be able to control Charles?

I'm afraid you're right that Philip had better diplomatic skills than his son Charles. Regarding the policy of de facto independence, in that regard it follows the tradition of border areas like the Low Countries.
Still it would be a mostly formal relationship.

Furthermore Charles reputation is better from the Burgundian-Low Countries perspective than from the French one, but they do agree that he ended up wanting too much too fast and he lost.
Even though Charles might have had character issues, the debacle in Trier ,where the emperor 'fled' before the supposed coronation of Charles, seemed to have pushed him over the edge. To put it somewhat popular, one could say, that's the point where Bold turned into Reckless.

Regarding Frederick III controlling Charles, that's a bit much, but he might be able to convince him to do his minimal obligations. Furthermore if Charles gets his crown, then Maximilian (the heir of Frederick) and Mary (the current heiress of Charles) will marry sooner than they did IOTL. Such a marriage (and a potential Habsburg inheritance) will be demanded (and be nonnegotiable) by Frederick III.
 
I'm afraid you're right that Philip had better diplomatic skills than his son Charles. Regarding the policy of de facto independence, in that regard it follows the tradition of border areas like the Low Countries.
Still it would be a mostly formal relationship.

Furthermore Charles reputation is better from the Burgundian-Low Countries perspective than from the French one, but they do agree that he ended up wanting too much too fast and he lost.
Even though Charles might have had character issues, the debacle in Trier ,where the emperor 'fled' before the supposed coronation of Charles, seemed to have pushed him over the edge. To put it somewhat popular, one could say, that's the point where Bold turned into Reckless.

I wonder why. Trying to secure (as he saw it) his position regardless of consequences?


Regarding Frederick III controlling Charles, that's a bit much, but he might be able to convince him to do his minimal obligations. Furthermore if Charles gets his crown, then Maximilian (the heir of Frederick) and Mary (the current heiress of Charles) will marry sooner than they did IOTL. Such a marriage (and a potential Habsburg inheritance) will be demanded (and be nonnegotiable) by Frederick III.

You wants da crown, youse does what da Emperor wants.
 
One idea might be for him to get struck by something fairly serious that whilst not killing or majorly incapacitating him does slow him down enough so that he's not haring around pissing seemingly everyone in sight off. If you can avoid him not picking a fight with the Swiss but instead concentrate on holding and solidly incorporating Alsace and Lorraine to physically connect the two halves of his Duchy/Kingdom then you set things up much better for any prospective sons. Bonus points if he gains his crown. What was the possible title/throne he was angling for?

How much of his territory did he owe fealty to the French crown for? He could perhaps have some parts of the territory that he independently ruled such as the County of Flanders incorporated into the Empire. Although that only works if the protection of the Empire against the French is enough to balance out having to answer to the Emperor for them.
 
Something I just thought of was the effect that this would have down the line when the French Valois houses started dying out. If they still do, wouldn't the male-line heirs of Charles stand a chance of uniting the Kingdom of Burgundy to France?
 
(...) What was the possible title/throne he was angling for?

How much of his territory did he owe fealty to the French crown for? He could perhaps have some parts of the territory that he independently ruled such as the County of Flanders incorporated into the Empire. Although that only works if the protection of the Empire against the French is enough to balance out having to answer to the Emperor for them.

That slightly differs between Philip the Good and Charles the Bold, but the suggested titles were Burgundy (the kingdom of Burgundy (this incarnation wouldn't be called the Arlelate; in such a scenario the kingdom of Burgundy like the OTL Electorate (and duchy) of Saxony will basically 'move' through the Empire), not the duchy and/or Free County), Frisia/Friesland (in pre-Carolingian times a part of the Low Countries was ruled by kings of the Frisians, though by then these were semi-legendary), Lotharingia and as an outsider Brabant (was suggested by the Imperial Chancellor to raise this to a kingdom and make their other imperial possessions a part of this kingdom).

Finally on the map posted by Sevarics you can which fiefs were French and which fiefs were imperial; the French-Imperial border is indicated by the red 'dotted' line.
 
It seems like something that would - IF if managed to avoid being stomped on by the French - an interesting future. Something like that probably would have some strains at some point between Burgundy proper and the Low Countries, whether those are manageable or not depending on the king in question.

But a kingdom focused on expansion on land may not serve the interests of the Low Countries, and it's always easy to get burghers irritated at high taxes.

Was there any realistic chance that Charles would have a male heir (of his own loins) when he asked for a crown?
 
If there is a son of Charles the Bold (let's call him Philip the Young) and Charles still dsires a royal crown, there will be probably a double wedding: His sister mary is married to the Hapsburg Maximilian, son of Frederick III, whereas Philip dY gets Cunigunde, Max's sister. Basically the same arrangement as in the 1520s between the Habsburgs and the Jagiellons of Hungray and Bohemia.
That would tie the two dynasties together rather decisively.

But if you don't want that, just have the child of 1457 be born as a boy. Due to butterfly effects, you can change the still unborn children of Frederick III to any combination you like, most of them died with 1 or 2 years anyway. You can even finsh off the whole Habsburg dynasty that way, but in any case you will change Spanish history for good.

Hm, different idea: What about a son from the marriage of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, born in 1469 and called Richard? Would this give the Kings of Burgundy/Frisia/whereever a viable Yorkist claim to the throne of England - leading to a fierce naval rivalry between King Arthur of England and King Richard of Burgundy?
 
If there is a son of Charles the Bold (let's call him Philip the Young) and Charles still dsires a royal crown, there will be probably a double wedding: His sister mary is married to the Hapsburg Maximilian, son of Frederick III, whereas Philip dY gets Cunigunde, Max's sister. Basically the same arrangement as in the 1520s between the Habsburgs and the Jagiellons of Hungray and Bohemia.
That would tie the two dynasties together rather decisively.

But if you don't want that, just have the child of 1457 be born as a boy. Due to butterfly effects, you can change the still unborn children of Frederick III to any combination you like, most of them died with 1 or 2 years anyway. You can even finsh off the whole Habsburg dynasty that way, but in any case you will change Spanish history for good.

Hm, different idea: What about a son from the marriage of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, born in 1469 and called Richard? Would this give the Kings of Burgundy/Frisia/whereever a viable Yorkist claim to the throne of England - leading to a fierce naval rivalry between King Arthur of England and King Richard of Burgundy?
The King of Burgundy will rise as the King of France once the main line of the Valois expires, perhaps having a marriage between a Queen of Navarre(Catherine of Navarre or Joan Albret) as well causing the King of France, Burgundy and Navarre conquering England if he wants to causing an inverted Hundred Years war.
 
Top