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.?
depends ... is it going to be more squeezed in the north or the south? ... could bring arguments for both really
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.
So not so much squeezed at the start but what other countries have in store for it I can't say
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...
Would the Emperor (Frederick III?) really be able to control Charles?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).
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.
(...) 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.
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.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?