WI: Louis II of Bohemia and Hungary has a posthumous child with Mary of Austria

If Ferdinand has the child then that could be an issue for Zápolya. From the explanation of how Hungarian succession laws work or not work - the 'if it's too difficult sweep it under the carpet and elected who we want' approach worked because everyone ignored the reality of the situation. What if this time Ferdinand's allies in the Hungarian Nobility challenge the election claiming that Zápolya could not be King as Louis had an heir... Is that something that would be possible or is it simply the case that the Nobility have spoken and so it be done.
Ferdinand having Louis's son in his custody was not equal to Ferdinand being able to succesfully exert his authority over whole Hungary. Frederick III had Vladislaus the Posthumous in his custody, but he wasn't able to be his regent in Hungary and John Hunyadi ruled instead of him. I think that it would be similar situation.
 
Ferdinand having Louis's son in his custody was not equal to Ferdinand being able to succesfully exert his authority over whole Hungary. Frederick III had Vladislaus the Posthumous in his custody, but he wasn't able to be his regent in Hungary and John Hunyadi ruled instead of him. I think that it would be similar situation.
For Ferdinand having the child is a means to an end - further Habsburg ambition. For his supporters in Hungary the child's existence could be used to claim that the Nobility had no lawful right to elected Zápolya because Louis had a son.

From what you have said it would seem that a Regency may be possible Zápolya elected as King but only until the child comes of age.
 
For Ferdinand having the child is a means to an end - further Habsburg ambition. For his supporters in Hungary the child's existence could be used to claim that the Nobility had no lawful right to elected Zápolya because Louis had a son.

From what you have said it would seem that a Regency may be possible Zápolya elected as King but only until the child comes of age.
I think that Hungarians barely accepting Zapolya IOTL because he was better than foreigner would never agree for him to usurp Louis's son. Yes, it indeed is, but even while having custody over young king, Ferdinand would need to be very careful in his policy towards Hungary.
 
I think that Hungarians barely accepting Zapolya IOTL because he was better than foreigner would never agree for him to usurp Louis's son. Yes, it indeed is, but even while having custody over young king, Ferdinand would need to be very careful in his policy towards Hungary.
I guess for Ferdinand he has to manage the Sultan, because I get the impression that Zápolya had welcome written all over him, and Ferdinand would not want to trigger a conflict (or not just yet) with the Ottomans. Therefore a gentle reminder to the Hungarians that he has the rightful heir to the Throne may not go a miss - you know try and keep the Nobility honest and accountable - in the interest of the child of course...
 
If Ferdinand has the child then that could be an issue for Zápolya. From the explanation of how Hungarian succession laws work or not work - the 'if it's too difficult sweep it under the carpet and elected who we want' approach worked because everyone ignored the reality of the situation. What if this time Ferdinand's allies in the Hungarian Nobility challenge the election claiming that Zápolya could not be King as Louis had an heir... Is that something that would be possible or is it simply the case that the Nobility have spoken and so it be done.
For Ferdinand having the child is a means to an end - further Habsburg ambition. For his supporters in Hungary the child's existence could be used to claim that the Nobility had no lawful right to elected Zápolya because Louis had a son.

From what you have said it would seem that a Regency may be possible Zápolya elected as King but only until the child comes of age.
ZAPOLYA HERE WOULD BE SIMPLY THE REGENT OF LOUIS III “THE POSTHUMOUS” IN HUNGARY NOT KING IN HIS OWN RIGHT. NOBODY WOULD EVER ELECT ZAPOLYA AS KING IF LOUIS II HAD A MALE HEIR. ZAPOLYA WOULD SIMPLY CLAIM THE REGENCY AS THAT WOULD GIVE HIM AROUND 15 YEARS OF RULE IN HUNGARY WHILE THE INFANT LOUIS WOULD BE THE ONLY KING
 
I guess for Ferdinand he has to manage the Sultan, because I get the impression that Zápolya had welcome written all over him, and Ferdinand would not want to trigger a conflict (or not just yet) with the Ottomans. Therefore a gentle reminder to the Hungarians that he has the rightful heir to the Throne may not go a miss - you know try and keep the Nobility honest and accountable - in the interest of the child of course...
He had, but only when it came to Ferdinand being king. With no prospects of Ferdinand being king, Zapolya would less determined to fight for crown for himself, because his main goal was to prevent non-Hungarian from having throne.
 
ZAPOLYA HERE WOULD BE SIMPLY THE REGENT OF LOUIS III “THE POSTHUMOUS” IN HUNGARY NOT KING IN HIS OWN RIGHT. NOBODY WOULD EVER ELECT ZAPOLYA AS KING IF LOUIS II HAD A MALE HEIR. ZAPOLYA WOULD SIMPLY CLAIM THE REGENCY AS THAT WOULD GIVE HIM AROUND 15 YEARS OF RULE IN HUNGARY WHILE THE INFANT LOUIS WOULD BE THE ONLY KING
OKAY SWEETHEART CALM DOWN, FIND THE CAP LOCK BUTTON ON YOUR KEYBOARD AND TURN IT OFF.

You appear to be forgetting the Human condition and the fact that not everything is clear cut. Zápolya would be elected King since there does not appear to be a position for a Regent and he would rule in the child's name.
 
OKAY SWEETHEART CALM DOWN, FIND THE CAP LOCK BUTTON ON YOUR KEYBOARD AND TURN IT OFF.

You appear to be forgetting the Human condition and the fact that not everything is clear cut. Zápolya would be elected King since there does not appear to be a position for a Regent and he would rule in the child's name.
*cough* John Hunyadi *cough*
 
He had, but only when it came to Ferdinand being king. With no prospects of Ferdinand being king, Zapolya would less determined to fight for crown for himself, because his main goal was to prevent non-Hungarian from having throne.
So Zápolya being the only option available there and then to occupy the vacant throne, albeit temporary and in the name of Louis' son, would be elected because he was a Hungarian or do you think that the Nobility would conclude that there is a more suitable candidate and bin Zápolya off. Perhaps they've seen how he behaves around his 'master' the Sultan and they are less than keen on being the Ottoman's whipping boy. As an added incentive they know Ferdinand has their heir so they may not want to provoke him...
 
I sincerely hope that you are not coming down with anything serious.
How droll.
Just because Hunyadi was elected a one of the Governing council and then as sole Governor doesn't mean that the Nobility would do the same in this case.
It's similar circumstances, thus repeating that seems more likely than declaring Zapolya King.
It was hard for Zapolya OTL without a clear heir to the previous king existing. TTL they have Louis Posthumous.
 
So Zápolya being the only option available there and then to occupy the vacant throne, albeit temporary and in the name of Louis' son, would be elected because he was a Hungarian or do you think that the Nobility would conclude that there is a more suitable candidate and bin Zápolya off. Perhaps they've seen how he behaves around his 'master' the Sultan and they are less than keen on being the Ottoman's whipping boy. As an added incentive they know Ferdinand has their heir so they may not want to provoke him...
He's not only option available. And to rule the country, he doesn't need to be even crowned king. Hungarian Sejm can recognize him as a count palatine (and count palatine had every right to fulfill kingly duties in the name of not able king, much like Hand in Westeros if you ever watched GoT), and it's enough for him, his OTL bid for the throne was more of a necessity than his ambition.
 
As a sidenote, IOTL Szapolyai became the vassal of Suleiman only in 1528, when he couldn't win the throne on his own. ITTL, when he's likely to be the Regent, or atleast a member of the Regent Council, he wouldn't need to approach the Sultan like he IOTL did. If he would had sided with the Turks earlier, he would had never been elected king in the first place.

As for him to directly attempt to usurp the throne; well, that wouldn't happen. Louis's son is the legitimate king, who's also supported by the Habsburgs. Turning to the Turks wouldn't be an option, since that would had meant political suicide at this point. If SZapolyai would try to do anything funny, he could very quickly find himself between a rock and a hard place.

Becoming regent is the best Szapolyai could hope for.
 
It is worth debating how much of a chance such a claimant would have of at some point ousting the Ottomans.

In the 15th century, the Ottomans often got the worse of engagements with coalitions from Christendom but would generally be fine in the end. In the 16th, they tended to dominate against all opponents in land wars.

What kind of coalition could presumably kick them out of Hungary after Mohacs? You'd likely need the Hapsburgs, Serbian uprisings, the Poles, the Hungarian nobility, and Crusading armies from Germany or France, and likely the Venetians as well. I think keeping that coalition or something like it would be very difficult.
 
It is worth debating how much of a chance such a claimant would have of at some point ousting the Ottomans.

In the 15th century, the Ottomans often got the worse of engagements with coalitions from Christendom but would generally be fine in the end. In the 16th, they tended to dominate against all opponents in land wars.

What kind of coalition could presumably kick them out of Hungary after Mohacs? You'd likely need the Hapsburgs, Serbian uprisings, the Poles, the Hungarian nobility, and Crusading armies from Germany or France, and likely the Venetians as well. I think keeping that coalition or something like it would be very difficult.
If not else, Pétervárad has to be retaken. It and Eszék were the cornerstones of the Hungarian second line of defense. Eszék was destroyed and Pétervárad was in quite a bad shape too, so when Pétervárad is retaken, both fortresses need to be rebuilt and strengthened. If this is done, then the defense of the interior of the country can be more or less garantueed.

These don't really need a huge army to accomplish though, the bigger problem is the race against the time.
 
Is there any point then in 'electing' Zápolya as regent or a member of the regency council. It seems to me that he is a bit surplus to requirements.
 
To me it seems that this child benefits Ferdinand more than Zápolya. I can't see what Zápolya would gain from Louis son being around. He would have to be elected which was illegal (not that that seems to have mattered) and having said that I've just had a thought perhaps the Nobility would elect him on the condition that when Louis child comes of age he hands the throne over to its rightful heir (I'm thinking how likely is that...)
We have historical example for that as well, when John Hunyadi was elected as governor for Ladislaus Posthumus's childhood.
 
We have historical example for that as well, when John Hunyadi was elected as governor for Ladislaus Posthumus's childhood.
Would they bother with 'electing' Zápolya then? It seems to me that he is not necessary if there is another candidate or they reconstitute the regency council that Hunyadi was part of before they elected him as sole governor.

What affect would that have on Hungary? If power was divided between several people it seems that nothing would get done or cogs of government would move very slow whilst people make up their mind or bicker about what is the best thing to do.
 
Would they bother with 'electing' Zápolya then? It seems to me that he is not necessary if there is another candidate or they reconstitute the regency council that Hunyadi was part of before they elected him as sole governor.
Because electing Zapolya or someone(s) else is what the assembly needs to do. Putting someone in charge when there's noone readily available is part of their role/function.
What affect would that have on Hungary? If power was divided between several people it seems that nothing would get done or cogs of government would move very slow whilst people make up their mind or bicker about what is the best thing to do.
Not everyone is keen on placing all the powers in one person. It occasionally ends in absolutism and tyranny. You may lose efficiency by decreasing autocracy but you get more consensus. And more people to share blame if it goes wrong ;).
 
Top