WI: The House of Vasa continues

Just what the title says. What if Władysław IV or John II Casimir sons survive? How would Polish politics look like with a surviving semi-hereditary Royal House on the Throne? How would European Politics?
 
Theoretically Władysław's son, Sigismund Casimir, would have had quite good chance for a throne. Problem is when Władysław IV died his son would have been 8 years old. Since Khmelnitsky's Uprising had already started electing a child is really unpropable, especially when dead king's brothers were available. It might have ended with a regency in the name of Sigismund Casimir by one of his uncles, but I doubt it - there were too many problems in PLC at the time and the noblemen were looking for a strong ruler with good relations abroad (John Casimir was supported by France). Position of a regent is always weaker than one of a king.
John Casimir himself, OTOH, became rather unpopular and eventually abdicated. I can not imagine his son being elected.
 
Theoretically Władysław's son, Sigismund Casimir, would have had quite good chance for a throne. Problem is when Władysław IV died his son would have been 8 years old. Since Khmelnitsky's Uprising had already started electing a child is really unpropable, especially when dead king's brothers were available. It might have ended with a regency in the name of Sigismund Casimir by one of his uncles, but I doubt it - there were too many problems in PLC at the time and the noblemen were looking for a strong ruler with good relations abroad (John Casimir was supported by France). Position of a regent is always weaker than one of a king.
John Casimir himself, OTOH, became rather unpopular and eventually abdicated. I can not imagine his son being elected.

So if Władysław IV's son survived then John Casimir would be a Regent King, like how the Regents of the Byzantine Empire were usually crowned Co-Emperors. If its John Casimir's son that survived, would his father still abdicate? Or at the very least would guess he would wait until his son reached his majority and could be elected as his successor.

Edit: So I did some math and Sigismund Casimir, Władysław IV's son, would be 28 when John Casimir abdicated OTL and John's own son John Sigismund, would be 16.
 
Last edited:
The Swedish Wasas have several candidates that needs some changes in order to survive.

Erik XIV's son Gustaf, born 1568, sent into exile 1575 and dead 1607 could be a candidate. He consisently resisted all attempts at using him against Sweden in his exile (but did come when invited, he had no income and lived off the welfare of other princes). If Johan III decides that keeping Gustaf close is better, and gives him a proper upbringing locally, he could marry well and his descendants would have a claim to the throne once Kristina abdicates.

Johan III's son Johan, born 1589 and dead 1618. His marriage to his cousin, the daughter of Karl IX Maria Elisabet 1612 was childless and described as unhappy. She was sickly, and it is quite possible that they never consumated the marriage at all. She died in 1618 as well. If you have Johan survive and remarry, he could have descendants that could claim the throne when Kristina abdicates.

Karl IX's son Karl Filip, born 1601 and dead 1622. He served in the army laying siege to Riga during the Livonian War, and died of one of the epedemics sweeping through the camp. He did marry in secret, and after his death a daughter was born. He was also for a short while a candidate to become Tsar of Russia, invited by Novgorod, which stood under Swedish protection headed by de la Gardie. You can have him survive the disease, not contract it at all, or have his secret marriage result in a son instead of a daughter.

If you want any of these or their descendants on the Swedish throne, you need them to be recognised as legitimate, keep their positions, not be a threat to the King and have enough support to make a grab for the throne when the time comes. Karl X Gustaf was a military commander, had the support of the army and was the son of Karl IX's daughter, so he had blood ties and everything else needed to become King. For him to stand back, one of these needs to have an equally strong position to go with their better blood claim.
 
Originally posted by Emperor Constantine
So if Władysław IV's son survived then John Casimir would be a Regent King, like how the Regents of the Byzantine Empire were usually crowned Co-Emperors. If its John Casimir's son that survived, would his father still abdicate? Or at the very least would guess he would wait until his son reached his majority and could be elected as his successor.
Byzantine precedents do not have to be valid in Poland. AFAIR there was never in Polish history a case when a regent was crowned Co-King.
And John Casimir abdicated not for whim, but because of failure of his policy due to internal opposition. I doubt if his son would have had any significant chance for throne.
Not to mention the fact that even if the line of Polish Vasas had survived there would have been no guarantee that they would keep Polish throne. The noblemen didn't have to elect a member of present ruling family.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Emperor Constantine
Byzantine precedents do not have to be valid in Poland. AFAIR there was never in Polish history a case when a regent was crowned Co-King.
And John Casimir abdicated not for whim, but because of failure of his policy due to internal opposition. I doubt if his son would have had any significant chance for throne.
Not to mention the fact that even if the line of Polish Vasas had survived there would have been no guarantee that they would keep Polish throne. The noblemen didn't have to elect a member of present ruling family.

Not co-king, a stop gap King. Like an placeholder, so to speak. I'm sure there are some examples in history but I can't think of any of the top of my head. Also, I feel lie the Vasas are like the Habsburgs, in relation to thrones. Like Poland, the HRE was elective, but for the last 300 or so years of its existence, the Habsburgs here almost always elected Emperor (Charles VII being the acceptation). So legally the throne of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was elective, but the Vasas were always elected (well, only three were elected but at that point the line has went extinct but you get my point)
 

Deleted member 14881

maybe have Wladislaw survive longer and be like dickish towards the cossacks.
 
The Habsburgs could influence the electors to vote in their favor. What do the Vasa have to encourage the responsible parties in Poland to do so?
 
The Habsburgs could influence the electors to vote in their favor. What do the Vasa have to encourage the responsible parties in Poland to do so?

Well what did they do OTL? I mean when there was a Vasa candidate, he was elected, so they must have been doing something right. Plus, the Vasas would be the closest heirs to the old Jagiellonian dynasty, so that could be a factor in it but I'm not sure.
 
Well what did they do OTL? I mean when there was a Vasa candidate, he was elected, so they must have been doing something right. Plus, the Vasas would be the closest heirs to the old Jagiellonian dynasty, so that could be a factor in it but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure, but there's a big difference between a few individual candidates managing it for whatever reasons, and a long term dynastic hold on the throne.
 
I'm not sure, but there's a big difference between a few individual candidates managing it for whatever reasons, and a long term dynastic hold on the throne.

Three Vasa candidates got elected and if the Vasa line hadn't gone extinct then more would have probably been elected. Would having a semi-hereditary monarchy help the Commonwealth or not? I mean I know one of the main problems Poland had was large-scale decentralization that occurred during that era not to mention the liberum veto.

As for a better long-term Hold, maybe some of Władysław IV's plans could have succeeded.
 
Three Vasa candidates got elected and if the Vasa line hadn't gone extinct then more would have probably been elected. Would having a semi-hereditary monarchy help the Commonwealth or not? I mean I know one of the main problems Poland had was large-scale decentralization that occurred during that era not to mention the liberum veto.

As for a better long-term Hold, maybe some of Władysław IV's plans could have succeeded.

Four Luxemburg candidates got elected to Holy Roman Emperor, that doesn't mean that Sigismund having a son would have lead to more.

I'm not seeing how you get a semi-hereditary monarchy here - the Sejm seems to have wanted to block Wladyslaw, after all.
 
Four Luxemburg candidates got elected to Holy Roman Emperor, that doesn't mean that Sigismund having a son would have lead to more.

I'm not seeing how you get a semi-hereditary monarchy here - the Sejm seems to have wanted to block Wladyslaw, after all.

Using that argument, I could say that even though 16 Habsburgs were elected Holy Roman Emperor, there would be no guarantee that the Empire surviving would lead to more.

True the Sejm opposed him but they still elected his brother King. If they were so sick of having a Vasa king, then the Sejm would have elected someone else after Wladyslaw IV died.
 
Using that argument, I could say that even though 16 Habsburgs were elected Holy Roman Emperor, there would be no guarantee that the Empire surviving would lead to more.

True the Sejm opposed him but they still elected his brother King. If they were so sick of having a Vasa king, then the Sejm would have elected someone else after Wladyslaw IV died.

The point is, they don't seem to be enthusiastic about establishing a Vasa dynasty They might elect the next candidate if there is one - but they might well reject him. And unlike the Habsburgs, the Vasa don't seem to have an unusually strong base (of power or supporters).

So while one could say that the Habsburgs would probably be able to keep playing the system, it's not clear the Vasa (or Luxemburgs in an ATL) could.
 
Vasas indeed kept getting elected, althogh it has to be said that John Casimir was elected during a crisis - Khmelnitsky's Uprising. The king needed to be elected quickly. OTOH, AFAIK the election was mostly between two brothers of deceased king - John Casimir and Charles Ferdinand, although there was also another candidate considered, duke of Transylvania George I Rakoczy. John Casimir won thanks to French support.
I still have my doubts about chances of Władysław's son being elected. He was simply too young and times were dire. There would be clashes about custody over little king and position of a regent. AFAIR there was no legal precedent for that. Polish noblemen had the right to elect their king, but who had the right to elect a regent? The Sejm? Possibly, but opposition might claim, that since regent is de facto the ruler, he also should have been elected by all the noblemen. Had Władysław IV lived a few years longer and managed to deal with Cossacks (peacefully or not), chances of his son would be better, IMHO.
As far as John Casimir's son goes, no. John Casimir lost his popularity among the noblemen, lost a civil war (with Lubomirski), his policy failed, which is why he abdicated. Unless his son manages to make a name for himself by his own efforts, he has no chance.
After John Casimir Poles and Lithuanians elected Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki - the first nobleman (well, magnate) elected for Polish throne and first Polish king who was NOT royalty by birth. That might suggest that for some time they were tired of electing members of royal houses.
 
Top