WI: Frederick III marries Anne of Bohemia?

[hirsch91]

The Habsburgs are famously known for the incestuous family line. As such why not start this pattern a century earlier and have Frederick III marry his niece Anne. Yes, he would be 15 years her senior but Frederick didn't marry until he was 37. It would probably very bad optics if his nephew, Ladislaus, died under his guardianship (even if it was Leukemia) just for him to become the next king of Bohemia. On the upside though, Frederick and Anne would only be very distantly related (Albert II of Austria is Fredericks great grand father and Anne's great great grandfather) so the likelihood of poor genetic health of their offspring is low. He'd be next in line for the Bohemian throne and for Luxembourg. How would the Albertian line of Habsburgs owning Bohemia change history? Bohemia right after the Hussite wars was devasted and there was a lot of anti-German sentiment in the population but it was still wealthy and probably had a positive economic outlook. With a electoral vote, could engage in a lot more active role in HRE politics. Poland could prove a problem since they wanted Bohemia too but it is engaged in war against the Teutonics at that point to contest the Habsburgs. However, rather than Poland or on top of Poland, Philip of Burgundy could become a threat as IOTL he disputed Anne and her husband William of Thuringias rights to Luxembourg which they eventually gave up in 1469 after several battles. Would Philip still dispute Luxembourg if his enemy wasn't a small prince but the Emperor himself? AFAIK, Philip tried to be on good terms with the Emperor hoping to get elevated to Kingdom.
If the Habsburgs still manage to unify their realms on top of having both Bohemia and Burgundy, their realm would encompass about half the population of the German part of the HRE. Matthias Hunyadi bought the Stephens crown from Frederick IOTL which could easily result in a long lasting alliance with mutual benefit. Frederick was Matthias fiercest opponent and his support could result in a huge boost in Matthias' legitimacy. Likewise, without Matthias' help, Frederick would not be able to get on the Bohemian throne.

 

[kasumigenx]

The Habsburgs are famously known for the incestuous family line. As such why not start this pattern a century earlier and have Frederick III marry his niece Anne. Yes, he would be 15 years her senior but Frederick didn't marry until he was 37. It would probably very bad optics if his nephew, Ladislaus, died under his guardianship (even if it was Leukemia) just for him to become the next king of Bohemia. On the upside though, Frederick and Anne would only be very distantly related (Albert II of Austria is Fredericks great grand father and Anne's great great grandfather) so the likelihood of poor genetic health of their offspring is low. He'd be next in line for the Bohemian throne and for Luxembourg. How would the Albertian line of Habsburgs owning Bohemia change history? Bohemia right after the Hussite wars was devasted and there was a lot of anti-German sentiment in the population but it was still wealthy and probably had a positive economic outlook. With a electoral vote, could engage in a lot more active role in HRE politics. Poland could prove a problem since they wanted Bohemia too but it is engaged in war against the Teutonics at that point to contest the Habsburgs. However, rather than Poland or on top of Poland, Philip of Burgundy could become a threat as IOTL he disputed Anne and her husband William of Thuringias rights to Luxembourg which they eventually gave up in 1469 after several battles. Would Philip still dispute Luxembourg if his enemy wasn't a small prince but the Emperor himself? AFAIK, Philip tried to be on good terms with the Emperor hoping to get elevated to Kingdom.
If the Habsburgs still manage to unify their realms on top of having both Bohemia and Burgundy, their realm would encompass about half the population of the German part of the HRE. Matthias Hunyadi bought the Stephens crown from Frederick IOTL which could easily result in a long lasting alliance with mutual benefit. Frederick was Matthias fiercest opponent and his support could result in a huge boost in Matthias' legitimacy. Likewise, without Matthias' help, Frederick would not be able to get on the Bohemian throne.

There is a healthier option, have Christopher of Austria survive and marry Margaret of Thuringia.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Frederick stated, that as Habsburg he is legal successor of Ladislaus anyway. Meanwhile Czechs and Hungarians simply ignored him and Ladislaus' sisters alike, because Bohemian and Hungarian thrones were elective and their nobles didn't want him on the throne and he could not do anything about this without mind-control device

 

[hirsch91]

There is a healthier option, have Christopher of Austria survive and marry Margaret of Thuringia.

I forgot about Christoph. That's a great option but wouldn't that mean if Maximilian gets Burgundy, that the Habsburg lines would be split once again into a Burgundian branch and a Bohemian branch?

Frederick stated, that as Habsburg he is legal successor of Ladislaus anyway. Meanwhile Czechs and Hungarians simply ignored him and Ladislaus' sisters alike, because Bohemian and Hungarian thrones were elective and their nobles didn't want him on the throne and he could not do anything about this without mind-control device

True but wasn't Fredericks problem that he also claimed the Hungarian throne and made an enemy of Matthias Hunyadi? If he gave up the Hungarian throne for the Bohemian one, he could have a powerful ally in Matthias. IOTL Matthias occupied Silesia and Moravia in his war against Bohemia. Couldn't Fredrick conquer the Bohemian throne with Matthias' help?

 

[kasumigenx]

I forgot about Christoph. That's a great option but wouldn't that mean if Maximilian gets Burgundy, that the Habsburg lines would be split once again into a Burgundian branch and a Bohemian branch?

Yes.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

I forgot about Christoph. That's a great option but wouldn't that mean if Maximilian gets Burgundy, that the Habsburg lines would be split once again into a Burgundian branch and a Bohemian branch?


True but wasn't Fredericks problem that he also claimed the Hungarian throne and made an enemy of Matthias Hunyadi? If he gave up the Hungarian throne for the Bohemian one, he could have a powerful ally in Matthias. IOTL Matthias occupied Silesia and Moravia in his war against Bohemia. Couldn't Fredrick conquer the Bohemian throne with Matthias' help?

No, because Matthias wanted Bohemian throne for himself.

 

[Liminia1]

Oh god we are getting into 14th century politics and Burgundy is involved here. The problem with the Austrians seizing Bohemia or Hungary is that it is darn near impossible for Frederick to reclaim it due to two things:
#1, as mentioned previously the elective nature of both their monarchies. The reason why they elected Ladislaus in the beginning was that objectively speaking he was a very weak king, with Janos Hunyadi and George of Podebrady acting as regents for him in Hungary and Bohemia. Frederick is not like his nephew in terms of rulership and was a careful but ambitious ruler so his rulership would be in direct conflict with the powerful nobility of both crowns of the time. Frederick would not also select and choose which crown to pursue so if he wanted to fully inherit Ladislaus he couldn't just go for Bohemia and given Hungary to Matthias.

#2, This is a bit lesser but with Ladislaus' death the inheritance was disputed with his brother Albert VI over the archduchy of Austria, with Frederick tentatively crowned king of Bohemia and Hungary while also king of the Romans in 1440 that would certainly make him the most powerful ruler of the empire since Sigismund of Luxembourg and yet due to this tentative conquest it would probably collapse immediately, Frederick was not the great warrior like his son Maximilian and nearly lost against Albert, with his death being the lucky hit that allowed him to win the war. (We can see a repeat of this with the sudden death of Matthias Corvinus.)

When it comes to the claims of Luxembourg, the empire was already quite against Burgundian expansion even under the reign of John the Fearless. This was how Louis of Orleans outplayed John and nearly strangled Burgundy. Frederick already had enough reasons to oppose Burgundian expansion as he saw it as an extension of French expansion (which kinda was true, if you have ever heard about the struggles of Hainaut, you know what I'm talking about) The only reason why the Habsburgs would soften their stance on Burgundy would be the birth and subsequent inheritance of Marie of Burgundy. However, precisely the claim over Luxembourg, Frederick would have a slightly stronger claim due to proximity of blood but this claim was very very weak and would be sold to Charles VII OTL. I have no doubt in my mind if Frederick were in the same situation as George of Podebrady he would also do the same.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

rederick already had enough reasons to oppose Burgundian expansion as he saw it as an extension of French expansion

yes and no. Yes, he saw Burgundian expansion as a threat. But no, he didn't see it as a French extension. This is one of Philippe the Good's very few political gaffes. In the Reichstag at Besançon (1448 I think), he refused to answer the summons to attend because a) he didn't acknowledge Friedrich as emperor, b) (this made me think about the similarity with Charles the Bold), Friedrich left out one of his titles (think it was duke of Luxembourg) which Phil didn't really think suitable; c) he was also finangling for a marriage between his heir and Elisabeth of Austria*.

It left Friedrich in a very bad mind about Burgundy's ambitions. And then, at another Reichstag at Regensburg (1455, I think), the fact that Phil showed up in royal- not quasi-royal nor even on bended knee- state. More importantly, he was cheered by the crowds in such a manner that Friedrich (like with Charles the Bold later) became afraid of Phil's ambitions to be emperor. Fortunately, he got a last-minute reprieve, when Phil found out that Charles the Bold had "rebelled" against his dad and married Isabelle of Bourbon, thus making his marriage to Elisabeth of Austria impossible.

The Habsburgs were leery of Burgundian expansion because of the Burgundian dukes themselves not the French king. And it was only in 1471 that "that dolt" Archduke Sigmund suggested a match between Max and Marie of Burgundy as a good way of Fritz "negating" the threat.

 

[Liminia1]

yes and no. Yes, he saw Burgundian expansion as a threat. But no, he didn't see it as a French extension. This is one of Philippe the Good's very few political gaffes. In the Reichstag at Besançon (1448 I think), he refused to answer the summons to attend because a) he didn't acknowledge Friedrich as emperor, b) (this made me think about the similarity with Charles the Bold), Friedrich left out one of his titles (think it was duke of Luxembourg) which Phil didn't really think suitable; c) he was also finangling for a marriage between his heir and Elisabeth of Austria*.

It left Friedrich in a very bad mind about Burgundy's ambitions. And then, at another Reichstag at Regensburg (1455, I think), the fact that Phil showed up in royal- not quasi-royal nor even on bended knee- state. More importantly, he was cheered by the crowds in such a manner that Friedrich (like with Charles the Bold later) became afraid of Phil's ambitions to be emperor. Fortunately, he got a last-minute reprieve, when Phil found out that Charles the Bold had "rebelled" against his dad and married Isabelle of Bourbon, thus making his marriage to Elisabeth of Austria impossible.

The Habsburgs were leery of Burgundian expansion because of the Burgundian dukes themselves not the French king. And it was only in 1471 that "that dolt" Archduke Sigmund suggested a match between Max and Marie of Burgundy as a good way of Fritz "negating" the threat.

I swear Charles the Bold's second marriage was Philip's idea not Charles. How was the marriage between Charles and Elizabeth supposed to help Philip's chances at emperor?

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

#1, as mentioned previously the elective nature of both their monarchies. The reason why they elected Ladislaus in the beginning was that objectively speaking he was a very weak king, with Janos Hunyadi and George of Podebrady acting as regents for him in Hungary and Bohemia. Frederick is not like his nephew in terms of rulership and was a careful but ambitious ruler so his rulership would be in direct conflict with the powerful nobility of both crowns of the time. Frederick would not also select and choose which crown to pursue so if he wanted to fully inherit Ladislaus he couldn't just go for Bohemia and given Hungary to Matthias.

Actually Ladislaus wasn't elected unanonimously by Hungarians, there was whole-ass civil war between him and Vladislaus of Varna, king of Poland for Hungarian crown, only after Vladislaus of Varna died, Hungarians acknowledged Ladislaus the Posthumous as sole king.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I swear Charles the Bold's second marriage was Philip's idea not Charles.

Given the duc de Bourbon was essentially Louis XI's proxy, I'm not so sure

How was the marriage between Charles and Elizabeth supposed to help Philip's chances at emperor?

He had the support of the votes of the Palatinate, Brandenburg and one of the ecclesiastical electors. Elisabeth would've allowed him to obtain either the Saxon or Bohemian vote. Plus given any potential grandchildren a blood tie to the Luxemburgs (which was more than Friedrich III had). Also, if Charles/Elisabeth had a son while Anna or Friedrich III did not, then that son could claim to be the Habsburg heir (similarly to how Elisabeth claimed it for her sons OTL, despite Anna's daughters leaving issue)

 

[Liminia1]

Given the duc de Bourbon was essentially Louis XI's proxy, I'm not so sure

He had the support of the votes of the Palatinate, Brandenburg and one of the ecclesiastical electors. Elisabeth would've allowed him to obtain either the Saxon or Bohemian vote. Plus given any potential grandchildren a blood tie to the Luxemburgs (which was more than Friedrich III had). Also, if Charles/Elisabeth had a son while Anna or Friedrich III did not, then that son could claim to be the Habsburg heir (similarly to how Elisabeth claimed it for her sons OTL, despite Anna's daughters leaving issue)

Louis XI was the dauphin not the king at the time. It was still Charles VII. As far as I am aware based on my knowledge of Charles the reason Charles married Isabella was from the treaty of Arras. Since Catherine died early, Charles offered a Bourbon proxy in order to fulfill the terms of Arras. Isabella preferred an English match because (rightfully so) she didn't believe the terms would be fufilled under Charles VII. This is why I despised Philip the Good in the treaty of Arras. He believed in chivalry to kings who did not and only believed in realpolitik.

 

[Liminia1]

But the marriage between Elizabeth and Charles is certainly interesting though. I did not know that LOL

 

[Liminia1]

Actually Ladislaus wasn't elected unanonimously by Hungarians, there was whole-ass civil war between him and Vladislaus of Varna, king of Poland for Hungarian crown, only after Vladislaus of Varna died, Hungarians acknowledged Ladislaus the Posthumous as sole king.

Yea that's true but again the point of electing child kings in order to further advance the nobility's interest is still present.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Yea that's true but again the point of electing child kings in order to further advance the nobility's interest is still present.

Dunno about that, Polish nobility was most election-loving nobility in the world and they were very wary of electing child kings and did not thing it would advance their interests.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Dunno about that, Polish nobility was most election-loving nobility in the world and they were very wary of electing child kings and did not thing it would advance their interests.

But child king is in fact a way to erode royal power, especially if happens few times in row. Same with absent monarch.

OTOH kings of Poland either had adult son or no sons at all when they died. Jogaila was exception. If, say, Sigismund Augustus left 10 years old son, whom Lithuanians would proclaim their Grand Duke, then Poles would follow.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

But child king is in fact a way to erode royal power, especially if happens few times in row. Same with absent monarch.

OTOH kings of Poland either had adult son or no sons at all when they died. Jogaila was exception. If, say, Sigismund Augustus left 10 years old son, whom Lithuanians would proclaim their Grand Duke, then Poles would follow.

But in the PLC's era pamphlets it was explicitly said that free election is so important because it's the way to keep children out of the throne and remeber how hard Jogaila needed to fight for Polish throne for his sons.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

But in the PLC's era pamphlets it was explicitly said that free election is so important because it's the way to keep children out of the throne and remeber how hard Jogaila needed to fight for Polish throne for his sons.

Zamoyski would write pamphlets to explain why electing Sigismund Augustus' infant son, if there was any, is better than adult Habsburg, who would bring tyranny and ultra-Catholic fanatism.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Zamoyski would write pamphlets to explain why electing Sigismund Augustus' infant son, if there was any, is better than adult Habsburg, who would bring tyranny and ultra-Catholic fanatism.

But those type of pamphlets were common even after Zamoyski was long gone and cold in his grave, so it's just not true that elective monarchies are keen on electing child kings to advance nobility's interests.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

But those type of pamphlets were common even after Zamoyski was long gone and cold in his grave, so it's just not true that elective monarchies are keen on electing child kings to advance nobility's interests.

There was no single view on the matter, as even fraction of Hungarians preffered adult Ulaszlo I over baby Laszlo V, despite fact, that the latter was son of the King of Hungary while the former had no ties at all to Hungary.