Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

What would the repercussions be if Ferdinand the Catholic had died in 1500 when he led troops to Lanjarón during the Rebellion of the Alpujarras? Since Miguel da Paz hadn’t died yet he would briefly be King of Aragon, but after Miguel’s death in the summer Juana would inherit the throne. Would things be different with Juana inheriting her father’s kingdom first, or would similar issues to what happened IOTL pop up?
 

VVD0D95

Banned
What would the repercussions be if Ferdinand the Catholic had died in 1500 when he led troops to Lanjarón during the Rebellion of the Alpujarras? Since Miguel da Paz hadn’t died yet he would briefly be King of Aragon, but after Miguel’s death in the summer Juana would inherit the throne. Would things be different with Juana inheriting her father’s kingdom first, or would similar issues to what happened IOTL pop up?
What makes you think Miguel still dies as he did otl?
 
What makes you think Miguel still dies as he did otl?
Wasn't he always a sickly infant? His death isn’t that far away from the POD, so it seems incredibly likely that he would still die since Ferdinand dying earlier wouldn’t make his physical constitution any better.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Wasn't he always a sickly infant? His death isn’t that far away from the POD, so it seems incredibly likely that he would still die since Ferdinand dying earlier wouldn’t make his physical constitution any better.
Nothing I’ve read suggests he was sickly.
 
Nothing I’ve read suggests he was sickly.
From Giles Tremlett’s Isabella of Castile: Europe's First Great Queen:
“The journey cannot have been easy for Isabella, who was now often sick. Anghiera put this down to the tragic deaths of Juan and Isabella, her two most adored children. ‘We are with the queen who, because of her grief at the death of the daughter who, being so discreet and good, was her favourite, is [now] sick in bed,’ he had written eight months before she set out for Granada. Little Miguel, the tiny new jewel in Isabella’s crown, travelled with them, along with her two remaining unmarried daughters, María and Catherine. The boy’s father had been happy to leave him in Isabella’s care and her mood was both lightened by Miguel’s presence and darkened by his fragility. ‘He was born weak, fragile and sickly,’ warned Anghiera, who was nevertheless relieved that an heir was at hand. ‘With the child’s birth, whatever his state of health, all debate over primogeniture is over.’ Isabella fretted over the small, precious boy who had been sworn in as heir to her crown by the Cortes early in 1499.”

“Isabella kept Miguel close by, watching carefully over the little boy who brought innocent joy to an otherwise gloomy household where the normally colourful velvet, silks, cottons, wools and linens that she ordered from north Africa and Europe now mostly arrived in a single colour – the black of mourning. Little Miguel was sworn in as heir to the crown of Castile but remained sickly. Isabella fretted over him, but he died in July 1500, just twenty-two months old. It was yet another terrible blow. His death took away both her main source of consolation for her other recent losses and her final hope of a male heir.”

And Kirstin Downey’s Isabella: the Warrior Queen:
“This new and terrible tragedy befell Isabella and Ferdinand just one year after Prince Juan’s death, when they were still grieving the loss of their son. This time, however, they were able to take consolation in the birth of a son, the new heir to the thrones of Portugal, Castile, and Aragon, as well as all the overseas dominions held by both countries. Aragon quickly granted him the right of succession. They named the infant boy Miguel de la Paz, but it soon became apparent he was weakly and would need careful tending to survive. King Manuel, now a widower, was needed back in Portugal, and so he went home, trustingly leaving the child in his mother-in-law’s care. Queen Isabella gave the child her full attention, but observers saw that the boy had only a small chance of growing to adulthood.”
 
Plausibility check: Is it possible that if Claude of France died circa 1519, that Francis I would elope with Mary Boleyn, thus resulting in a Boleyn Queen 14 years early?
 
Plausibility check: Is it possible that if Claude of France died circa 1519, that Francis I would elope with Mary Boleyn, thus resulting in a Boleyn Queen 14 years early?
If you could finagle things so that Francis didn't have a son and then Mary fell pregnant by him, I could see him doing it for the chance of a son...
 
I doubt he'd be that desperate. Unlike Henry VIII, he hasn't done anything to make princesses run in the other direction.
Yes, but he was a chivalrous knight. Faced with a woman pregnant with his child, which might be a Dauphin, I could see him doing it. Marry in haste and repent at leisure and all that. .
 
What would the reactions of the American populace be if any of the founding fathers (excluding George Washington for obvious reasons) were to somehow die during the early Republic period of the United States, preferably before James Madison commits himself to the anti-Federalist (later Democratic-Republican) cause? I am writing a TL that features this concept, albeit not as the main POD, but am unsure about what the public reaction would be. Would it be along regional lines and political lines?
 
What would the reactions of the American populace be if any of the founding fathers (excluding George Washington for obvious reasons) were to somehow die during the early Republic period of the United States, preferably before James Madison commits himself to the anti-Federalist (later Democratic-Republican) cause? I am writing a TL that features this concept, albeit not as the main POD, but am unsure about what the public reaction would be. Would it be along regional lines and political lines?
If George Washington died even his staunchest enemies domestically would be sad to see him go, I can't imagine how much the other Founding Fathers would have an impact on people's thoughts though, I'm not well-versed about American political consciousness in the wider population of the time.
 
I doubt he'd be that desperate. Unlike Henry VIII, he hasn't done anything to make princesses run in the other direction.
Yes, but he was a chivalrous knight. Faced with a woman pregnant with his child, which might be a Dauphin, I could see him doing it. Marry in haste and repent at leisure and all that. .
True, plus if it was a girl/stillborn he could always try and annul it on grounds she was contracted to somebody already.
 
Francis would've married Renee. Because of Brittany.
Renee was only nine at the time. I don’t think he’d want to wait 5 or 6 years to consummate their marriage.

Also, by 1519, Francis and Claude had two living children. Three, if Henri was born before Claude’s death. One of their kids would’ve inherited Brittany from her.
 
Renee was only nine at the time. I don’t think he’d want to wait 5 or 6 years to consummate their marriage.

Also, by 1519, Francis and Claude had two living children. Three, if Henri was born before Claude’s death. One of their kids would’ve inherited Brittany from her.
Sorry. I should have quoted this line too:
If you could finagle things so that Francis didn't have a son and then Mary fell pregnant by him, I could see him doing it for the chance of a son...
My bad.

If Francis still has Charlotte, Francis Jr and Henri as in OTL, you are right: he would have no reason to marry Renee.
 
Last edited:
Top