It was the ambition of Charles the Bold, who they idolized, and it seems like a good way to consolidate their Burgundian possessions, and rub their noses at the French. Since they were Holy Roman Emperors they had the power to dispense such crowns.
Why didn't the Hapsburgs crown themselves King of Burgundy.
- Thread starter Prince of Permsia
- Start date
Well, only Charles V was even in the position to ever really try, and I suppose he had constantly more pressing matters to handle than finagling his way into having the German princes and/or the Papacy agreeing to that; without which the coronation would have been pretty moot even if legally valid.
Also, it would have raised questions about which branch of the family would get the new crown after Charles. Philip would have accumulated both the Spanish and Burgundian crowns? Ferdinand and his line could have objected to the King of Spain being their vassal AND and a King in his own right within the HRE.
If the Imperial line gets the Burgundian lands instead of the Spanish branch this could be more feasible (the Emperors would be Kings of Burgundy, and usually also kings of Bohemia) but this in turn seems more complicated than it would appear at first glance.
Also, it would have raised questions about which branch of the family would get the new crown after Charles. Philip would have accumulated both the Spanish and Burgundian crowns? Ferdinand and his line could have objected to the King of Spain being their vassal AND and a King in his own right within the HRE.
If the Imperial line gets the Burgundian lands instead of the Spanish branch this could be more feasible (the Emperors would be Kings of Burgundy, and usually also kings of Bohemia) but this in turn seems more complicated than it would appear at first glance.
I guess there are legal intricacies about titles et al., but yes, if they really wanted to, and spent the needed political capital, I think they could have done that.
If Charles V had a second son, he would have likely have left them with the Burgundian inheritance. But it's a question of how the low countries could be packaged. It probably would have been an overreach to declare a new Kingdom. And it would create an issue of a Kingdom not in direct control of the Holy Roman emperor(like the Kingdom of Bohemia), it couldn't be an Arch Duchy, since they are like the Highlander and there could only be one. Maybe a Grand Duchy of Burgundy or Grand Duchy of Lothar. But this was well before Tuscany became once, and other Grand Duchies were in the East
De-jure kingdoms as in CK3 didn’t really exist, and were rarely as well-defined even if they did. But yeah the old Kingdom of Burgundy/Arles had mainly been down south.
If Charles has second son he'd want him to succeede him as Emperor. IOTL he wanted Philip to get Imperial throne, but electors didn't want another wanderer-Emperor. Second son would solve that problem.
Adding another Burgundian kingdom throws up some constitutional questions- the kingdom of Bohemia obviously didn't have any representation in the Reichstag, it had its own representative bodies- would a kingdom of burgundy also get its own representative bodies? What happens to territories with imperial immediacy like the prince bishopric of liege which would presumably be included in the kingdom? If the Free county of burgundy is part of the new kingdom of burgundy, what happens to the duchy of Lorraine? Do you take away its imperial immediacy and merge it's representatives with the Burgundian estates general or do you leave it as part of the kingdom of Germany?
Ferdinand was already his heir as Emperor at that point, so is likely who Charles would try to elevate Burgundy/Netherlands as Kingdom for his second son
Last edited:
I actually did some Wikipedia based research on this last week. I was curious to what extent the Kingdom of Burgundy was a "real" for lack of better term entity in the Holy Roman Empire. Much of what we think of as the Holy Roman Empire was really the institutions of one of its component kingdoms, that of Germany.
The short answer is that it is a complicated issue. The long answer is that there was no post- Carolingian Kingdom of Burgundy, though there was the title "King of Burgundy", which the Holy Roman Emperors did in fact use.
The post Western Empire Kingdom of the Burgundians was incorporated into the Frankish empire, and has no successors other than giving it name to the region in France. The Treaty of Verdun divided Charlemagne's empire into three section. The Middle section was then divided into three parts, roughly Lorraine, Burgundy, and Italy. The territory in the northernmost section was quickly divided between Germany and France. "Burgundy" was based in Provence, and usually known as the Kingdom of Arles, though it reached northward to what is now the French region of Burgundy.
One of the Emperors of the Saxon dynasty inherited the Kingdom of Arles via a marriage. Throughout the high Middle Ages, the French Kings successfully incorporated more and more of the territory into France. What was left was more associated with Naples than with the Holy Roman Empire. In the 14th century, about the time of the Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles IV, France and Germany reached an agreement that the King of Germany would also hold the title of King of Burgundy, but the King of France would be his representative within the Kingdom of Burgundy, in other words France would get nearly all the territory but Germany would get the title. The Kingdom of Germany then annexed the remaining parts that had not already been incorporated into France, meaning essentially Switzerland, part of Swabia, and the Jura mountains west of Switzerland, which became part of France in later centuries. So by 1400 the "Kingdom of Burgundy" had disappeared except for the title.
The French Kings then created a Duchy of Burgundy for a cadet branch of the French royal house, which created the "Burgundy" which is the famous ones. About two third of its territories were in France and one third in Germany, as fiefs. It had no continuity and little territorial overlap with the Kingdom of Arles. Charles VI inherited all the German fiefs held by the Capetian Dukes, and some of the French fiefs, and had the Kingdom of Germany annex the French fiefs. Louis XIV would later take what had been the French territories back, except for Flanders.
So the Holy Roman Emperors used the title "King of Burgundy" down to 1804, but there was no such kingdom, and there hadn't been such a kingdom even on paper since the 14th century.
The short answer is that it is a complicated issue. The long answer is that there was no post- Carolingian Kingdom of Burgundy, though there was the title "King of Burgundy", which the Holy Roman Emperors did in fact use.
The post Western Empire Kingdom of the Burgundians was incorporated into the Frankish empire, and has no successors other than giving it name to the region in France. The Treaty of Verdun divided Charlemagne's empire into three section. The Middle section was then divided into three parts, roughly Lorraine, Burgundy, and Italy. The territory in the northernmost section was quickly divided between Germany and France. "Burgundy" was based in Provence, and usually known as the Kingdom of Arles, though it reached northward to what is now the French region of Burgundy.
One of the Emperors of the Saxon dynasty inherited the Kingdom of Arles via a marriage. Throughout the high Middle Ages, the French Kings successfully incorporated more and more of the territory into France. What was left was more associated with Naples than with the Holy Roman Empire. In the 14th century, about the time of the Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles IV, France and Germany reached an agreement that the King of Germany would also hold the title of King of Burgundy, but the King of France would be his representative within the Kingdom of Burgundy, in other words France would get nearly all the territory but Germany would get the title. The Kingdom of Germany then annexed the remaining parts that had not already been incorporated into France, meaning essentially Switzerland, part of Swabia, and the Jura mountains west of Switzerland, which became part of France in later centuries. So by 1400 the "Kingdom of Burgundy" had disappeared except for the title.
The French Kings then created a Duchy of Burgundy for a cadet branch of the French royal house, which created the "Burgundy" which is the famous ones. About two third of its territories were in France and one third in Germany, as fiefs. It had no continuity and little territorial overlap with the Kingdom of Arles. Charles VI inherited all the German fiefs held by the Capetian Dukes, and some of the French fiefs, and had the Kingdom of Germany annex the French fiefs. Louis XIV would later take what had been the French territories back, except for Flanders.
So the Holy Roman Emperors used the title "King of Burgundy" down to 1804, but there was no such kingdom, and there hadn't been such a kingdom even on paper since the 14th century.
Even when the kingdom of burgundy did exist on paper, it had no institutions of its own- Burgundian lords met as part of the Reichstags of the German kingdom, and it was to all intents and purposes a part of the German kingdom, even if it's one where most fiefs are administered by the French king.
This would be a new kingdom, and wouldn't claim any continuity with the kingdom of Arles.