Did too much inbreeding end the Spanish Habsburg line?

[dps]

I recognize that. I was simply interested in discussing the idea that infant/child mortality was a cause of the demise of the dynasties.

I thought that you were arguing that the deaths of 19 out of 19 children before their parents wasn't just a matter of chance, but rather something that implies that there was a genetic component to so many infant deaths. 

Ironically(?), James II lost his throne at the precise moment that he supplied a male heir to the throne. 

My understanding is that he was overthrown precisely because he produced a male heir, because it had previously been believed that he would be followed on the throne by a Protestant relative.

[grumbler]

I didn't realize that Anne and Mary were the only Stuarts.

Nor did I.  Perhaps you need to run the strawman detector over your statement.  I bet it goes off.

There were available Stuart heirs, parliament decided against them.

As there were available Spanish Habsbug heirs to carlos II who were passed over for political reasons.

I recognize that. I was simply interested in discussing the idea that infant/child mortality was a cause of the demise of the dynasties.

Which is precisely what I addressed, and which you seem to be ignoring.  I repeat:  Carlos II had three elder brothers, none of whom outlived their parents.  To me, the parallels with the last two, and contemporary, Stuarts seems a sufficient explanation for the demise of the two dynasties.  We don't need to rely on dubious genealogical explanations, let alone accept them as "obvious."

Oh, so the fact that Mary was married to a prince with independent forces / that Anne deserted her father played no role?

I smell a strawman!    "Almost no" is not "no role."  Parliament would have unseated James II under those circumstances even if Mary and Anne had died in childhood.  They would not have replaced him with Mary had she done so, though.

Ironically(?), James II lost his throne at the precise moment that he supplied a male heir to the throne.  Sure, James II provided the motive to oust him, but through Mary came the means.

There was no Mary in the decision to unseat Charles I, so I don't see your point.  In the case of James II, the need to unseat was even more pressing.  There was always the Palatinate descendants of James I to fall back on if no closer degrees of consanguinity could be established.

I don't know if I feel that way, but perhaps after all my readings, I will.

It is, above all, a fun period to read about.

[grumbler]

Not to mention many of us feel the Emperor Ferdinand I was as, if not more feeble than poor old Carlos II.   Ferdy was "retired" for the boy Emperor Franz-Josef in 1848.

But there were many vigorous emperors between Chuck V and Ferdinand, so I think the whole issue of "Habsburg inbreeding" is overstated in terms of introducing instability.  Sure, there were wacko individuals, but, as we have seen, this occurred in the much-less-inbred Stuarts, as well.

In any case, a fascinating study, regardless of our personal conclusions.  Let's keep going.

[garbon]

My understanding is that he was overthrown precisely because he produced a male heir, because it had previously been believed that he would be followed on the throne by a Protestant relative.

That's what I meant. It's ironic/funny in the context of the conversation that there was a lack of heirs (which in part was because a viable heir became illegitimate).