Did too much inbreeding end the Spanish Habsburg line?

[Malthus]

Nein. My point from the beginning is that it was most confusing to have siblings and spouses virtually indistinct from one another. 

That's the Hapsburg problem in a nutshell. 

[garbon]

That's the Hapsburg problem in a nutshell. 

[grumbler]

Well, what the study seems to say, though, is not that inbreeding was the sole cause but that a number of hereditary deseases that accumulated in Charles II made it more likely.

The study argues that Charles II was the inheritor of a number of genetically transmitted diseases, which i think is unarguable.  This has little to do with the extinction of the dynasty, though, as he was just a single person - and not even one who would have inherited, had infant mortality not spiked in that generation.

[grumbler]

Huh, James II had a son and Charles II had countless bastards, and the majority of these scions had survived. It's the rotten womb of the latter's Queen and the Catholicism of the former that extinguished the Stuart line. In other words, circumstancial events.

Huh?     There were two Stuart monarchs after James II:  Mary II and Anne, who between them conceived 19 times but had no children who survived them.  That seems to be more than mere circumstance to me.

[garbon]

Huh?     There were two Stuart monarchs after James II:  Mary II and Anne, who between them conceived 19 times but had no children who survived them.  That seems to be more than mere circumstance to me.

I think his point was that while it is convenient to look at those awful Stuart sisters, the truth of the matter is that there were many available Stuarts, such that if the Stuarts hadn't been bumbling fools and England so strongly against Catholics, the dynasty could certainly have continued.  After all the Jacobite pretenders were a straight line of Stuarts trying to take back their throne.

[Drakken]

Huh?     There were two Stuart monarchs after James II:  Mary II and Anne, who between them conceived 19 times but had no children who survived them.  That seems to be more than mere circumstance to me.

I think his point was that while it is convenient to look at those awful Stuart sisters, the truth of the matter is that there were many of available Stuarts, such that if the Stuarts hadn't been bumbling fools and England so strongly against Catholics, the dynasty could certainly have continued.  After all the Jacobite pretenders were a straight line of Stuarts trying to take back their throne.

Bingo. In fact, James II's son and grandson could have increased their chances of reclaiming the English throne if they had accepted to become Protestants, which they refused, woe to them.

[Valmy]

Bingo. In fact, James II's son and grandson could have increased their chances of reclaiming the English throne if they had accepted to become Protestants, which they refused, woe to them.

The Stuarts were such asses.  I mean seriously how stupidly stubborn can you get?

[garbon]

The Stuarts were such asses.  I mean seriously how stupidly stubborn can you get?

Actually with James II and progeny, they simply needed to not be such pussy bitches.  I mean, why the fuck did James II run away from William when the odds were in his favor? Likewise, in his failed Ireland attempt, he bounced the second the times got tough.

[Valmy]

Actually with James II and progeny, they simply needed to not be such pussy bitches.  I mean, why the fuck did James II run away from William when the odds were in his favor? Likewise, in his failed Ireland attempt, he bounced the second the times got tough.

True Charles II knew how to be tough if he needed to.

I guess it is a combination of being inflexible and being a wimp besides.

Why did James II run away anyway?  Was it like Pompey Magus who just assumed Caesar must have a huge army if he was going to march on Rome?

[garbon]

Why did James II run away anyway?

That's what I've been trying to figure out.  It sounds like he just reacted emotionally (perhaps a trait inherited from Mary Stuart). I mean, he even did a somewhat smart thing of not inviting the French to help put down the invasion as he thought he could manage it on his own, and didn't want his people to react violently to his French connections...and then suddenly, he just lost resolve.

[garbon]

I guess it is a combination of being inflexible and being a wimp besides.

Yeah, if you are going to be authoritarian then you need to be willing to use force.

[Malthus]

Why did James II run away anyway?

That's what I've been trying to figure out.  It sounds like he just reacted emotionally (perhaps a trait inherited from Mary Stuart). I mean, he even did a somewhat smart thing of not inviting the French to help put down the invasion as he thought he could manage it on his own, and didn't want his people to react violently to his French connections...and then suddenly, he just lost resolve.

Having your dad beheaded can make you a trifle emotional about these things. 

But really - Mary, his own daughter turning against him with army. Tisk. And John Churchill!

[garbon]

Having your dad beheaded can make you a trifle emotional about these things. 

But really - Mary, his own daughter turning against him with army. Tisk. And John Churchill!

Charles II wasn't beheaded.

[Malthus]

Having your dad beheaded can make you a trifle emotional about these things. 

But really - Mary, his own daughter turning against him with army. Tisk. And John Churchill!

Charles II wasn't beheaded.

Charles II wasn't James II's dad - but his brother.

Edit: you fail at Stuarts. 

[garbon]

Charles II wasn't James II's dad - but his brother.

Edit: you fail at Stuarts. 

Oh yeah. Oops.

Anyway, I think if you were afraid of getting beheaded, you wouldn't push such a hardline like your father did.