Did too much inbreeding end the Spanish Habsburg line?

[Malthus]

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.

*puffs pipe*

Playing airmchair psycho-historian ... maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals, and fear of suffering his fate.

[garbon]

*puffs pipe*

Playing airmchair psycho-historian ... maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals, and fear of suffering his fate.

So he decided to hang out with the French?

[Malthus]

*puffs pipe*

Playing airmchair psycho-historian ... maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals, and fear of suffering his fate.

So he decided to hang out with the French?

Hey, I never said they were *good* ideals. 

[Valmy]

maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals

I mean really...at some point you just have to decide London is worth not having a mass.

[garbon]

I mean really...at some point you just have to decide London is worth not having a mass.

Was it though? Parliament seemed to want to spoil all the fun.

[Drakken]

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.

Or Maybe, he just didn't want his head cut off and put on a pike like his father.

EDIT: Beaten to it. 

[Drakken]

I mean really...at some point you just have to decide London is worth not having a mass.

Was it though? Parliament seemed to want to spoil all the fun.

Especially that a King having a mass in London would probably mean the scaffold for being at the head of a Popish plot. 

Seriously, with such a bunch of fundies on Ritalin whining about a Catholic plot behind every shadow and every disaster farted by God, who wouldn't give up on these ungrateful jerks?  I'd prefer to live at Versailles in peace, quiet, and unconditionally subsided wealth.

[grumbler]

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.

I don't think his point counters my point, which is that the upsurge in infant/child mortality during this period is what doomed both the Stuart and Spanish Habsburg dynasties, no matter the genetic "defects" of Carlos II.  Carlos had three elder brothers who predeceased their father, after all.

If one is going to argue that politics is what doomed the Stuarts, one could do the same about the Spanish Habsburgs.  Carlos had several sisters who could have inherited, had not politics forbade, just as Anne and Mary had a brother who could have inherited, had not politics forbade.

[grumbler]

So he decided to hang out with the French?

He didn't have much of a choice.  It was his dad who decided he would hang out with the French, and as they say, "you may be the greatest King of England, but if you suck just one French cock..."

[garbon]

I don't think his point counters my point, which is that the upsurge in infant/child mortality during this period is what doomed both the Stuart and Spanish Habsburg dynasties, no matter the genetic "defects" of Carlos II.  Carlos had three elder brothers who predeceased their father, after all.

How are the Stuarts different from the Tudors in terms of mortality?  Like I said, I think politics is what doomed the Stuarts.  It is never good to have daughters unseat their father.

If one is going to argue that politics is what doomed the Stuarts, one could do the same about the Spanish Habsburgs.  Carlos had several sisters who could have inherited, had not politics forbade, just as Anne and Mary had a brother who could have inherited, had not politics forbade.

Maybe, I don't know enough abut the Hapsburbgs.  I would say that the Stuart situation is different in that Anne and Mary helped cause the downfall of their house (by unseating the sitting monarch and natural heir).

[garbon]

He didn't have much of a choice.  It was his dad who decided he would hang out with the French, and as they say, "you may be the greatest King of England, but if you suck just one French cock..."

Actually, he should have gone to Poland!

[Valmy]

Especially that a King having a mass in London would probably mean the scaffold for being at the head of a Popish plot. 

Right.  Which is why I said London is worth NOT HAVING a mass.

Anyway as an actual Catholic James II had lots of Masses in London.

[grumbler]

How are the Stuarts different from the Tudors in terms of mortality?

the Tudors had six of 12 children outlive their parents.  That is a bit different than 0 of 19.

Like I said, I think politics is what doomed the Stuarts.  It is never good to have daughters unseat their father.

Dunno what this means. The Stuart dynasty died because there were no heirs that lived to either Mary II or Anne.   That doomed them.

Maybe, I don't know enough abut the Hapsburbgs.  I would say that the Stuart situation is different in that Anne and Mary helped cause the downfall of their house (by unseating the sitting monarch and natural heir).

But the two dynasties were the same in that the lack of heirs (because the heir died in childhood or early adulthood) caused their extinction, not some genetic issues.  That was my sole point, and it was in response to the original point of the thread.

The failures of the descendants of Charles I were interesting, and worth discussing, but not central to the original idea of the thread.

I would note that Mary II and Anne had almost nothing whatever to do with the unseating of their father.  He brought that on himself (and, given the bizarro world in which all the Stuarts seemed to live, was probably a great thing).  The only Stuarts for whom one can feel the slightest sympathy are James VI/I and the two sisters. The two Charleses and James II would have been far better people had they been stillborn or died in childhood, as all of Mary II's and Anne's progeny did.

Cromwell was a wacko, but he was right as far as the Stuarts were concerned.

[garbon]

the Tudors had six of 12 children outlive their parents.  That is a bit different than 0 of 19.

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

The Stuart dynasty died because there were no heirs that lived to either Mary II or Anne.   That doomed them.

There were available Stuart heirs, parliament decided against them.

But the two dynasties were the same in that the lack of heirs (because the heir died in childhood or early adulthood) caused their extinction, not some genetic issues.  That was my sole point, and it was in response to the original point of the thread.

The failures of the descendants of Charles I were interesting, and worth discussing, but not central to the original idea of the thread.

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 would note that Mary II and Anne had almost nothing whatever to do with the unseating of their father.  He brought that on himself (and, given the bizarro world in which all the Stuarts seemed to live, was probably a great thing).

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

Cromwell was a wacko, but he was right as far as the Stuarts were concerned.

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

[Habsburg]

Didn't they start marrying smarter genetically after the Spanish branch died out?  They seem to have married minor German dynasties after that.

They still married first-degree cousins, though. Sissi's mother was Franz Joseph's aunt.

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.