![]() Charles II was the proof you could lose big because of inbreeding: he was the result of three generations of uncle marrying their nieces and his great great grandfather Charles V had married a 1st cousin in the person of Isabella of Portugal. Plus, even if he had the capacity of fathering children, I'm not sure he would be able to do so: he was regarded as Ugly and also suffered from madness coupled with the fact he was mentally retarded. The effect of having the XXY combination often resulted in sterility of the affected: it is likely Charles II was impotent because of that. I don't remember the details, but it was discovred rather recently. After all, it is not at all like the King would have had a surfeit of men he to confide in, and who would be inclined to tell him the truth, is it? And even if some courtiers suspected it, they would have a very high burden of proof to meet, as I doubt a child-like king who has been told since birth that the most important thing he has to do is conceive an heir will be inclined to believe his beloved child is not his own.Ĭharles II of Spain wouldn't be able to father a son: he was born with a XXY combination of chromosomes thanks to a rare genetic illness. If either of his wives became pregnant he would have praised God for granting him a miracle, and not asked any questions. Not that far-fetched when you consider that Charles II was a drooling man-child, not some would-be Henry VIII, sniffing out adultery real or imagined. If Marie Louis de Orleans or Mariana of Neuburg finds the King's groomsmen, or some dashing captain of the Walloon Guard to be fetching, and were to become pregnant after an affair, their offspring would be considered the legal heir to the Spanish throne. So Philip II having a healthy son with Elizabeth Valois, or better, a couple of healthy children, would definitely widen the gene pool a little bit.Īm I the only one who sees an obvious solution here? The legal son of Charles II and the heir to the throne of the Spanish Empire need only be his acknowledged, not necessarily his biological son. Don Carlos, the ill fated son of Philip II had Joanna the Mad as a grandmother, and his mother Maria Manuela was also quite melancholic, with depression being quite prevalent in the Portuguese royal house as well. The Spanish Habsburgs were quite limited-aside from the uncle and niece matches, there was probably also some inherited schizophrenia present in the blood line too. I think if Philip II had a son and heir with Elizabeth of Valois, it'd inject enough new blood into the line that it could probably be fine until the 18th century, where there would be a more wide variety of princesses available to liven up the gene pool. Both Philip II and Philip IV had French wives, but neither had any surviving sons. But I think if you want the Spanish Habsburgs to keep living, you need some new blood. Now, Charles II was merely really bad luck, as Philip IV and Mariana had a healthy daughter and a healthy son prior to Charles II. The Spanish Habsburgs were simply unlucky in that that they tended to have at least two wives (Philip III is the only one who comes to mind who merely had one)-one of these wives was typically their niece from the Austrian branch, with the genetic collapse that occurred from three generations (Philip II through Philip IV) of nieces giving birth to their uncle's children. You aren't going to get a child out of him, it's just impossible. Besides all his physical and mental handicaps, he was also impotent. ![]() Unless a different son is born to Philip IV and Mariana is born who is simply named Charles at birth, it's not going to happen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |