Denmark; WI No Frederick I?

[Mikestone8]

When Christian II of Denmark was deposed in 1523, his immediate family were passed over in favour of his uncle Frederick.

But what if said uncle had died young? There seem to be three possibilities

1) Christian's sister Elizabeth, married to Elector Joachim I of Brandenburg or her son Joachim II. .

2) King James V of Scots, descended from his aunt Margaret.

3) If they "go salic" nd hark back a *third* generation, there is Duke John V of Oldenburg, descended from Christian I's younger brother.

Ant thoughts on whom they choose - or would Christian II's children be restored at some point?

 

[Milites]

You could very well argue that no Frederick I means no rebellion against Christian II, or at least severely hampers it.

Besides the obvious issue of not having a credible pretender at hand, it was Frederick's power base in the Duchies that put iron in the glove of the Jutlandic rebels. If Frederick had died before producing any heirs, the 1490 inheritance division of Schleswig and Holstein would not have happened, leaving the king as sole duke of the two Elbe-provinces. In and of itself, that divergence is probably big enough to massively improve Christian II's position from the moment he was crowned, potentially to such a degree that his reign might have been stabilised enough to weather the massive crisis of 1521-23.

There is precedent of the council of the realm electing a king with very distant dynastic ties to the reigning house, but these instances occurred at times when there were little to no alternatives. On the other hand, we know that peripheral claimants might actually have entertained ideas of claiming the Danish/Norwegian crown. For example, Count Christopher, the son of the John V you mentioned, is speculated to have intervened in the Count's Feud hoping to use the cause of the deposed Christian II to pave his own way to the throne (a suggestion supported by the fact that his treaty with Lübeck mentioned the possibility of him succeeding Christian II).

Keeping the above in mind, I think John V or Christopher would be the most likely candidates out of the three options you've listed. Still, the counts of Oldenburg were neither as powerful nor as skilled as their Holsteiner cousins and as such my best bet is that the rebellion would be a dismal failure as opposed to OTL.

 

[Mikestone8]

Keeping the above in mind, I think John V or Christopher would be the most likely candidates out of the three options you've listed. Still, the counts of Oldenburg were neither as powerful nor as skilled as their Holsteiner cousins and as such my best bet is that the rebellion would be a dismal failure as opposed to OTL.

So, esp if his son's death is butterflied away, his line could hang on indefinitely.

 

[Milites]

If there is no deposition and Hans (or any of the other male children born by queen Isabella) survives long enough to either produce heirs or succeed his father, then yes.

The underlying causes of the rebellion (Christian II's promotion of burgher interests, disregard of noble and ecclesiastical privileges, ruthless centralisation efforts etc.) would most probably remain regardless of Frederick I kicking the bucket, but without a credible pretender, the strength of the rebellion is definitely weakened.

 

[isabella]

I wonder if is possible in this situation who Christian II will be assassinated instead of being deposed...

 

[Milites]

Tyrannicide wasn't much in vogue at the time. Not even when Christian was imprisoned in OTL (after he invaded Norway) or when a civil war broke out (with the official goal of the rebels being his restoration) did he lose his head.

 

[isabella]

Tyrannicide wasn't much in vogue at the time. Not even when Christian was imprisoned in OTL (after he invaded Norway) or when a civil war broke out (with the official goal of the rebels being his restoration) did he lose his head.

I said assassinated, not executed... and can be done with any means by some of his adversaries (including “accidents” and poison). Maybe killed would have been a better word...
Outright regicide is quite dangerous as Christian‘s young son would be his successor here

 

[Milites]

People who assassinate kings tend to view it as tyrannicide (especially if the perpetrator belongs to the higher estates) which is a kind of an execution (at least to those who wield the knife, so to speak).

 

[Mikestone8]

If there is no deposition and Hans (or any of the other male children born by queen Isabella) survives long enough to either produce heirs or succeed his father, then yes.

It occurs to me that had Hans lived he might have got it anyway.

Iirc there was a two year interregnum after Fred I's death, between those who wanted his son and those wishing to restore Christian II. If still alive, an 18yo Hans might have emerged as a compromise candidate.

 

[isabella]

It occurs to me that had Hans lived he might have got it anyway.

Iirc there was a two year interregnum after Fred I's death, between those who wanted his son and those wishing to restore Christian II. If still alive, an 18yo Hans might have emerged as a compromise candidate.

pretty likely then...

 

[Milites]

It occurs to me that had Hans lived he might have got it anyway.

Iirc there was a two year interregnum after Fred I's death, between those who wanted his son and those wishing to restore Christian II. If still alive, an 18yo Hans might have emerged as a compromise candidate.

Sorry, but no. The interregnum occurred because the Catholic members of the council of the realm did not want Frederick's son, Christian III, as their king since he was an avowed Lutheran. Instead, they hoped to elect his younger half-brother who could still be moulded into a good Catholic. It was this vacuum (where Denmark, in effect, was a noble republic) that paved the way for the subsequent civil war and the introduction of the Reformation.

The vast majority of the aristocracy did not want Christian II back. Indeed, at a parlay in Hamburg during his exile, representatives of the new regime had declared that they would rather prefer to invite Turks or Muscovites to rule over them, than see the king restored. If Hans had lived, what's to stop him from freeing his captive father the moment he took the throne? Remember, the crown enjoyed considerable fiscal as well as political independence through the Sound Dues and the Duchy of Holstein.

Given Christian II's reputation for dealing with people who crossed him, that was a very scary prospect for the nobility, many having actively participated in the deposition of 1523 or simply let it happen.

Besides, Hans had been raised as a Catholic at the Habsburg court in the Netherlands after his mother's death in 1526. That made him just as unlikely a candidate to the Lutheran aristocracy as his great-cousin was for the Catholics.