The Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. Part VIII: Peace of Pressburg

Tags

Austria, Baden, Battle of Austerlitz, Bavaria, Confederation of the Rhine, France, Napoleon Bonaparte, Peace of Pressburg, The Holy Roman Empire, The War of the Third Coalition, Württemberg

Peace of Pressburg

The War of the Third Coalition came too soon for Austria, which moved against France in September 1805. Defeated at the Battle of Austerlitz on December 2, 1805, Austria had to accept terms dictated by Napoleon in the Peace of Pressburg (December 26).

These created deliberate ambiguities in the imperial constitution. Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg were granted plénitude de la souveraineté (full sovereignty) while remaining a part of the Conféderation Germanique (Germanic Confederation), a novel name for the Holy Roman Empire.

Likewise, it was left deliberately unclear whether the Duchy of Cleves, the Duchy of Berg and the County of Mark—imperial territories transferred to Joachim Murat—were to remain imperial fiefs or become part of the French Empire. As late as March 1806, Napoleon was uncertain whether they should remain nominally within the Empire.

The Free Imperial Knights, who had survived the attack on their rights in the Rittersturm of 1803–04, were subject to a second attack and a spate of annexations by those states allied to Napoleon in November–December 1805.

In response, the knights’ corporation (corpus equestre) dissolved itself on January 20, 1806. With the dissolution of the Empire, the knights ceased to be either free or imperial and were at the mercy of the newly sovereign states.

Contemporaries saw the defeat at Austerlitz as a turning point of world-historical significance. The Peace of Pressburg, too, was perceived as radical shift. It did not affirm previous treaties in the usual way and its wording seemed to raise Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg into equals of the empire while downgrading the latter to a merely German confederation.

Nevertheless, Bavaria and Württemberg reaffirmed to the Reichstag that they were subject to imperial law. Some commentators argued that plénitude de la souveraineté was just a French translation of Landeshoheit (the quasi-sovereignty possessed by imperial estates) and the treaty had not altered the relationship between the members and the empire.

Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine

Throughout the first half of 1806, Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg attempted to steer an independent course between the demands of the empire and Napoleon. In April 1806, Napoleon sought a treaty whereby the three states would ally themselves to France in perpetuity while forswearing participation in future Reichskriege (imperial war efforts) and submitting to a commission de méditation under his presidency to resolve their disputes. Despite all of this, they were to remain members of the empire. Württemberg ultimately refused to sign.

In June 1806, Napoleon began pressuring Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg for the creation of confédération de la haute Allemagne (Upper German confederation) outside the empire. On July 12, 1806, these three states and thirteen other minor German princes formed the Confederation of the Rhine, effectively a French satellite state.

On August 1, the Reichstag was informed by a French envoy that Napoleon no longer recognized the existence of the Holy Roman Empire and on the same day, nine of the princes who had formed the Confederation of the Rhine issued a proclamation in which they justified their actions by claiming that the Holy Roman Empire had already collapsed and ceased to function due to the defeat in the Battle of Austerlitz.

Ferdinand I of the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies. Part II.

Tags

Austria, Congress of Vienna, France, Joachim Murat, King Ferdinand IV-III of Naples and Sicily, King Ferdinand of the Two-Sicilies, Napoleon Bonaparte, Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia-Piedmont

King Ferdinand IV-III of Naples and Sicily returned to Naples soon after the wars with France and ordered a few hundred who had collaborated with the French executed. This stopped only when the French successes forced him to agree to a treaty which included amnesty for members of the French party.

When war broke out between France and Austria in 1805, Ferdinand signed a treaty of neutrality with the former, but a few days later he allied himself with Austria and allowed an Anglo-Russian force to land at Naples.

The French victory at the Battle of Austerlitz on December 2, enabled Napoleon to dispatch an army to southern Italy. Ferdinand fled to Palermo (January 23, 1806), followed soon after by his wife and son, and on February 14, 1806 the French again entered Naples.

Napoleon declared that the Bourbon dynasty had forfeited the crown, and proclaimed his brother Joseph King of Naples and Sicily. But Ferdinand continued to reign over Sicily (becoming the first King of Sicily in centuries to actually reside there) under British protection.

Parliamentary institutions of a feudal type had long existed in the island, and Lord William Bentinck, the British minister, insisted on a reform of the constitution on English and French lines. The king indeed practically abdicated his power, appointing his son Francis as regent, and the queen, at Bentinck’s insistence, was exiled to Austria, where she died in 1814.

Restoration

The Restoration of Naples and Sicily were part of the workings of the Congress of Vienna.

The Congress of Vienna of 1814–1815 was an international diplomatic conference to reconstitute the European political order after the downfall of the French Emperor Napoleon I. It was a meeting of ambassadors of European states chaired by Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich, and held in Vienna from November 1814 to June 1815

The Congress restored the Papal States to Pope Pius VII. King Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia was restored to Piedmont, its mainland possession, and also gained control of the Republic of Genoa. In Southern Italy, Napoleon’s brother-in-law, Joachim Murat, was originally allowed to retain the Kingdom of Naples, but his support for Napoleon in the Hundred Days led to the restoration of the Bourbon Ferdinand IV to the throne.

December 11, 1688: The Glorious Revolution of 1688: King James II-VII is Captured at Faversham

Tags

1542 Crown of Ireland Act, Articles of Grievances, Convention Parliament, Faversham, France, Glorious Revolution, James II-VII of England Scotland and Ireland, Kirk, Mary II of England Scotland and Ireland, William III-II of England Scotland and Ireland

The Queen (Mary of Modena) and James Francis, Prince of Wales left for France on December 9, 1688 and King James II-VII followed separately on 10th. Accompanied only by Sir Edward Hales and Ralph Sheldon, James made his way to Faversham in Kent seeking passage to France, first dropping the Great Seal in the Thames in a last ditch attempt to prevent Parliament being summoned.

In London, his flight and rumours of a “Papist” invasion led to riots and destruction of Catholic property, which quickly spread throughout the country. To fill the power vacuum, the Earl of Rochester set up a temporary government including members of the Privy Council and City of London authorities, but it took them two days to restore order.

When news arrived James II-VII had been captured in Faversham on 11 December 11, by local fishermen, Lord Ailesbury, one of his personal attendants, was sent to escort him back to London; on entering the city on 16th, James II-VII was welcomed by cheering crowds. By making it seem James remained in control, Tory loyalists hoped for a settlement which would leave them in government; to create an appearance of normality, he heard Mass and presided over a meeting of the Privy Council.

However, James made it clear to the French ambassador he still intended to escape to France, while his few remaining supporters viewed his flight as cowardice, and failure to ensure law and order criminally negligent.

Happy to help him into exile, Prince William of Orange recommended he relocate to Ham, London, largely because it was easy to escape from. James suggested Rochester instead, allegedly because his personal guard was there, in reality conveniently positioned for a ship to France.

On December 18, James II-VII left London with a Dutch escort as William of Orange entered, cheered by the same crowds who greeted his predecessor two days before. On December 22nd, Berwick arrived in Rochester with blank passports allowing them to leave England, while his guards were told that if James wanted to leave, “they should not prevent him, but allow him to gently slip through”. Although Ailesbury and others begged him to stay, James II-VII left for France on December 23, 1688.

The Revolutionary Settlement

James’ departure significantly shifted the balance of power in favour of William of Orange, who took control of the provisional government on December 28. Elections were held in early January for a Convention Parliament which assembled on 22nd; the Whigs had a slight majority in the Commons, the Lords was dominated by the Tories but both were led by moderates. Archbishop Sancroft and other Stuart loyalists wanted to preserve the line of succession; although they recognised keeping James on the throne was no longer possible, they preferred James’s daughter and Princess Mary either be appointed his regent or sole monarch.

The next two weeks were spent debating how to resolve this issue, much to the annoyance of William, who needed a swift resolution; the situation in Ireland was rapidly deteriorating, while the French had over-run large parts of the Rhineland and were preparing to attack the Dutch.

At a meeting with Danby and Halifax on February 3, 1689, William announced his intention to return home if the Convention did not appoint him joint monarch, while Mary let it be known she would only rule jointly with her husband. Faced with this ultimatum, on February 6, the Convention Parliament declared that in deserting his people James had abdicated and thus vacated the crown, which was therefore offered jointly to William of Orange and Mary.

James II-VII, King England, Scotland and Ireland

Historian Tim Harris argues the most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was breaking the succession and establishing the idea of a “contract” between ruler and people, a fundamental rebuttal of the Stuart ideology of the Divine Right of Kings. While this was a victory for the Whigs, other pieces of legislation were proposed by the Tories, often with moderate Whig support, designed to protect the Anglican establishment from being undermined by future monarchs, including the Calvinist William III.

The Declaration of Right was a tactical compromise, setting out where James had failed and establishing the rights of English citizens, without agreeing their cause or offering solutions. In December 1689, this was incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

However, there were two areas that arguably broke new constitutional ground, both responses to what were viewed as specific abuses by James II-VII. First, the Declaration of Right made keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent illegal, overturning the 1661 and 1662 Militia Acts and vesting control of the military in Parliament, not the Crown.

The second was the Coronation Oath Act 1688; the result of James’ perceived failure to comply with that taken in 1685, it established obligations owed by the monarchy to the people.

At their coronation of April 11, 1689 William III and Mary II swore to “govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same”. They were also to maintain the Protestant Reformed faith and “preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and its doctrine, worship, discipline and government as by law established”.

William III-II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

Although William III and Mary II were proclaimed joint sovereigns of England, Scotland as an independent kingdom, could theoretically proclaime their own separate monarch..

Scotland was not involved in the landing of William of Orange, by November 1688 only a tiny minority actively supported James; many of those who accompanied William were Scots exiles, including Melville, the Argyll, his personal chaplain William Carstares and Gilbert Burnet.

News of James’s flight led to celebrations and anti-Catholic riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Most members of the Scottish Privy Council went to London; on January 7, 1689, they asked William III to take over the Scottish government.

Elections were held in March for a Scottish Convention, which was also a contest between Presbyterians and Episcopalians for control of the Kirk. While only 50 of the 125 delegates were classed as Episcopalian, they were hopeful of victory since William III supported the retention of bishops.

However, on March 16, a Letter from James II-VII was read out to the convention, demanding obedience and threatening punishment for non-compliance. Public anger at its tone meant some Episcopalians stopped attending the convention, claiming to fear for their safety and others changed sides.

The 1689–1691 Jacobite Rising forced William III to make concessions to the Presbyterians, ended Episcopacy in Scotland and excluded a significant portion of the political class. Many later returned to the Kirk but Non-Juring Episcopalianism was the key determinant of Jacobite support in both 1715 and 1745.

The English Parliament held James II-VII abandoned his throne; the Convention argued he ‘forfeited’ it by his actions, as listed in the Articles of Grievances. On 11 April, the Convention ended James’ reign and adopted the Articles of Grievances and the Claim of Right Act, making Parliament the primary legislative power in Scotland.

On May 11, 1689 William III and Mary II accepted the Crown of Scotland; after their acceptance, the Claim and the Articles were read aloud, leading to an immediate debate over whether or not an endorsement of these documents was implicit in that acceptance. In Scotland William was known as William II.

Under the 1542 Crown of Ireland Act, the English monarch was automatically King of Ireland as well. Tyrconnell had created a largely Roman Catholic army and administration which was reinforced in March 1689 when James II-VII landed in Ireland with French military support; it took two years of fighting before the new regime controlled Ireland.

The Life of King Edward VII of the United Kingdom. Conclusion

Tags

Albert-Edward Prince of Wales, Balfour, Ceasar, Emperor of India, France, George I of Greece, German Emperor Wilhelm II, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom, Queen Alexandra

When Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901, Edward became King of the United Kingdom, Emperor of India and, in an innovation, King of the British Dominions. He chose to reign under the name of Edward VII, instead of Albert Edward—the name his mother had intended for him to use—declaring that he did not wish to “undervalue the name of Albert” and diminish the status of his father with whom the “name should stand alone”.

The numeral VII was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the national church, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had “been excluded from Scotland by battle”. J. B. Priestley recalled, “I was only a child when he succeeded Victoria in 1901, but I can testify to his extraordinary popularity. He was in fact the most popular king England had known since the earlier 1660s.”

As king, Edward played a role in the modernisation of the British Home Fleet and the reorganisation of the British Army after the Second Boer War of 1899–1902. He re-instituted traditional ceremonies as public displays and broadened the range of people with whom royalty socialised.

He fostered good relations between Britain and other European countries, especially France, for which he was popularly called “Peacemaker”, but his relationship with his nephew, the German Emperor Wilhelm II, was poor.

The Edwardian era, which covered Edward’s reign and was named after him, coincided with the start of a new century and heralded significant changes in technology and society, including steam.

Death

Edward habitually smoked twenty cigarettes and twelve cigars a day. In 1907, a rodent ulcer, a type of cancer affecting the skin next to his nose, was cured with radium. Towards the end of his life he increasingly suffered from bronchitis.

He suffered a momentary loss of consciousness during a state visit to Berlin in February 1909. In March 1910, he was staying at Biarritz when he collapsed. He remained there to convalesce, while in London Asquith tried to get the Finance Bill passed.

The king’s continued ill health was unreported, and he attracted criticism for staying in France while political tensions were so high. On April 27, he returned to Buckingham Palace, still suffering from severe bronchitis. Alexandra returned from visiting her brother, King George I of Greece, in Corfu a week later on May 5.

On May 6, Edward suffered several heart attacks, but refused to go to bed, saying, “No, I shall not give in; I shall go on; I shall work to the end.” Between moments of faintness, his son the Prince of Wales (shortly to be King George V) told him that his horse, Witch of the Air, had won at Kempton Park that afternoon.

The king replied, “Yes, I have heard of it. I am very glad”: his final words. At 11:30 p.m. he lost consciousness for the last time and was put to bed. He died 15 minutes later. The Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne as King George V.

Alexandra refused to allow Edward’s body to be moved for eight days afterwards, though she allowed small groups of visitors to enter his room. On May 11, the late king was dressed in his uniform and placed in a massive oak coffin, which was moved on May 14 to the throne room, where it was sealed and lay in state, with a guardsman standing at each corner of the bier.

Despite the time that had elapsed since his death, Alexandra noted the King’s body remained “wonderfully preserved”. On the morning of May 17, the coffin was placed on a gun carriage and drawn by black horses to Westminster Hall, with the new king, his family and Edward’s favourite dog, Caesar, walking behind.

Following a brief service, the royal family left, and the hall was opened to the public; over 400,000 people filed past the coffin over the next two days. As Barbara Tuchman noted in The Guns of August, his funeral, held on May 20, 1910, marked “the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last.” A royal train conveyed the king’s coffin from London to Windsor Castle, where Edward VII was buried at St George’s Chapel.

October 9, 1934: Assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia

Tags

Alexander of Yugoslavia, Assassination, Barthou, Benito Mussolini, France, House of Karađorđević, House of Ober, House of Obrenović, Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes, Maria of Romania, Marie of Edinburgh

Alexander I (December 16, 1888 – October 9, 1934), also known as Alexander the Unifier, was a prince regent of the Kingdom of Serbia from 1914 and later a King of Yugoslavia from 1921 to 1934 (prior to 1929 the state was known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes). He was assassinated by the Bulgarian Vlado Chernozemski, during a 1934 state visit to France.

Alexander Karađorđević was born on December 16, 1888 in the Principality of Montenegro as the fourth child (second son) of Peter Karađorđević (son of Prince Alexander of Serbia who thirty years earlier in 1858 was forced to abdicate and surrender power in Serbia to the rival House of Obrenović) and Princess Zorka of Montenegro (eldest daughter of Prince Nicholas of Montenegro). Despite enjoying support from the Russian Empire, at the time of Alexander’s birth and early childhood, the House of Karađorđević was in political exile, with family members scattered all over Europe, unable to return to Serbia.

In 1903, while young brothers George and Alexander Karađorđević were in school, their father Peter, and a slew of conspirators pulled off a bloody coup d’état in the Kingdom of Serbia known as the May Overthrow in which King Alexander and Queen Draga were murdered and dismembered.

The House of Karađorđević thus retook the Serbian throne after forty-five years of absence and Alexander’s 58-year-old father became King of Serbia, prompting George’s and Alexander’s return to Serbia to continue their studies. After Alexander’s 15th birthday, King Peter had Alexander enlisted into the Royal Serbian Army as a private with instructions to his officers to only promote his son if he proved worthy. On March 25, 1909, Alexander was suddenly recalled to Belgrade by his father with no explanation offered other than that he had an important announcement for his son.

On December 1, 1918, The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created by the unification of the Kingdom of Serbia (the Kingdom of Montenegro had united with Serbia five days previously, while the regions of Kosovo, Vojvodina and Vardar Macedonia were parts of Serbia prior to the unification) and the provisional State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (itself formed from territories of the former Austria-Hungary).

In a prearranged set piece, Alexander, as Prince Regent, received a delegation of the People’s Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, an address was read out by one of the delegation, and Alexander made an address in acceptance. This was considered to be the birth of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

In August 1921, on the death of his father, Alexander inherited the throne of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which from its inception was colloquially known both in the Kingdom and the rest of Europe alike as Yugoslavia. The historian Brigit Farley described Alexander as something of a cipher to historians as he was a taciturn and reserved man who loathed to express his feelings either in person or in writing. As Alexander kept no diary or wrote no memoirs, Farley wrote that any biography of Alexander could easily be titled “In search of King Alexander” as he remains an elusive and enigmatic figure.

On June 8, 1922 he married Princess Maria of Romania (1900 – 1961), who was a daughter of Ferdinand I of Romania and Princess Marie of Edinburgh. Princess Marie of Edinburgh was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom by her second son, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh and reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Alexander and Maria had three sons: Crown Prince Peter, and Princes Tomislav and Andrej. Alexander was said to have wished to marry Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia, a cousin of his wife and the second daughter of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, and was distraught by her untimely death in the Russian Civil War.

The Russophile Alexander was horrified by the murders of the House of Romanov-including the Grand Duchess Tatiana-and during his reign was very hostile towards the Soviet Union, welcoming Russian emigres to Belgrade.

The lavish royal wedding to Princess Maria of Romania was intended to cement the alliance with Romania, a fellow “victor nation” in World War I which like Yugoslavia had territorial disputes with the defeated nations like Hungary and Bulgaria. For Alexander, the royal wedding was especially satisfactory as most of the royal families of Europe attended, which showed that the House of Karađorđević, a family of peasant origins who were disliked for slaughtering the rival House of Obrenović in 1903, were finally accepted by the rest of European royalty.

Until January 6, 1929, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was a parliamentary monarchy. On that day, King Alexander I abolished the Vidovdan Constitution (adopted in 1921), prorogued the National Assembly and introduced a personal dictatorship (so-called January 6, Dictatorship). He officially renamed the country the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on October 3, 1929 and, although granted the 1931 Constitution, continued to rule as a de facto absolute monarch.

Assassination

After the Ustaše’s Velebit uprising in November 1932, Alexander said through an intermediary to the Italian government, “If you want to have serious riots in Yugoslavia or cause a regime change, you need to kill me. Shoot at me and be sure you have finished me off, because that’s the only way to make changes in Yugoslavia.”

The French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou had attempted in 1934 to build an alliance meant to contain Germany, consisting of France’s allies in Eastern Europe like Yugoslavia, together with Italy and the Soviet Union. The long-standing rivalry between Benito Mussolini and King Alexander had complicated Barthou’s work as Alexander complained about Italian claims against his country together with support for Hungarian revisionism and the Croat Ustaše terrorist group.

As long as France’s ally Yugoslavia continued to have disputes with Italy, Barthou’s plans for an Italo-French rapprochement would be stillborn. During a visit to Belgrade in June 1934, Barthou promised the King that France would pressure Mussolini into signing a treaty under which he would renounce his claims against Yugoslavia. Alexander was sceptical of Barthou’s plan, noting that there were hundreds of Ustašhi being sheltered in Italy and it was rumoured that Mussolini had financed an unsuccessful attempt by the Ustaše to assassinate him in December 1933.

Mussolini had come to believe that it was only the personality of Alexander that was holding Yugoslavia together and if the King were assassinated, then Yugoslavia would descend into civil war, thus allowing Italy to annex certain regions of Yugoslavia without the fear of France. However, France was Yugoslavia’s closest ally and Barthou invited Alexander for a visit to France to sign a Franco-Yugoslav agreement that would allow Barthou to, in his words, “go to Rome with the certainty of success”.

As a result of the previous deaths of three family members on Tuesdays, Alexander refused to undertake any public functions on that day of the week. On Tuesday, October 9, 1934, however, he had no choice, as he was arriving in Marseille to start a state visit to France, to strengthen the two countries’ alliance in the Little Entente.

While Alexander was being slowly driven in a car through the streets along with French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou, a gunman, the Bulgarian Vlado Chernozemski, stepped from the street and shot the King twice, and the chauffeur, with a Mauser C96 semiautomatic pistol.

Alexander died in the car, slumped backwards in the seat, with his eyes open. French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou was also killed by a stray bullet fired by French police during the scuffle following the attack. It was one of the first assassinations captured on film; the shooting occurred in front of the newsreel cameraman, who was only metres away at the time. While the exact moment of shooting was not captured on film, the events leading to the assassination and the immediate aftermath were. The body of the chauffeur (who had been wounded) slumped and jammed against the brakes of the car, allowing the cameraman to continue filming from within inches of the King for a number of minutes afterwards.

The assassin was a member of the pro-Bulgarian Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO or VMRO) and an experienced marksman. Immediately after assassinating King Alexander, Chernozemski was cut down by the sword of a mounted French policeman, and then beaten by the crowd.

By the time he was removed from the scene, the King was already dead. The IMRO was a political organization that fought for the liberation of the occupied region of Macedonia and its independence, initially as some form of second Bulgarian state, followed by a later unification with the Kingdom of Bulgaria.

A prominent diplomat with the Palazzo Chigi, Baron Pompeo Aloisi, expressed fears that the Ustashi based in Italy had killed the King, and sought reassurances from another diplomat, Paolo Cortese, that Italy had not been involved. Aloisi was not reassured when Cortese told him that with Alexander dead, Yugoslavia was about to break up.

Public opinion and press in Yugoslavia held that Italy had been crucial in the planning and directing of the assassination. Demonstrations took place outside of the Italian embassy in Belgrade together with the Italian consulates in Zagreb and Ljubljana by people blaming Mussolini for Alexander’s assassination.

An investigation by the French police quickly established that the assassins had been trained and armed in Hungary, had traveled to France on forged Czechoslovak passports, and frequently telephoned Ustaše leader Ante Pavelić, who was living in Italy.

The incident was later used by Yugoslavia as an argument to counter the Croatian attempts of secession and Italian and Hungarian revisionism. The participants in the assassination were Ivan Rajić, Mijo Kralj, Zvonimir Pospišil and Antun Godina. They were sentenced to life in prison although the Yugoslav authorities had expected that they would be sentenced to death. In 1940, after the fall of France they were released from prison by the Nazis.

Pierre Laval, who succeeded Barthou as foreign minister, wished to continue the rapprochement with Rome, and saw the assassinations in Marseille as an inconvenience that was best forgotten. Both London and Paris made it clear that they regarded Mussolini as responsible and in private told Belgrade that under no circumstances would they allow Il Duce to be blamed.

In a speech in Northampton, England, on October 19, 1934, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, expressed his sympathy to the people of Yugoslavia over the king’s assassination while also saying he was convinced by Mussolini’s speech in Milan denying his involvement in the assassination.

When Yugoslavia made an extradition request to Italy for Pavelić on charges of regicide, the Quai d’Orsay expressed concern that if Pavelić were extradited, he might incriminate Mussolini and were greatly reassured when their counterparts at the Palazzo Chigi stated there was no possibility of Pavelić being extradited. Laval cynically told a French journalist “off-the-record” that the French press should stop going on about the assassinations in Marseille because France would never go to war to defend the honour of a weak country like Yugoslavia.

The following day, the body of King Alexander I was transported back to the port of Split in Yugoslavia by the destroyer JRM Dubrovnik. After a huge funeral in Belgrade attended by about 500,000 people and many leading European statesmen, Alexander was interred in the Oplenac Church in Topola, which had been built by his father.

The Holy See gave special permission to bishops Aloysius Stepinac, Antun Akšamović, Dionisije Njaradi, and Gregorij Rožman to attend the funeral in an Orthodox church. As his son Peter II was still a minor, Alexander’s first cousin Prince Paul took the regency of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

A ballistic report on the bullets found in the car was made in 1935, but the results were not made available to the public until 1974. They revealed that Barthou was hit by an 8 mm Modèle 1892 revolver round commonly used in weapons carried by French police.

After the assassination, relations between Yugoslavia and France became colder and never returned to the previous level. Also, the Little Entente and the Balkan Pact lost their importance. For the part of the Yugoslav public, it was shocking that the assassination had happened on French soil. In the coming years, the new Regency of Prince Paul attempted to keep neutral balance between London and Berlin until 1940–41 when he was forced under heavy pressure to join the Tripartite Pact.

Emperor Paul I of Russia. Conclusion

Tags

Assassination, Emperor Alexander I of Russia, Emperor Napoleon of France, Emperor Paul I of Russia, Empress Catherine II of Russia, France, Great Britain, Nikolay Zubov, St. Michael's Castle

Emperor Paul’s early foreign policy can largely be seen as reactions against his mother’s foreign policy. In foreign policy, this meant that he opposed the many expansionary wars she fought and instead preferred to pursue a more peaceful, diplomatic path. Immediately upon taking the throne, he recalled all troops outside Russian borders, including the struggling expedition Catherine II had sent to conquer Iran through the Caucasus and the 60,000 men she had promised to Britain and Austria to help them defeat the French.

Paul hated the French before their revolution, and afterwards, with their republican and anti-religious views, he detested them even more. In addition to this, he knew French expansion hurt Russian interests, but he recalled his mother’s troops primarily because he firmly opposed wars of expansion. He also believed that Russia needed substantial governmental and military reforms to avoid an economic collapse and a revolution, before Russia could wage war on foreign soil.

The most original aspect of Paul I’s foreign policy was his rapprochement with France. Several scholars have argued that this change in position, radical though it seemed, made sense, as Bonaparte became First Consul and made France a more conservative state, consistent with Paul’s view of the world.

Paul also decided to send a Cossack army to take British India, as Britain itself was almost impervious to direct attack, being an island nation with a formidable navy, but the British had left India largely unguarded and would have great difficulty staving off a force that came over land to attack it.

The British themselves considered this enough of a problem that they signed three treaties with Persia, in 1801, 1809 and 1812, to guard against an army attacking India through Central Asia. Paul sought to attack the British where they were weakest: through their commerce and their colonies. Throughout his reign, his policies focused reestablishing peace and the balance of power in Europe, while supporting autocracy and old monarchies, without seeking to expand Russia’s borders.

Paul’s premonitions of assassination were well founded. His attempts to force the nobility to adopt a code of chivalry alienated many of his trusted advisors. The Emperor also discovered outrageous machinations and corruption in the Russian treasury.

As he had revoked Catherine’s decree allowing corporal punishment of the free classes, and directed reforms that resulted in greater rights for the peasantry and provided for better treatment for serfs on agricultural estates, many of his policies greatly annoyed the noble class and induced his enemies to work out a plan of action.

A conspiracy was organized, some months before it was executed, by Counts Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen, Nikita Petrovich Panin, and Admiral de Ribas, with the alleged support of the British ambassador in Saint Petersburg, Charles Whitworth.

The death of de Ribas in December 1800 delayed the assassination; but, on the night of March 23, 1801, a band of dismissed officers murdered Paul at the newly completed palace of Saint Michael’s Castle. The assassins included General Bennigsen, a Hanoverian in the Russian service, and General Yashvil, a Georgian.

They charged into Paul’s bedroom, flushed with drink after dining together, and found the emperor hiding behind some drapes in the corner. The conspirators pulled him out, forced him to the table, and tried to compel him to sign his abdication. Paul offered some resistance, and Nikolay Zubov struck him with a sword, after which the assassins strangled and trampled him to death.

Paul’s successor on the Russian throne, his 23-year-old son Alexander, was actually in the palace at the time of the killing; he had “given his consent to the overthrow of Paul, but had not supposed that this would be carried out by means of assassination”. General Nikolay Zubov announced his accession to the heir, accompanied by the admonition, “Time to grow up! Go and rule!” Alexander I did not punish the assassins, and the court physician, James Wylie, declared apoplexy the official cause of death.

Legacy

There is some evidence that Paul I was venerated as a saint among the Russian Orthodox populace, even though he was never officially canonized by any of the Orthodox Churches.

July 16, 1951: Abdication of Leopold III, king of the Belgians. Part I.

Tags

Abdication, France, Government in Exile, King of the Belgians, Leopold III of Belgium, World War ii

Leopold III (November 3, 1901 – September 25, 1983) was King of the Belgians from 1934 until 1951. On the outbreak of World War II, Leopold tried to maintain Belgian neutrality, but after the German invasion in May 1940, he surrendered his country, earning him much hostility, both at home and abroad.

Prince Leopold was born in Brussels, the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of Brabant, heir to the Belgian throne, and his consort, Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria. In 1909 his father became King of the Belgians, as Albert I, and Prince Leopold became Duke of Brabant

In August 1914, when Belgium was invaded by Germany, King Albert allowed Leopold, then aged twelve, to enlist in the Belgian Army as a private and fight in defence of the kingdom. However, in 1915, with Belgium almost entirely occupied by the Germans, Leopold was sent to join Eton College, while his father fought on in France.
After the war, in 1919, the Duke of Brabant visited the Old Mission and Saint Anthony Seminary in Santa Barbara, California.

He married Princess Astrid of Sweden in a civil ceremony in Stockholm on November 4, 1926, followed by a religious ceremony in Brussels on November 10.

Princess Astrid was born on November 17, 1905, at the Arvfurstens Palats in Stockholm as the third child and youngest daughter of Prince Carl, Duke of Västergötland, and his wife, Princess Ingeborg of Denmark. Her father was the third son of Oscar II, King of Sweden and Norway, by his wife, Sophia of Nassau. Her mother was a daughter of King Frederick VIII of Denmark by his wife, Louise of Sweden. Astrid’s father was a younger brother of King Gustav V of Sweden; her mother was the younger sister of kings Christian X of Denmark and Haakon VII of Norway. Astrid had two elder sisters Margaretha, Princess Axel of Denmark, and Märtha, Crown Princess of Norway, and a younger brother Prince Carl Bernadotte (prev. Prince Carl of Sweden, Duke of Östergötland).

When World War II broke out in September 1939, the French and British governments immediately sought to persuade Belgium to join them. Leopold and his government refused, maintaining Belgium’s neutrality. Belgium considered itself well-prepared against a possible invasion by Axis forces, for during the 1930s the Belgian government had made extensive preparations to deter and repel an invasion of the country by Germany such as the one that had occurred in 1914.

On May 10, 1940, the Wehrmacht invaded Belgium. On the first day of the offensive, the principal Belgian strong point of Fort Eben-Emael was overwhelmed by a daring paratroop operation and the defensive perimeter thus penetrated before any French or British troops could arrive. After a short running battle that eventually involved the armies of all four belligerents, Belgium was overwhelmed by the numerically superior and better-prepared Germans.

Nevertheless, the Belgian perseverance prevented the British Expeditionary Force from being outflanked and cut off from the coast, enabling the evacuation from Dunkirk. Alan Brooke who commanded II Corps of the BEF thought that the 10th Belgian Division was in the wrong place and wanted to deploy north of Brussels to avoid “double-banking”. He was advised by Roger Keyes to see the King, and on May 12 was “making progress in getting matters put right” in discussion with the king in English, but was interrupted (twice) by the King’s advisor who spoke to the King in French (in which Brooke was fluent).

The advisor was insistent that the Belgian division could not be moved and the BEF should be stopped further south and clear of Brussels; Brooke said he was not putting the whole case to the king; he found that arguing with the advisor was a sheer waste of time as he cared little about the BEF and most of his suggestions were “fantastic”.

The King’s advisor Van Overstraeten was not the Chief of Staff, as Brooke had assumed, but the king’s aide-de-camp, with the rank of Major-General, and would not give up the Louvain front. The French liaison officer, General Champon, told Brooke that Van Overstraeten had ascendancy over the King and had taken control, so it was useless to see the Chief of Staff. Later (15 May) Brooke found that the BEF was likely to “have both flanks turned” with French defeats, and started withdrawal on 16 May.

After his military surrender, Leopold (unlike Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in a similar predicament) remained in Brussels to surrender to the victorious invaders, while his entire civil government fled to Paris and later to London.

On May 24, 1940, Leopold, having assumed command of the Belgian Army, met with his ministers for the final time. The ministers urged the King to leave the country with the government. Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot reminded him that capitulation was a decision for the Belgian government, not the King. The king indicated that he had decided to remain in Belgium with his troops, whatever the outcome. The ministers took this to mean that he would establish a new government under the direction of Hitler, potentially a treasonous act. Leopold thought that he might be seen as a deserter if he were to leave the country: “Whatever happens, I have to share the same fate as my troops.”

Leopold had long had a difficult and contentious relationship with his ministers, acting independently of government influence whenever possible, and seeking to circumvent and even limit the ministers’ powers, while expanding his own.

French, British, and Belgian troops were encircled by German forces at the Battle of Dunkirk. Leopold notified King George VI by telegram on 25 May 1940 that Belgian forces were being crushed, saying “assistance which we give to the Allies will come to an end if our army is surrounded”. Two days later ( May 27, 1940), Leopold surrendered the Belgian forces to the Germans.

German History Part IV: Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire.

Tags

Byzantine Empire, Charlemagne, Charles the Great, Constantinople, Empress Irene, France, Germany, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of France, Pope Leo III

My Note: in discussing how the Kingdom of the Franks evolved into both the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire, it’s not the scope of this entry to thoroughly review the life of Charlemagne. My aim is to give a cursory understanding of how Charlemagne gained the imperial title and divided his empire.

Under the Carolingians, the Frankish kingdom spread to encompass an area including most of Western Europe; the east-west division of the kingdom formed the basis for modern France and Germany.

Charlemagne was the eldest son of Pepin the Short and Bertrada of Laon, born before their canonical marriage. He became King of the Franks in 768 following his father’s death, initially as co-ruler with his brother Carloman I. Carloman’s sudden death in December 771 under unexplained circumstances left Charlemagne as the sole ruler of the Frankish Kingdom. He continued his father’s policy towards the papacy and became its protector, removing the Lombards from power in northern Italy and leading an incursion into Muslim Spain. He campaigned against the Saxons to his east, Christianizing them upon penalty of death and leading to events such as the Massacre of Verden.

Charlemagne, King of the Franks, Emperor of the Romans

Charlemagne’s reign was one of near-constant warfare, personally leading many of his campaigns. He seized the Lombard Kingdom in 774, led a failed campaign into Spain in 778, extended his domain into Bavaria in 788, ordered his son Pepin to campaign against the Avars in 795, and conquered Saxon territories in wars and rebellions fought from 772 to 804.

In 799, Pope Leo III had been assaulted by some of the Romans, who tried to put out his eyes and tear out his tongue. His enemies had accused Leo III of adultery and perjury. Leo escaped and fled to Charlemagne at Paderborn. Charlemagne ordered the Pope’s accusers to Paderborn, but no decision could be made. Charlemagne then had Leo escorted back to Rome. In November 800, Charlemagne, advised by scholar Alcuin, travelled to Rome, and on December 1 held a council there with representatives of both sides of the dispute. Leo III, on December 23, took an oath of purgation concerning the charges brought against him, and his opponents were exiled.

At Mass, on Christmas Day (25 December), when Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum (“Emperor of the Romans”) in Saint Peter’s Basilica. In so doing, the Pope rejected the legitimacy of Roman Empress Irene of Constantinople.

Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor, though intended to represent the continuation of the unbroken line of Emperors from Augustus to Constantine VI, had the effect of setting up two separate (and often opposing) Empires and two separate claims to imperial authority. For centuries to come, the Emperors of both West and East would make competing claims of sovereignty over the whole.

Einhard says that Charlemagne was ignorant of the Pope’s intent and did not want any such coronation:

[H]e at first had such an aversion that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that they [the imperial titles] were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope.

A number of modern scholars, however, suggest that Charlemagne was indeed aware of the coronation; certainly, he cannot have missed the bejewelled crown waiting on the altar when he came to pray; something even contemporary sources support.

The Carolingian Empire during the reign of Charlemagne covered most of Western Europe, as the Roman Empire once had. Unlike the Romans, who ventured to Germania beyond the Rhine only for vengeance after the disaster at Teutoburg Forest(9 AD), Charlemagne decisively crushed all Germanic resistance and extended his realm to the Elbe, influencing events almost to the Russian Steppes.

Prior to the death of Charlemagne, the Empire was divided among various members of the Carolingian dynasty. These included King Charles the Younger, son of Charlemagne, who received Neustria; King Louis the Pious, who received Aquitaine; and King Pepin, who received Italy. Pepin died with an illegitimate son, Bernard, in 810, and Charles died without heirs in 811. Although Bernard succeeded Pepin as King of Italy, Louis I the Pious was made co-Emperor in 813, and the entire Empire passed to him with Charlemagne’s death in the winter of 814.

Charlemagne has been called the “Father of Europe” (Pater Europae),as he united most of Western Europe for the first time since the classical era of the Roman Empireand united parts of Europe that had never been under Frankish or Roman rule. His rule spurred the Carolingian Renaissance, a period of energetic cultural and intellectual activity within the Western Church.

End note: The last entry in the series will discuss in depth the history of the imperial title itself.

European Royal History and the Weather: Part I

Tags

1812, Alexander I of Russia, Cold Frint, Emperor of France, Emperors of Russia, France, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleonic Wars, Robert FirzRoy, Russia, Weather and History, Wilhelm I of Wurttemberg, Winter

Another passion of mine besides European Royalty and it’s history has been the study of the weather. Today I begin a new series where I combine two of my passions: European Royal History and Meteorology. Weather has helped shaped historical events and the course of history itself. In this series I will look at how weather impacted significant events in European History.

Accurate and detailed weather forecasts can save lives. The lack of an accurate and detailed forecast, and it’s resulting loss of life, is evident in one of the most well known historical events in which weather was a significant player; Napoleon’s war on Russia in 1812.

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Napoleon of France

In 1812, Emperor Napoleon of France gathered the largest army Europe had ever seen at the point, more than 600,000 strong. His plan was to march boldly into Moscow to attack the forces of Emperor Alexander I of Russia. Napoleon was not at all concerned that winter was approaching. Napoleons’s non concern about the coming winter was not due to having foreknowledge that Russia would be experiencing a mild winter, his overconfidence was primarily due to his obstinance and hubris.

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Alexander I of Russia

In truth, in 1812 Napoleon would not have had a long term forecast about the winter. Today we have many tools to predict the weather as we can scientifically measure the temperature, air pressure and windspeed etc. We also have many computer models, known as Numerical Weather Prediction Models which uses mathematical computations of the atmospheric and oceanic conditions to predict weather patterns based on current weather conditions. However, before these tools and technologies, the weather was predicted by the appearance of clouds or the behaviour of animals. There were also primitive thermometers and barometers that aided in forecasting the weather.

Admiral Robert FitzRoy

The term forecast wasn’t even part of the weather vernacular in 1812. The word ‘forecast’ was invented by Admiral Robert FitzRoy in the mid 1800s. FitzRoy was a pioneering meteorologist who made accurate daily weather predictions, which he called by a new name of his own invention: “forecasts” and he defined it as such: “the term forecast is strictly applicable to such an opinion as is the result of scientific combination and calculation.” Incidentally, Admiral Robert FitRoy had royal connections. Through his father, General Lord Charles FitzRoy, Robert was a fourth great-grandson of King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland through his mistress, Barbara Palmer-Villiers, 1st Duchess of Cleveland. Born on the wrong side of the sheets as they say.

Back to Napoleon. Napoleon could not foresee his campaign lasting into the winter, believing his war would be swift and decisive. Without a long term forecast for the coming winter, coupled with Napoleon’s overconfidence, this left him unprepared for the difficulties that were ahead.

It was not just winter weather that made an impact on Napoleon’s troops. On June 24th Napoleon entered and attacked Vilnius, Lithuanian. That same afternoon severe thunderstorms and accompanying torrential downpours had a devastating impact on the siege. Since there were no discernible roads in this area of Lithuania, the ruts of the wagons on the soft and saturated ground were turned into bottomless mires. Wagon sank up to their hubs; horses dropped from exhaustion; men lost their boots.

After the storms, the sun reemerged bringing along with it oppressive heat and humidity which would bake the deep ruts into canyons of concrete, where horses would break their legs and wagons their wheels. With the numerous dead horses blocking any forward movements, the troops were left with living in swamp-like conditions with dysentery and influenza raging though the ranks with hundreds laying sick in a field hospital. The Crown Prince of Wurttemberg (future King Wilhelm I of Wurttemberg) reported 21 men dead in bivouacs from sunstroke and a further 345 soldiers were sick.

There are four types of weather fronts that cause thunderstorms: cold front, warm front, stationary front and occluded front. Thunderstorms can become extremely severe and can appear seemingly out of nowhere along any of these front lines. Cold fronts tend to move faster than the other types of fronts and are associated with the most violent types of weather such as severe and super cell thunderstorms, although any type of front can produce these same storms. Since the historical records indicate that severe thunderstorms were followed by oppressive heat and humidity on June 28th 1812 in Vilnius, Lithuanian, it is safe to conclude that these storms were part of a warm front that moved through the region.

Napoleon reached Moscow in mid September. By mid October with the French having set fire to large portions of Moscow, the French were holding onto a tenuous victory. An official French Imperial Delegation was sent to negotiate an armistice and a permanent peace with the Russian Emperor. The French were received with all civility, and we’re encouraged that the Russian soldiers wanted peace. On October 19th, after 35 days in the city, the French began to leave Moscow.

The Retreat from Moscow

Napoleon left Moscow at the head of 95,000 men, with 500 cannons and an uncertain number of wagons (estimates range from 4,000 up to 40,000, with around 20,000 perhaps most likely). The wagon train included the Imperial HQ, the pontoon train, thousands of wagons filled with food and just as many filled with the loot of Moscow. Although Napoleon was victorious in his siege of Moscow, it was with his retreat from Moscow that the Russians delivered the French Army its crushing blow…with help from the weather.

Although the Russian campaign was over by mid-October, the encroaching winter weather was heavy on the minds of Napoleon’s closest advisers. The return to France would take several months. Early on November 5th Napoleon reached Smorgoni. That evening he held a conference with his marshals – Murat, Prince Eugene of Savoy, Berthier, Lefebvre, Bessières, Ney and Davout all attended. At this meeting Napoleon announced that he was going to leave the remnants of the army and return to Paris.

At 10pm Napoleon left with a small party and a small escort of Polish cavalry. Napoleon’s decision to leave the army was probably correct, although his enemies did portray it as a cowardly betrayal of his army. Napoleon had left Marshal Murat in charge of the army. He proved to be a poor choice. Around 20,000 men (mainly stragglers) were lost between Smorgoni and Vilna due to the harsh weather conditions. This was the period of severe frosts, with the temperature dropping to -20c (-4F) on December 5th and -26c (-32.2F) December 9th.

The army was equipped with summer clothing only, and they did not have the means to protect themselves from the cold. In addition, the army lacked the ability to forge caulkined shoes for the horses to enable them to walk over roads that had become iced over. As Napoleon’s army marched further from Vilna temperatures fell further to -40 degrees C. (-40F) The soldiers fell to frostbite and starvation. In one 24-hour period, 50,000 horses died from the cold.

In his memoir, Napoleon’s close adviser, Armand de Caulaincourt, recounted scenes of massive loss, and offered a vivid description of mass death through hypothermia.

“The cold was so intense that bivouacking was no longer supportable. If the soldiers resisted the craving for sleep it would prolong their agony for a short while, but not saving them, for in this condition the drowsiness engendered by cold was irresistibly strong. Sleep comes inevitably, and to sleep is to die. This kind of death by freezing happened to thousands of individuals. The road was covered with their corpses.”

Of the 600,000 men who marched into Russia, only 150,000 would limp home. It was the beginning of the end for Napoleon’s empire, and heralded the emergence of Russia as a power in Europe.

Following the Russian campaign a saying arose that the Generals, along with Janvier and Février (January and February) defeated Napoleon. This demonstrates that without knowledge of the weather Napoleon’s troops were ill prepared to safely navigate the land and keeping their troops and animals safe.

Accession of Ferdinand III as Holy Roman Emperor.

Tags

Archduke of Austria, Austria, Carl X Gustav of Sweden, Ferdinand III, France, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I, Holy Roman Empire, House of Habsburg, Sweden

Ferdinand III (July 13, 1608 – April 2, 1657) was Holy Roman Emperor from February 15, 1637 until his death, as well as King of Hungary and Croatia, King of Bohemia and Archduke of Austria. He was the last emperor to have real power over the Holy Roman Empire.

.

Ferdinand was born in Graz, the eldest son of Emperor Ferdinand II of the House of Habsburg and his first wife, Maria Anna of Bavaria. Educated by the Jesuits, he became Archduke of Austria in 1621, King of Hungary in 1625, and King of Bohemia in 1627.

In 1627 Ferdinand enhanced his authority and set an important legal and military precedent by issuing a Revised Land Ordinance that deprived the Bohemian estates of their right to raise soldiers, reserving this power solely for the monarch.

Having been elected King of the Romans in 1636, he succeeded his father as Holy Roman Emperor in 1637. He hoped to make peace soon with France and Sweden, but the war dragged on, finally ending in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia (Treaty of Münster with France, Treaty of Osnabrück with Sweden), negotiated by his envoy Maximilian von und zu Trauttmansdorff, a diplomat who had been made a count in 1623 by his father Ferdinand II.

During the last period of the war, in 1644 Ferdinand III gave all rulers of German states the right to conduct their own foreign policy (ius belli ac pacis) – the emperor hoped to gain more allies in the negotiations with France and Sweden. This edict, however, contributed to the gradual erosion of the imperial authority in the Holy Roman Empire.
After 1648 the emperor was engaged in carrying out the terms of the treaty and ridding Germany of the foreign soldiery. In 1656 he sent an army into Italy to assist Spain in her struggle with France, and he had just concluded an alliance with Poland to check the aggressions of Carl X Gustav of Sweden when he died on April 2, 1657. He was succeeded as Holy Roman Emperor by his second surviving son, Leopold I (1640-1705).

Marriages and children

On February 20, 1631 Ferdinand III married his first wife Archduchess Maria Anna of Spain (1606–1646). She was the youngest daughter of Felipe III of Spain and Margaret of Austria. They were first cousins as Maria Anna’s mother was a sister of Ferdinand’s father. They were parents to six children:
* Ferdinand IV, King of the Romans (8 September 1633 – 9 July 1654)
* Maria Anna “Mariana”, Archduchess of Austria (22 December 1634 – 16 May 1696). Married her maternal uncle Felipe IV of Spain.
* Philip August, Archduke of Austria (15 July 1637 – 22 June 1639)
* Maximilian Thomas, Archduke of Austria (21 December 1638 – 29 June 1639)
* Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor (9 June 1640 – 5 May 1705)
* Maria, Archduchess of Austria (13 May 1646)

In 1648, Ferdinand III married his second wife, Archduchess Maria Leopoldine of Austria (1632–1649). She was a daughter of Leopold V, Archduke of Austria, and Claudia de’ Medici. They were first cousins as male-line grandchildren of Karl II, Archduke of Austria, and Maria Anna of Bavaria. They had a single son:
* Karl Josef, Archduke of Austria (7 August 1649 – 27 January 1664). He was Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights from 1662 to his death.

In 1651, Ferdinand III married his 3rd wife Eleonora Gonzaga (1630–1686). She was a daughter of Charles IV Gonzaga, Duke of Rethel. They were parents to four children:
* Theresia Maria Josefa, Archduchess of Austria (27 March 1652 – 26 July 1653)
* Eleonora Maria of Austria (21 May 1653 – 17 December 1697), who married first Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki, King of Poland, and then Charles Léopold, Duke of Lorraine.
* Maria Anna Josepha of Austria (30 December 1654 – 4 April 1689), who married Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine.
* Ferdinand Josef Alois, Archduke of Austria (11 February 1657 – 16 June 1658)