Re-thinking Dynastic Rule: Dynasties and State Formation in the Habsburg and Oldenburg Monarchies, 1500-1700
The development towards modern states in Early Modern Europe is a process of global significance. Monarchs and their male and female relatives are, however, a blind spot in state formation studies. There are many biographical works on individual kings, queens and other royals, while the state formation debate is characterized by works on social groups (like nobilities, bureaucrats and common people). Ruling dynasties as power groups sit somewhere between these two foci, yet their role in state formation is often neglected. The purpose of this research is to analyze how such kin-based power groups shaped state formation in early modern Europe’s conglomerate states.
Our method is to look at the distribution of assets of a dynasty, the development of its self-image, and its functioning as a power group. We will study the Habsburgs in Spain (including, e.g., parts of Italy and the Netherlands) and the Oldenborgs in Denmark-Norway (including parts of Germany). By focussing on political territories across the borders of present-day nation-states, we want to counteract methodological nationalism within historical research, as well as problematizing popular ideas about national historical narratives. If we can show how dynastic power-groups worked and how they influenced early modern state formation, we will be better able to understand how our modern state-system has come into being.
Final report
Re-thinking Dynastic Rule: Dynasties and State Formation in the Habsburg and Oldenburg Monarchies, 1500-1700
Most important results
Among the most important results of the project is the conclusion that dynasties were not already existing family groups. Instead, we have found that such groups are brought into existence. They are constructed through a variety of social processes. A certain ‘biological foundation’ existed, that is, people connected through kinship, but not all of them served as representatives of the family by being married to an appropriate spouse, or being buried in the dynastic crypt, being mentioned in genealogies or being employed in offices that were reserved for members of the family. The process of including and excluding individuals from the social, political and cultural manifestations of the dynasty is a process which we have called dynasty formation.
Dynastic family groups were thus constructed. The second main conclusion of the project is that this construction was carried out in different ways, using different methods and this led to different groups being constructed. Early modern genealogical narratives tended to be rather focused on the patrilineal, legitimate family (arguably the most dominant view of dynasties even today), while relatives employed in offices could include illegitimate offspring and cognatic nephews. We see, therefore, that some relatives who were presented as royal relatives in a contemporary, political contexts, were normally excluded from genealogical-historical contexts. There was not one dynastic family groups, but several, depending on the contexts in and the methods by which they were shaped.
Within these various family groups, we see certain recurring trends concerning their internal dynamics. Over time, both succession practices became more focused on the patrilineal descent line, due to the introduction of primogeniture. Younger sons were increasingly excluded from the patrimony, which undermined their chances of marriage since material stability was required to obtain a suitable bride, and this meant it was not possible for them to have legitimate offspring. There were thus fewer branches. This was reflected in genealogies, which were focusing increasingly on the patrilineal descent line. The concentration of resources in the hands of the primogenitus also meant he was the only one in the family with the means to erect tombs. Changes to the succession thus had implications for the cultural formation of the family as well. We have called this process dynastic centralization. This process proved to have most impact on the development of the state.
New research questions
The development of new concepts (dynasty formation, dynastic centralisation) also raises new questions. On the one hand, the rising power and authority of family heads leads to the question how younger males adjusted to the new realities. As the biggest losers of this process, younger males had to develop a new role as a subordinated prince. As an integral part of the process of dynastic centralisation in the seventeenth century, the way in which such princes adjusted to their new roles could have been decisive for how successful centralisation at a state level could have been.
In addition, the process of dynastic centralisation has been identities as well in a global context, particularly in the so-called Turco-Persian, or Gunpowerder empires (Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals – see my ‘Safavid cousins on the verge of extinction: dynastic centralization in Central Asia and the Bahra¯mi¯ collateral line (1518-1596)’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 58-3 (2015), pp. 293-326). An important question that presents itself is why these processes took place a roughly the same time in different global regions. Was this due to common underlying causes or did the dynastic processes in one region influence the other?
Knowledge sharing and collaboration
The main way the results of the projects have been shared within the scholarly community is through publications (see the list of publications below). Among the main output of the project is a monograph, written by the project leader and provisionally titled ‘The Spanish Habsburgs and Dynastic Rule’. This monograph has been written and is currently under consideration for publication with an international, academic publisher. Another important way of sharing results was through the organisation of an international conference in August 2019 in Lund (funded by RJ, Forskningsinitiering F18-1462:1). Participants from Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, the USA, Sweden, Spain and Germany contributed papers, placing the role of dynasties in state formation in a truly European context. All of the participants of the conference have contributed, or have pledged to contribute, to a collective volume, which is currently under contract for publication with Amsterdam University Press (Open Access). The editors expect to be able to finalize editing the articles in February, so that the volume will be ready to send to the publisher before the summer.
In addition, the project members have contributed to seminars at both Lund university and Stockholm university and at the Society for Court Studies in London; have presented papers at conferences in Turin and twice in Madrid (the second time via Zoom), served as chairperson at a workshop in Växjö, and have contributed to a graduate course at Lund university. During the course of the project, the project leader was furthermore asked to become a member of several editorial boards (Scandia: tidskrift för historisk forskning; Early Modern Court Studies – book series at Amsterdam University Press) and the European Branch of the Society for Court Studies, which allowed her to instrumentalize her knowledge and expertise to assess articles and book proposals in het discussions with fellow editors, and to raise the international profile of dynastic history.
Most important results
Among the most important results of the project is the conclusion that dynasties were not already existing family groups. Instead, we have found that such groups are brought into existence. They are constructed through a variety of social processes. A certain ‘biological foundation’ existed, that is, people connected through kinship, but not all of them served as representatives of the family by being married to an appropriate spouse, or being buried in the dynastic crypt, being mentioned in genealogies or being employed in offices that were reserved for members of the family. The process of including and excluding individuals from the social, political and cultural manifestations of the dynasty is a process which we have called dynasty formation.
Dynastic family groups were thus constructed. The second main conclusion of the project is that this construction was carried out in different ways, using different methods and this led to different groups being constructed. Early modern genealogical narratives tended to be rather focused on the patrilineal, legitimate family (arguably the most dominant view of dynasties even today), while relatives employed in offices could include illegitimate offspring and cognatic nephews. We see, therefore, that some relatives who were presented as royal relatives in a contemporary, political contexts, were normally excluded from genealogical-historical contexts. There was not one dynastic family groups, but several, depending on the contexts in and the methods by which they were shaped.
Within these various family groups, we see certain recurring trends concerning their internal dynamics. Over time, both succession practices became more focused on the patrilineal descent line, due to the introduction of primogeniture. Younger sons were increasingly excluded from the patrimony, which undermined their chances of marriage since material stability was required to obtain a suitable bride, and this meant it was not possible for them to have legitimate offspring. There were thus fewer branches. This was reflected in genealogies, which were focusing increasingly on the patrilineal descent line. The concentration of resources in the hands of the primogenitus also meant he was the only one in the family with the means to erect tombs. Changes to the succession thus had implications for the cultural formation of the family as well. We have called this process dynastic centralization. This process proved to have most impact on the development of the state.
New research questions
The development of new concepts (dynasty formation, dynastic centralisation) also raises new questions. On the one hand, the rising power and authority of family heads leads to the question how younger males adjusted to the new realities. As the biggest losers of this process, younger males had to develop a new role as a subordinated prince. As an integral part of the process of dynastic centralisation in the seventeenth century, the way in which such princes adjusted to their new roles could have been decisive for how successful centralisation at a state level could have been.
In addition, the process of dynastic centralisation has been identities as well in a global context, particularly in the so-called Turco-Persian, or Gunpowerder empires (Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals – see my ‘Safavid cousins on the verge of extinction: dynastic centralization in Central Asia and the Bahra¯mi¯ collateral line (1518-1596)’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 58-3 (2015), pp. 293-326). An important question that presents itself is why these processes took place a roughly the same time in different global regions. Was this due to common underlying causes or did the dynastic processes in one region influence the other?
Knowledge sharing and collaboration
The main way the results of the projects have been shared within the scholarly community is through publications (see the list of publications below). Among the main output of the project is a monograph, written by the project leader and provisionally titled ‘The Spanish Habsburgs and Dynastic Rule’. This monograph has been written and is currently under consideration for publication with an international, academic publisher. Another important way of sharing results was through the organisation of an international conference in August 2019 in Lund (funded by RJ, Forskningsinitiering F18-1462:1). Participants from Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, the USA, Sweden, Spain and Germany contributed papers, placing the role of dynasties in state formation in a truly European context. All of the participants of the conference have contributed, or have pledged to contribute, to a collective volume, which is currently under contract for publication with Amsterdam University Press (Open Access). The editors expect to be able to finalize editing the articles in February, so that the volume will be ready to send to the publisher before the summer.
In addition, the project members have contributed to seminars at both Lund university and Stockholm university and at the Society for Court Studies in London; have presented papers at conferences in Turin and twice in Madrid (the second time via Zoom), served as chairperson at a workshop in Växjö, and have contributed to a graduate course at Lund university. During the course of the project, the project leader was furthermore asked to become a member of several editorial boards (Scandia: tidskrift för historisk forskning; Early Modern Court Studies – book series at Amsterdam University Press) and the European Branch of the Society for Court Studies, which allowed her to instrumentalize her knowledge and expertise to assess articles and book proposals in het discussions with fellow editors, and to raise the international profile of dynastic history.