Let's say Louis XV had fallen to one of the many deadly contemporary childhood illnesses, which wasn't all that statistically improbable and was a possibility contemporaries were well aware of.
The two claimants to succeed him would have been Phillip V of Spain and the French Regent Philippe, Duke of Orleans.
Phillip undeniably had the better dynastic claim, and would be preferred by the French to the unpopular regent, but he was technically barred from the throne by the Treaty of Utrecht, which promised that there would be no union of the French and Spanish crowns. Any attempt by Phillip to seize the throne would therefore be opposed by the Dutch and British.
Orleans had the advantage of actually being in France, he would probably have moved very quickly to have himself crowned, but would have very few French supporters.
The maritime powers wouldn't want to fight another expensive war, fortunately ,Phillip was dominated by his Italian second wife, Elizabeth Farnese, who was chiefly interested in winning an Italian inheritence for herself and her children. It is therefore conceivable that Phillip could be bought off at Austrian expense in Italy, with Sicily and Naples being returned to Spain, whilst Elizabeth could get the Northern Duchies and Piedmont could be compensated with Sardinia. Austria would not be happy, but can't realistically do much against France, Spain, Britain and Holland and they know it.
This would leave Phillip's supporteres in France with little choice but to support Philippe, but he would be easily the most hated and distrusted French monarch ever. Combine this with a debt crisis arguably more severe than in the 1780s and interesting things could start happening in France. The ideological/social basis for republicanism probably wasn't there yet but moves to limit the power of the monarchy are almost inevitable.
The two claimants to succeed him would have been Phillip V of Spain and the French Regent Philippe, Duke of Orleans.
Phillip undeniably had the better dynastic claim, and would be preferred by the French to the unpopular regent, but he was technically barred from the throne by the Treaty of Utrecht, which promised that there would be no union of the French and Spanish crowns. Any attempt by Phillip to seize the throne would therefore be opposed by the Dutch and British.
Orleans had the advantage of actually being in France, he would probably have moved very quickly to have himself crowned, but would have very few French supporters.
The maritime powers wouldn't want to fight another expensive war, fortunately ,Phillip was dominated by his Italian second wife, Elizabeth Farnese, who was chiefly interested in winning an Italian inheritence for herself and her children. It is therefore conceivable that Phillip could be bought off at Austrian expense in Italy, with Sicily and Naples being returned to Spain, whilst Elizabeth could get the Northern Duchies and Piedmont could be compensated with Sardinia. Austria would not be happy, but can't realistically do much against France, Spain, Britain and Holland and they know it.
This would leave Phillip's supporteres in France with little choice but to support Philippe, but he would be easily the most hated and distrusted French monarch ever. Combine this with a debt crisis arguably more severe than in the 1780s and interesting things could start happening in France. The ideological/social basis for republicanism probably wasn't there yet but moves to limit the power of the monarchy are almost inevitable.