A Different Bourbon for the Throne of Spain

During the WotSS, whilst Philippe II, duc d'Orléans was campaigning in Spain, he attempted to conduct negotiations with the Allied Commanders, to find out if the Allies would be more agreeable to him replacing the duc d'Anjou as the French-backed candidate for the throne of Spain. Needless to say, when word of this got back to Versailles, Philippe was in disgrace (and never commanded an army again) and recalled home.

Would the Allies have been more amenable to his proposition?
How might Spain have reacted to his distaste for religion and his goings-on (the Regence court was considered one of the more scandalous of the age)?
And if the Allies had agreed that he was preferable, how would his uncle/father-in-law, Louis XIV feel about this?
 
His claims are way worse than even the Habsburg Archduke's.That summarized everything.Why would the Spanish even accept this?
 
Maybe the Spanish are tired of everyone fighting for their territory, and turning Spain into a sort of battle-ground. Besides, several times AFAIK, the Allies and the French alternately held commanding positions in Spain, but then something happened to break the stalemate. So maybe a stalemate is more permanent, and they Allies don't want Philippe d'Anjou but the French aren't willing to let a Habsburg walk off with the crown of Spain
 
Okay, so let's suggest another Bourbon, then:

The smallpox/measles which killed his grandpa and parents as well as his older brother, carries off young Louis, duc d'Anjou too (apparently OTL this was a near run thing, and he was only saved by his governess, Mme de Ventadour). That said, Philippe d'Anjou is needed back in France for the succession, which means that the next person in the succession for the Spanish crown to avoid a PU between Paris and Madrid, is his younger brother, Charles, duc de Berri, who now becomes Carlos III of Spain. Conveniently, his wife, the scandalous duchesse de Berri dies on the way to Spain, or perhaps she gets carried off by her first pregnancy.

(For the purposes of this exercise, say the Allies are equally unwilling to accept one of Philippe's sons for the crown of Spain, which means that both Louis, Philippe Pierre and Ferdinand end up back in France).
 
Philippe d'Anjou at that point had already renounced to his rights to the French Crown. If Louis die Charles will be come the new Dauphin not Philippe
 
Yeah no. I doubt the Spanish are going to be willing to let France and the allies play ring-around-the-rosy with their empire. The Duc d'Orléans was never mentioned whatsoever in Carlos II's will, so neither side would have anything to do with such a claim. The French would dig their heals in (and potentially arrest Orléans if he makes a serious play) , the Habsburgs would refuse see anyone but the Archduke on the Spanish throne and the British/Dutch were at that point on the same page as Vienna.

As for Felipe V having to return to France in 1712, the Spanish King already had two sons, so one of them would take the Spanish throne. Felipe V becomes Philippe VII while Luis, Principe de Asturias becomes Louis, Monseigneur le Dauphin and the younger son Infante Felipe becomes Felipe VI with his uncle the Duc de Berri as heir presumptive and possible regent. Also the later scenario was one that had already been foreseen by Carlos II's will and was basically already spelled out as ways to avoid a personal union.
 
Philippe d'Anjou at that point had already renounced to his rights to the French Crown. If Louis die Charles will be come the new Dauphin not Philippe

You mean the renunciation that violated the fundamental laws of France? Yeah no. If push came to shove that renunciation would be annulled and Philippe would be the heir to France, so long as he abdicates Spain.
 
Is there a way to get Berri as King Carlos III? Or is he going to have to walk past a row of coffins to get that right?

I mean, for some unknown reason, I can't recall when, but it was mentioned in a book I read on John Churchill, that Felipe V elevated the duc de Vendôme to the position of First Prince of the Blood in Spain (or whatever the equivalent title was), yet Vendôme had no claim to the Spanish crown whatsoever.
 
Is there a way to get Berri as King Carlos III? Or is he going to have to walk past a row of coffins to get that right?

I mean, for some unknown reason, I can't recall when, but it was mentioned in a book I read on John Churchill, that Felipe V elevated the duc de Vendôme to the position of First Prince of the Blood in Spain (or whatever the equivalent title was), yet Vendôme had no claim to the Spanish crown whatsoever.

The only way to get Berri on the Spanish throne would be to kill the Duc de Bourgogne early on, sometime between 1705 (when his first son the Duc de Bretagne died) and 1707 (when Felipe V's first son Luis and Bourgogne's second Duc de Bretagne were born). If Bourgogne dies childless then Felipe becomes second in line to the French throne, and if the Spanish King has no children then he'll have to abdicate in favor of his younger brother de Berri, who becomes Carlos III. Now how the Spaniards will feel about being second fiddle in matters of succession is anyone's guess (pretty pissed I'd guess) and Felipe V's own willingness to abdicate is doubly in doubt after three to five years as Spain's sovereign, but this was the scenario figured out by both the earlier letters patent confirming that Felipe retained his French rights and the succession spelled out in Carlos II's will.

As to the Duc de Vendôme, that's a mystery to me as well. Though I think the elevation had more to due with his successes in securing Spain for his cousin then anything else. Though it was also around the same time that Louis XIV was bluffing on the possibility of abandoning his grandson's Spanish reign, so it could have just as easily been a ploy by the Princesse des Ursins to undercut Versailles and if necessary steal France's best general.
 
The discourse is (old and) always one: the "time" is what makes the difference.

Is there a way to get Berri as King Carlos III? Or is he going to have to walk past a row of coffins to get that right?

Charles, Duke of Berry, had been named in the will of Charles II of Spain as the heir to the Crown of Spain; nevertheless, right of succession it could have been disputed because interpreted by some as valid ONLY with an «immediate» renunciation of succession to the Spanish throne by Philip, Duke of Anjou (therefore the Duke of Berry would not have right to succeed his brother as King of Spain at a later time).
At the same time, while Philip and his sons are alive, he does not have the right to succeed to the Crown of France (in THIS time!)

FIRST "time" discriminating: february-march 1712.
The death of Louis (XV) in february-march 1712, along with the rest of his immediate family, would changed the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht (signed on 11 April 1713).
«The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom» bla bla bla... ok. The Crown is not the personal property of the king: the king can not appoint his successor, or waive to the Crown, or abdicate.
Philip V had not right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. A possible renunciation is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
After the death of Louis (XV), Philip V of Spain becomes heir to the throne of France through the «collatéralité masculine»: in the absence of a male son, the Crown returns to the closest male relative of the King by virtue of the «continuité de la Couronne» (ou instantanéité de la Couronne: «Le roi est mort; vive le roi!»): when the king dies, his successor as soon as king «the king (the government) never dies» (« le roi [l’État] ne meurt jamais»).
The renunciation of Philip V of Spain: bla bla bla... (the renunciation, thus, is not legitimate, it can not have legal force. In France the renunciation is not became Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, because it was avoided to convene the Estates General to the ratified, deceiving the European diplomacy with a simple ratification by the Parliament of Paris (and of other provinces), which, as we know, was a "legal body", not "legislative". The ratification by the Parliament of Paris has a only mere value notarial. Philip V has never recognized the validity of renunciation signed under duress of the England: as a matter of fact, in 1726, he wrote to the Parliament of Paris to be proclaimed King, «in case of death of the King of France his nephew, by being he his successor to the crown by right of birth and by means the fundamental laws of the State, until he can take possession of the kingdom»).

In this hypothesis, the hypothetical Treaty of Utrecht would could to be different: Philip V of Spain at that time already had two sons and Queen Maria Luisa of Savoy was pregnant for the fourth time.
The Foreign Powers would probably have recognized his rights of succession to the Crown of France on condition that he would have to abdicate the Crown of Spain in favor of his second son (possible for the laws of succession of the Spanish kingdoms).

SECOND "time" discriminating: March 1713 (Treaty of Utrecht signed on 11 April 1713).
In Spain the Philip V's renunciations were made Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by the same sovereign who convoked specifically for this the Cortes in March 1713. This means that, according to the spanish principles of legitimacy, no member of the descendants of Philip V has the right to the Throne of France.
If the renunciation was not declared Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, it could have been considered invalid the renunciation; but a Fundamental Law can be repealed only by the King and the Cortes.

Scilicet: in Spain only the King and the Cortes can cancel the renunciation allowing to a descendant of Philip V to claim the throne of France: by means of a dispensation from the King and the Cortes, an Infante (descendant of Philip V) could claim the throne of France (for this reason the Crown of France, in last nineteenth century, it's up indisputably and unquestionably to the Orléans; with the distinction between "famille et maison" (family and House) and "Couronne" (Crown): there is a clear distinction between the role of heir to the role of "Head of the House" and heir to the French throne).
 
The discourse is (old and) always one: the "time" is what makes the difference.



Charles, Duke of Berry, had been named in the will of Charles II of Spain as the heir to the Crown of Spain; nevertheless, right of succession it could have been disputed because interpreted by some as valid ONLY with an «immediate» renunciation of succession to the Spanish throne by Philip, Duke of Anjou (therefore the Duke of Berry would not have right to succeed his brother as King of Spain at a later time).
At the same time, while Philip and his sons are alive, he does not have the right to succeed to the Crown of France (in THIS time!)

FIRST "time" discriminating: february-march 1712.
The death of Louis (XV) in february-march 1712, along with the rest of his immediate family, would changed the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht (signed on 11 April 1713).
«The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom» bla bla bla... ok. The Crown is not the personal property of the king: the king can not appoint his successor, or waive to the Crown, or abdicate.
Philip V had not right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. A possible renunciation is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
After the death of Louis (XV), Philip V of Spain becomes heir to the throne of France through the «collatéralité masculine»: in the absence of a male son, the Crown returns to the closest male relative of the King by virtue of the «continuité de la Couronne» (ou instantanéité de la Couronne: «Le roi est mort; vive le roi!»): when the king dies, his successor as soon as king «the king (the government) never dies» (« le roi [l’État] ne meurt jamais»).
The renunciation of Philip V of Spain: bla bla bla... (the renunciation, thus, is not legitimate, it can not have legal force. In France the renunciation is not became Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, because it was avoided to convene the Estates General to the ratified, deceiving the European diplomacy with a simple ratification by the Parliament of Paris (and of other provinces), which, as we know, was a "legal body", not "legislative". The ratification by the Parliament of Paris has a only mere value notarial. Philip V has never recognized the validity of renunciation signed under duress of the England: as a matter of fact, in 1726, he wrote to the Parliament of Paris to be proclaimed King, «in case of death of the King of France his nephew, by being he his successor to the crown by right of birth and by means the fundamental laws of the State, until he can take possession of the kingdom»).

In this hypothesis, the hypothetical Treaty of Utrecht would could to be different: Philip V of Spain at that time already had two sons and Queen Maria Luisa of Savoy was pregnant for the fourth time.
The Foreign Powers would probably have recognized his rights of succession to the Crown of France on condition that he would have to abdicate the Crown of Spain in favor of his second son (possible for the laws of succession of the Spanish kingdoms).

SECOND "time" discriminating: March 1713 (Treaty of Utrecht signed on 11 April 1713).
In Spain the Philip V's renunciations were made Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by the same sovereign who convoked specifically for this the Cortes in March 1713. This means that, according to the spanish principles of legitimacy, no member of the descendants of Philip V has the right to the Throne of France.
If the renunciation was not declared Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, it could have been considered invalid the renunciation; but a Fundamental Law can be repealed only by the King and the Cortes.

Scilicet: in Spain only the King and the Cortes can cancel the renunciation allowing to a descendant of Philip V to claim the throne of France: by means of a dispensation from the King and the Cortes, an Infante (descendant of Philip V) could claim the throne of France (for this reason the Crown of France, in last nineteenth century, it's up indisputably and unquestionably to the Orléans; with the distinction between "famille et maison" (family and House) and "Couronne" (Crown): there is a clear distinction between the role of heir to the role of "Head of the House" and heir to the French throne).

Really the only time I can think of to get Berri as Carlos III would be in 1700, when Versailles was still unsure of accepting Carlos II's will. Have the Duc de Bourgogne fall ill in early November, not enough to kill him but enough to get Louis XIV to decide to keep Anjou in France. Philippe renounces his Spanish rights, which pass to Charles. Charles accepts and becomes Carlos III. Or flip side have Carlos II nominate Berri as his heir first, then Anjou and Archduke Karl. Those would be the best scenarios to get Berri into Spain.

Personally I've always thought the renunciation clauses in Utrecht were a bit ridiculous. As Charles V proved about one hundred and fifty years earlier, such a massive personal union was unwieldy at best and damn near ungovernable at worst. If Felipe inherited France he'd realistically either abdicate Spain to the next in line (a second son if available or Berri if not) and become Philippe VII or abdicate France instead. Even if he decided to keep both thrones for the time being a Regent/Viceroy would have to be appointed to rule the Kingdom he's not resident in and would no doubt become de-facto sovereign. The whole fear was quite overblown and over the top.

However, I do admit to being confused. I know that on the French side the renunciation had no real legal standing (not being ratified by the Estates General) and was meant as window dressing by Louis XIV. From a legal perspective, if Louis XV had died childless then chances are Felipe V or one of his sons would have been his heir. Although from a practical standpoint there would be no personal union: Felipe V could abdicate and become King of France, leaving one son as King of Spain and the other as Dauphin, or one of his sons could renounce his Spanish succession and become King of France. The part I don't understand is the Spanish Cortes role in all this.

I've never heard that the Cortes had altered Spain's Fundamental Laws of the Realm to forbid their royals any right to succeed in France. For some reason that sounds a bit fishy and legally dubious. I mean for one what right did the Cortes have to legislate the French succession? I mean I can understand forbidding a union between Spain and France, but not trying to dictate who France can and cannot accept as their Sovereign. If you don't mind, do you have a source for the Spanish legislation in 1713?

Finally, to the Orléans rights, one could easily argue that their treason (first the Louis Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans voting for the execution of Louis XVI then his son Louis Philippe III usurping the throne from Charles IX) invalidated their right of succession to the French throne. Just my opinion in any event.
 
The discourse is (old and) always one: the "time" is what makes the difference.



Charles, Duke of Berry, had been named in the will of Charles II of Spain as the heir to the Crown of Spain; nevertheless, right of succession it could have been disputed because interpreted by some as valid ONLY with an «immediate» renunciation of succession to the Spanish throne by Philip, Duke of Anjou (therefore the Duke of Berry would not have right to succeed his brother as King of Spain at a later time).
At the same time, while Philip and his sons are alive, he does not have the right to succeed to the Crown of France (in THIS time!)

FIRST "time" discriminating: february-march 1712.
The death of Louis (XV) in february-march 1712, along with the rest of his immediate family, would changed the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht (signed on 11 April 1713).
«The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom» bla bla bla... ok. The Crown is not the personal property of the king: the king can not appoint his successor, or waive to the Crown, or abdicate.
Philip V had not right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. A possible renunciation is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
After the death of Louis (XV), Philip V of Spain becomes heir to the throne of France through the «collatéralité masculine»: in the absence of a male son, the Crown returns to the closest male relative of the King by virtue of the «continuité de la Couronne» (ou instantanéité de la Couronne: «Le roi est mort; vive le roi!»): when the king dies, his successor as soon as king «the king (the government) never dies» (« le roi [l’État] ne meurt jamais»).
The renunciation of Philip V of Spain: bla bla bla... (the renunciation, thus, is not legitimate, it can not have legal force. In France the renunciation is not became Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, because it was avoided to convene the Estates General to the ratified, deceiving the European diplomacy with a simple ratification by the Parliament of Paris (and of other provinces), which, as we know, was a "legal body", not "legislative". The ratification by the Parliament of Paris has a only mere value notarial. Philip V has never recognized the validity of renunciation signed under duress of the England: as a matter of fact, in 1726, he wrote to the Parliament of Paris to be proclaimed King, «in case of death of the King of France his nephew, by being he his successor to the crown by right of birth and by means the fundamental laws of the State, until he can take possession of the kingdom»).

In this hypothesis, the hypothetical Treaty of Utrecht would could to be different: Philip V of Spain at that time already had two sons and Queen Maria Luisa of Savoy was pregnant for the fourth time.
The Foreign Powers would probably have recognized his rights of succession to the Crown of France on condition that he would have to abdicate the Crown of Spain in favor of his second son (possible for the laws of succession of the Spanish kingdoms).

SECOND "time" discriminating: March 1713 (Treaty of Utrecht signed on 11 April 1713).
In Spain the Philip V's renunciations were made Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by the same sovereign who convoked specifically for this the Cortes in March 1713. This means that, according to the spanish principles of legitimacy, no member of the descendants of Philip V has the right to the Throne of France.
If the renunciation was not declared Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, it could have been considered invalid the renunciation; but a Fundamental Law can be repealed only by the King and the Cortes.

Scilicet: in Spain only the King and the Cortes can cancel the renunciation allowing to a descendant of Philip V to claim the throne of France: by means of a dispensation from the King and the Cortes, an Infante (descendant of Philip V) could claim the throne of France (for this reason the Crown of France, in last nineteenth century, it's up indisputably and unquestionably to the Orléans; with the distinction between "famille et maison" (family and House) and "Couronne" (Crown): there is a clear distinction between the role of heir to the role of "Head of the House" and heir to the French throne).

So if I'm understanding this correctly the Spanish cortes recognized that none of Felipe's descendants had rights to the throne of France, while due to the non-summoning of the États
Généraux the French do not view Philippe's renunciation of his French rights as binding/legal. So, then, in view of the Cortes, the next heir to the throne of France should the little duc d'Anjou follow grandpa, parents and brother to the grave, would be the duc de Berri/duc d'Orléans, while according to the French, the next heir would be Philippe?

Still, I suppose wars have been fought over less

But the "immediate" renunciation of Berri is what stymies me, since despite not being a beneficiary of Felipe V renouncing the crown immediately in his favor (the terms of the will), he was still heir-presumptive to the throne of Spain (1700-1707).

Okay, a slight tweak, Felipe returns over the Pyrenees to France, with the pregnant Dauphine Marie-Louise 'Louison' and his young son, Louis, formerly Prince de los Asturias, now duc d'Anjou (?). Marie Louise is pregnant at the time of the return (her third son, Felipe Pedro is born in June 1712), but due to the stress of the journey the son is stillborn. Meaning that Spain is temporarily without a king, since their king is currently the dauphin of France, and Berri is theoretically regent for a son of Felipe's that is yet to be born. Or even if Felipe Pedro is born alive and the paths of the new dauphin and the duc de Berri cross on their way in and out of France, what happens in 1719 when Felipe VI Pedro kicks? Would Spain be willing to accept Ferdinand de France? Or would they simply crown the surviving Berri as the new king of Spain? Perhaps the War of the Quadruple Alliance takes on a successional-aspect due to France and Spain being at sixes and sevens about their respective successions
 
I one day would like to see a succesful for a time at least Franco-Spanish union that isnt a wank or ASB.
 
Personally I've always thought the renunciation clauses in Utrecht were a bit ridiculous.

I think just like you.

I've never heard that the Cortes had altered Spain's Fundamental Laws of the Realm to forbid their royals any right to succeed in France. For some reason that sounds a bit fishy and legally dubious. I mean for one what right did the Cortes have to legislate the French succession? I mean I can understand forbidding a union between Spain and France, but not trying to dictate who France can and cannot accept as their Sovereign. If you don't mind, do you have a source for the Spanish legislation in 1713?

Being Philip King of Spain, his choice regarding the succession to the French throne and his own rights to the crown itself, were a topic that concerned in the front line and directly the Spaniards and the Spanish Cortes, it is therefore right that they have legislated regarding this matter.

About the sources, the site of François Velde offers a precise look, concise and well documented on the Querelle de succession au trône de France.

The question of the role of Spanish Cortes is mentioned in the works of Walton, Dhondt, MacInnes, Williamson, etc., but you can simply write into Google "spanish+cortes+March+1713"...

Finally, to the Orléans rights, one could easily argue that their treason (first the Louis Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans voting for the execution of Louis XVI then his son Louis Philippe III usurping the throne from Charles IX) invalidated their right of succession to the French throne. Just my opinion in any event.

Also about this, I think just like you, even because, moreover, Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans (1747-1793), known as "Philippe Egalité", was the son of a cocher and not of the Duke of Orléans.
But, although sadly, the position of Charles X, the only one who had a real voice in the matter of succession, is clear.

So if I'm understanding this correctly the Spanish cortes recognized that none of Felipe's descendants had rights to the throne of France, while due to the non-summoning of the États
Généraux the French do not view Philippe's renunciation of his French rights as binding/legal. So, then, in view of the Cortes, the next heir to the throne of France should the little duc d'Anjou follow grandpa, parents and brother to the grave, would be the duc de Berri/duc d'Orléans, while according to the French, the next heir would be Philippe?

My discourse was another. These are two separate things. I suggested these as two different moments in which you can place your POD because they affect and involve two different solutions. Leaving aside the content of the Treaty of Utrecht, which would change depending on where you ask POD:
1. If Louis (XV) died in february-march 1712, along with the rest of his immediate family, Philip V can easily fail to recognize the validity of renunciation signed under duress of the England, also because there is time to discuss at international level again the question, and find a solution that would become the (new) Treaty of Utrecht.
2. If Louis (XV) died childless AFTER March 1713, that is after the deliberations of Spanish Cortes, the situation is complicated because both Philip V than his descendants have an obstacle and an impediment more to get the Crown of France, also beyond that the international level: the deliberations of Spanish Cortes are really and to all effects Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom (of Spain).
 
Last edited:
Top