Charles II dies early

Charles II of Spain was one of the most sickly monarchs of all history, if not THE most. It's a wonder how he lasted that long. So how would history be affected if he died suddenly before being married? Or during his first marriage to Maria Louisa of Orleans?
 
An earlier War of Spanish succession unless he a family member living at that time, he was impotent anyway no heirs would come from him unless he appointed someone else his heir.
 
An earlier War of Spanish succession unless he a family member living at that time, he was impotent anyway no heirs would come from him unless he appointed someone else his heir.
What if he died as a child, before he succeeded to the throne? Who would be named heir then? By law, Marie Therese, Queen of France, would be the heir.
 
That would make Louis XIV king consort of Spain and it could lead to an earlier Bourbon Spain, granted the others powers might not let that slide.
 
Astonishingly, Carlos II had a grand-nephew, Josef Ferdinand of Bavaria, son of Carlos II's niece Maria Antonia of Austria. His early death at age six wiped out that branch of the family. You could butterfly in some better health for him and get him on the throne sooner after Uncle Carlos kicks it.

BTW, Maria Antonia of Austria must surely be the most inbred person in semi-modern history of whom we have good records -- her mother and father were uncle and niece; her mother's parents were uncle and niece; her father's parents were first cousins; her father's father's parents were first cousins; and so on. Most people have 16 unique great-great-grandparents. Maria Antonia had only 10.
 
It really depends on when Charles II of Spain dies and on what he does on his deathbed: the second part is important because he made Philip V his sole heir in his will upon his deathbed and Louis XIV choose to accept it.

Most of Europe knew Charles II was so sickly he would die childless. The Spanish Succession was a huge problem because it involved the two strongest dynasties of their time: the Bourbons and the Hapsburgs. To bring balance, partitions treaty were decided to solve the question. If Charles II dies before 1700, one of these treaties is likely going to be applied.

If he dies before one of such treaties is made, the succession goes as follows:

  • Infanta Maria Theresa and her children, meaning Bourbon princes.
  • Infanta Margaritha Theresa and her children: Margaritha Theresa only had one daughter, Maria Antonia, who in turn only had one son, Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria.
  • The descendants of Anne of Austria: the brothers of Philip III died childless and Anne was his eldest daughters. We thus go back to the Bourbons.
  • The descendants of Maria Anna of Austria: she is a younger daughter of Philip III and she married into the Austrian Hapsburg. That's from her that the Austrian Hapsburg had their claim on the Spanish throne during the OTL War of Spanish Succession.
Emperor Constantine said:
What if he died as a child, before he succeeded to the throne? Who would be named heir then? By law, Marie Therese, Queen of France, would be the heir.
Philip IV of Spain died in 1665. If he has no sons, he leaves behind his two daughters: Maria Theresa, whose married to Louis XIV of France, and Margaret Theresa, who was fianced to Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I.

None of the candidates are ideal for the succession as both inevitably screw the balance of power. In the case of a Bourbon succession, "There are no more Pyrenees" and we get a Franco-Spanish Union that the powers won't like. If we take the Hapsburg succession, the Empire of Charles V is resurrected and the powers aren't going to like that either.

Given that Maria Theresa is older and already gave birth to a son, she is most likely to inherit Spain. But in my opinion, some kind of deal will have to be struck with the Hapsburgs to avoid a war. Though I do wonder in what shape is Europe in 1665: we're seventeen years after the end of the Thirty Years War and Eleven years after the Peace of the Pyrenees.
Mipp said:
BTW, Maria Antonia of Austria must surely be the most inbred person in semi-modern history of whom we have good records
If you ask me, Charles II still takes the cake. He was her brother and he clearly suffered more of inbreeding than his sister.
 
@ Yorel: as you said it really depends on when Charles II would die. Before his early death Charles II preferred Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria as a compromise candidate for the entire Spanish Inheritance. Spain wanted to keep their empire intact, but given the fact that both France and Austria had their claims, that seems unlikely. In fact even with Joseph Ferdinand as sole heir, France and Britain made a Partition Treaty, IMHO they did assign Austria too little to get the approval of Vienna though.

Anyway the Spanish possessions in Italy, so Naples (with State of Presidi), Sicily, Milan and Sardinia, but also the Spanish Netherlands seem to be on the table.

Another partner with a claim on a share of the Spanish inheritance is the duke of Savoy.

Finally any treaty can also involve rulers trading their territory for an other (like the exchange of Lorraine for Tuscany, and Parma, Piacenza & Guastella for Naples & Sicily, both after the war of the Polish Succession).
 
According to the first partition treaty Joseph Ferdinand would have inherited Spain, the Southern 'Spanish' Netherlands, Sardinia and the Colonies.
The dauphin, Louis, would get Sicily, Naples, the State of Presidi, Finale and Guipuzcoa north of the Pyrenees.
The Austrian candidate, archduke Charles, would get the duchy of Milan.

According to the terms of the second Partition treaty, after the death of Joseph Ferdinand, there were other terms.
Archduke Charles inherited Spain, the Southern 'Spanish' Netherlands, Sardinia and the Colonies, but as later IOTL Philip V, he wasn't allowed to unite these lands with the Empire and the lands of the Austrian branch.
The dauphin now got Sicily, Naples, Lorraine & Bar, the State of Presidi, Finale and Guipuzcoa north of the Pyrenees.
The duke of Lorraine & Bar was compensated with Milan.

There were a number of flaws to these treaties, like not all parties were involved, and Charles II was still free to name his heir, which would be able to inherit in Spain proper.

IMHO especially the first partition treaty seems uneven; not to mention the fact that the Sea Powers, the Dutch Republic and England (,Scotland & Ireland) went behind the back of their ally the HRE (Austria), still there seemed to have been some strains within that alliance.
IMHO maybe assigning Austria a bit more, like the Southern Netherlands, might lead to Austrian accept it under protest. That would be fine for the Sea Powers too, as long as the Southern Netherlands wouldn't be French.

At the end Charles II response after the First Partition was quite wise, he gave everything to Joseph Ferdinand. Maybe under this scenario France and Austria might even end allying, if they can agree on how to carve up the Spanish European possessions outside Spain.
If that would happen it would, the reaction of the Sea Powers would be interesting; they didn't want a French Southern Netherlands, but those staying Spanish or becoming Austrian didn't matter much.
 
If Charles II will die before his father, Philip IV will make the impossible for paying immediately the entire dowry of Maria Theresa (the marriage contract between her and Louis XIV gave her a very big dowry in exchange of her renounce to all her dynastic rights of succession) for being sure who Margarita Theresa will be his incontestable heiress and after Margarita and her offspring came the descendants of Maria Anna of Austria (Anna of Austria, Louis XIV's mother also renounce to all her right of succession at time of her wedding with the French King).
 
Top