Decisive French Victory in Spanish Succession War and Philip V and Louis XV have sons

Same as the other thread, but most think that there be a Personal Union between Spain and France. But Philip V is the younger son of Louis XV's father, so if Philip V will not be barred from the French throne, and if everything else happens exactly the same...

The Personal Union would happen in...

1883

Since the senior French Line only ended in 1883 with the death of Henry, Count of Chambord, and by that time, the Spanish senior line was ousted in favor of the junior line as a result of Isabella's succession, and the French Monarch would be overthrown too.

Or it could happen in 1936 when Alfonso XIII became the senior capetian. But by the time, he was already overthrown...

Seriously, a decisive French victory in the Spanish Succession War would mean that the Southern Netherlands remain Spanish, or would be annexed by France, and Naples and Sicily remaining part of the Spanish crown.

And a Bourbon Family Alliance.

Unless Louis XV dies without heirs, that's it!

What would be the implications of the Southern Netherlands becoming French or remaining Spanish, or Naples, Milan and Sicily remaining part of the Spanish crown as a result of a decisive French victory in the Spanish Succession War?
 
Last edited:
Why a personal Union in 1883 ?

In your timeline, France and the Bourbons win the decisive struggle for the domination of western continental Europe. This implies that the UK has failed to have its balance of powers policy prevail in Europe.

This means that France becomes the really dominant power in Europe and that it will stand on this domination to conquer and retain an overseas domination not very different from the one Britain built in the 18th century.

This means that there will be no french revolution the way it happened. So Louis XVI's son may live and have children. So you can forget Henry countries of Chambord.
 
Why a personal Union in 1883 ?

In your timeline, France and the Bourbons win the decisive struggle for the domination of western continental Europe. This implies that the UK has failed to have its balance of powers policy prevail in Europe.

This means that France becomes the really dominant power in Europe and that it will stand on this domination to conquer and retain an overseas domination not very different from the one Britain built in the 18th century.

This means that there will be no french revolution the way it happened. So Louis XVI's son may live and have children. So you can forget Henry countries of Chambord.

This is simply a reaction to all the people that assume that Charles II and Louis XIV's goal was to have a personal union between the two countries. It was not. Charles II made Philip of Anjou, the younger brother of Louis, Duke of Burgundy, the heir. The true heir should be his father, the Grand Dauphin, but in choosing the younger brother, he signified that he wanted a Bourbon king, but not a personal union with France!

Louis XIV's goal it to break the Habsburg encirclement of France, a goal of every French King since Francis I.

I'm just saying a decisive victory of France and Spain won't necessarily mean a personal union between the two countries in the 18th century, that if all people in OTL were born in this timeline, the earliest possible personal could happen only in 1883, and as you said, the changes in this timeline, never mind the enormous butterflies, could mean that the thrones of Spain and France, even if those monarchies remain absolute forever, could remain separate forever.

So to repeat, France wins at Blenheim, etc does not equal to union of Spain and France.

It merely means a family compact of two bourbon powers, something that happened in OTL, and the Spanish Netherlands and Italy remaining in Spanish hands.
 
Top