Elisabeth Farnese is barren: what happens to the Spanish Succession?

Just an idea: Elisabeth Farnese, the second wife of Philip V of Spain, has a miscarriage during her first pregnancy that makes her unable to have more children. What could be the consequences of no Charles III and his siblings? And assuming that Philip's earlier sons have the same fate as IOTL (Louis I dies young and Ferdinand VI marries a Portuguese infanta that is barren as well) how could go the line of Spanish sucession?
 
Possible great since Philip V died during the war of austrian succession.

Possibly the duke of Orleans becomes king of Spain. But not certain since his father, as regent of France, had participated in an alliance against Bourbon Spain. So there may have been much hostility against him.

Since Philip V died in 1746 during the war of austrian succession, you could this event turn the end of the war into a total french victory.

Louis XV becomes Louis the unifier and the conqueror. He becomes king of Spain. He also keeps the austrian Netherlands.
 
Last edited:
If its obvious that Elisabeth's barren and Fernando wasn't produced any children, then would it not be plausible that the marriage would be annulled to allow Philip to marry fertile bride? I'm sure a reason can be found.
 
Of course it is still possible to have an arrangement in order to obtain the annulation of a marriage.

But people did not have, at that time, many means to be sure someone who had been pregnant had become barren.

Many kings remained married to their wife though unable to have a son or even any children.

Consider the austrian Habsburgs. They had to resort to the Pragmatic Sanction in order to face such a situation. And this caused a european war.

In Spain, one century later, when Fernando VII tried to do so, this caused a decades long civil war because the Bourbons transmitted thrones by salic law.
 
Of course it is still possible to have an arrangement in order to obtain the annulation of a marriage.

But people did not have, at that time, many means to be sure someone who had been pregnant had become barren.

Many kings remained married to their wife though unable to have a son or even any children.

Consider the austrian Habsburgs. They had to resort to the Pragmatic Sanction in order to face such a situation. And this caused a european war.

In Spain, one century later, when Fernando VII tried to do so, this caused a decades long civil war because the Bourbons transmitted thrones by salic law.

Both your examples had daughters, so its a whole different can of worms.
 
Well, take the example of Louis XIII of France and his wife Ann of Austria.

They had been waiting for 23 years before having children. And they did not divorce though they had a very difficult personal relationship and France and Spain were enemies and sometimes at war.

The relationship between Philip V and Elisabeth was all but difficult.

Kings did not necessarily divorce in order to have children. Sometimes, they had their brother or nephew as successor.
 
Well, take the example of Louis XIII of France and his wife Ann of Austria.

They had been waiting for 23 years before having children. And they did not divorce though they had a very difficult personal relationship and France and Spain were enemies and sometimes at war.

The relationship between Philip V and Elisabeth was all but difficult.

Kings did not necessarily divorce in order to have children. Sometimes, they had their brother or nephew as successor.

True but unlike Louis XIII Philip V had no surviving brothers. His technical heir would be Louis XV. So with a situation that could cause a European war I'm sure the Pope could be "persuaded" to grant an annulment.
 
Theoretically, yes.

But why would Philip V necessarily want annulment ?

You mentioned the risk of war and you are of course right but Europe was already in a general war at that time, and precisely about a succession matter : in the HRE for the imperial crown and for the Habsburg kingdoms and principalities. It was the war of austrian succession.

So if the french are already at war against Great Britain, Habsburg Austria, Russia, the Netherlands, and are allied with Spain, Prussia and Sweden, well there's no threat the opponents to such a succession could use to convince Louis XV from not playing this card if he wanted to.

The treaties of Utrecht were not necessarily eternal. They lasted only if Britain was able to gather an alliance that could deter the Bourbons from denouncing the treaty.

And in 1746, the european powers were exhausted and close to bankrupcy, Britain included. So I think this would have been an opportunity for a master coup for the Bourbons.
 
There is also the issue of the succession to the Duchy of Parma. IOTL the future Charles III of Spain became Duke of Parma in 1731 when Antonio Farnese, the uncle of his mother Elisabeth, died.
With no Charles III, if we follow a primogeniture line (and assuming that the right to the Duchy could pass through women as happened in the case of Charles III) then the senior claim to Parma would go to James Stuart, the Old Pretender, son of James II and Mary of Modena (who was the senior descendent of Ranucio I of Parma, through her mother Maria Caterina Farnese). Is there any chance that the Great Powers would allow James Stuart to become Duke of Parma? Or would France or the Habsbugs take it?
Also, with no Charles III, would the Habsburgs keep the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily?
 
Elisabetta having no children would deeply affect Spanish policy. She was hell-bent to get her children (presumed not to bee going to inherit Spain at the beginning) some real estate in Italy (which she managed to a point, in Naples and Parma). That was consistent with her husband's ideas about retaking former Spanish dominance over Italy, and led to Spanish involvement in three major wars (one of them directly caused by the Spanish invasion of Sicily IIRC). Without Elisabetta, Spanish attempts at recovering power in Italy may still happen, but very likely, there's going to be much less commitment. Maybe the War of the Quadruple Alliance is averted? Maybe Philip chooses not to intervene in the War of the Austrian Succession at all, or at least not at the beginning (no Treaty of Nymphenburg for instance)?
That would be huge.
By the way, how close would Maria Theresa be to the Spanish Succession in 1746? I think it's a very unlikely claim, but who else could the Allies support as an alternative to the French Bourbons?

I guess the British would be delighted to have Bonnie Prince Charles safely busy as the Duke of Parma.
 
All great questions.

By the time Ferdinand is married and clear to not have children Philip V is depressive and quickly deteriorating, if not outright insane. So I don't see him pulling any shenanigans to secure a sucession decades in the future. Besides, the way in which he renounced the crown and then seized it again after Louis I's death was very polemic at the time. The court wanted him to act as regent of Ferdinand instead, but Philip was apathetic about doing anything at all and just going with the asumption that he was authomatic king again was easier (Farnese surely conspired to achieve that too, but if she was clearly barren she would lose a lot of influence she had IOTL).

As for Ferdinand, the guy was a romantic and very much in love with his wife, so don't expect something crazy coming from there either.
 
By the way, how close would Maria Theresa be to the Spanish Succession in 1746? I think it's a very unlikely claim, but who else could the Allies support as an alternative to the French Bourbons?

Well, we could have the descendents of the daughters of Joseph I - Maria Josepha, Queen of Poland, and Maria Amalia, Electress of Bavaria - claiming the throne. Also, Maria Theresa could push one of her sons (as her father was proclaimed king of Spain). Finally, if we keep the Bourbon line, considering that the Spanish succession didn't exclude women from the throne (it was a later Bourbon law that changed it) there could be an arrangement where one of the daughters of Louis XV becomes queen.
 
I'm going to insist with the early butterflies.

War of the Quadruple Alliance was pretty much about testing the waters for what Europe was ready to do to defend the Treaty of Utretch, so I suppose it goes as IOTL.

Then comes 1724. Philip V abdicates on his son Louis (17). Louis dies mere months later. Farnese tries to manipulate to have her apathetic husband back on the throne, but doesn't get away with it because of her dismished influence. The court rallies around Ferdinand (11), crowns him and expells his step-mother to some castle (as it happened when he became king for real IOTL).

I doubt Philip would actually do nothing, but could his wife gather some support for a counter-coup? I don't think it would accomplish anything, but it might cause some other power (Austria?) to get ideas.

In order to secure France's support at least, the court immediately marries Ferdinand to Louis' widow, Louise-Elizabeth de Orleans (14, IOTL Farnese put her on a carriage to France immediately). Ferdinand might have just dodged marrying a barren woman, but his wife ITTL was a bit cuckoo:

The Armenian Genocide said:
Her poor education hindered her ability to deal with the pressures exerted on her, and she reacted by withdrawing emotionally and exhibiting odd behaviour, such as walking around naked and burping and breaking wind in public.

(ugh, yay Bourbons :rolleyes:)
 
I'm going to insist with the early butterflies.

War of the Quadruple Alliance was pretty much about testing the waters for what Europe was ready to do to defend the Treaty of Utretch, so I suppose it goes as IOTL.

Then comes 1724. Philip V abdicates on his son Louis (17). Louis dies mere months later. Farnese tries to manipulate to have her apathetic husband back on the throne, but doesn't get away with it because of her dismished influence. The court rallies around Ferdinand (11), crowns him and expells his step-mother to some castle (as it happened when he became king for real IOTL).

I doubt Philip would actually do nothing, but could his wife gather some support for a counter-coup? I don't think it would accomplish anything, but it might cause some other power (Austria?) to get ideas.

This is interesting. What would Philip do in this case? Go back to France?

In order to secure France's support at least, the court immediately marries Ferdinand to Louis' widow, Louise-Elizabeth de Orleans (14, IOTL Farnese put her on a carriage to France immediately). Ferdinand might have just dodged marrying a barren woman, but his wife ITTL was a bit cuckoo:



(ugh, yay Bourbons :rolleyes:)
Given this behaviour, would anyone in court support her?
 
Well, we could have the descendents of the daughters of Joseph I - Maria Josepha, Queen of Poland, and Maria Amalia, Electress of Bavaria - claiming the throne. Also, Maria Theresa could push one of her sons (as her father was proclaimed king of Spain). Finally, if we keep the Bourbon line, considering that the Spanish succession didn't exclude women from the throne (it was a later Bourbon law that changed it) there could be an arrangement where one of the daughters of Louis XV becomes queen.

Sounds like there's potential for an unholy mess, worse than the first Spanish Succession one. Wasn't there some sort of vague Prussian claim too?

EDIT: I agree with Tocomocho, too. Sounds like a very chaotic situation.
 
There is also the issue of the succession to the Duchy of Parma. IOTL the future Charles III of Spain became Duke of Parma in 1731 when Antonio Farnese, the uncle of his mother Elisabeth, died.
Wasn't Parma traded to Austria at some point not long after that date (at the end of the War of the Polish Succession?) IOTL, in exchange for Naples, and only returned to the Spanish Bourbons after the War of the Austrian Succession?
 
This is interesting. What would Philip do in this case? Go back to France?

They'd have to be crazy to let him. Imagine that Farnese actually convinces the French to intevene in Spain and restore her husband.

Given this behaviour, would anyone in court support her?

She is young and ambitionless. They aren't trying to empower her but to secure friendship with France, as it was intended when she was married to Louis 2 years earlier. On the other hand, her main value was that she was daughter to the French regent Duke d'Orleans who had just died the previous year and Louis XV is reigning king of France right now.

Phew, this only complicates matters.
 
She is young and ambitionless. They aren't trying to empower her but to secure friendship with France, as it was intended when she was married to Louis 2 years earlier. On the other hand, her main value was that she was daughter to the French regent Duke d'Orleans who had just died the previous year and Louis XV is reigning king of France right now.

Phew, this only complicates matters.

There is other problem: Ferdinand would be only 11, I'm not sure if he could be married to her already or just promised until he was 14. So we have a former Queen Consort who hates the Spanish court (and is disliked by them due to her temper) and that isn't as political useful as she was some years before. Personally, I doubt she would be chosen as queen again. Probably Barbara of Portugal would still be a safe bet for Ferdinand's wife.
 
Top