You already have a thread about this.![]()
The IOTL partage was made along these lines :
- Archiduke would have Spain, Netherland and American holdings
- Louis de France (and not directly France) would gain Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Lorraine and part of Basque Country.
- Leopold of Lorraine would recieve as compensation Milan.
Why did it change so radically ITTL?
No. Louis wasn't king of France (and given the PoD, wouldn't be soon as he died in 1701).As for your middle comment, Louis de France receiving the territory = France receiving the territory.
Also on another note... where did it say they would receive Lorraine and part of the Basque county, I cannot find anything that supports that, but I might be wrong.
No. Louis wasn't king of France (and given the PoD, wouldn't be soon as he died in 1701).
As he wasn't associated with his father rule at all, at the point of forming a quasi-counter government in his estates, if he inherited Tuscany, Lorraine, Sicily and Naples; you can be sure it would be, while largely influenced by French politics, clearly separate.
It's the terms of the Second Partition Treaty of 1700. (Which are by exemple, present in the accounts of the royal conseil, particularly in Beauvilliers speech)
Or to his son more probably, as it would be far more logical when it comes to inheritence.If he died in 1701, his possessions would go surely go to his father.
1) If Lorraine is to remain independent, I'm not sure the treaty would have been enforced. Remember that the partition treaty were the result of really REALLY harsh negociations, and that respecting the terms of these negociation would be a sine qua non condition to make the deal work.Also we can assume Lorraine remain independent because the duke of Lorraine cannot get Milan. Also there no reference to the basque region. Thank you for the help!
Or to his son more probably, as it would be far more logical when it comes to inheritence.
1) If Lorraine is to remain independent, I'm not sure the treaty would have been enforced. Remember that the partition treaty were the result of really REALLY harsh negociations, and that respecting the terms of these negociation would be a sine qua non condition to make the deal work.
2) I did send you a reference, to be found in Bueavilliers speech. Didn't you read it?
De jure means "officially" : and officially, it would go to Louis de France and his sons, not to French Crown.Regardless if it goes to his son or anyone else within the French monarchy, it is going to be de jure French territory.
Not the website, the speech.it didn't mention the basque county... maybe I missed it.
Qu‘il n’y avait point de comparaison entre l’accroissement de la puissance et d‘États unis à la couronne aussi nécessaire que la Lorraine, aussi importants que le Guipuzcoa pour être un chef de l’Espagne aussi utiles en commerce que les places de Toscane, Naples et Sicile et la grandeur particulière d’un fils de France, dont tout au plus la première postérité devenue espagnole par son intérêt se montrerait aussi jalouse de la puissance de la France que les rois d’Espagne, autrichiens ; qu’en acceptant le testament il fallait compter tout une longue et sanglante guerre par l’injure de la rupture du traité de partage et par l’intérêt de toute l’Europe à s’opposer à un colosse tel qu’allait devenir la France pour un temps.
De jure means "officially" : and officially, it would go to Louis de France and his sons, not to French Crown.
And for aformentioned reason, while de facto (that means unofficialy) influenced by French politics, it would still keep a large autonomy up to its de jure absorbation by France when the holder of Naples/Sicily/Lorraine/Guipuzcoa would inherit the throne.
Not the website, the speech.
(Even if it IS mentioned in the website)