PC: United Kingdom of France and Spain
- Thread starter Kaiser Tito
- Start date
The Blancs d'Espagne (as this faction was called) was basically a non-issue. They were too few and too irrelevant to make a difference in the politics of that era. Everyone, even before the death Count of Chambord, was betting on him dying thus the Count of Paris could become the heir and to accept the offer of becoming the King of France (or King of the French, as the Orleans titled themselves). That was the compromise both Legitimists and Orleanists already agreed.
But everything came to naught after the Monarchists lost the 1877 election and they became a minority in comparison with the Republicans, thus losing all the chances they had at that time.
I think this argument is rather arbitrary . . . one could point to earlier movements like the Dutch revolt as examples of nationalism. The French Revolution may have accelerated these social forces but I don't believe that they did not exist previously.
In any event, I don't see how the élites of either Paris or Madrid in the XVIII/XIX century will be content to have their king living in the other capital, and it is not realistic to expect the court to travel between the two. A union would have needed to happen centuries before this to last.
You mean in the way England and Scotland were ruled by the same monarch? If your POD is early enough you can develop nationalism in both countries to be based around flavors of a common Latin nationalism versus Perfidious Albion.
Unless the Bourbons had won the War of the Spanish Succession that renunciation probably was the only way in which their rivals could have countenanced Philip taking the Spanish throne: Even at the date given for this PC, it's highly unlikely that the other European powers would have stood for one of his descendants becoming king of France as well. Apart from anything else, that would provide a precedent to throw all the rest of the Peace of Utrecht -- in so far as any of its clauses hadn't been voided by later events, which Britain's possession of Gibraltar hadn't -- into question.
Assuming that Calbear doesn't rebury this thread back in the grave, France winning the Seven Years War was one of the pods I had in mind.
I agree. The rest of Europe would not accept the idea of just me not my line.
If it were a stronger country, or an earlier point of divergence, it could, perhaps, happen.
In 1883? Too late. The French would laugh at the idea of pathetically weak Spain trying to force her claim to the French throne. At best, they would politely say no. They would then proceed to mobilize their army and navy, as well as fortify the Pyrenees, and crush the Spanish forces, if the Spanish tried to force the claim anyway.
The United States is likely to decide that this is an excellent opportunity to remember that they had an alliance with France and try to seize Cuba, their long-cherished ambition. This war will go very badly for Spain and very well for France.
Of course, it is very likely that the French will decide that the best way to avoid these kinds of problems is to proclaim a Republic. (Ironically, the Spanish had tried the same thing in 1873, when they were unable to decide who was the best contender to succeed Amadeo of Savoy.)
And this is before considering whether the Spanish Bourbons would actually have a claim to the throne or not.
In 1883? Too late. The French would laugh at the idea of pathetically weak Spain trying to force her claim to the French throne. At best, they would politely say no. They would then proceed to mobilize their army and navy, as well as fortify the Pyrenees, and crush the Spanish forces, if the Spanish tried to force the claim anyway.
The United States is likely to decide that this is an excellent opportunity to remember that they had an alliance with France and try to seize Cuba, their long-cherished ambition. This war will go very badly for Spain and very well for France.
Of course, it is very likely that the French will decide that the best way to avoid these kinds of problems is to proclaim a Republic. (Ironically, the Spanish had tried the same thing in 1873, when they were unable to decide who was the best contender to succeed Amadeo of Savoy.)
And this is before considering whether the Spanish Bourbons would actually have a claim to the throne or not.
If the Spanish were such a laughable choice then they'd probably just give the crown to Orleans than just give up the monarchy.
Last edited:
Not if there was a republican majority among the French. Given the situation, the new king would have to count on the support of the French people. That he presumably would rather have a French President than a Spanish King. As for the Orleans, would they have enough supporters to be considered?
The Légitimistes did not like the house of Orléans, whom they regarded as regicides and usurpers. They preferred the Spanish Bourbons to them. Thus IOTL the comte de Paris did not get the crown when Henri d'Artois declined it. The Légitimistes would rather see a republic (which they would expect to fail) in the short term.
Last edited:
Even then it might have been possible for Philip V to become king of France, provided he would leave Spain to a younger son. Kinda like how IOTL Charles III of Spain renounced Naples and Sicily for a younger son, in order to become king of Spain. IMHO something similar will happen here.
Uniting France and Spain will create a monster alliance against them.
The Bourbons circumvented this treaty by claiming that the blood of their lineage is superior to treaties.
This is what Philip did after the death of Louis XIV and that is why we still have a Spanish pretender to the French throne.
The rest of Europe will have an incentive to combine their forces to prevent a union between France and Spain from happening.
However if the king of Spain would abdicate Spain to a younger son (the eldest son will be the new Dauphin) in order to become king of France. That IMHO would certainly be possible, since it keeps the Status Quo intact.
