WI: Joseph I leaves a male heir?

Gonzaga and Janprimus, I thank you both for welcoming me to the board. The Hapsburgs promised Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, the duchy of Montferrat, and territory in Lombardy in order to convince him to abandon his alliance with France. In OTL, Victor Amadeus was given Sicily as a kingdom as part of the treaty of Utrecht. In a scenario where Leopold Joseph becomes emperor, Marlborough will still most likely lose his command. In OTL, Great Britain was negotiating a separate peace with France even before the death of Emperor Joseph, so they will probably press for similar terms OTL’s treaty of Utrecht.

In this scenario, OTL Charles VI would rule the Spanish Netherlands, Milan, and Naples. As heir to Leopold Joseph, he would probably have the right to be regent of the hereditary Hapsburg possessions, but would most likely allow his mother Eleonor Magdalene to remain interim regent. If the Ottomans still attack Venice in 1714 (as they did in OTL), it would interesting to see how the regency would respond. It would also be interesting to see if Charles VI would reconcile with the Maritime Powers in order to protect his territories from Philip V.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I'm glad you bring this up. First of all, a belated welcome, I sometimes forget my manners. And second of all I completley agree with you. I spent the weekend reading up on the Treaty of Utrecht (I had some down time away at the family lake house) and I don't really see how an Emperor Leopold II would materially change the course of the war or the negotiations to the extant that Charles could be awarded Spain. I think some POD that would eliminate the Tory government that was hell bent on peace. Indeed the British began secret peace preliminaries before Joseph even died. And even after the death of the Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany increased the chance that Philip could inherit the French throne they still persisted in negotiations premised upon Philip retaining Spain.

Having said that I think that there is some potential for more favorable terms from France. Not because the British are more sympathetic to Austria with Charles and Leopold II keeping the two realms separate but because an Imperial Regency may be more inclined to make peace which may ironically get them better terms. I'll try to lay out my reasoning.

OTL one of the problems was that the British negotiated the outlines of a peace with the French in secret before the congress of powers assembled in Utrecht and gave assurances to them vis a vis the ongoing campaign in northern France. Thus the French came into the negotiations with a very belligerent attitude towards the Dutch and Imperial sides. Basically the French gave Britain virtually everything they wanted. The British gained the Asiento and trading rights in Spains Empire, Gibraltar and Minorca. The French agreed to demolish the fortifications and Dunkerque, abandon and exile the Stuart Pretender and recognize the Protestant succession. In exchange they secured Spain for Philip and basically a free hand to extort as much as they could from the remaining allies in the negotiations, including at one point demanding all of the Spanish Netherlands for their ally the Elector of Bavaria.

Now IOTL Charles refused to consider surrendering his claims to Spain and as HRE was able to insure the Empire would back him. But if we suppose that the Empire is under a Regency headed by a non-Habsburg (the Elector Palatine and of Saxony) then they may agree to come to terms releasing the various German states from following Austria in continuing the War. In fact I think if the Imperial plenipotentiaries are appointed by the Regents then its possible they may end up on the same page as the British and the French as far as the basic preliminary, that is that Philip gets Spain. If that's the case then it may be possible for the allies to once again negotiate as a single block vis a vis France increasing their leverage. Add to the fact that there is less fear of a Habsburg power block emerging and Britain may go along and aid the allies in their negotiations. Its also possible that they may provide less restrictive orders to Ormonde if they assume Eugene will be less aggressive against the French if the Imperial side is now inclined towards peace as well. Thus while the allies may not take Cambrai they may not be so horrendously defeated at Denain either.

This doesn't help Charles that much but it may get something for Austria. One of the main Dutch and Imperial demands was that the French surrender the city of Strasbourg. In the end France returned the fortress of Kehl opposite the Rhine but kept the city. If Strasbourg (the city not Alsace at large) is offered to Austria then there will be great pressure to take the deal. Charles may have enough power in the Austrian Regency to sway them against it but he won't in the Imperial Regency so when the Reichstag convenes to vote on the Peace proposal they will likely approve it as opposed to OTL where they rejected the Peace of Utrecht and fought on for another year until signing a separate peace at Rastatt. So basically rather than doubling down on a loosing hand like OTL Austria and the Empire give up on Spain and instead push a hard bargain for the rest and come out slightly better in the end.

As for the exact terms I think there's some interesting possibilities. The OTL Treaty of Utrecht gave Sicily to Savoy, as opposed to Sardinia, because Sardinia was given to Bavaria. This was because Bavaria lost the upper Palatinate and other minor territories after Blenheim while at the same time the French and Spanish had promised them the Spanish Netherlands. This clause was overturned by the Treaty of Rastatt which gave Sardinia to Austria in exchange for the full restitution of pre-war Bavarian territories. So if Austria gets to keep something in Bavaria in exchange for screwing Charles out of a little more of his Spanish inheritance it could happen. I think this is where Charles' role in the Austrian Regency may come in. He could exert pressure there to ensure he gets the biggest slice of Spanish Italy possible. Thus Austria may restore Bavarian territories at Utrecht in exchange for which Sardinia is available for Savoy leaving Sicily to Charles.

So a final settlement may result in the (Italian?) Netherlands, Milan, Naples and Sicily going to Charles. Savoy gets Sardinia and Austria gets Strasbourg. the rest is basically as OTL. Only the whole war is wrapped up by 1713. I think the biggest long term affect would be if Charles still had only daughters as per OTL. Because theoretically under the Pactum mutuae successionis of 1703 Joseph's male children would inherit over Charles' female children setting up another succession conflict. Unless some alternative is explicitly set forth as part of the Treaty of Utrecht. More immediately, as Alpha Trion mentioned, there is War looming in the Balkans, the reaction of the Regency being crucial. I'd also wager that both Charles and Philip go to war within a few years. Philip to reclaim Italy for Spain and Charles to reclaim Spain for himself. This conflict will be decided by the position of the sea powers, Britain and France mainly. And considering that the nature of the French regency is also in doubt, as the Duke of Berry may yet survive his OTL hunting accident, anything could happen.
 
I'm glad you bring this up. First of all, a belated welcome, I sometimes forget my manners. And second of all I completley agree with you. I spent the weekend reading up on the Treaty of Utrecht (I had some down time away at the family lake house) and I don't really see how an Emperor Leopold II would materially change the course of the war or the negotiations to the extant that Charles could be awarded Spain. I think some POD that would eliminate the Tory government that was hell bent on peace. Indeed the British began secret peace preliminaries before Joseph even died. And even after the death of the Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany increased the chance that Philip could inherit the French throne they still persisted in negotiations premised upon Philip retaining Spain.

Just a doubt: was this insistence of British diplomacy about making peace and accepting Philip on the Spanish throne somehow related with the end of French support to the Stuart claimants? I know it happened with the end of the war IOTL, but was it part of the reasons why they were wanting peace earlier?
EDIT: Nevermind, I've read your post too quickly and didn't see that you explained it later.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Just a doubt: was this insistence of British diplomacy about making peace and accepting Philip on the Spanish throne somehow related with the end of French support to the Stuart claimants? I know it happened with the end of the war IOTL, but was it part of the reasons why they were wanting peace earlier?

From what I've read the last few days the succession issue in Britain was a big motivator in many interesting ways. First one has to understand that it wasn't a British desire for peace so much as a Tory desire for peace. The Whigs were adamantly opposed to a separate peace or any peace that wasn't dictated to a defeated France.

During the final negotiations at Utrecht there was such concern about the health of Queen Anne that the British basically told the allies they were signing the Treaty and if they had any further qualms they were on their own. Thus the Dutch, Savoy, Prussia etc were forced to hastily conclude their negotiations. The fear on the part of the Tories was if the Queen died and Sofia or her son came to the throne they would overturn the peace process and press on with the war. So while the Tories needed to secure the Protestant succession they were also afraid of it upending their plans if it occurred too soon.
 
Vitruvius, thank you for welcoming me to the board. Your posts about the treaty of Utrecht are very informative. I agree with your point about Charles using his authority as Austrian regent to trade Bavarian territories for Sicily. Charles would probably have to give up the Austrian regency by 1715 (In OTL, Albert II took power in Austria in 1411 at age 15 while Matthias Corvinus assumed power in Hungary in 1458 at age 15) as I’m sure Eugene of Savoy would be clamoring for the regency to end ASAP. Joseph I had an excellent relationship with Eugene of Savoy and it is possible that Joseph would write a will leaving the responsibility of tutoring TTL Leopold II to Eugene. It is said that Eugene felt Joseph I treated him like a brother. Perhaps in this scenario, Leopold will treat Eugene like a father. Imagine a pragmatic Leopold raised by Eugene to learn the value of having a strong army and having the ability to choose excellent generals. Leopold, if the Ottomans were at war with Venice as in OTL, would declare war on the Ottomans in 1715. If Charles were attacked by Philip during this new war with the Ottomans, then Eugene would advise Leopold to focus on fighting the Ottomans. In OTL, Eugene was very successful in fighting the Ottomans but had to end the war prematurely because Charles wanted to protect his territories in Italy from Philip V. In this scenario, Eugene manages to force the Ottomans to give up all of Serbia to Leopold and restore the Peloponnesus and Crete to Venice. Without Austrian help, Charles will probably lose Milan, Sicily and Naples. The Maritime Powers will defend the Spanish Netherlands if only to keep them out of Bourbon hands. France, under the regency of the Duke of Berry, may form an alliance with Spain. This alliance may focus on Italy (and avoid the Spanish Netherlands) in order to keep the Maritime Powers neutral in a war with Charles.

With his lands reduced to the Netherlands, Charles will be dependent on the Maritime Powers. He would undoubtedly secure the succession of his territories to his daughters if he has no sons. Charles would resent his nephew for not helping him against Philip V and this resentment would prevent an alliance between them. With Eugene of Savoy as his principal advisor, Leopold would concentrate on making Austria the leading power in Eastern Europe. Leopold will most likely marry his sisters to the husbands they had in OTL, solidifying his relationships with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. In OTL, Augustus II of Poland planned a partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia, and himself, with the bulk of Poland erected into a hereditary kingdom ruled by the House of Saxony but he died before he could implement it. I’m assuming this plan would have given Prussia land that linked Brandenburg with Ducal Prussia and Austria would probably have gained Galicia. In TTL, I can see Eugene of Savoy convincing Leopold to wait until the death of Peter the Great to implement a partition of Poland while forming a defensive alliance with Prussia and Saxony-Poland. By the 1730’s, I can see Austria in a much stronger position in Europe that in OTL, because they wont have to worry about defending any territory in Italy or the Netherlands. A pragmatic Leopold II would consolidate his territories, maintain a strong army, and form a strong relationship with Bavaria, Saxony-Poland, and Prussia.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Vitruvius, thank you for welcoming me to the board. Your posts about the treaty of Utrecht are very informative. I agree with your point about Charles using his authority as Austrian regent to trade Bavarian territories for Sicily. Charles would probably have to give up the Austrian regency by 1715 (In OTL, Albert II took power in Austria in 1411 at age 15 while Matthias Corvinus assumed power in Hungary in 1458 at age 15) as I’m sure Eugene of Savoy would be clamoring for the regency to end ASAP. Joseph I had an excellent relationship with Eugene of Savoy and it is possible that Joseph would write a will leaving the responsibility of tutoring TTL Leopold II to Eugene. It is said that Eugene felt Joseph I treated him like a brother. Perhaps in this scenario, Leopold will treat Eugene like a father. Imagine a pragmatic Leopold raised by Eugene to learn the value of having a strong army and having the ability to choose excellent generals. Leopold, if the Ottomans were at war with Venice as in OTL, would declare war on the Ottomans in 1715. If Charles were attacked by Philip during this new war with the Ottomans, then Eugene would advise Leopold to focus on fighting the Ottomans. In OTL, Eugene was very successful in fighting the Ottomans but had to end the war prematurely because Charles wanted to protect his territories in Italy from Philip V. In this scenario, Eugene manages to force the Ottomans to give up all of Serbia to Leopold and restore the Peloponnesus and Crete to Venice. Without Austrian help, Charles will probably lose Milan, Sicily and Naples. The Maritime Powers will defend the Spanish Netherlands if only to keep them out of Bourbon hands. France, under the regency of the Duke of Berry, may form an alliance with Spain. This alliance may focus on Italy (and avoid the Spanish Netherlands) in order to keep the Maritime Powers neutral in a war with Charles.

With his lands reduced to the Netherlands, Charles will be dependent on the Maritime Powers. He would undoubtedly secure the succession of his territories to his daughters if he has no sons. Charles would resent his nephew for not helping him against Philip V and this resentment would prevent an alliance between them. With Eugene of Savoy as his principal advisor, Leopold would concentrate on making Austria the leading power in Eastern Europe. Leopold will most likely marry his sisters to the husbands they had in OTL, solidifying his relationships with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. In OTL, Augustus II of Poland planned a partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia, and himself, with the bulk of Poland erected into a hereditary kingdom ruled by the House of Saxony but he died before he could implement it. I’m assuming this plan would have given Prussia land that linked Brandenburg with Ducal Prussia and Austria would probably have gained Galicia. In TTL, I can see Eugene of Savoy convincing Leopold to wait until the death of Peter the Great to implement a partition of Poland while forming a defensive alliance with Prussia and Saxony-Poland. By the 1730’s, I can see Austria in a much stronger position in Europe that in OTL, because they wont have to worry about defending any territory in Italy or the Netherlands. A pragmatic Leopold II would consolidate his territories, maintain a strong army, and form a strong relationship with Bavaria, Saxony-Poland, and Prussia.

I agree with the role you've outline for Eugene. I also was thinking his great-nephew's marriage to the heiress of Massa and Carrara may come off ok ITTL which will have some knock on affects in Italy. Though I do wonder about how much it benefits the Austrian military. IOTL Eugene still dictated Austrian military policy essentially until his death. He of course had to bend to the will of the Emperor and perhaps there were a few times when had he had his way things could turn out better but that's hard to say. One of Eugene's biggest problems is that he never really believed in drilling his troops or building up an officer corps the way emerging military states like Prussia did. He didn't link that to military tactics so while Prussia could call upon a very well disciplined corps of soldiers Austria could not and relied upon Eugene's tactical and strategic prowess to lead their soldiers to victory. This will become a greater handicap as the century goes on and the role of standing armies increases. So Leopold II really needs to cultivate the next generation to take over from Eugene and that won't be easy if he's so close to Eugene. Otherwise things may follow OTL.

As for war in Italy I was thinking a Spanish invasion, or an attack by Charles on Spain (he's just crazy and obsessed enough to try it), would probably occur later. I don't see it happening concurrently with an Austro-Turkish war. France despite her surge at the end of the War is still exhausted and will need time to recover. Spain too, plus Spain needed a few years to digest areas like Catalonia that had sided with Charles. Philip revoked their traditional fueros and incorporated them into a more centralized Spanish state. That process took a little while. But the main reason for the delay is that the primary movers of the invasion of Italy OTL where Elisabeth Farnese and Cardinal Alberoni. Elisabeth didn't arrive in Spain until the end of 1714 and she didn't have that much power until she removed the Princess des Ursins the following year. Alberoni wasn't PM until 1715 as well. So I don't see an invasion before the 1716 campaign season, which would be about a year ahead of OTL.

By 1716 the war against the Turks may be about finished. If the Austrians sign on at Utrecht then the War of Spanish Succession is over by the spring of 1713. Thus the Austrians are free to move against the Turks in 1714 and acting in concert with the Venetians victory could be had by 1716-17 freeing up veteran troops to pour into Italy. Alternatively if the Spanish hadn't invaded yet Charles may take the Austrian success in the Balkans as an opportunity to launch his own attack against Spain. Either way the conflict is likely to escalate more that it did OTL.

Britain, with George on the throne, will likely intervene due to Elisabeth's support of the Great Pretender, unlikely to change much ITTL. And of course Savoy is involved because any Spanish invasion will have to take Sardinia to secure their supply lines. So even if France sides with Spain its just a repeat of the previous war. One possibility I could see is French success in Germany, retaking Strasbourg or some border forts in the Netherlands may compel Austria to make a peace that sacrifices some portion of southern Italy. That would definitely embitter Charles and cause a break within the Habsburg ranks. Thus I could see him marrying his daughters to Philip's younger sons by Elisabeth. This was actually contemplated OTL but there's more motivation now as Charles has been beaten, cast aside by Austria and can't secure anything for his daughters without the cooperation of Spain. So a Bourbon-Farnese-Habsburg dynasty of some sort could inherit Milan, Parma,Tuscany, Naples and Sicily by mid-century.
 
Maybe, but that's just a thought, if Charles of Habsburg does badly against France and Spain, the Maritime Powers and others could ''convince'' him to hand over the Southern Netherlands to his nephew Leopold. Since the Maritime Powers would prefer a more powerful power against France; in fact in the most extreme case it could be the only territorial exchange. Charles of Habsburg based in Italy, most likely Naples, will be harder to beat for not fully recovered Spain.

Instead he may retain most of his Italian holdings, Naples and Sicily; Milan OTOH could be swapped with Lorraine with Lorraine together with Strassburg (and other parts of the Alsace) becoming French. In fact Charles of Habsburg or in this case Carlo VI & IV d'Asburgo of Naples and Sicily could become popular in his Italian holding as the first king to reside there for centuries, like in OTL Carlo VII & V di Borbone (Charles of Bourbon) was. And now as his principal holding, there will be much less Austrians and more local involvement.
 
Last edited:
Vitruvius, I hadn’t considered Eugene’s attitude toward developing an officer corps comparable to the one Prussia had. In OTL, the Austrian army lacked good commanders in the wars following Eugene’s death. Leopold II would have problems keeping whatever territories Eugene conquered in any future wars. I also didn’t consider the effect Elizabeth Farnese would have on relations between Charles and Philip V. Her support of James Stuart would ensure Great Britain’s support of Charles. Cardinal Alberoni’s reforms would enable Philip to invade Sicily by August 1717 thus starting a rematch of the War of the Spanish Succession. I disagree with your point about French success in Germany forcing Austria into sacrificing southern Italy. The Netherlands (OTL Belgium) and Naples are both territories of Charles in this scenario so they would have to negotiate them away from him. The Maritime Powers will not easily give up any land in the Netherlands to the Bourbon alliance. If Eugene were to finish off the Turks in 1717, then Austria would be free to fight the Bourbons. With France invading Germany, Leopold would have a pragmatic reason as Emperor to enter the war, thus preventing a rift with his uncle. With Eugene in the war, I can see TTL Quadruple Alliance winning and preserving all of Charles’s territories. In TTL, I could see Leopold’s second son (maybe Leopold can marry Maria Anna Karoline of Bavaria in 1716) marrying Charles’s oldest daughter and heiress.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
This is kind of like point counterpoint. I was kind of thinking that if the French invade southern Germany with some success it may draw the Austrians out of Italy. That could leave southern Italy open for the Spanish. In the end Austria and Britain may concede southern Italy to Don Carlos in exchange for a French withdrawal from Germany. They wouldn't necessarily need Charles' approval because without the Austrians and the British he can't stand up to Spain. So if Austria and Britain agree to the to Spanish conquest of Naples and Sicily as a fait accompli in exchange for French withdrawal in Germany Charles may be out of luck. That kind of 'stab in the back' peace settlement would certainly estrange Charles from Leopold.

Or it could play out like you've outlined or as Janprimus suggested. The followup war could unfold any number of ways depending on circumstances and the precise nature of the settlement at Utrecht. I'm almost tempted to develop a TL for this. I've considered it before but never from this angle so at the very least this has been a very interesting discussion.
 
A TL about this scenario would be interesting and I hope you do develop one. The idea of Austria not having to defend territories in the Netherlands and Italy but instead focusing on land contiguous with the hereditary Hapsburg lands in the 18th century would be fascinating. As for Charles being a “native” king of Naples, I can definitely see Neapolitans preferring a king ruling from Naples, but his personality makes me wonder if he would have had enough political foresight to invoke patriotism. Charles in OTL refused to try to have his son in law Emperor Francis I elected King of the Romans in the hopes that his wife might die and Charles could then sire a son with a new wife. So his acumen in ruling was highly dubious.
 
A TL about this scenario would be interesting and I hope you do develop one. The idea of Austria not having to defend territories in the Netherlands and Italy but instead focusing on land contiguous with the hereditary Hapsburg lands in the 18th century would be fascinating. As for Charles being a “native” king of Naples, I can definitely see Neapolitans preferring a king ruling from Naples, but his personality makes me wonder if he would have had enough political foresight to invoke patriotism. Charles in OTL refused to try to have his son in law Emperor Francis I elected King of the Romans in the hopes that his wife might die and Charles could then sire a son with a new wife. So his acumen in ruling was highly dubious.

I too find this in interesting scenario, however it IMHO could also be done with less territories in Italy and/or the Southern Netherlands (and the Southern Netherlands has the ''advantage'' that the Maritime Powers don't like the idea of these becoming French). The main focus will stay Central (and depending on definition Eastern) Europe and the Balkans. However I doubt that this will prevent Austria from getting involved in the international conflicts.

Alternatively maybe the duke of Lorraine & Bar will be compensated with the Southern Netherlands instead of my earlier suggestion Milan (could stay with Charles).

IOTL Charles also implemented good policies in the Habsburg Lands, so overall he wasn't that bad nor great. He did felt betrayed, when his allies forced him to accept the treaty, which ended the war of the Spanish succession (this IMO won't change TTL).
Obviously for a long time he hoped for a son to continue his house, another indication for this is that his daughters, including his eldest daughter Maria Theresia, only got a normal education for a princess; so even his eventual heiress didn't receive the education normally given to a crown prince. However all sources mention him as a family man and good father. OTOH he did eventually decreed the Pragmation Sanction, which declared the indivisibility of the Habsburg lands and allowed for female succession in the absence of any male heir.
He had to work very hard to achieve international diplomatic recognition for this.

Furthermore Charles seemed to have raised Francis Stephan as son after he the latter was sent to the Austrian Court at the age of 15; and after his marriage Francis Stephan was appointed to important councils and he got a good position in Austrian Army (but he turned out to be no great soldier). I like to mention the fact that the Emperor was elected by the Prince-Electors any convincing these could take some time and concessions; so it more likely was the case the Charles was too late (he obviously needed time to come to terms with the fact that he wouldn't have a son of his own the continue his house), when he finally accepted Francis Stephan as a heir.

Ironically Charles seemed to have thought of Francis as a regent, whereas it turned out IOTL that Maria Theresia was a good ruler, however Francis was the financial and economic expert (something which wasn't a strong point of Maria Theresia).
 
Last edited:
Janprimus, I acknowledge that Charles was a loving father and that he did give Francis important duties in the government (including a disastrous army command in Russo-Turkish War of 1736-39). However, Charles had four years before his death to get Francis elected King of the Romans and made no effort to do so. Charles’s efforts to get the Pragmatic Sanction approved by the nations of Europe hurt Austria. Case in point, Charles allied with Russia in order to get its recognition of the Pragmatic Sanction. They were obliged by this alliance to assist Russia in its wars with the Ottomans. Austria had a miserable showing in the Russo-Turkish War of 1736-39 due in large part to their failures in the war of the Polish Succession. These back to back defeats left Austria in bad shape with an empty treasury and a demoralized army. Eugene of Savoy is alleged to have warned Charles that a strong army and full treasury were the best guarantees but Charles left Maria Theresa with neither.
 
I never wrote that Charles was a brilliant ruler, he made some good and some bad decisions. Regarding the imperial election, that really isn't that simple the majority of the electorate-archbishoprics Mainz, Cologne and Trier and prince electorates Saxony (during the era sometime king of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania), Brandenburg (king in Prussia), the Palatinate, Bavaria ,Hanover (in personal union with Great Britain) and the kingdom of Bohemia (held by the Habsburgs) could have been unwilling. The pragmatic sanction had a high prince and some of them also didn't stick to their side on the bargain on that occasion.

Furthermore I came up with different treaty after a rematch of the war of the Spanish succession.

France gets Lorraine & Bar and some parts of the Alsace. In return the duke of Lorraine & Bar receives the Southern Netherlands and a royal crown (to make it a more acceptable deal), like the promises made IOTL to the elector, duke of Bavaria and count Palatine Charles Theodore (was promised title king of Burgundy and the Austrian (Southern) Netherlands for Bavaria); and another treaty were the Bourbon duke of Parma, Piacenza and Guastella was offered the same in exchange for his duchies, in exchange France would support (and recognize) Austria in their attempt to regain Silesia). This could either be a resurrection of Burgundy or Lotharingia (or maybe a part of the Southern Netherlands, like Brabant is raised to a kingdom), but in this case Lotharingia seems the most appropriate option (Lorraine & Bar was historically a part of Upper Lotharingia and most of the Southern Netherlands was a part of Lower Lotharingia).
The duchy of Milan either goes to a younger son of the king of Spain (like IOTL Naples-Sicily and Parma. IOTL Tuscany was also a secundogeniture for the house of Habsburg-Lorraine); or Sardinia-Savoy manages to capture and keep Milan.
Finally Charles would be allowed to retain the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily.
 
Last edited:
but in this case Lotharingia seems the most appropriate option

Personally I don't think that Lotharingia would be a likely name in this situation, or at least one the French would accept. It would be too easily related to Lorraine, and in the future it could be possibly used by the king of the Southern Netherlands to claim Lorraine back. I think the Bourbon would want a title that makes clear they the House of Lorraine is now the ruler of only Southern Netherlands.
 
Personally I don't think that Lotharingia would be a likely name in this situation, or at least one the French would accept. It would be too easily related to Lorraine, and in the future it could be possibly used by the king of the Southern Netherlands to claim Lorraine back. I think the Bourbon would want a title that makes clear they the House of Lorraine is now the ruler of only Southern Netherlands.

Earlier use of Belgium?
 
Top