WI: Karl VI Has A Son(s) during the War of the Spanish Succession

[JonasResende]

The concept of Karl VI having a son is nothing new to the forum. However, I've always wondered what might be different if said son is born (probably in Barcelona where Elisabeth Christine was serving as regent) during the War of the Spanish Succession. I mean, he and Elisabeth (supposedly the most beautiful princess of the day), married in 1708, but there's a huge gap between wedding and first child. I've heard the stories about her treatment in Barcelona "for infertility", but I figure if we have a wedding night archduke-infante born at the end of 1708 or early in 1709, she wouldn't be given said "treatment".

If one looks at Karl's OTL reaction to Lieschen giving him a son (Leopold Johann was born in April 1716, died in November - 6 months before Maria Theresia was born; then Maria Anna would've been conceived inside of a year of Maria Theresia's birth. Then the tempo slows down and we have an oops! baby born in 1724, but no more thereafter), I suspect we might see another baby born before Emperor Josef's OTL death.

What do you think? Would this make any difference to the outcome of the WotSS? Obviously, if there's two boys to carry the Habsburg name forward, it changes pretty much the whole 18th century for Austria, the Empire (provided said boy(s) can father issue - which isn't that unlikely, since their parents were pretty distantly related (can't find a most recent common ancestor in the last three generations)).

 

[JonasResende]

Karl, "King of Spain", Archduke of Austria (b.1685) m. 1708 Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick (b.1691)

Leopold Johann, Archduke of Austria (b.1709, d.1757)

Karl Maximilian, Archduke of Austria (b.1711, d.1753)

Ludwig Joseph, Archduke of Austria (b.1715, d.1716)

Maria Theresia (b.1716, d.1772)

Maria Anna (b.1717, d.1781)

Maria Amalie (b.1722, d.1727)
​

Sorry it's not as good as
@Kynan or @Jan Olbracht or others', but this is just a rough sketch to show where my thoughs are headed.

 

[VVD0D95]

If e has two sons, does that necessarily mean that Britain and the allies change tact?

 

[JonasResende]

If e has two sons, does that necessarily mean that Britain and the allies change tact?

I'm not sure. The kid would be too young to rule by themselves, so would require a regency. It's not unthinkable that Leopoldo I would wind up as king of Spain in a similar way to how the underage Ferdinando IV was given the kingdom of Naples when Carlos III became king of Spain, i.e. Karl abdicates his right to his infant son to become emperor, but I'm not sure the allies would fight AS hard for a kid. Besides, wasn't Britain already looking for a way to make a graceful exit of the dancefloor in 1709/1710?

 

[VVD0D95]

I'm not sure. The kid would be too young to rule by themselves, so would require a regency. It's not unthinkable that Leopoldo I would wind up as king of Spain in a similar way to how the underage Ferdinando IV was given the kingdom of Naples when Carlos III became king of Spain, i.e. Karl abdicates his right to his infant son to become emperor, but I'm not sure the allies would fight AS hard for a kid. Besides, wasn't Britain already looking for a way to make a graceful exit of the dancefloor in 1709/1710?

Hmm this is very true, perhaps Louis might try to arrange a betrothal between one of his family and Karl's son?

 

[JonasResende]

Hmm this is very true, perhaps Louis might try to arrange a betrothal between one of his family and Karl's son?

I don't think he would. The thing is, Karl's claim to Spain itself is pretty weak, and BEHIND Louis' own line. So short of the allies deciding to tear Spain in Castile (for the Bourbons) and Aragon for the Habsburgs) and apportion the empire accordingly OR door no. 2, the war lasts longer (maybe to the slew of Bourbon deaths in 1712, and everyone realizes that all they've got are bad options: Philippe (second in line to the French throne after a sickly dauphin (Louis XV)) and Karl (emperor or first in line if Joseph DOESN'T die but still has no male issue). Both have two sons - hence the Carlos III/Ferdinando IV metaphor - but all the boys are minors. And we saw how well regencies tended to go in Spain.

 

[VVD0D95]

I don't think he would. The thing is, Karl's claim to Spain itself is pretty weak, and BEHIND Louis' own line. So short of the allies deciding to tear Spain in Castile (for the Bourbons) and Aragon for the Habsburgs) and apportion the empire accordingly OR door no. 2, the war lasts longer (maybe to the slew of Bourbon deaths in 1712, and everyone realizes that all they've got are bad options: Philippe (second in line to the French throne after a sickly dauphin (Louis XV)) and Karl (emperor or first in line if Joseph DOESN'T die but still has no male issue). Both have two sons - hence the Carlos III/Ferdinando IV metaphor - but all the boys are minors. And we saw how well regencies tended to go in Spain.

Hmm this is very true, either way it's going to be a cluster fuck aha

 

[alexmilman]

I don't think he would. The thing is, Karl's claim to Spain itself is pretty weak, and BEHIND Louis' own line. So short of the allies deciding to tear Spain in Castile (for the Bourbons) and Aragon for the Habsburgs) and apportion the empire accordingly OR door no. 2, the war lasts longer (maybe to the slew of Bourbon deaths in 1712, and everyone realizes that all they've got are bad options: Philippe (second in line to the French throne after a sickly dauphin (Louis XV)) and Karl (emperor or first in line if Joseph DOESN'T die but still has no male issue). Both have two sons - hence the Carlos III/Ferdinando IV metaphor - but all the boys are minors. And we saw how well regencies tended to go in Spain.

I did not quite get it in the terms of a change in the situation. So Charles (not an emperor yet, just a pretender to the Spanish crown) has a son. But he still is a heir to the HRE throne. Right? So when his brother dies he goes to get the imperial crown and, if I understand your idea correctly, his son is now a pretender the throne of Spain.

But, IIRC, the Allies had been militarily losing in Spain except for Catalonia so would this really matter if the claim can't be supported by a military force?

As for the continued allied effort, wouldn't it be mostly a matter of the British interests? On one hand a potential possibility of the Austro-Spanish Hapsburg empire is gone or postponed but OTOH after Malplaquet and Louis' concessions on the issues Britain cared about perhaps situation would be similar to OTL no matter what: anti-war party in Britain is going to win. If this happens, then the rest is still similar to OTL: on its own Austria can't defeat France and not in a good position to support a military effort in Spain. Or did I miss your point?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

While its an interesting idea, ultimately it's relatively meaningless for the Spanish succession war. Unless the birth of a son coincides with a renewed, permanent success on the Spanish front (ie holding territory and not just taking Madrid for a short time), this would only mean that the Austrian succession is later secure. The best we could hope for is a 1709 POD butterflies the death of Josef I and the easy excuse the Allies gained from that but by Josef's death both Britain and the Netherlands were quite sick of the war and the former was already under the Tories, who wanted to extract themselves from the war and had in fact already began negotiations with France. As @JonasResende said, the best Karl could hope for by this point would be pumping enough resources in to detach the Crown of Aragon from Spain and rule there. Which actually would be a really cool idea BTW.

 

[JonasResende]

I did not quite get it in the terms of a change in the situation. So Charles (not an emperor yet, just a pretender to the Spanish crown) has a son. But he still is a heir to the HRE throne. Right? So when his brother dies he goes to get the imperial crown and, if I understand your idea correctly, his son is now a pretender the throne of Spain.

You understand correctly, but are the Allies (especially if they've been losing) going to back a child king?

While its an interesting idea, ultimately it's relatively meaningless for the Spanish succession war. Unless the birth of a son coincides with a renewed, permanent success on the Spanish front (ie holding territory and not just taking Madrid for a short time), this would only mean that the Austrian succession is later secure. The best we could hope for is a 1709 POD butterflies the death of Josef I and the easy excuse the Allies gained from that but by Josef's death both Britain and the Netherlands were quite sick of the war and the former was already under the Tories, who wanted to extract themselves from the war and had in fact already began negotiations with France. As @JonasResende said, the best Karl could hope for by this point would be pumping enough resources in to detach the Crown of Aragon from Spain and rule there. Which actually would be a really cool idea BTW.

I once toyed with the idea of splitting Spain into its component crowns of Castile and Aragon (yes, I'm aware that both of those had component crowns as well, but I didn't want to Balkanize it too much) with Castile (and the overseas empire) going to the Bourbons, and the Habsburgs getting Aragon, Naples, Sicily and Italy. The Southern Netherlands would go to a third party (maybe Lorraine - whose ancestral duchy would be annexed by France; or Max II if Austria kept Bavaria).

Now that you've brought up the death of Josef I (definitely one of the more underused historical characters IMO - alongside Gustaf III of Sweden and Willem II of Orange), what if we were to reverse it. Josef lives, but the Empress Wilhelmine dies. This means that the emperor has a chance to remarry (who?) and beget heirs, which could turn the whole thing into a glorious mess. Because ideally Josef's kids - from both his first or second marriages - would inherit the Habsburg German realms, while Karl's would get Spain/Italy. However, history doesn't give what's ideal, unfortunately.

 

[alexmilman]

You understand correctly, but are the Allies (especially if they've been losing) going to back a child king?

My personal impression was that everybody was for him/herself and that the Britain was at war mostly by its own reasons and as soon as its demands were satisfied (Stuarts issue, right of Asiento, Newfoundland, Majorka, Gibraltar, etc. and guarantees of the Barrier Fortresses to the Dutch) there was no real reason for a continued fighting and financial support of the anti-French effort as did happen in OTL. Would existence of the child-king change the situation? Honestly, I don't think so. There was no clear gain for Britain in having a Hapsburg Spain vs. Bourbon Spain as long as they were kept from HRE/France correspondingly.

Which would leave the Hapsburgs on their own and, as history demonstrated, Villars was able to dealt with Prince Eugene.

Anyway, the Allied cause in Spain was lost (with a possible exception of Catalonia) after the Battle of Almanza 1707 (allowing the Brits to save face with a statement that in that battle the British general defeated the French ).

 

[JonasResende]

My personal impression was that everybody was for him/herself and that the Britain was at war mostly by its own reasons and as soon as its demands were satisfied (Stuarts issue, right of Asiento, Newfoundland, Majorka, Gibraltar, etc. and guarantees of the Barrier Fortresses to the Dutch) there was no real reason for a continued fighting and financial support of the anti-French effort as did happen in OTL. Would existence of the child-king change the situation? Honestly, I don't think so. There was no clear gain for Britain in having a Hapsburg Spain vs. Bourbon Spain as long as they were kept from HRE/France correspondingly..

Don't dispute your analysis, although I think (this is just an opinion) had William III died sooner (or Carlos II died later), Anne would've preferred to stay out of the war altogether. She got handed the baby when she became queen, but the declaration of war stemmed from William's personal agenda against Louis. In a bio of Marlborough I read in high school, the author wrote that most English/Scots didn't really care either way who sat on the throne in Spain, and that Louis XIV could've saved everyone in Europe a headache had he made it clear from the get-go what he did in the 1710s (that there was to be no Franco-Spanish Union).

IMHO, If Anne had been the one on the throne when Carlos II died, she likely would've done a deal with Louis XIV about his support for her half-brother, said "we'll back your grandson if you stop backing my brother" and gone back to their day to day. Without England or the Dutch, it would've been yet another French-Habsburg war, and TBH, the French had the legal high ground (superiority of the claims through elder sisters, plus being named as chief beneficiary in the will) on their side AIUI.

On the question of Joseph's remarriage, is a Bourbon princess possible? It was only a year or so later that Louis XIV was trying to remarry Felipe V to an Austrian archduchess, so might that work?

 

[Jürgen]

Even without gaining Spain this POD would be pretty interesting, because it change the entire reign of Charles VI, if he doesn't have to spend it on dealing with his succession. I suspect that the result would be that the Austrian-Turkish War (1716-18) turn into a longer series of wars. If Charles VI was less busy with European diplomacy, maybe he could push some reform, the question is really was he competent enough to do that. Another aspect would be that without the succession crisis, Austria doesn't give up their colonial ambition, the Austrian may set up a similar colonial empire to Denmark, of course they may also go bigger. Also his wife and daughter was both competent, which increase the chance of his potential son also being competent and such a son would have political influnce from the late 1720ties, which could result in the replacement of the more incompeent ministers, and maybe such a son would listen more to Eugewne of Savoy than his father did.

But we can make some guesses about potential conflict

Spain trying to take Sicily from Savoy (same result as in OTL Spain fail and Austria "trade" Sardinia for Sicily).
Polish Succession War (I suspect both France and Austria stay out, could see Prussia intervene to support Saxony against gaining Royal Prussia or Greater Poland/Posen).
War of Tuscan Succession (success depend on whether the Austrians have successfully reformed or not).
War of Neuburg Succession in 1742 (I suspect Prussian victory)

Without a Austrian Succession War, we don't see the birth of the Prussian-Austrian rivalry, Prussia may rise anyway, but without the hostile relationship with Austria. Sweden avoid their disasterous war with Russia, which means a better border with Russia, making a 1809 style "Blitzkrieg" conquest of Finland unlikely.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

You understand correctly, but are the Allies (especially if they've been losing) going to back a child king?



I once toyed with the idea of splitting Spain into its component crowns of Castile and Aragon (yes, I'm aware that both of those had component crowns as well, but I didn't want to Balkanize it too much) with Castile (and the overseas empire) going to the Bourbons, and the Habsburgs getting Aragon, Naples, Sicily and Italy. The Southern Netherlands would go to a third party (maybe Lorraine - whose ancestral duchy would be annexed by France; or Max II if Austria kept Bavaria).

Now that you've brought up the death of Josef I (definitely one of the more underused historical characters IMO - alongside Gustaf III of Sweden and Willem II of Orange), what if we were to reverse it. Josef lives, but the Empress Wilhelmine dies. This means that the emperor has a chance to remarry (who?) and beget heirs, which could turn the whole thing into a glorious mess. Because ideally Josef's kids - from both his first or second marriages - would inherit the Habsburg German realms, while Karl's would get Spain/Italy. However, history doesn't give what's ideal, unfortunately.

Don't dispute your analysis, although I think (this is just an opinion) had William III died sooner (or Carlos II died later), Anne would've preferred to stay out of the war altogether. She got handed the baby when she became queen, but the declaration of war stemmed from William's personal agenda against Louis. In a bio of Marlborough I read in high school, the author wrote that most English/Scots didn't really care either way who sat on the throne in Spain, and that Louis XIV could've saved everyone in Europe a headache had he made it clear from the get-go what he did in the 1710s (that there was to be no Franco-Spanish Union).

IMHO, If Anne had been the one on the throne when Carlos II died, she likely would've done a deal with Louis XIV about his support for her half-brother, said "we'll back your grandson if you stop backing my brother" and gone back to their day to day. Without England or the Dutch, it would've been yet another French-Habsburg war, and TBH, the French had the legal high ground (superiority of the claims through elder sisters, plus being named as chief beneficiary in the will) on their side AIUI.

On the question of Joseph's remarriage, is a Bourbon princess possible? It was only a year or so later that Louis XIV was trying to remarry Felipe V to an Austrian archduchess, so might that work?

Actually the British involvment in the war came from Louis XIV's proclamation of James III & VIII's accession. The English (rightly) felt that Louis was interfering with their succession and feared that, as he had already given Spain one King, he was preparing to give England another by any means necessary. But I do agree that the Sun King's insistence on preserving Felipe V's succession rights and needlessly raising the specter of a Franco-Spanish union was a HUGE miscalculation. He could have issued a proclamation preserving the Borbón succession rights wail banning a union of Crowns; ie if the King of Spain inherits the throne of France he has to abdicate the former crown or pass the later on to his son/brother/what have you. This is just an example though.

I think that, even without William III's involvement, a succession war would still happen (I believe that the Austrians were already moving troops into Milan in early 1701, before the Grand Alliance was reformed and the war officially began) but it would go better for the Bourbons.

No. Josef was heavily opposed to a French bride from the get-go (one was suggested in the mid 1690s, before marrying Wihelmina, and he shot it down; something along the lines of wanting a German bride). Best bet would be Isabel Farnese as marrying her would bring Parma (and possibly Tuscany) to the Habsburgs, transforming northern Italy into an Austrian Province.

 

[JonasResende]

Actually the British involvment in the war came from Louis XIV's proclamation of James III & VIII's accession. The English (rightly) felt that Louis was interfering with their succession and feared that, as he had already given Spain one King, he was preparing to give England another by any means necessary. But I do agree that the Sun King's insistence on preserving Felipe V's succession rights and needlessly raising the specter of a Franco-Spanish union was a HUGE miscalculation. He could have issued a proclamation preserving the Borbón succession rights wail banning a union of Crowns; ie if the King of Spain inherits the throne of France he has to abdicate the former crown or pass the later on to his son/brother/what have you. This is just an example though.

Hence why I suggested a backroom deal between Anne and Louis = British support for Felipe in exchange for Louis dropping his support for the Stuarts.

Josef was heavily opposed to a French bride from the get-go (one was suggested in the mid 1690s, before marrying Wihelmina, and he shot it down; something along the lines of wanting a German bride). Best bet would be Isabel Farnese as marrying her would bring Parma (and possibly Tuscany) to the Habsburgs, transforming northern Italy into an Austrian Province.

I considered La Farnese for Josef (I originally toyed with her as wife for Karl (with him getting an independent kingdom of Naples and duchy of Milan in exchage for Habsburg acknowledgement of Bourbon Spain) although I can't see it being a very happy marriage. Both had very strong personalities (Farnese striking me as a spoiled brat writ large).

If Josef still decides on a German bride, are there any alternatives besides his Pfalz cousins (Maria Anna Karoline of Bavaria maybe, in a scenario where Austria keeps Bavaria, Max II gets the Southern Netherlands?) I never understood why as the only daughter she was allowed to stay unwed. Usually in such cases the girl was either ugly (as in the daughter of Pedro II of Portugal) or expressed religious sentiments (like the daughter of Lucrezia Borgia). I've never found a picture of Maria Anna Karoline, but AFAIK she never got herself to a nunnery - and if she resembled her aunts (dauphine and grand princess of Tuscany) she'd be plain rather than ugly.

And even if Mariandl WERE religiously minded, it wouldn't necessarily be an issue. Both Wilhelmine and her mother-in-law (Eleonore Magdalene of Neuburg) had a strong turn to religion IIRC

 

[JonasResende]

Even without gaining Spain this POD would be pretty interesting, because it change the entire reign of Charles VI, if he doesn't have to spend it on dealing with his succession. I suspect that the result would be that the Austrian-Turkish War (1716-18) turn into a longer series of wars. If Charles VI was less busy with European diplomacy, maybe he could push some reform, the question is really was he competent enough to do that. Another aspect would be that without the succession crisis, Austria doesn't give up their colonial ambition, the Austrian may set up a similar colonial empire to Denmark, of course they may also go bigger. Also his wife and daughter was both competent, which increase the chance of his potential son also being competent and such a son would have political influnce from the late 1720ties, which could result in the replacement of the more incompeent ministers, and maybe such a son would listen more to Eugewne of Savoy than his father did.

But we can make some guesses about potential conflict

Spain trying to take Sicily from Savoy (same result as in OTL Spain fail and Austria "trade" Sardinia for Sicily).
Polish Succession War (I suspect both France and Austria stay out, could see Prussia intervene to support Saxony against gaining Royal Prussia or Greater Poland/Posen).
War of Tuscan Succession (success depend on whether the Austrians have successfully reformed or not).
War of Neuburg Succession in 1742 (I suspect Prussian victory)

Without a Austrian Succession War, we don't see the birth of the Prussian-Austrian rivalry, Prussia may rise anyway, but without the hostile relationship with Austria. Sweden avoid their disasterous war with Russia, which means a better border with Russia, making a 1809 style "Blitzkrieg" conquest of Finland unlikely.

I wonder if the war of the Tuscan Succession would be a war per se? I mean I don't think Giovan' Gastone will be producing kids any time soon, but the main reason the agreed on succession went belly-up was due to the Bourbon seizure of the kingdom of Naples.

The war of the Quadruple Alliance may be avoided simply by a different wife for Felipe V, since AFAIK it was more a plan Farnese and Alberoni cooked up than anything else. No WQA means that OTL Louis XV is probably never betrothed to the infanta (although this might hinge on his parents dying or not - since if no WQA but his parents live, they might still want a Spanish bride), and never marries Marie Leszczynska (pity, she cleaned at the French Bourbon genepool some - Louis XV was descended from 4/5 of Henri IV's kids (some more than once) and a cousin match won't help that), which means Marie probably becomes margravine of Baden (sister-in-law to the duc d'Orléans) and Stanislas loses a powerful backer.

Ergo the Palatine-Tuscan Succession Wars might be more along the lines of OTL's Bavarian succession? Or it may be that these wars roll into one and serve as a pressure-release valve since the OTL wars of the period MAY be removed

 

[JonasResende]

Another question, if Karl has 2 boys by 1711 (if/when the Empress Wilhelmine dies instead of her husband), would Josef necessarily consider remarrying (immediately, at least. The succession is so to speak secure-ish) or would he tarry a while?

 

[JonasResende]

If Josef lives (maybe remarries and has a son) is Karl likely to get a "kingdom" shorn off for him to "rule" à la Tuscany or Burrgundy? I was thinking that Naples would make the most likely option, although I once saw a TL where he's made king of Hungary (with Josef and his line getting the Empire and Burgundy). Thoughts?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

@JonasResende, there are sourced on Maria Anna Karoline from the German Wikipedia that explains why she never married. She caught rickets at age three and developed a slight spinal curvature as well as apparently losing her sight in the left eye (the translation isn't great but calls it a star disease in the eye and later mentions an eyepatch of green taffeta. Plus she did have a religious calling; after a failed love affair with her uncle Prince Konstantin Sobieski, she entered the Order of St. Clara in 1719.

As for Josef remarrying, the is his STD (supposedly Syphilis). We know he passed it to Wilhelmina in 1704 and that it supposedly made her barren. Now I have contested this several times over the years (Wilhelmina had a pregnancy a year from 1699 to 1701, yet none in 1702 and 1703; the STD wasn't passed to her until 1704. It's just as possible that complications form the 1701 pregnancy rendered her infertile and the Court simply blamed the STD instead) but the possibility is there that Josef wouldn't father a son with a second wife.

And if we go with a son of Carlos III succeeding Josef, it becomes the question of which? Does Josef demand the eldest or would be be content with a second son?

 

[alexmilman]

Don't dispute your analysis, although I think (this is just an opinion) had William III died sooner (or Carlos II died later), Anne would've preferred to stay out of the war altogether. She got handed the baby when she became queen, but the declaration of war stemmed from William's personal agenda against Louis. In a bio of Marlborough I read in high school, the author wrote that most English/Scots didn't really care either way who sat on the throne in Spain, and that Louis XIV could've saved everyone in Europe a headache had he made it clear from the get-go what he did in the 1710s (that there was to be no Franco-Spanish Union).

Yes, it seems that for the Brits an issue of the Stuarts succession/restoration was close to the top of the list (and perhaps the right to sell the slaves to the Spanish colonies). So if Louis did not declare his support of the Stuart cause (rather idiotic move) and did not insist on his candidate not being excluded from the French succession (again, quite idiotic at that time: there were numerous French princes still alive by 1700 and, strictly speaking, with the legitimization of his bastards, there was more than one candidate even by the end of the war) the whole thing could be avoided and replaced with a peaceful partition of the Spanish possessions in Europe. The Austrian Hapsburgs hardly could sustain a prolonged war with France strictly on their own even with a trump card like Prince Eugene (who was seemingly well matched by Villars). At best they would be able to gain on one theater (Italy) with the French having a more or less free hand elsewhere.