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

@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?

Thanks for the info on Maria Anna Karolina, I did not know that. I always just assumed it was perhaps due to the fact that her father was seen as a fair-weather friend by both the French and the Austrians that she never married. Didn't know about the health issues.

As to first or second son, Joe might decide to pull a repeat of Karl V. He can't take his oldest nephew, since he has no assurances that there will be other boys - he and Karl VI only had one apiece OTL, his dad only had five (of which only three made it past their final year) - and the Spanish might take issue with the child that they see as Spanish being sent to Vienna. IMO, once the second boy is born, Joe will probably order him to be brought to Vienna.

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure what Louis was hoping for. Antonia Fraser writes in her bio of him that it was simply not in Louis' nature to turn away this for the aggrandizement of his dynasty. All well and good then. But the Stuarts were not Bourbons. They were clients of the Sun King much like numerous princes etrangers were. He didn't go trumpeting the claims of the de la Trémoïlles or the Guises to the Neapolitan throne, so why he decided the Stuarts were a good bet, I'm not sure. Britain will get involved as long as France wants the Low Countries - she was like a proverbial dog in the manger about that (nobody but France wanted it, and nobody but England wanted the French to have it) - and will probably not want it to end up in th ehands of a French proxy like Max II of Bavaria or the duke of Savoy. If France and England can come to an agreement about leaving those alone, England and the Dutch won't get involved - hopefully William III's personal vendetta against Louis can be left out of the negotiations.
 
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.

I know that the Stuart succession intervention is what pissed off ALL the politicians of England and got them behind William III's rearmament and reformation of the Grand Alliance. The Asiento contract demand seemed to have developed during the Spanish Succession war, and didn't precede the conflict. But even the Felipe V part was needless. EVERYONE in France knew that Felipe V still had his rights to France; Louis XIV just insisted on getting Parlement to register an edict confirming those existing rights. Honestly, it's like the Sun King took leave of his senses in 1700 and 1701, like people who win the lottery and spend huge, only to blow it all. Though I do think your overestimating the Habsburg ability to challenge the French without Britain and Marlborough. In the absence of Britain, France doesn't have to wast troops on the Spanish front (no way for the Austrians to send troops or their pretender to Aragon), the ability of the allied troops in Flanders and Germany to properly organize is shot (Marlborough is the man who kept the armies well-fed, well supplied and well organized), not to mention that the Grand Alliance would lack any other great commander other than Prince Eugene, and the man can't be everywhere. Even if the Dutch still signed on to the Alliance, I still think that the Two Crowns could win and hold the entire inheritance.

As to first or second son, Joe might decide to pull a repeat of Karl V. He can't take his oldest nephew, since he has no assurances that there will be other boys - he and Karl VI only had one apiece OTL, his dad only had five (of which only three made it past their final year) - and the Spanish might take issue with the child that they see as Spanish being sent to Vienna. IMO, once the second boy is born, Joe will probably order him to be brought to Vienna.

Or if they're close enough in age, he'll insist on the eldest. Hard to say and Carlos was fairly kowtow to big brother; begrudgingly it must be said, but kowtow he did nevertheless.

Yeah, I'm not sure what Louis was hoping for. Antonia Fraser writes in her bio of him that it was simply not in Louis' nature to turn away this for the aggrandizement of his dynasty. All well and good then. But the Stuarts were not Bourbons. They were clients of the Sun King much like numerous princes etrangers were. He didn't go trumpeting the claims of the de la Trémoïlles or the Guises to the Neapolitan throne, so why he decided the Stuarts were a good bet, I'm not sure. Britain will get involved as long as France wants the Low Countries - she was like a proverbial dog in the manger about that (nobody but France wanted it, and nobody but England wanted the French to have it) - and will probably not want it to end up in the hands of a French proxy like Max II of Bavaria or the duke of Savoy. If France and England can come to an agreement about leaving those alone, England and the Dutch won't get involved - hopefully William III's personal vendetta against Louis can be left out of the negotiations.

I can answer that as well. Louis XIV and the Grand Dauphin seemed to have saw James III as a fourth grandson/son respectively, while James himself saw the Sun King as a surrogate grandfather. There was a heavy emotional connection between them that can't be underplayed. Plus there's the political ramifications; France kicked Charles II to the curb in the 1650s when his chances at restoration were low, then everything turned completely on its head when he was restored in 1660. If Charles wasn't so pro-Bourbon it could have been a disaster scenario for France. Louis had no desire to abandon the Stuarts and see them restored a second time, potentially bringing England's very considerable resources against him. By comparison, the Princes Étranger had no real chance.

As for the Netherlands, hard to say. Keeping France out was the policy of the Georges, Whigs and eighteenth-century Britain, not isolationist seventeenth-century England and the Tories. There were a lot of people that hated William III's needless wars and had no care to who ruled the Spanish monarchy. If was only after Louis needlessly provoked everyone (proclaiming James III, openly preserving Felipe V's French rights and yes expelling the Dutch from the Spanish Netherlands and replacing them with French troops ex ex) that caused the war to develop like it did. And only the James III thing antagonized England; the Flemish parts just POed William III.
 
I can answer that as well. Louis XIV and the Grand Dauphin seemed to have saw James III as a fourth grandson/son respectively, while James himself saw the Sun King as a surrogate grandfather. There was a heavy emotional connection between them that can't be underplayed. Plus there's the political ramifications; France kicked Charles II to the curb in the 1650s when his chances at restoration were low, then everything turned completely on its head when he was restored in 1660. If Charles wasn't so pro-Bourbon it could have been a disaster scenario for France. Louis had no desire to abandon the Stuarts and see them restored a second time, potentially bringing England's very considerable resources against him. By comparison, the Princes Étranger had no real chance.

As for the Netherlands, hard to say. Keeping France out was the policy of the Georges, Whigs and eighteenth-century Britain, not isolationist seventeenth-century England and the Tories. There were a lot of people that hated William III's needless wars and had no care to who ruled the Spanish monarchy. If was only after Louis needlessly provoked everyone (proclaiming James III, openly preserving Felipe V's French rights and yes expelling the Dutch from the Spanish Netherlands and replacing them with French troops ex ex) that caused the war to develop like it did. And only the James III thing antagonized England; the Flemish parts just POed William III.

So with regards to the Stuarts, Louis XIV was playing the long-game then? Makes sense.

I'm more interested as to how this affects things with regards to the Holy Roman Empire? Even if Josef doesn't die, and instead is widowed and remarries (but still has no further kids), or things go as OTL, these archdukes going to stand as heirs to some rather substantial real-estate (Hungary-Bohemia, Austria, the Southern Netherlands, Naples, Milan and the imperial title (for what it's worth)). Having male heirs means that Karl VI isn't trying to flog his Pragmatic Sanction all over Europe and having to "buy" everyone's acceptance. Which could have some pretty big outworkings on the conflicts going on - Tuscan succession, the dust-up over the Cleves inheritance, the Turkish Wars etc. - if Karl is not a "peace at any price" sort of guy he was OTL because he wanted to collect useless signatures.
An interesting result would be that the Ostend Company survives - Britain and the Netherlands made the dissolution thereof conditional for their support of the Sanction. Not being an imperial son-in-law means that François III never has to renounce his patrimony of Lorraine and be compensated with Tuscany. (Since I'd imagine Karl would want more important sons-in-law here - he only agreed to François because no one would object too strongly against the guy, but he blocked his younger daughter's marriage to François' brother Charles). Stanislas Leszczynski never gets Lorraine because it is never left without a ruler, etc, etc.
 
Though I do think your overestimating the Habsburg ability to challenge the French without Britain and Marlborough.

Well, I thought that I was pessimistic enough about it. ;) To make myself more clear, I was talking about a single theater, Italy, and even then not for a long run.

In OTL the operations in Italy started (AFAIK) earlier than those in the Low Countries and in the early 1702 Eugene managed to force French to retreat behind Adda river. One of the problems for the French was "weakness on the top": Louis was not always putting in charge the best commanders available and replacing Catinat (after minor offset) with Villeroi (who was high in his favor but seemingly lacking in the area of military talents) was one of his "master strokes". The generals like Tallard (who managed to screw up monumentally at Blenheim) or Marsin (who managed to do the same at Turin) also were not Eugene's equals and, IIRC, he even managed to outmaneuver Vendome in Italy. As a captured French soldier allegedly told Marlborough after Blenheim, "we had 30,000 soldiers like me but we did not have a general like you".

Of course, this would mean that alone the Hapsburgs would not be able to do anything about Spain (or even get there) and limit scope of their operations to the Rhine and Italy. If they chose Italy as their main priority, they could be successful for a while, as long as Louis is not sending a capable commander like Vendome or Villars with enough troops to more or less guarantee a success.

Anyway, I'm not sure that on their own the Hapsburgs would be able to finance a prolonged war: Eugene's army had been held together mostly by his personal prestige and he was forced to allow his troops to loot because they were rarely had been paid on time. Add to this a Hungarian uprising in the "rear" and the picture does not look too good.

OTOH, one should never underestimate Louis' ability to wrestle a defeat from the jaws of victory: he clearly had a great talent in creating the enemies and fighting the wars lacking a clear purpose. Would he fight for a complete Spanish empire or would he be willing to come with some compromise like partitioning the Italian possessions? The same for the Rhine: would he try to get the "natural border" on the Rhine (which he seemingly wanted but failed to achieve in the earlier wars), which had nothing to do with the Spanish Succession? Would he try to grab Spanish Netherlands (with a high probability of triggering the British entry into the war)?

As a side though, it is interesting to compare the warfare of Louis' time with the French Revolutionary Wars. Louis had the best and the biggest army in Europe led by some of the best commanders of that time (Turenne, Conde, Luxemburg) and failed to conquer more than few small pieces of the territory. The Republic managed, with approximately the same or even lesser numbers of the ill-disciplined and badly-supplied troops led mostly by far from brilliant commanders (well, there were few exceptions), capture both Belgium and Netherlands and establish border on the Rhine.
 
Top