WI Louis XV has only daughters? French Succession War in 1774?

While I was reading about Louis XV of France I've found this interesting fact: from the 10 children that he and Marie Leszczynska had, only two were male, and only the dauphin Louis Ferdinand survived childhood. So, WI the Dauphin had been born a girl, or had died in childhood too? Would Louis Philippe I , Duke of Orleans, become king in 1774 when Louis XV dies? Or could Charles III of Spain claim the French throne to him or one of his sons? Could we have a War of the French Succession?Of course, if Louis XV doesn't have a son at the time of his wife death (1768) he could have married again in order to provide a male heir. However, just for the sake of the OP, let's assume that he doesn't remarry, or if he does his second wife also doesn't deliver a son.
 
The French would regard the Duke of Orleans as the only possible heir - a claim from Spain would be ignored or resisted with the Army. Is anyone else going to back Spain in this? My first suspicion is 'no', but perhaps someone else knows better.

My suspicion is that *Louis-Philippe I manages to successfully channel the Revolution in France and becomes a constitutional monarch without all of OTL's mess. What I'm not sure of is whether or not he and his ministers would be interested in backing the American rebels.
 
I think supporting rebels and having the British Empire reduced would still be of interest to the French Monarch, no matter who it is (unless he's British himself). France is going to like payback for the Seven Years War.
 
Remember that the so-called "salic law" was one of the Foundamental Laws of the Kingdom. It was so important that Henri III, a devout Catholic, recognised his distant cousin Henri of Navarre as his legitimate successor, even though Henri was a Protestant. He could have chosen another member of the Bourbon family, for example Henri of Navarre's oncle, the Cardinal of Bourbon (who was actually proclaimed King as "Charles X" by the Catholic League after Henri III's assassination in 1589), but felt he couldn't cheat with the law of succession.

Granted, in the treaties ending the War of Spanish Succession, Philippe V of Spain agreed to abandon any pretention on the French throne for himself and his heirs. Many jurists consider that such a renounciation is simply null and void: the crown does not belong to the King.

Louis XV, seeing himself with no male heir, would have taken steps to make sure that the crown would devolve upon the legitimate heir, in other words the eldest member of the Spanish branch of the Bourbon family.

After all, his last legitimate daughter was born when he was only 27. He would have had plenty of time to settle his succession. Philippe V of Spain was not short of male heirs. He could have sent his two eldest sons Ferdinand and Charles back to France in the early 1740s. At his death in 1746,the Spanish throne would have gone to his son Philippe, Duke of Parma, as Philippe VI.

On Louis XV's death in 1774, Charles would have been the designated successor for almost 30 years, as the Duke of Anjou (his father's title before he became King of Spain) and would have become Charles X.

I doubt very much that a piece of paper (the treaty of Utrecht) would have weighted more in Louis XV's spirit than the most foundamental law of the Capetian dynasty - the Salic law.
 
If Louis XV had only daughters, his closest parent would be the king of Spain as Philipp V of Spain was Louis XIV's grandson and Louis XV's uncle. Thus, Charles III of Spain could want to become Charles X of France.

But, since Philipp V of Spain had renounced his claim to the French Throne and had done the same for his heirs, Charles III of Spain wouldn't be in strong position to claim the French throne. However, he could still try to claim the throne as the treaty of Utrecht seems to have been made without taking the french successoral law into account : this is one of the reasons we have still legitimists in France (although in minority) who support the candidature of Luis Alfonso de Borbon (Juan-Carlos I of Spain's nephew) as Louis XX of France nowadays.

Not considering Charles III of Spain, the closest parent to Louis XV would be his cousin of the House of Orléans, descending from Louis XIV's brother, Philipp. This means that Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orleans, will inherit the throne of France, becoming king as Louis XVI, Philipp VII or Louis Philipp I depending on his wishes.
If Louis Philippe I succeeds Louis XV and things go OTL, he will be succeeded in 1785 by his son, who was called Philippe Egalité during the French Revolution...

A war of French Succession is not impossible of course, but I doubt it will happen... Because if Charles III of Spain is crowned Charles X of France, France and Spain are in personnal union, the very reason why there was a treaty of Utrecht in the first place : the other powers wanted to avoid that scenario.

EDIT : I didn't see johnjackos posting while I was writing.
 
Put it another way: Salic succession law is not regarded as a legitimate reason to violate a treaty by Britain or Austria, nor probably by a few other chunks of Italy and Germany. If Orleans wants the throne - and I think he probably does - he has two major foreign backers immediately, and (I believe) a lot of support from Paris and the French Court. The first part, the Spanish Bourbons are perfectly aware of - does Spain think it can beat Britain, Austria and some of France?

On the other hand, it'd be a interesting to explore. A War of French Succession in 1774 probably derails the ARW pretty neatly.
 
The main point of the treaty of Utrecht was to make sure that no single individual would reign on both France and Spain. If the French throne was to devolve on Philippe V's eldest surviving son, and the Spanish throne on a cadet, the spirit of the treaty would be respected. And as I wrote in my earlier post, Louis XV would have had a good twenty years to settle his succession and make sure it is accepted by the other european powers.

If a son of Philippe V had returned to France in the 1740s to be formally recognised as a French prince and the legitimate heir to the throne, the then Duke of Orléans, Louis (the son of the Regent), would very likely have backed this scheme, as he was very loyal to his cousin the King and devoid of personal ambition (contrary to his grandson, the future Philippe-Egalité, who would eventually vote for the death of Louis XVI, only to follow him a few months later on the guillotine).
 
Does he have to do either?

His second daughter (the first one never married for some reason) has left a son, Ferdinando Duke of Parma (Carlos III's nephew). Why not get the Parlement of Paris or somebody to readmit Ferdinando to the French succession, subject to his renunciation of the Spanish one? By the late 1760s Carlos III has several sons, so the latter "right" is pretty theoretical anyway. That way, Louis XV is still succeeded by his grandson - just a different one.

Since the original renunciations were designed to prevent union of the French and Spanish crowns, a lawyer could argue that Ferdinando was not disqualified as long as he renounced his somewhat theoretical Spanish claim. Carlos could be mollified by the transfer of Parma to one of his own younger sons.
 
Well, if we accept the idea that the succession should go to the eldest branch of the Bourbons (as long as it doesn't mean that the same king would rule France and Spain) than we probably could see Charles III going himself to France to become king. He had done it before when he was king of Naples and left Italy to become the Spanish monarch. He went to Madrid with his entire family, leaving only his third son Ferdinand in Naples as king (his eldest, Philip, was excluded from succession due to imbecility and his second, Charles, became Prince of Asturias and later Charles IV of Spain).

So, I think that we could have again a swap of thrones here. Charles III of Spain becomes Charles X of France, and his family goes with him to Versailles, with Charles, Prince of Asturias, becoming the Dauphin. His second son Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies becomes Ferdinand VII of Spain, and as he didn't have any male son by 1774, then his younger brother Gabriel becomes King of the Two Sicilies.
 
An interesting possibility. My first thought - if this results in a war, would it mean earlier French support for the American revolutionaries? Both the Revolutionary War and the War of the Bavarian Succession would likely be subsumed historiographically (if that's not a word, it should be) into a larger War of the French Succession. How would this change the ARW, with European support coming early from the anti-British coalition in the WFS?
 
An interesting possibility. My first thought - if this results in a war, would it mean earlier French support for the American revolutionaries? Both the Revolutionary War and the War of the Bavarian Succession would likely be subsumed historiographically (if that's not a word, it should be) into a larger War of the French Succession. How would this change the ARW, with European support coming early from the anti-British coalition in the WFS?


Or later.

OTL, Charles III was very reluctant to enter the ARW, fearing the long term consequences of encouraging colonial rebels [1]. He finally came in, but not until 1779, a year after the French. As King of France, he might delay even longer, or decline to get involved at all.

[1] Had he lived another 20 years or so, he would have thought himself amply vindicated.
 
Top