WI: Spain Splits Up The Empire

Thanks for putting some names and dates to this; the issue is, this is the Eighteenth Century, and it all still comes down to peninsulares vs criollos, with all that entails.

There were very real divisions between the interests of Spaniards and "Americans", and all this concept does is replace peninsular-born and bred viceroys with peninsular-born and bred monarchs...including various "second sons" or even worse, younger brothers, whose interests and prospects are no more "criollo" than any of the generals, admirals, and nobles they would be replacing as viceroys.

The Spanish American colonies didn't rebel and suffer through a decade or more of war on a whim, folks...and transferring a group of Spanish heirs and spares into monarchs along the lines of Iturbide is not going to change that...

Best,

Actually if you look at Peru and Gran Colombia there is an even split among the populace and the Spanish armies were several times on the front foot. Peru especially had a large groundswell that would have supported a Borbon king

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
"One note, is whether Portugal would copy it. Before the exile, Brazil was made up of more autonomous provinces than after it. Maybe each of these gets a king?"

Portugal's big problem for any ATL is that in the late 1700's and on into the 1800's is that they don't have a surfeit of princes. Joao VI was it, and then his two sons, and then Pedro I had one son (Miguel was kicked out by that time and was no longer part of the picture). You have to start keeping people alive, like Jose (elder brother of Joao). That's a real ATL. It's a globally small change that has the potential to completely change everything simply because it could change the course of Iberian history and with it the Napoleonic wars.

At best, you can split up Brazil with the liberal son, and Portugal with the conservative one. Or vice versa. Miguel's only hope is Portugal, because Brazil is going to kick his conservative ass out in no time flat. He might have stood a chance in Portugal without Pedro coming back, but I doubt he makes it very long. Another excellant, although less far reaching TL is WI Pedro went back to Portugal when Joao wanted him to.

They're both fascinating characters (Joao and Pedro) because they're both overall lunkheads in terms of rulers, but they both had moments of brilliance.

But that's a miller.


Overall, there's a sweet spot to consider splitting the kingdom. Early 1700's is a non starter because the world simply isn't small enough (transportation/development wise) for anyone to consider it necessary or enticing. circa 1800 is the time frame, IMO. On the verge of a shrinking world, while also on the verge of industrialization/developing. Spain had a brief moment where it could have worked, or had the best chance of it working, especially if it took the shot prior to Napoleon wreaking havoc with the divine structure. Multiple sons, multiple daughters to marry to prospective candidates. That would have required way too much forethought to reasonably expect anyone to do, and likely would have led to Carlos to being declared insane or deposed if he did try to do it. I don't think any one of the offspring remotely had what it would take to be a successful ruler, so I wouldn't put any money on any such scheme working. So, really all that's accomplished is a few more years of chaos, and in the end a bunch of republics that are just as disfunctional as OTL.
 
and it all brings up another good WI, that WI if the total political hoser Godoy wasn't so good in bed with the Queen. He, more than any other individual, IMO, led Spain into destruction. He outmaneuvered more capable statesmen, including Aranda, and, coming from a total lack of training, led the empire into dissolution. He's the one who was such a francophile, and he's the one who became so hated that the Spanish sought to replace Carlos with Ferdinand, and ended up with both of them in French imprisonment. And every account I've ever read all say that he was promoted because he was the Queen's lover, and the Queen ruled over the rather simple Carlos.
 
Can I just point out that although the Aranda Plan was good in theory, I did a bit of research on it and one of the points that Aranda suggested to continually tie the colonies to the motherland, was to insist on the marriage of the viceroys/kings' children to Spanish infantes/infantas. And then I had this thought of seeing four/five versions of Carlos II sitting on thrones from Chapultepec to Buenos Aires at various points.
 
Can I just point out that although the Aranda Plan was good in theory, I did a bit of research on it and one of the points that Aranda suggested to continually tie the colonies to the motherland, was to insist on the marriage of the viceroys/kings' children to Spanish infantes/infantas. And then I had this thought of seeing four/five versions of Carlos II sitting on thrones from Chapultepec to Buenos Aires at various points.

Well, considering how much the various branches of the Bourbons in Spain, Naples and Parma intermarried amongst each other, I can't see the New World monarchs being that far different from how the kings of Spain & Two Sicilies and the Duke of Parma turned out genetically at the start of the 20th century.
 
Top