Anyway, I wonder if this will really have a long-term effect. The king heads over, with a bunch of penninsulares. Who only exacerbate the fact that the Creoles aren't treated equally. And the King has the personality of a wet cement. So...
Well, that depends on what happens after the war. I'll assume we have a situation similar to the portuguese-brazilian and that implies some important changes in the future of the Hispanic America. But before that, some remarks. The latin american movements started mainly as autonomist and monarchist movements, not as independentist ones. In a similar way to what happened in the Peninsula, the local
cabildos tryed to form
juntas and had some issues with the pretentions of the self-proclaimed
Junta Central Suprema. Later the paths diverged, as an example, when the news of the uprising in the Peninsula arrived to Mexico, a puppet representing the king was paraded and cheered in the streets of the city. If the true king were in the city, the local member of the elite probably would have had spontaneous orgasms. Also, I think that the oposition
criollos-peninsulares has been exaggerated by the historiography, usually too politicized and too nationalistic (in both sides of the Atlantic). But of course you may desagree. You can find peninsulares fighting for the independence and criollos fighting for the crown, leaving aside the mixed famillies. And for example, San Martín was he criollo or peninsular?
Returning to the question of the thread, if the king is in Mexico all the process started with the abdications of Bayonne is butterflied. Probably we will still see juntas in the Peninsula, but the king has still his own voice, so the conservative elements are stronger and the liberals had less freedom to play their cards. In my opinion, there are two possibilities. Not liberal revolution at all, not Constitution of 1812 etc or a successful Constitutional movement more "hostile" to the king and more Peninsular centralist, similar to portuguese events of 1820.
But the interesting options are in the Americas. With the king there, and if he doesn't do stupid things (always a possibility when we speak about a Bourbon) the process of independence would be, also, similar to the brazilian experience. That would mean less territorial fragmentation in the Hispanic America, since the royal figure will work as legitimate element of union, and more oportunities to those who wanted members of the royal familly reigning in the vicerroyalties. In sume, on the same way that Brazil kept finally its unity (not without problems, of course) I think we could have about five big states in the Hispanic America.
PS: I think we discussed the same question some months ago in the board. If I'm not wrong, Lusitania opened a thread about it. Maybe he can find it more easily and bring us the link.
Cheers.