Is a 1733 Bourbon Poland plausible?

[unprincipled peter]

So, the setup is this:

le Grand Dauphin doesn't randomly stop his carriage to talk to a smallpox ridden priest. He doesn't die in 1711. le Petit Dauphin and his clan don't catch measles in 1712, nearly wiping out the Bourbon line of succession. They go on to have 4 surviving sons. A plethora of Bourbons.

Without the regency period, and with at least one or two different Kings from OTL things will go differently, but for arguments sake, lets skip the details, and assume they, and the world is in a similar generic shape when 1733 rolls around and the throne of Poland opens up. Would one of the younger le Petit sons be put up for the throne? If it is a Bourbon candidate, France likely puts up a real fight to put him there, unlike OTL, where they did the appropriate bribing to buy the throne, but didn't back it up with muscle. I'm guessing there'll be a bigger reaction to the French candidate than OTL. Britain is a question mark. OTL Regency France cozied up to Britain against Spain. Here, Spain and France are likely to be allies, although doubtful France backs Spain in their couple of wars (Quadruple alliance in 1718, and anglo war in late '20s). Presumably Britain is at least tepid in opposition to France and working to keep the French continental influence from getting too big.

So, would they? Could they? World reaction? Butterfly results?

 

[alexmilman]

So, the setup is this:

le Grand Dauphin doesn't randomly stop his carriage to talk to a smallpox ridden priest. He doesn't die in 1711. le Petit Dauphin and his clan don't catch measles in 1712, nearly wiping out the Bourbon line of succession. They go on to have 4 surviving sons. A plethora of Bourbons.

Without the regency period, and with at least one or two different Kings from OTL things will go differently, but for arguments sake, lets skip the details, and assume they, and the world is in a similar generic shape when 1733 rolls around and the throne of Poland opens up. Would one of the younger le Petit sons be put up for the throne? If it is a Bourbon candidate, France likely puts up a real fight to put him there, unlike OTL, where they did the appropriate bribing to buy the throne, but didn't back it up with muscle. I'm guessing there'll be a bigger reaction to the French candidate than OTL. Britain is a question mark. OTL Regency France cozied up to Britain against Spain. Here, Spain and France are likely to be allies, although doubtful France backs Spain in their couple of wars (Quadruple alliance in 1718, and anglo war in late '20s). Presumably Britain is at least tepid in opposition to France and working to keep the French continental influence from getting too big.

So, would they? Could they? World reaction? Butterfly results?

They could try and they’d fail. France of that time simply could not project enough power so far away to defeat an opposition from Russia and Austria both of which had been vitally interested in not allowing a French candidate on the PLC throne.

 

[unprincipled peter]

They could try and they’d fail. France of that time simply could not project enough power so far away to defeat an opposition from Russia and Austria both of which had been vitally interested in not allowing a French candidate on the PLC throne.

OTL, the affair quickly became a nibbling at the fringes with minimal effort, encouraging others, such as Spain, to take the Italian Kingdoms, while France settled for gaining Lorraine. Overall, it worked out pretty good for the French side. What do you think would happen here, with a Bourbon prince as a candidate? Hang him out to dry and do the same as OTL? Or would it turn into a bigger war if France tries a little harder? A few years later the continent exploded into a major conflagration with the War of Austrian Succession. Could that have been moved up 7 years to 1733? How would that play out? Frederick (the not yet Great) is not on the throne of Prussia yet, and I don't think his Dad liked France all that much.

 

[Domz]

I very much doubt that the other great powers will allow France to get BOTH Spain and Poland-Lithuania (even France's traditional allies will have a thing or two to say about that).

One significant thing that you have to realize is that a Concert of Europe already de-facto exisisted since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. If Napoleon was a clue, France will probably face a war with all of the Great Powers (and considering the amount of Succession Wars which occured in the 18th century to attempt and establish an equillibirum on the content). The great European powers, on numerous occasions, formed defensive coalitions in order to deal with Louis XIV's expansionist plans (in particular, Britain, the Netherlands, and Austria). You'd likely see Russia also side with the Grand Coalition in opposition to France's ambitions over Poland-Lithuania, who Russia shares a significant border with. I am even skeptical of Spain's nobles wanting to help France become even more powerful and might just join in on the anti-French bandwagon (I think Philip V even tried to distance himself from France, even though it was Louis XIV who placed him on the Spanish throne). Even the Ottomans (if they do intervene) will prove to largely only be a nuisance against Austria and Russia (as their vis-a-vis firepower against the European powers declines over the 18th and 19th centuries), plus the Ottomans' involvement in Great Power European politics already began to decline.

Domestically, the French weren't doing too great either. The French populace under Louis XIV were already being well neglected and overtaxed (plus France's countryside had been devastated in the War of the Spanish Succession, although it was a French pyrrhic victory). You might even speed up a proto-French Revolution up in the process.

If the Grand Dauphin survives and attempts to emulate his father, his difficult circumstances will mean that he either goes gun-ho for Poland-Lithuania (and likely loses bad and causes France to collapse earlier than usual) or decides to try and consolidate his father's gains (let's face it, no pre-French Revolution Bourbon ruler was going to be as ambitious (and successful) as Louis XIV ever again, at least in terms of territorial expansion). A Bourbon Napoleon or a second Louis XIV is ASB.

Despite the amount of wars that were fought at this time, the Europeans were great diplomats. A Poland-Lithuania successsion crisis will likely be mediated via diplomatic compromise.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I am even skeptical of Spain's nobles wanting to help France become even more powerful and might just join in on the anti-French bandwagon (I think Philip V even tried to distance himself from France, even though it was Louis XIV who placed him on the Spanish throne).

Spain's Queen, Elizabeth Farnese, had immense sway, and she was gung-ho to expand her son's ( the eventual Carlos III, currently Duke of Parma) territory in Italy, at the expense of Austria. Spain may not join France in far off adventures, but I think it likely Spain goes for Italy, which means Spain is in the anti-Austria camp.

The troubles between Spain and France had a lot to do with the Regent of France, Orleans. I'm thinking Spain and France are closer in ATL, although maybe not bossum buddies. This brings up the question of what happens to the French/British relationship. OTL, the Regent sought closer relations. Residual effects of this may have helped Britain maintain neutrality. Here, though, if British/French relations have been sour, Britain may not be so apt to remain neutral, which will affect how aggressive France will be. It's possible France refrains from putting in much effort at all in proposing a candidate, which may butterfly the war entirely.

In France, Cardinal Fleury held a lot of influence, and he recognized French financial limitations, and sought to limit French engagements. I'm not sure how much influence he has in ATL.

I'm guessing the war goes more or less as OTL, with France looking to make gains/diminish Austria, rather than being too aggressive in putting a French Candidate on the throne of Poland. For that reason, they probably don't put a Bourbon up as a candidate, as that's a little too aggressive. I was wondering the feasibility if they did.

 

[alexmilman]

OTL, the affair quickly became a nibbling at the fringes with minimal effort, encouraging others, such as Spain, to take the Italian Kingdoms, while France settled for gaining Lorraine. Overall, it worked out pretty good for the French side. What do you think would happen here, with a Bourbon prince as a candidate? Hang him out to dry and do the same as OTL? Or would it turn into a bigger war if France tries a little harder? A few years later the continent exploded into a major conflagration with the War of Austrian Succession. Could that have been moved up 7 years to 1733? How would that play out? Frederick (the not yet Great) is not on the throne of Prussia yet, and I don't think his Dad liked France all that much.

French could do better elsewhere but this would not going to improve their strategic and especially logistical situation in the PLC. Russia simply was much better positioned, the Russian army was quite good and had at least two very talented generals, support of a big part of the Polish nobility was easy to buy and it was much easier for Russia to punish those “disobedient”. OTOH, within the beautiful PLC system it was quite easy to arrange for the alternative election.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

So, the setup is this:

le Grand Dauphin doesn't randomly stop his carriage to talk to a smallpox ridden priest. He doesn't die in 1711. le Petit Dauphin and his clan don't catch measles in 1712, nearly wiping out the Bourbon line of succession. They go on to have 4 surviving sons. A plethora of Bourbons.

Without the regency period, and with at least one or two different Kings from OTL things will go differently, but for arguments sake, lets skip the details, and assume they, and the world is in a similar generic shape when 1733 rolls around and the throne of Poland opens up. Would one of the younger le Petit sons be put up for the throne? If it is a Bourbon candidate, France likely puts up a real fight to put him there, unlike OTL, where they did the appropriate bribing to buy the throne, but didn't back it up with muscle. I'm guessing there'll be a bigger reaction to the French candidate than OTL. Britain is a question mark. OTL Regency France cozied up to Britain against Spain. Here, Spain and France are likely to be allies, although doubtful France backs Spain in their couple of wars (Quadruple alliance in 1718, and anglo war in late '20s). Presumably Britain is at least tepid in opposition to France and working to keep the French continental influence from getting too big.

So, would they? Could they? World reaction? Butterfly results?

A Bourbon prince becoming successful king of Poland-Lithuania would likely result in the Commonwealth vanishing sooner because Russia would view ANY influence that was NOT THEIRS as a serious threat.

But for the sake of sparking further discussion and deeper dives, let's assume that the diplomatic situation is somewhat different. Britain was somewhat weary of Russia, though not to the degree they were in regard to Spain (proximity determines the degree of threat, so Russia-while imposing and dangerous-would not pose the existential threat Spain would pose) 1733 still saw the Britain-France rapproachment in effect so Britain could desire to keep France as (at best) a benevolent neutral in its conflict with Spain. To this effect, Britain could send a squadron of the Royal Navy into the Baltic to shadow a French land advance escorting the new king-to-be in force, and showing Russia that Britain would stand with France in the defense of Polish liberties in who they choose to rule them. A naval force to match France's military force would no doubt get the attention of Catharine II.

Austria could choose to either declare neutrality in the Polish Succession Crisis, intent on keeping the benevolence of France and Britain as Spain would be threatening her Italian hegemony. Austria could also see the French move as a threat and attempt to make common cause with Russia and male amends with Spain, forging an alliance directed primarily at France (Russia might try to include Britain as well). If Austria chooses to stand by, France might have a somewhat better chance at installing a Bourbon prince on the Polish throne.

Prussia would likely, along with Sweden, be the wild card. Britain could easily persuade Prussia to back the Bourbon candidate for the Polish Crown with the promise of some territorial adjustment between Prussia and Hanover. France could further insure continued support for Prussia because despite the Quadruple Alliance it's involved in-alongside Britain, the Dutch Republic, the Hapsburg Monarchy and Portugal-at some point France could find itself at odds with Austria again. Russia would also work on Prussia to block the British and French, promising territory in Poland-Lithuania. Sweden would most likely be the more difficult one to persuade and its likely Russia could pull Denmark-Norway into a new alliance directed primarily against Sweden and likely including Britain and (should they support them) Prussia as well.

To bring it all back, a Poland-Lithuania ruled by one of the most absolutist dynastic houses in Europe would constitute a threat to Russia's dreams of expanding westward. I submit that a Bourbon King of Poland-Lithuania would institute reforms on the French model, which would allow for an expansion of the Commonwealth's military forces and allow for ambitions long dormant to be resurrected, such as reclaiming Minsk and Smolensk from Russia, acquiring the vassalage of Moldavia and Wallachia from the Ottomans, and possibly even reCatholicizing Lutheran Sweden.

 

[Sardar]

Only thing I can figure is that Spain under Phillip V would probably wholeheartedly do whatever the hell is elder brother wanted because 1. IIRC they were very close and 2. Support for getting one of his nephews on the throne of Poland could translate into unconditional and more than OTL enthusiastic support to get all of Philip's sons with Farnese on Italian thrones.

 

[unprincipled peter]

would not pose the existential threat Spain would pose)

I applaud the effort, but...
Britain actually encouraged Spain in the War of Polish Succession. Spain was not some huge threat to Britain. Britain had swatted down the Spanish in the War of Quadruple Alliance, and defeated them a few years earlier in the late 20's, and was quite cavalier about forcing the War of Jenkin's Ear in the late 30's. I think Britain saw this as a good opportunity to diminish Austria (nominally an ally) and try to keep France as an ally rather than an enemy.

 

[raharris1973]

If anything works out to force things to an early Franco-British war in the 1730s, well that can mean another intercolonial, or French & Indian War in North America.

That might have knock-ons advancing the final destruction of New France and/or an American independence rebellion.

 

[Georg von Frundsberg]

The Wettins in Poland had two main backers: Austria and Russia. In OTL the Austrian army had to fight the French on the western frontiers, so the occupation of Poland was done mainly by Russian troops to install Augustus III.

Austria and France were nemesis until the Diplomatic Revolution which was an exceptional event, so the former would not allow a Bourbon Poland. The only way to install a Bourbon king in Poland would be to somehow have the Russians to back Bourbon candidate. Good luck with that one (a Great Northern War PoD may work perhaps?)

It is not impossible to have Poland ruled by a French prince, but you probably will have to look earlier to the Election of 1697 and make the Prince of Conti the winner.

 

[unprincipled peter]

If anything works out to force things to an early Franco-British war in the 1730s, well that can mean another intercolonial, or French & Indian War in North America.

That might have knock-ons advancing the final destruction of New France and/or an American independence rebellion.

knee jerk initial thoughts:

The final destruction of New France came at a time France was exhausted from fighting the War of Austrian Succession. No navy to protect supply lines to New France. The timing was quite propitious for Britain, which is why Britain pushed the issue. Here, we still have France with no navy, but they aren't so exhausted. They've recovered from the War of Spanish Succession, and then the Mississippi Bubble burst. All the energy they spent in the WoAS is there for this alt war. Depending on the timing, Spain is available as an active ally. It's late in the timeframe, but the War of Jenkin's Ear is handy. OTL kicks off in 38/39, but is bubbling throughout the 30's.

Two PODs:
-War of Polish Succession pits France against Britain
-War of Jenkin's Ear gets France involved.

There's only limited time to have a Franco-British War not involve either of those two.

I'm guessing a Euro war will have limited North American involvement. That was the case OTL until the 7YW when Britain switched tactics and put the colonial sphere front and center over European theater. WoPS likely follows limited North American involvement.

War of Jenkin's Ear was colonial. This is your best chance to make a 30's timeframe North American conflict. Britain is now facing a two front war in North America: Spain from Florida, and France from Canada. France isn't involved in Europe. This war is up for grabs. Don't know which way to place my bet.

 

[raharris1973]

knee jerk initial thoughts:

The final destruction of New France came at a time France was exhausted from fighting the War of Austrian Succession. No navy to protect supply lines to New France. The timing was quite propitious for Britain, which is why Britain pushed the issue. Here, we still have France with no navy, but they aren't so exhausted. They've recovered from the War of Spanish Succession, and then the Mississippi Bubble burst. All the energy they spent in the WoAS is there for this alt war. Depending on the timing, Spain is available as an active ally. It's late in the timeframe, but the War of Jenkin's Ear is handy. OTL kicks off in 38/39, but is bubbling throughout the 30's.

Two PODs:
-War of Polish Succession pits France against Britain
-War of Jenkin's Ear gets France involved.

There's only limited time to have a Franco-British War not involve either of those two.

I'm guessing a Euro war will have limited North American involvement. That was the case OTL until the 7YW when Britain switched tactics and put the colonial sphere front and center over European theater. WoPS likely follows limited North American involvement.

War of Jenkin's Ear was colonial. This is your best chance to make a 30's timeframe North American conflict. Britain is now facing a two front war in North America: Spain from Florida, and France from Canada. France isn't involved in Europe. This war is up for grabs. Don't know which way to place my bet.

Good analysis. And I wasn’t thinking that war of Polish Succession itself really would lead to decisive finishing blow to New France, but just wonder if there’s a limit to how many inter colonial wars New France can survive.

Or would British participation in war of polish succession ruin the set up for war of Austrian succession and north America’s king George’s war as we knew it?

 

[unprincipled peter]

Good analysis. And I wasn’t thinking that war of Polish Succession itself really would lead to decisive finishing blow to New France, but just wonder if there’s a limit to how many inter colonial wars New France can survive.

Or would British participation in war of polish succession ruin the set up for war of Austrian succession and north America’s king George’s war as we knew it?

I don't think New France was destined to fall. I believe OTL was a sort of British wank. France was winning the final French and Indian War, but Prussia pulled Britain's chesnuts out of the fire by distracting Fraance. And then Pitt lead the charge of altering typical British wars and put British main effort into colonial affairs. And France didn't come up with a good marshall. Can you imagine the like of Saxe going nuts on the British? And Spain was insisting on staying neutral, until it was too late.

Britain caught France at exactly the right time, and played the situation just right, and things unfolded just right.

IF we change the timing, things could go very different.

 

[TrickyApe]

War of Jenkin's Ear was colonial. This is your best chance to make a 30's timeframe North American conflict. Britain is now facing a two front war in North America: Spain from Florida, and France from Canada. France isn't involved in Europe. This war is up for grabs. Don't know which way to place my bet.

As I understand it at least, the War of Jenkin's Ear / War of Austrian Succession was a key learning experience for the British Navy that directly led to the capabilities they displayed in the Seven Years War. Britain might have a paper superiority over France in 1733 but issues with supply, disease, and general inexperience / incompetence are likely to make decisive victory elusive. You're more likely to see results like Vernon at Cartagena than Wolfe at Quebec.

 

[Georg von Frundsberg]

As a second thought, convincing Russia to support a Bourbon prince was easier than I anticipated. I made this thread a few months ago and historical sources tell us that Orleans, Louis XV's regent had entertained the idea of an alliance with Russia after the Great Northern War and Peter the Great had replied to him that if his son Louis married her daughter Anna Petrovna then he could be made King of Poland. Orlean's early death in 1723 (his successor Louis Henri lost interest in the idea) and the fact that Anna was a child of a morganatic marriage (her mother Catherine was not from a noble family) prevented a Bourbon-Romanov match.

So I foresee two ways to get around this. Firstly, Peter marries a Russian noblewoman as his second wife so his daughters would be legitimate for the French to take as brides. Secondly, suppose that France and Russia did form an alliance because Orleans lived a few more years, perhaps a marriage between Louis, Count of Clermont (b. 1709) and Anna Leopoldovna (b. 1718) can be arranged in the early 1730s.

 

[30PrincesAndAKing]

As a second thought, convincing Russia to support a Bourbon prince was easier than I anticipated. I made this thread a few months ago and historical sources tell us that Orleans, Louis XV's regent had entertained the idea of an alliance with Russia after the Great Northern War and Peter the Great had replied to him that if his son Louis married her daughter Anna Petrovna then he could be made King of Poland. Orlean's early death in 1723 (his successor Louis Henri lost interest in the idea) and the fact that Anna was a child of a morganatic marriage (her mother Catherine was not from a noble family) prevented a Bourbon-Romanov match.

So I foresee two ways to get around this. Firstly, Peter marries a Russian noblewoman as his second wife so his daughters would be legitimate for the French to take as brides. Secondly, suppose that France and Russia did form an alliance because Orleans lived a few more years, perhaps a marriage between Louis, Count of Clermont (b. 1709) and Anna Leopoldovna (b. 1718) can be arranged in the early 1730s.

I don't think the Bourbons required 'equal' marriage for the purposes of succession. Not that they would marry just anybody, but their selection had more to do with status, politics, and prestige than what was legally required. I believe there was a developing tradition of 'open-secret' marriages among the French nobility, between individuals of unequal social status, but it was different from a morganatic marriage (there was no formal renunciation of inheritance, and the lower-born wife of an upper-class man was not recognized as his wife by society. Everyone knew, but it wasn't strictly public). Morganatic marriages just weren't a legal concept in France.

Perhaps something else prevented the match?

 

[dcharles]

Um, I'm pretty sure they prefer vodka...

I'll see myself out.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

and the fact that Anna was a child of a morganatic marriage (her mother Catherine was not from a noble family) prevented a Bourbon-Romanov match.

Anna was illegitimate/natural born, a morganatic marriage didn't exist under French law so would've had no bearing on why the match didn't go throguh. Also, the Régent's successor hated the Orléans branch of the family, so him killing the match was always pretty likely. A likelier way to induce this match (if there's any chance of it happening) would be to let the Régent live longer (or at least, long enough for the marriage to go through - 1723/1724 at the earliest)

I don't think the Bourbons required 'equal' marriage for the purposes of succession. Not that they would marry just anybody, but their selection had more to do with status, politics, and prestige than what was legally required

actually they did. It was in the house laws. She had to be of royal (or at least noble) birth and she had to be willing to convert to Catholicism. This latter point was what killed most attempts at a Bourbon-Romanov pairing: Moscow wouldn't take a Catholic tsarina and the Bourbons wouldn't allow for a grand duchess to remain Orthodox in Paris. It's also why the duc d'Orléans' match to Madame de Montesson (noble by marriage, not by birth) was "secret" and the prince de Condé's to Maria Caterina Brignole, Princesse de Monaco's was not. Brignole was old Genoese aristocracy.

Even nowadays, members of the house of Bourbon still require the permission from the head of house (whether that be the duc d'Orléans, the king of Spain or the duke of Parma) before they marry "down". If they marry without permission, it becomes regarded as a morganatic match (see Louis of Luxembourg and Tessy Antony's marriage which was contracted without consent or approval from the duke of Parma)

 

[unprincipled peter]

morganatic marriage didn't exist under French law

Both Louis XIV and his eldest son le Grand Dauphin Louis had second marriages with non-royals, and they were not considered Queen/Dauphine. Wiki describes both as morganatic. Both marriages were 'secret', but also considered legal. Neither produced surviving offspring, though Dauphin Louis was rumored to have a son who was sent off to live in the country, and died age 2.

What were these marriages if not morganatic? The effect is the same, even if the nomenclature differs.