The pretenders to the Spanish throne: Philip of France and Charles of Austria

[Emperor_Nikolai_I]

Who had the better claims on the Spanish throne after the death of Carlos II in 1700?
Philippe de France (Felipe V) was named heir, but did he really have better claims than Karl of Austria?

And: Was Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria poisoned in 1699?

[bell_the_cat]

Yes, Philip V had a better claim than Charles (on all counts).

No, Joseph Ferdinand was not poisoned.

[ilyala]

Yes, Philip V had a better claim than Charles (on all counts).

No, Joseph Ferdinand was not poisoned.

that's fast
i am not very documented on this, can anyone specify the family relations there? i know that philip was through his grandmother, the great-grandson of philip 4th... what was charles' claim?

[Prince_Lieven]

It's quite complicated, but I think this is how it goes.

Philippe d'Anjou was the grandson of Maria Theresa of Spain, elder half sister of Carlos II.

Joseph Ferdinand was the grandson of Carlos II's sister Margarita, whose husband was Emperor Leopold I. Leopold's mother was Maria Anna of Spain, Carlos II's aunt. Leopold remarried after Margarita's death, to Eleanor of Neuburg, and Karl was the younger son of this union.

[David_Pritchard]

SM Rey Carlos II specified in his testament that the Throne of Spain was to be offered firstly to Philippe de Bourbon, Duc d'Anjou (the grandson of his sister Margarita) with the stipulation that if he did not accept the Throne, the Kingdom of Spain was to pass in its entirety to Grossherzog Karl von Österreich (the grandson of his great uncle Emperor Ferdinand II).

David

[bell_the_cat]

I should have added that although Felipe had the best claim by blood (though after his elder brother of course),
Maria Teresa had renounced the claims of her posterity at the time of her marriage. This had been confirmed by the Cortes.

Margarita Teresa had also renounced her claim, but this had not been sanctioned by the Cortes.

Maria Anna had not renounced her claim.

So the argument is really, was Carlos II entitled to leave the Spanish Empire to whomever he and his conscience saw fit - or did the spanish parliament, which many saw as a meaningless relict of mediaeval times have any say in the matter.

[ilyala]

maria teresa did give up her rights to the spanish throne. but in the same treaty it was stipulated that the spanish would pay a huge dowry to the french, which they never did. the french found that convenient to say the treaty wasn't respected by the spanish so maria teresa's rights were still standing.

[crotalo]

We are speaking in a time where parliament had very few power. In 1665, Louis XIV declared: L'Etat c'est moi!
There were more claimants: Rulers of Savoy and Portugal claimed too. If we consider the affaire of the payment of the dowry of M Therese as a trick of old fox Louis XIV, as he did with the war of the Devolution, we ought not consider it in terms of legitime blood primogeniture. In this case, M. Teresa was elder than Margarita. Moreover, Ana de austria was elder than Maria the empress. so descendants from the bavarian line and the austrian habsburgs are after in line. Strictly by blood, Ana was the first. These renounces were exiged by all the states in reason to avoid the hegemony of one over the others. But being alliances changing all time, in few years could have non sense.
The question of blood and dynastic, however, more in such times, was precedent. Loosers obviously protested but Ana Mauritia was the first born, and so Maria Teresa.

 Other claims were absurd. Portuguese based them on his line to the Catholic Kings. Sabaudian, to Catalina Mikaela.

[David_Pritchard]

I found two interesting links about the Spanish Habsburgs, the first entitled Carlos II: The End of an Infirm Dynasty, see the link here http://www.arturosoria.com/medicina/art/carlos_II.asp and a second article entitled Alchemy at the Court of Carlos II (1661-1700), see the link here: http://personal5.iddeo.es/emclmffgm/carlos2.htm

David

[umigon]

The renounciation of Maria Teresa had, in fact, a codicil in which that thing of the dowry was included. If the dowry was not entirely payed, her French descendants could claim the throne. Felipe IV finally accepted this because he thought he would be able to pay in a couple of years.


I really think that Felipe had a better claim than that of Karl and Joseph Ferdinand.

[Prince_Lieven]

Was Antonia, Joseph's mother, still alive at the time? Because if so, it's ironic that her own claims were never considered, whereas both Philippe and Karl claimed the throne through the female line.

[bell_the_cat]

Was Antonia, Joseph's mother, still alive at the time? Because if so, it's ironic that her own claims were never considered, whereas both Philippe and Karl claimed the throne through the female line.

No, she died in 1692.

[umigon]

Yes, and in fact she had also renounced her rights to the Spanish throne, but this renounciation was not considered by Carlos II or the Cortes. And by no means by her husband. It had been thought by Emperor Leopold, Antonia's father, who wanted to secure that way his son's rights.

[Prince_Lieven]

Oh, thanks guys.  

[David_Pritchard]

The main issue of the succession was not as much who had the best genealogical right but rather was Carlos II in sound mental condition when he wrote his second last will and teatament on 2 October 1700 designating Philippe duc d'Anjou as his heir just shortly before his death. The second testament was only revealed to the State Council rather than publicly announced. The reason for the second testament was that Carlos II asked the opinion of the Pope regarding the disposition of his empire. The pro-French pope encouraged the ailing king to write a second testament that left the empire to a Bourbon rather than to a Habsburg as was designated in the first last will and testament of Carlos II.

David