American Bourbons: The Spanish Bourbons flee Spain for the Americas

The Mexico without Santa Anna thread made me think of another idea which has probably been done before . . . but whatever.

The Portugese Royal Family fled Portugal and lived in Brazil for much of the Peninsular War. When they left, Pedro, a son of the King of Portugal, was left as regent of Brazil. His father attempted to take away some of Brazil's royal privileges, Pedro decided to lead rather than fight the nationalist sentiment, and moved to make himself the Emperor of Brazil.

So what if the Spanish Bourbons do the same thing? The Bourbons manage to flee to Mexico ahead of the French. Now things would get messy. Charles IV may have officially abdicated, and with this POD his first son, Ferdinand, may also have abdicated. If Ferdinand hadn't, then he would technically be king, but I don't know how well that would hold up. I think that Ferdinand would probably end up being the King, because he was pro-Great Britain, and I think that for this scenario to work out his two brothers (Carlos and Francisco) came with him to Mexico. Its actually questionable whether their father would come, since he had such a bad relationship with his heir Ferdinand. So anyway, Ferdinand is now ruling the Spanish Empire from Mexico City. The Peninsular War would probably start, only now the Spanish elite in the Americas don't have a chance to set up their own little regimes ruling in the name of an imprisoned king, they have to deal with a real, live, Spanish King, living in the Americas, and ruling his Empire from Mexico City.

Would Ferdinand rule from Mexico City? I don't know if its the most strategic place to rule from, but certainly does have the advantage of being the center of "New Spain" which I believe was the largest and most well developed of the Spaniards' American possessions.

What would his brothers' do? I presume that having his brothers with him in the Americas, he may use them as Viceroys, rather than rely on people outside the family. Of course, after witnessing Ferdinand familial loyalty, I don't know how much I would trust my own brothers either . . .

How would the people of the Spanish Americas act? Ferdinand was an absolutist, and in the Americas he would be supported by the conservative elements from across the Empire. I think that with his presence the liberals would be force to choose between the Spanish King or the French Emperor, and that would maintain support for Ferdinand's colonial regimes.

What would Ferdinand do? The man ruled terribly in Spain once he was restored, but I don't know if that was how he would rule in ATL, since he wouldn't have suffered a 7 year imprisonment by the French. I think that one thing that is certain is that his pro-British feeling would definitely be policy, and the Spanish Court-in-Exile would be a British ally. Perhaps contingents of troops from Spanish America participate in the Peninsular War? Also, with him out of imprisonment, he would be able to marry, something that he would probably do, since his wife had died in 1806. So who would he marry? I'm leaning towards Maria Teresa, the King of Portugal's oldest daughter. She was also in an American exile, in Rio de Janerio, and in OTL Federinand ended up marrying her younger sister, so I think that his marriage works. Plus the woman was very conservative, and IOTL she had a boy without dying (something that none of Ferdinand's OTL wives accomplished)

What legal difference would occur? IOTL the Portugese created the "United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algraves" during their rule from Brazil. With Ferdinand ruling from Mexico, would be change his style to reflect the new importance of the Americas to his exiled court, ala the Portugese?

What would happen once the Napoleonic War ends? Ferdinand would probably return to Spain, but what of his brothers? If Ferdinand gets a son during his American exile, then his two younger brothers are out of the royal running, and their time in the Americas would probably make the Spanish Americas ready for at least someone of royal blood staying to rule. Carlos appears to me to be the perfect candidate for his brother to leave in the Americas. The man was extremely conservative, but in an old-fashioned way, refusing to overthrow his brother, but more than willing to fight his niece for the Spanish throne. Carlos could be left either as regent for all of the Americas, or just New Spain, but either way I think he would be a good candidate for staying in the Americas. If Ferdinand ends up without a male heir, then Carlos can make his ill-fated attempt to gain the Spanish throne, and when that fails go back to the Americas, keep "King of Spain" in his titles, and rule an independent American Kingdom (how much of Spanish America? not sure). The youngest brother, Fransico, maybe could rule from Lima, but he doesn't appear from my cursary reading to have been very politically interested, though his line ended up sitting on the throne, with his son as King Consort of Spain, and his grandson as King of Spain (though it is widely speculated that his grandson was not HIS grandson, since his son was probably not the child's father).

Anyway, Thoughts?

Another question:

What would the US think of this? Having a European monarchy move so close to its borders might ruffle some feathers. I would expect a lot of bluster but no real action. Also, once Spain and GB are cooperating, do the Spanish Royals affect US view on Canada?

Such a situation might lead to a Spanish Commonwealth rather than independence for the Spanish colonies.

I always wondered if what would have been Mexico once independence is achieved expands or at least stays together. Not just the obvious Texas and California staying, but perhaps Central America and Panama being attached with them to boot.

Viva Mexico!

Philip said:

Another question:

What would the US think of this? Having a European monarchy move so close to its borders might ruffle some feathers. I would expect a lot of bluster but no real action. Also, once Spain and GB are cooperating, do the Spanish Royals affect US view on Canada?

Click to expand...

Would the Spanish king care what the US would think of this? What could USA serious do against New Spain and UK at that time even with French help?

Valdemar II said:

Would the Spanish king care what the US would think of this? What could USA serious do against New Spain and UK at that time even with French help?

Click to expand...

Maybe try an invasion of Florida, Cuba at the outside. Of course, it would be suicide if Britain supporters the Spanish.

Conflict might well come at some point over the Louisiana dispute (if the Spanish decide to retroactively not recognise their cession to Napoleon...)

Thande said:

Maybe try an invasion of Florida, Cuba at the outside. Of course, it would be suicide if Britain supporters the Spanish.

Conflict might well come at some point over the Louisiana dispute (if the Spanish decide to retroactively not recognise their cession to Napoleon...)

Click to expand...

That one would trigger fireworks if they then tried to refuse right of deposit to the US.

Matthais Corvinus

One question. Where do you get the impression that Ferdinand is pro-British? Can't remember reading any reference to this and he was willing to work with the French to depose his father, when he thought they were going to give him the throne?

Steve

stevep said:

Matthais Corvinus

One question. Where do you get the impression that Ferdinand is pro-British? Can't remember reading any reference to this and he was willing to work with the French to depose his father, when he thought they were going to give him the throne?

Steve

Click to expand...

Wikipedia article said that he wanted to end Spain's dependence on France, and replace the French alliance with a British alliance. However I would say that if Ferdinand escapes Napoleon's clutches and flees to the Americas, he would become pro-British by dint of being anti-French, since they shared the same goal of expelling the French from Spain.

Maybe try an invasion of Florida, Cuba at the outside. Of course, it would be suicide if Britain supporters the Spanish.

Conflict might well come at some point over the Louisiana dispute (if the Spanish decide to retroactively not recognise their cession to Napoleon...)

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect an American invasion of Florida and Cuba without provocation, however, if the Spaniards attempted to reclaim Louisiana (more specifically New Orleans), then that could lead to a Spanish-American War. I think the Americans may see the Bourbons in Mexico as a British encirclement of them, with Mexico to the south and Canada to the north. The American War Hawks would definitely see it that way, and perhaps would seize on Spanish rumblings of taking Louisiana back to call for a war against both the Spaniards and British. Or perhaps the Americans see the Napoleonic Wars as something that will end, and will play a long game (ie most Americans are unwilling to take on both the Spanish and British at the same time).

Matthais Corvinus said:

Wikipedia article said that he wanted to end Spain's dependence on France, and replace the French alliance with a British alliance. However I would say that if Ferdinand escapes Napoleon's clutches and flees to the Americas, he would become pro-British by dint of being anti-French, since they shared the same goal of expelling the French from Spain.

Click to expand...

Ferdinand saw us very much as the lesser of two evils.

Towards the end of the Peninsular War, when it was clear that the French were going to have to pull out of Spain, he tried to sign a treaty with Napoleon that would have made Spain neutral and kicked out British troops, i.e. backstabbing us so we couldn't proceed to invade France and end the war.

You have to remember that British agents were helping independence movements in Latin America fight Spain, at the same time that we were supposed to be allies. If the Spanish Royal Family has had to abandon Spain, I imagine we'd drop any pretense of supporting the Spanish Bourbons - why, when there's no advantage to be gained from it, and plenty of advantage from openly condemning them and supporting the independence movements?

Thande said:

Ferdinand saw us very much as the lesser of two evils.

Towards the end of the Peninsular War, when it was clear that the French were going to have to pull out of Spain, he tried to sign a treaty with Napoleon that would have made Spain neutral and kicked out British troops, i.e. backstabbing us so we couldn't proceed to invade France and end the war.

Click to expand...

Ferdinand was a vacillating, cowardly king, who did things that at that particular time seemed like a good idea. If he is sitting Mexico City, I think that he would be pro-British, since that would seem like the good idea.

You have to remember that British agents were helping independence movements in Latin America fight Spain, at the same time that we were supposed to be allies. If the Spanish Royal Family has had to abandon Spain, I imagine we'd drop any pretense of supporting the Spanish Bourbons - why, when there's no advantage to be gained from it, and plenty of advantage from openly condemning them and supporting the independence movements?

Click to expand...

I don't see what the British would gain from supporting the independence movements in Spanish America. The independence movements had no traction before the Bourbons in Spain were overthrown, and it was their overthrow that allowed the independence movements the breathing room they needed to start being effective. Even with the overthrow of the Bourbons in Spain, the independence movements still had to fight for years to achieve independence. They had difficulty fighting a Spain that was in turns occupied by the French and then occupied with civil war. If the Bourbons are IN Mexico City, ruling directly, then I doubt that the independence movements would gain any traction, and the British would recognize that there is more to be gained by allying to the Spanish, then by fighting them.

I would further ask you to look at who ended up bringing about Mexico's independence. It was conservatives who finally decided that the Spanish were NOT CONSERVATIVE enough, and threw them out. With the Bourbons in Mexico, there is no danger of a liberal constitution being imposed on Mexico, and thus no danger of a conservative backlash.

Matthais Corvinus said:

I don't see what the British would gain from supporting the independence movements in Spanish America. The independence movements had no traction before the Bourbons in Spain were overthrown, and it was their overthrow that allowed the independence movements the breathing room they needed to start being effective. Even with the overthrow of the Bourbons in Spain, the independence movements still had to fight for years to achieve independence. They had difficulty fighting a Spain that was in turns occupied by the French and then occupied with civil war. If the Bourbons are IN Mexico City, ruling directly, then I doubt that the independence movements would gain any traction, and the British would recognize that there is more to be gained by allying to the Spanish, then by fighting them.

Click to expand...

The advantage to be gained was that Spanish America was not open to British trade, whereas a quilt of independent countries would be.

The only way to avoid this would be to have Ferdinand agree to open all of the Americas up to British trade in exchange for British support of his regime.

Matthais Corvinus said:

I don't see what the British would gain from supporting the independence movements in Spanish America. The independence movements had no traction before the Bourbons in Spain were overthrown, and it was their overthrow that allowed the independence movements the breathing room they needed to start being effective. Even with the overthrow of the Bourbons in Spain, the independence movements still had to fight for years to achieve independence. They had difficulty fighting a Spain that was in turns occupied by the French and then occupied with civil war. If the Bourbons are IN Mexico City, ruling directly, then I doubt that the independence movements would gain any traction, and the British would recognize that there is more to be gained by allying to the Spanish, then by fighting them.

Click to expand...

Umm, Argentina, anyone?

Dan1988 said:

Umm, Argentina, anyone?

Click to expand...

Not to mention Venezuela's independnec movement was also well undeway

How about the spanish colonies in Asia, are they independence or stilll under control from the Mexico City.

Still in control, though revolutionary ideas were slowly starting to develop in the Philippines.

I think Ferdinand would give the British free trade if it meant that they would stop supporting the independence movements. Ferdinand could ask that the British hand over Francisco de Miranda to the Bourbons, more specifically, and refuse British assurance that it would not play host to other "traitors" (like Simon Bolivar) in exchange for free trade. I think that this tit for tat, Ferdinand gets stability, the British get free trade, is something that would be mutually beneficial to both parties.

IMO without British support the independence movements could be put down by the Bourbons and colonial authorities. Moreover, IMO with the Bourbons being in Mexico City, Ferdinand VII wouldn't be able to be used as in absentia symbol for the resistance juntas, but would rather be the actual ruler of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. I think that this change in extremely important and would severely reduce support for independence leaders, and at the same time raise support for the Royalists. IMO the independence movements had a very hard time getting their countries independent. With the colonial royalists being backed by the King in Mexico City, I think that the conservatives would prevail.

I think that the British would also gain, in addition to the obviously dubious alliance with Ferdinand VII, much more legitimacy for their campaigns in the Peninsular War if they are in an alliance with the Bourbons. If they aren't, then the Spanish have little reason to help them beyond kicking the French out. The monarchy across the sea would be a rallying symbol, and restoring it and Spanish liberty (this is all rather twisted isn't it?) would probably be one and the same in the minds of most Spaniards.

Having said that, I also think that having an absolutist like Ferdinand VII (or his brother Charles) still in command of some parts of the Spanish Empire, and still acting as the legitimate King of Spain, would severely reduce support for the monarchy inside Spain. Where in the Americas I think that the monarchy's presence would give much needed supported to the already very strong conservative-royalists, in Spain the absentee monarchy would probably end up strengthening the liberals, since Ferdinand would be in a position to repudiate the 1812 Constitution.

On the other hand, one could argue that many in Spain saw the liberals as the ones who prompted the French to invade Spain in the first place, and since they are blaming them for the French invasion, see the nationalist conservative monarchy as the counterpoint to the franco-phile liberals.

One more question:

Once Spain is liberated, who takes control of it?

Thande said:

You have to remember that British agents were helping independence movements in Latin America fight Spain, at the same time that we were supposed to be allies. If the Spanish Royal Family has had to abandon Spain, I imagine we'd drop any pretense of supporting the Spanish Bourbons - why, when there's no advantage to be gained from it, and plenty of advantage from openly condemning them and supporting the independence movements?

Click to expand...

But these were pretty unsuccessful, no? Miranda failed miserably, for instance, and the initial Mexican attempts at independence were crushed.

Thande said:

The only way to avoid this would be to have Ferdinand agree to open all of the Americas up to British trade in exchange for British support of his regime.

Click to expand...

Well, Portugal did this, so it's not improbable.

Does this mean a unified Latin America?