WI: A Restored Bonnie Prince Charlie Weds Emperor Karl VII's Eldest Daughter?

[JonasResende]

This is sort of an idea I've had bouncing around in my head: Charles Edward Stuart married to Maria Antonia of Bavaria if the '45 is successful. I know everyone always goes for BPC marrying a daughter of Louis XV, but the only one close to child-bearing age in 1745 is Henriette Anne (and the French court might baulk at paying out the dowry for her to wed a king). To say nothing of how a French consort would be received in London.

Karl VII is likewise a French ally, he is an emperor (although his empire IIRC was limited to Frankfurt) and suitably Catholic. Plus, by the time the '45 is over, he's dead and it's her brother, Maximilian III deciding her fate. The English are used to German consorts, so it shouldn't be too strange (and hardly likely to cause as big a ruckus as a marriage to a Frenchwoman). Not to mention that Maria Antonia also descends from the Winter Queen through her mother (Archduchess Maria Amalie of Austria>Wilhelmine Amalie of Brunswick>Benedikte of the Palatinate>Eduard of the Palatinate>Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia), so I'd imagine that her "English" ancestry would be played up - much like they did with Felipe II's own Lancastrian ancestry.

It's probably a crazy idea, but I thought it would be interesting - since James III apparently did try to engage his eldest son to the youngest daughter of Karl VI, Archduchess Maria Amalie (b.1724, d.1730) IIRC.

 

[Nmale]

It's probably a crazy idea, but I thought it would be interesting - since James III apparently did try to engage his eldest son to the youngest daughter of Karl VI, Archduchess Maria Amalie (b.1724, d.1730) IIRC.

Where did you hear this from I’d love to know the source. I do know that in the 1710’s before the 1715 he tried to get an engagement with one of Charles VI’s sisters.

 

[JonasResende]

Where did you hear this from I’d love to know the source. I do know that in the 1710’s before the 1715 he tried to get an engagement with one of Charles VI’s sisters.

ICR where I read it, unfortunately. Wish I could remember, since it would be kinda interesting. Maybe @Urbanus VII could help?

But a follow-up question: would the Hannoverians attempt to mount any sort of restoration attempt if they did lose their British throne in 1745? Would there be a similar "longing" for the "German king" as what the Stuarts inspired?

 

[Nmale]

But a follow-up question: would the Hannoverians attempt to mount any sort of restoration attempt if they did lose their British throne in 1745? Would there be a similar "longing" for the "German king" as what the Stuarts inspired?

I’m pretty sure they would. By now at least of good 75% of the Whigs would be forced to flee, and I’m sure they’d go to Hanover. However, George II like his father, liked Hanover far more and I think if he were to loose the crown that he would at most make a half-hearted attempt. Even though it was 1745, the Jacobites when you look at it had significant support. Most of England was just fence sitters, and I’m positive if London were captured thousands more would rise in Scotland and Ireland. I also read that Cobham and his cubs supported the Jacobites, and I’m sure out of them that a new Whig Party would be formed.

 

[JonasResende]

I’m pretty sure they would. By now at least of good 75% of the Whigs would be forced to flee, and I’m sure they’d go to Hanover. However, George II like his father, liked Hanover far more and I think if he were to loose the crown that he would at most make a half-hearted attempt. Even though it was 1745, the Jacobites when you look at it had significant support. Most of England was just fence sitters, and I’m positive if London were captured thousands more would rise in Scotland and Ireland. I also read that Cobham and his cubs supported the Jacobites, and I’m sure out of them that a new Whig Party would be formed.

The question about Cobham and co. would, of course, be are they going to let any ministry in the Jacobite government survive? They brought down Walpole (in 1742), then Lord Carteret/Wilmington (in 1744). Besides, wouldn't a Jacobite ministry be mostly taken from the Tories? ISTR that that was why the early Hannoverians blocked the Tories from power as much as they did/could.

 

[Nmale]

The question about Cobham and co. would, of course, be are they going to let any ministry in the Jacobite government survive? They brought down Walpole (in 1742), then Lord Carteret/Wilmington (in 1744). Besides, wouldn't a Jacobite ministry be mostly taken from the Tories? ISTR that that was why the early Hannoverians blocked the Tories from power as much as they did/could.

I think that if the Jacobites were to be restored they’d try to accommodate as many people as possible. The Patriot whigs joined forces with the Tories numerous times in the 1730’s and 40’s, I think to get power there would be no reason not to do it now.

 

[JonasResende]

I think that if the Jacobites were to be restored they’d try to accommodate as many people as possible. The Patriot whigs joined forces with the Tories numerous times in the 1730’s and 40’s, I think to get power there would be no reason not to do it now.

Fair enough. Although joining Tories under the Hannoverians is one thing. Joining forces under a king you/your father/grandfather sent his dad packing might be slightly awkward, wouldn't it?

 

[VVD0D95]

Fair enough. Although joining Tories under the Hannoverians is one thing. Joining forces under a king you/your father/grandfather sent his dad packing might be slightly awkward, wouldn't it?

Political convenience and power make odd bedfellows

 

[JonasResende]

Political convenience and power make odd bedfellows

Isn't that the truth. Although I imagine there would be a lot of tap-dancing needed to not fall into the sink

That said, how would we get around the elephant in the room that is James III? Obviously, once BPC has successfully taken London, James is going to start packing his bags to come home. But he's also going to refuse to brook anything but Catholicism - he's not exactly known for being pragmatic. And the belief in the Divine Right of Kings would refuse to let him abdicate. So it's an awkward situation. Charlie's regent by right of conquest, James by actual right, but I could see most Englishmen jumping on chairs when/if James III returns. They'd probably demand a settlement be reached that sort of leaves the status quo (lands taken/seized left as is, no retroactive attainders for people involved, blanket pardon, etc, etc) in place as possible. The thing is, if Charlie successfully takes London, they're not necessarily going to be in much of a position to demand much. Since most likely, the French are going to show up with the excuse that they were "really really trying to get there, but you know the weather..." in support of a victorious Charlie.

 

[Nmale]

Isn't that the truth. Although I imagine there would be a lot of tap-dancing needed to not fall into the sink

That said, how would we get around the elephant in the room that is James III? Obviously, once BPC has successfully taken London, James is going to start packing his bags to come home. But he's also going to refuse to brook anything but Catholicism - he's not exactly known for being pragmatic. And the belief in the Divine Right of Kings would refuse to let him abdicate. So it's an awkward situation. Charlie's regent by right of conquest, James by actual right, but I could see most Englishmen jumping on chairs when/if James III returns. They'd probably demand a settlement be reached that sort of leaves the status quo (lands taken/seized left as is, no retroactive attainders for people involved, blanket pardon, etc, etc) in place as possible. The thing is, if Charlie successfully takes London, they're not necessarily going to be in much of a position to demand much. Since most likely, the French are going to show up with the excuse that they were "really really trying to get there, but you know the weather..." in support of a victorious Charlie.

Actually before Charles left, it was agreed upon that if the Stuart’s were restored that James would abdicate so Charles could become King. But if that doesn’t work out Charles would definatley be Regent. James is too old and set in his ways to change. But you have to imagine with his weak health that the British climate would give James an earlier death, maybe from his stroke in 1762 instead of 1766 or earlier.

 

[JonasResende]

Actually before Charles left, it was agreed upon that if the Stuart’s were restored that James would abdicate so Charles could become King. But if that doesn’t work out Charles would definatley be Regent. James is too old and set in his ways to change. But you have to imagine with his weak health that the British climate would give James an earlier death, maybe from his stroke in 1762 instead of 1766 or earlier.

I know it's probably quasi-ASB to ask, but could a successful '45 see the duke of York not take a cardinal's skirts? Charlie was furious when he found out about it, James was more resigned to the fact. And it led to a major falling out between Charlie and his father as well as Charlie and his brother (where they'd formerly been close). I'm not sure who Henry would marry - since don't think Charlie's gonna stop him entering the church to keep him dangling around. There was talk of Charlie wedding a Hessian princess - niece to the queen of Sardinia, the princesse de Carignan and the princesse de Condé - around the '45. I think for a deposed monarch she's important enough, but not important enough for a restored king, but Henry, duke of York, might be rushed into a marriage with her.

 

[VVD0D95]

I know it's probably quasi-ASB to ask, but could a successful '45 see the duke of York not take a cardinal's skirts? Charlie was furious when he found out about it, James was more resigned to the fact. And it led to a major falling out between Charlie and his father as well as Charlie and his brother (where they'd formerly been close). I'm not sure who Henry would marry - since don't think Charlie's gonna stop him entering the church to keep him dangling around. There was talk of Charlie wedding a Hessian princess - niece to the queen of Sardinia, the princesse de Carignan and the princesse de Condé - around the '45. I think for a deposed monarch she's important enough, but not important enough for a restored king, but Henry, duke of York, might be rushed into a marriage with her.

That could be a good marriage and the Stuart’s di need more of them around

 

[Historyman 14]

I always very much doubt the Jacobites and for good reason. One issue is the little actual genuine support they had. Or the fact Protestants supported them more then Catholics. The Scots was more interesting in keeping the Clan System that was become more and more out of date and obsolete and the Jacobites was used for that. The Irish had many, many other reasons to hate the English and never had any love for the Bonnie Prince.

The now very Protestant United Kingdom will not take kindly for a Catholic King coming back, and you have the Dutch and the Austrians supporting the House of Hanover to return and most of the Kingdom would be much more in the support of the Hanoverians. At the same time, The French are in no position in 1745 to launch an invasion of Southern England as they were too pre-occupied with events on the continent.

They simply lack support and legitimacy in most of the Kingdom. James or Charles must renounce Catholicism, renounce the 'Divine Right of Kings' and become anti-Freach to have any chance.

 

[JonasResende]

They simply lack support and legitimacy in most of the Kingdom. James or Charles must renounce Catholicism, renounce the 'Divine Right of Kings' and become anti-Freach to have any chance.

Hence why I suggested a non-French wife for Charlie.

And to suppose that the Austrians - who, remember, are in the middle of their own succession war - are going to have anything to say about it, seems unlikely. Maria Theresia would resent the loss of British support (such as it was), but considering that IIRC George II voted for Karl VII, I don't think she's gonna be crying the Danube anytime soon. Once Karl VII loses or is dead, she actually has more than a few reasons to go with Charlie over George. One, Charlie is her cousin (his maternal grandmother and her paternal grandma are sisters), and Maria Antonia (Maria Theresia's cousin once removed) is as close to an Austrian archduchess proxy as she's going to get. Plus, Maria Theresia was never really comfortable with those whole "get along with the Protestant English king" idea AFAIK.
So, doubt that she's gonna back George.

The Dutch are, as usual, sort of impotent to act on their own. Prussia would be a good backer for the Netherlands. Just one problem: Friedrich the Great was pro-Jacobite (he hated his uncle in London - not above doing business with him, but he wasn't fond of him. And somewhere IIRC, proposed his sister, Anna Amalie of Prussia, for BPC. Anna Amalie could make a nice wife for Charlie as well, I guess). So, who is going to back the Dutch? Someone who has an interest in deposing the Stuarts and restoring the Hannoverians. Portugal, Spain and France are out. Austria is an unlikely option (possible, but iffy). Protestant powers? Prussia? (nope) Denmark (maybe). Sweden (king's an idiot, so no). Russia? Her empress is pro-French anti-English, so perhaps. But let's be realistic, Elizabeth Petrovna has a lot of problems a lot closer to home to worry about.

 

[Historyman 14]

I honestly would not be surprise if we get a Glorious Revolution 2.0 with the English throwing out the Jacobites on their and ask George to come back.

Non-Freach wife or not, it's not going to work out for them.

 

[Raferty]

I'm not sure how firm the footing is going to be for the Stuart claimant. Keep in mind that to win, he is essentially bringing an army of what many believed to be the equivalent of foreign barbarians into England (keep in mind that the act of union was less than 40 years old) and relying on them, along with support from the French, to oust any opposition. In addition, he is going to be overturning a lot of the anti-Catholic laws, which raised a pretty massive fuss in the 1830s, let alone the 1740s.

You also have to consider that the role of Parliament by the 1740s was not something to take lightly. It could, and would, raise a force on its own, outside of the Hanoverian claim, or claiming to be acting in its name but only superficially so, and its support base would look similar to 100 years before (lots of low church Anglicans and dissenters, based in the south and east of England, where all of the money was).

I think the Stuart cause was far more potent in 1715, even if it didn't have the same kind of drama associated with the rising. It had a chance at sizable amounts of (Northern, particularly in Lancashire) English support.

 

[JonasResende]

An English Civil War in the 18th century could be interesting. Especially given the Stuarts ties to Austria/Bavaria/France this go around. I don't think they'll be any more help than what they were the first go around - 100 years before - but it could cause interesting effects in Europe. French Revolution come early?

 

[Jürgen]

Someone suggested Denmark intervening later to reestablish the Hanoverians, not unlikely as the Danish king are married to a English princess, but that also rsise the question, what if the British parliament decides to repeat the Dutch success with a Danish king instead? Denmark can’t conquer Britain on it own (as the British navy would defeat the Danish navy), but if the Danish navy and army join a native revolt, it’s suddenly a much more realistic option.

 

[JonasResende]

Someone suggested Denmark intervening later to reestablish the Hanoverians, not unlikely as the Danish king are married to a English princess, but that also rsise the question, what if the British parliament decides to repeat the Dutch success with a Danish king instead? Denmark can’t conquer Britain on it own (as the British navy would defeat the Danish navy), but if the Danish navy and army join a native revolt, it’s suddenly a much more realistic option.

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure Denmark would/could back the Dutch to restore the Hannoverians. So that's one more name scrapped from the list, which makes it likely that if the Stuarts are compelled to leave, they will have to be forced out from inside. And while the Stuarts had been forced out twice before (ECW and GR), they do say third time's the charm.

 

[Jürgen]

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure Denmark would/could back the Dutch to restore the Hannoverians. So that's one more name scrapped from the list, which makes it likely that if the Stuarts are compelled to leave, they will have to be forced out from inside. And while the Stuarts had been forced out twice before (ECW and GR), they do say third time's the charm.

The question is what would the Danes be offered to make a restoration of the Hanoverians worth it? A domestic revolt in alliance with a joint Danish-Hanoverian invasion would have a great chance of success, in fact if the Royal Navy decides to let the Danish land a invasion force, Denmark could likely win on it own.

So here's my idea; the Stuart retake the British crown in 1745, the Hanoverians and much of the anti-Stuart British elite flee to Hanover. British foreign policy pretty much follow the same afterward as in OTL, simply because British interest haven't changed, so we still see the Seven Years' War happening, there Austria decides to support a Hanoverian reconquest of GB, they makes a deal together with Russia with Denmark-Norway to support the Hanoverian invasion against gaining Gottorp from Russia and Bremen-Verden from Hanover. In GB deals are made with opponents in the British navy of Stuarts to join the revolt. This result in domestic uprising, while a joint Danish-Hanoverian army land in England.

The result are that Seven Years’ War end in a Austrian victory and the Hanoverians return to power in GB.