Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

William's conversion, expanded

William's conversion, expanded

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William's planned conversion to Catholicism is not only a political crisis, but a constitutional crisis as well. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]He knew full well that he would have to renounce his (and his children's) rights to succession to the throne of Britain, and was willing to do so. He also knew that his marriage would require the permission of his mother (the reigning monarch) or the marriage would be illegal – but since this was the girl he'd been betrothed to for years, and it was an important political match, he really believed that his conversion shouldn't affect the marriage. This was rather naïve of him, but in the end correct.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What he hadn't realized was that [/FONT]the Treason Act of 1702 makes it treason"endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging". to [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][1] Thus his fiancée (possibly) and any British priests who catechized or confessed him (certainly) could be charged with treason and drawn and quartered (or burnt depending on gender). Whether his fiancée would be burned at the stake might depend interpretations of that law. (Treason is SUPPOSED to be betraying your country. Antonia isn't British, so she shouldn't be able to commit 'treason' against Britain. OTOH, the law didn't exclude foreigners... And, moreover, if she married William, she would THEN become British, and possibly liable retroactively for her 'crime'.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fortunately, William had the sense to talk to his mother and and a few close advisers before formally converting. He almost didn't, figuring that a [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]fait accompli[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] was not undoable, and that forgiveness would be easier to get than permission. But he did, mostly to be fair to his mother, his Queen (same person, 2 different hats), and the government. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Everyone tried to persuade William that this move was a REALLY BAD idea, for lots and lots of reasons. Politicians argued the politics, Bishops argued the theology, his family argued family ties. None of it was effective. He had decided that the Biblical passage (Matthew 16:19) about Peter being given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven was unassailable, and as much as it hurt him to hurt his family and his nation, and as much as he didn't necessarily really LIKE the papacy or hierarchy, he said “Here I stand, I can do no other”[2]. He admitted that, had he been a younger son, he might, MIGHT have been able to be quiet about it and occasionally visit a priest on the sly, say. But that there was no way, absolutely no way that he would let himself be the figurehead of a (as he believed) schismatic denomination. So, since he had to thus remove himself from the line of succession, anyway, why not give good reason for the removal?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Then someone pointed out the 1702 Act. Ouch! He pointed out that they'd better fix things, eh? It really wouldn't do to try to burn the King of Portugal's eldest daughter at the stake, would it? [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Parliament's first attempt was to try to pass a law to make it illegal for William to convert. Queen Charlotte called the parliamentary leaders in and pointed out that 1) there were lots of laws in place already 2) that William was going to do it, no matter what 3) did they REALLY want to imprison or execute the heir to the throne? And 4) if they passed such a law she would not give assent – and did they want to open THAT can of worms.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The news of William's intentions leaked out (probably leaked by an MP who wanted public pressure to cover parliament's actions, and force William to do their will). However, the results were not what the leaker (presumably) hoped for. While voices on the Calvinist fringe (especially in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland) fulminated against the “Whore of Babylon” and similar, in general the public supported William. The story of the arranged political marriage that had turned into a love match had caught the fancy of the British population, and the general thought was on the order of “He can't be King, of course, but … Poor lamb... Let him marry the girl, and convert to that Papist nonsense if he really wants to.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There is no support for amending the laws to let him ascend the throne as a Roman Catholic, and indeed, William didn't ask for any such. All he asked was that his conversion not be considered treason. Faced with William's obstinacy, and the public support for the love-birds, Parliament finally legislated a solution, and William was able to convert, and then marry Antonia.[3][/FONT]


–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 Thanks to Alratan for pointing this out.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 consciously or unconsciously echoing Martin Luther, which is another irony.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 I'm not going to spell out in detail WHAT the solution was, as I'm not sure what the best (or most politically possible, which may be a different thing) way would be. They could amend the treason act of 1702 (which would be a touch tricky, as they don't want to make this EASY). My guess is the best solution might be that they could exclude him by name from succession, in which case the treason act wouldn't apply. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3a Consider Princess Di, for instance. People may not have been sure that she was the brightest candle in the (wind), but the 'fairy tale romance' caught people's fancy, and when the marriage turned sour, somehow most people seemed to forgive Diana's adultery and immature behaviour, where Charles' was roundly condemned. Here that fairy tale glow clings to the couple, and most people are willing to forgive them their foolishness, is, I think, the best way to put it.[/FONT]

 

[Alratan]

The treason here isn't neccessarily on the part of the Princess, but her chaplin, as she can't actually convert him. It wouldn't actually be burning at the stake at this point, anyway, or anything public. They'd just send her home in semi-disgrace and the chaplin would find himself sent to a monastary.

I suspect that this is an issue that would be dealt with by a dispatch to the asylum, unfortunate as it is, and the unfortunate cancellation of the betrothal.

Whatever happens, the marriage won't be permitted to go ahead. There's no way that after the trouble with the Jacobites (which only ended in 1788) that the British government would permit a Catholic branch of the Royal Family with a potentially superior claim to the main one to exist. This is such a serious issue I strongly suspect the Papacy would be leant on to refuse to accept any conversion or marriage to occur.

 

[Lusitania]

The treason here isn't neccessarily on the part of the Princess, but her chaplin, as she can't actually convert him. It wouldn't actually be burning at the stake at this point, anyway, or anything public. They'd just send her home in semi-disgrace and the chaplin would find himself sent to a monastary.

I suspect that this is an issue that would be dealt with by a dispatch to the asylum, unfortunate as it is, and the unfortunate cancellation of the betrothal.

Whatever happens, the marriage won't be permitted to go ahead. There's no way that after the trouble with the Jacobites (which only ended in 1788) that the British government would permit a Catholic branch of the Royal Family with a potentially superior claim to the main one to exist. This is such a serious issue I strongly suspect the Papacy would be leant on to refuse to accept any conversion or marriage to occur.

There are allot of political implications to what you are proposing, both internally and externally.

1) Internally - while the elitists may fume and convulse at the thought of a papist royal the public are enthralled by the “love” story. If politicians either privately or publically do anything that the people would deem an attack on them then it could be facing riots and even loss of election. They may fume and be upset but in the end will have to accept it. This would be more so in the parts of the empire where there is a substantial Catholic population i.e. BNA and Ireland.

2) Externally – One word “minefield”, while Britain may be the most powerful empire on the world its standing in the eyes of the European monarchs will greatly diminish we may also see the dissolution of its trade agreement and accord and that would be a great loss of income and business to Britain and those that can vote in Britain.

 

[Alratan]

I believe this isn't an issue of the elite. At this era anti-Papism was a popular movement amongst the middle and working classes even more than amongst the ruling classes.

On the international scene - betrothals fall through not that infrequently. None of the continental monarchies, neither protestant, ortodox, or catholic are going to be happy with the idea of their heirs renouncing their religions.

As I say, I imagine it would be hushed up, and either the marriage is called off and the unfortunate prince is declared mentally unfit to reign and disappears to a discreet asylum, or he goes off to live in exile in Europe.

He certainly won't be made King of a kingdom in the Empire, you can't disrespect your country in such a way and get away with. This would very much be seen and presented to the country at large as him truning his back aon nd betraying his country. The belief that catholics were a 5th order working for a foreign power (the Pope), was very alive and well at this point.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The treason here isn't neccessarily on the part of the Princess, but her chaplin, as she can't actually convert him. It wouldn't actually be burning at the stake at this point, anyway, or anything public. They'd just send her home in semi-disgrace and the chaplin would find himself sent to a monastary.

I suspect that this is an issue that would be dealt with by a dispatch to the asylum, unfortunate as it is, and the unfortunate cancellation of the betrothal.

Whatever happens, the marriage won't be permitted to go ahead. There's no way that after the trouble with the Jacobites (which only ended in 1788) that the British government would permit a Catholic branch of the Royal Family with a potentially superior claim to the main one to exist. This is such a serious issue I strongly suspect the Papacy would be leant on to refuse to accept any conversion or marriage to occur.

There are allot of political implications to what you are proposing, both internally and externally.

1) Internally - while the elitists may fume and convulse at the thought of a papist royal the public are enthralled by the “love” story. If politicians either privately or publically do anything that the people would deem an attack on them then it could be facing riots and even loss of election. They may fume and be upset but in the end will have to accept it. This would be more so in the parts of the empire where there is a substantial Catholic population i.e. BNA and Ireland.

2) Externally – One word “minefield”, while Britain may be the most powerful empire on the world its standing in the eyes of the European monarchs will greatly diminish we may also see the dissolution of its trade agreement and accord and that would be a great loss of income and business to Britain and those that can vote in Britain.

Hoo boy. Alratan, I think Lusitania comes closer to the situation than you do, here.

1) The last SERIOUS Jacobite threat was ended in 1746 almost a century back, at the Battle of Culloden. Sure, Bonnie Prince Charlie wandered around Europe muttering at people and getting drunk, but he wasn't a serious threat. English Jacobites stopped sending him money in '60. I'm guessing the 1788 date refers to the Scots Catholics swearing loyalty? Or do you not consider "Henry IX" a threat?

2) the more Machiavellian English protestant leaders might actually WELCOME a major catholic Hannoverian royal - as it would split the loyalties of the very few remaining plotters.

3) By the terms of the Succession Act (I think the name was), any conversion to Catholicism immediately and permanently removes one from the line of succession. William realizes this and is more than happy to make any public formal statements/oaths/etc. agreeing to his removal from the line of succession. His line will have NO claim, and he knows it.

4) William's not going to back down. The options for the British government are ... not good. They can swallow the bitter pill, and allow him his foolishness. Or they can permanently PO their closest European ally, and much of the British population INCLUDING THEIR QUEEN.

5) Things like the Catholic Emancipation Act have already been passed. 'Catholic' is no longer the swear-word it used to be. While the politicians of all stripes are going to be deeply unhappy with William, I really think that you're positing opinions that, at this time, are decades out of date by ~1840.

Lusitania:
Minor reshading of your points: Actual riots in the streets would be likely minor. The population would be more sullen than actively revolting, IMO. OTOH, the party in power might possibly lose in a landslide next election, depending.

IMO, the government at this point COULD get away with POing the populace, I think, if they were so inclined; or they could PO the Queen; or the could PO close allies. Doing ALL THREE at once, which is what would happen here, is what would make it an almost nuclear option for them.

 

[stevep]

Yes, it annoys the HECK out of the US. So what

Dathi

Switching back to this for the moment my previous reply was rather tongue in cheek but actually, unless there was a very strong demand in Canada or the US had really pissed Britain and/or Canada off, Britain would actually give some thought to US opinion on the matter.

More to the point possibly what would be New England's view of the issue - a know it probably isn't going to surface yet. They might have something of a split personality in TTL. Probably thinking of themselves as still the 'pure' Americans but allied with Britain against the rump US state. How do they feel about say George Washington and the US constitution. Does their navy still include ships named say Saratoga and Lexington or possibly some of the southern battles of the AWI? Could be confusing if both them and the US have ships of the same name.

While less powerful than the US militarily or economically New England is a close ally and there might be interest on both sides of unifying the two at some future point. This would be somewhat less likely if New England is still clearly republican [which seems likely] and Canada does become a monarchy. Not saying its an impenetrable barrier but something that might delay Canada becoming a monarchy.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Switching back to this for the moment my previous reply was rather tongue in cheek but actually, unless there was a very strong demand in Canada or the US had really pissed Britain and/or Canada off, Britain would actually give some thought to US opinion on the matter.

More to the point possibly what would be New England's view of the issue - a know it probably isn't going to surface yet. They might have something of a split personality in TTL. Probably thinking of themselves as still the 'pure' Americans but allied with Britain against the rump US state. How do they feel about say George Washington and the US constitution. Does their navy still include ships named say Saratoga and Lexington or possibly some of the southern battles of the AWI? Could be confusing if both them and the US have ships of the same name.

While less powerful than the US militarily or economically New England is a close ally and there might be interest on both sides of unifying the two at some future point. This would be somewhat less likely if New England is still clearly republican [which seems likely] and Canada does become a monarchy. Not saying its an impenetrable barrier but something that might delay Canada becoming a monarchy.

Steve

New England has a constitution that is almost cut and paste from the US one, with name changes, the Bill of Rights integral rather than amendments, and a few other changes (basically some of the ones the OTL Hartford Convention was pushing for). They do see themselves as 'true Republicans', and honour Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Not Madison and Monroe, however There history books are going to be a bit schizoid, true. But consistent themes of 'freedom from tyranny' and 'freedom to trade' can work. They will teach the various independence battles, but they won't be quite as close to their heart and soul as in the US (ATL or OTL).

I think they would avoid names like Lexington and Saratoga, partly because they aren't honoured names in their navy yet, and partly because it wouldn't be helpful. They actually HAVE the USNE Constitution (formerly the USS Constitution), and are likely to name their ships in similar veins.

Up until the time of the split, the only USS Lexington was

USS Lexington (1776), was a 14-gun brigantine originally named Wild Duck purchased in 1776 and used by the Continental Navy until her capture in 1777

not one of the most illustrious careers...

Besides, if iOTL the US and Britain can both have an 'Enterpri{s/z}e' without confusion, the existence of 2 'Independence's, say, shouldn't be a problem.

New England has been closely allied with Britain for some 2 1/2 decades now, and are well used to dealing with titled personages, and kingdoms. I would imagine that several New Englanders (e.g. prominent ambassadors to the Court of St. James) might even have received honourary knighthoods - so a 'Sir James Pickering', say, might be entirely possible as a secretary of State in the New England government. Not saying it WOULD happen, just that it COULD.

I think the New Englanders think that being a Republic is the best way to go, but that Britain's sort of constitutional monarchy is a reasonable second. While they would no doubt prefer Canada (or the Maritimes) to go Republic, they know it won't happen, and are just as glad to see their neighbours be raised in status and receive proper recognition and increased autonomy.

New England has, at the moment, at least, no interest in joining Canada or the British Empire. They have most of the benefits with their treaties and then the Neo-Delian League, and few of the draw backs (like giving up independence or having a monarchy imposed on them). Britain, while it might not have minded coaxing New England back into the fold, wasn't ready to grant the amount of independence necessary in the days before those treaties. Now they have NE tied into the League, and Britain, too, has most of the advantages and few of the disadvantages of having NE as part of the Empire.

Whether the League is a trojan horse for an expanded British Empire, the first steps on the way to world government, a simple trading pact, or any or all of the above, waits to be seen.

OK. spoiler. New England is NOT going to become part of Canada. There will be 4 significant nations on the continent in the 20th century. I certainly had considered the possibility earlier, but by the time that *Canada is big enough to swallow New England (and remain Canada), the New Englanders will have been on there own for a generation or more, and I think leaving them friendly and allied is the most appropriate thing to do.

 

[Dan1988]

Mon chère ami Steve . . . .

Switching back to this for the moment my previous reply was rather tongue in cheek but actually, unless there was a very strong demand in Canada or the US had really pissed Britain and/or Canada off, Britain would actually give some thought to US opinion on the matter.

More to the point possibly what would be New England's view of the issue - a know it probably isn't going to surface yet. They might have something of a split personality in TTL. Probably thinking of themselves as still the 'pure' Americans but allied with Britain against the rump US state. How do they feel about say George Washington and the US constitution. Does their navy still include ships named say Saratoga and Lexington or possibly some of the southern battles of the AWI? Could be confusing if both them and the US have ships of the same name.

Saratoga would be a no-no, since that's out in New York State (which is not part of New England, fortunately), and as for Lexington - I don't think so, but maybe there could be names like Illustrious, Victory, Pawcatuck (a town in Connecticut), Kathadin (as in Mount Kathadin in Maine), and the like.

As for New England's view on the issue - well, put it this way. Dathi might view it differently than I would (especially since I'm using his Canada-wank as a basis for my own for Kuando el Rey Nimrod, though with some tweaks to match an 1806 POD and to figure out a way of getting New England into *Confederation), but I'm assuming that Dathi is thinking that New England's alliance with Britain is probably an alliance of convenience (but one which makes sense and has expanded beyond that, given that New England is now basically in an economic union with the British Empire). To a New Englander in Dathi's TL, that they are not American is basically an asset and not a detriment (especially the chaos that characterizes DoD is more or less avoided).

While less powerful than the US militarily or economically New England is a close ally and there might be interest on both sides of unifying the two at some future point. This would be somewhat less likely if New England is still clearly republican [which seems likely] and Canada does become a monarchy. Not saying its an impenetrable barrier but something that might delay Canada becoming a monarchy.

Steve

There may be, yes - and I know I'm going to use a similar idea for my Canada-wank. To do so, however, would require something of Herculean proportions that Britain was not yet ready to work on. You'd need something like the Fenian raids of OTL, or repeated sporadic invasions of New England by the US (or both at the same time), to make a union with the Maritime colonies and the Canadas work into a "Dominion" (note the OTL usage of "Dominion" instead of "Kingdom"). You'd have to find ways of reconciling New England's own Constitution with a parliamentary system and the system of government most people in BNA are acquainted with, thereby creating an early form of the OTL Australian-style "Washminster" system. You'd also have to find ways to make sure that the ATL Dominion just doesn't end up as being a "Greater New England". It's possible, sure, but would require a lot of thinking to figure out how it comes about. Hence why Dathi has taken the easy route and have New England and BNA separate. Could the BNA evolve into a separate federation? But of course.

 

[Dan1988]

New England has a constitution that is almost cut and paste from the US one, with name changes, the Bill of Rights integral rather than amendments, and a few other changes (basically some of the ones the OTL Hartford Convention was pushing for). They do see themselves as 'true Republicans', and honour Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Not Madison and Monroe, however

That makes sense, in a way. But that does leave open a few questions:
*Are the Bill of Rights placed before describing the structure of government - in others, are the rights of the people placed before describing how the government should be run?
*How exactly would New England in TTL honour Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and maybe even Hamilton?
*Although obviously not mentioned in the Constitution, is New England eventually going to develop into something close to a parliamentary system?

There history books are going to be a bit schizoid, true. But consistent themes of 'freedom from tyranny' and 'freedom to trade' can work. They will teach the various independence battles, but they won't be quite as close to their heart and soul as in the US (ATL or OTL).

That makes sense - I know history used to bore me to death, which was not helped in some cases by the teachers, so I can relate.

New England has been closely allied with Britain for some 2 1/2 decades now, and are well used to dealing with titled personages, and kingdoms. I would imagine that several New Englanders (e.g. prominent ambassadors to the Court of St. James) might even have received honourary knighthoods - so a 'Sir James Pickering', say, might be entirely possible as a secretary of State in the New England government. Not saying it WOULD happen, just that it COULD.

And which would require an amendment allowing such things to happen in the first place.

I think the New Englanders think that being a Republic is the best way to go, but that Britain's sort of constitutional monarchy is a reasonable second. While they would no doubt prefer Canada (or the Maritimes) to go Republic, they know it won't happen, and are just as glad to see their neighbours be raised in status and receive proper recognition and increased autonomy.

Hmm, an interesting take.

New England has, at the moment, at least, no interest in joining Canada or the British Empire. They have most of the benefits with their treaties and then the Neo-Delian League, and few of the draw backs (like giving up independence or having a monarchy imposed on them). Britain, while it might not have minded coaxing New England back into the fold, wasn't ready to grant the amount of independence necessary in the days before those treaties. Now they have NE tied into the League, and Britain, too, has most of the advantages and few of the disadvantages of having NE as part of the Empire.

Whether the League is a trojan horse for an expanded British Empire, the first steps on the way to world government, a simple trading pact, or any or all of the above, waits to be seen.

OK. spoiler. New England is NOT going to become part of Canada. There will be 4 significant nations on the continent in the 20th century. I certainly had considered the possibility earlier, but by the time that *Canada is big enough to swallow New England (and remain Canada), the New Englanders will have been on there own for a generation or more, and I think leaving them friendly and allied is the most appropriate thing to do.

Makes sense and understandable.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

More on the British Monarchy

The 'next' post is expanding and expanding. Sigh. Anyway, here is a tidbit for the interim.



More on the British Monarchy

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1837 Princess Augusta Sophia (=Princess Sophia) married Duke Peter of Oldenburg[1], who was eminently connected and appropriate for the eldest child of the British monarch. Peter was, at the time of betrothal, 3rd in line for the throne of the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, nephew of the Tsar of Russia, and stepson of the King of Württemberg. His mother encouraged the match and connexion with Britain, partly because it was through the then Prince Regent (later George IV) that she met and fell in love with her second husband, the King of Württemberg.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Peter was some 5 years older than Sophia, and it wasn't a love match, but they respected each other's company and admired their respective abilities. Peter was a very bright man, scholarly and a philanthropist and musician[2]. While Peter (and his brother Alexander) had been offered a position in Russia, he decided to stay in England and accept the betrothal with Sophia. Alexander, however, did go, and had a very successful career, and one of his daughters married into the Tsar's family.[3][/FONT]


–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Oldenburg_(1812-1881) for his OTL 'brother'.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 As is well known, he is the composer of the Canadian National Anthem. [iTTL, of course][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 Basically this Alexander lives and has a similar career in Russia as Peter did iOTL.[/FONT]

 

[Archangel]

Portugal/Brazil



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As OTL, the royal family flees to Brazil during the Napoleonic wars. When the wars are over, they delay somewhat in coming back, and a liberal uprising expels the British and creates a new Constitution (that of 1820). John VI (João VI) quickly returns with his first son and heir Francisco (born 1797), and accepts the new constitution. He left his second son Pedro (born 1800) behind in Brazil to rule as regent/viceroy there.[1][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The reactionary forces opposed to the new constitution unite around the youngest prince Miguel, who advised by his older sister Maria Teresa (the only one of the children born pre-POD), and they rise in revolt against their father. João wins the fight and brother and sister are exiled to Austria. [2][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Meanwhile, Pedro declares himself Emperor of Brazil in 1822. There is some considerable strife as to what Brazil's constitution should look like, but it ends up somewhat more liberal than OTL's. It still gives significant power to the Emperor, partly to balance the competing Brazilian and Portuguese parties in the country. Because there is no hope of re-uniting the crowns, friction between Pedro and Brazil on the one hand, and João, Francisco and Portugal on the other causes relations to be rather rockier than OTL and for the bad-feeling to last somewhat longer. However, the Portuguese branch does come to realize eventually that there's really nothing that they can do about it, and Pedro is family, so relations do heal and then warm up.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When João dies in 1828 [about 2 years later than OTL], Francisco ascends the throne and negotiates a new constitution, with a few changes to appeal to the conservatives. Note that because Francisco came back with his father, and has been effectively co-ruler for the last few years, the transition is fairly smooth. While Miguel still returns (from Austrian exile) and tries to raise the flag of conservative revolt, Francisco is in a much stronger position, and Miguel and Maria Theresa are forced to flee back to Vienna. The revolt is known [as OTL] as the War of the Two Brothers, but here it is rather shorter, and the liberals are never displaced.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Several years later, when Don Carlos takes over as Regent in Spain (1833), he invites Miguel and Maria Theresa to a closer, friendlier exile in Spain, and gives support for Miguel's legitimacy as king. This, of course, adds to tensions between Portugal and Spain. And, secondarily between Britain (Francisco's ally) and Spain as well.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, Francisco is by then able to keep conservative discontent below the level of actual rebellion, having won so effectively the previous civil war.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Moreover, ties between Britain and Portugal, always warm, increase. Britain supported Francisco in his war with Miguel, and is glad to have a liberal, friendly régime on the continent. Maintaining this friendship and wanting to support liberal and friendly rule in Portugal, Britain negotiates favourable trade treaties with Portugal, similar to the ones already signed with New England. This eventually leads to the formation of the Neo-Delian League, already discussed.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Francisco has a son João in 1818, and a daughter Maria Antonia (called Antonia) in 1820. Due to the increased ties between Portugal and Britain, William, the Prince of Wales and Antonia are betrothed. They spend much time in each other's company as teenagers and actually fall in love, which is more than one can say for most royal marriages. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The wedding is intended to be in 1841 when he is 22 and she 21, but, as a result of long conversations with his fiancée, William converts to Catholicism. This creates a significant political crisis in Britain, as, of course, no Roman Catholic can inherit the throne – the PLAN was for Antonia to convert to Anglicanism. It also unhinges the carefully laid plans about which colonies would receive which royals as king/prince/duke/etc., and causes some of those negotiations to start again, delaying implementation long enough that the whole process is put on hold indefinitely because of the rising crisis with the United States (more on that later).[3][/FONT]


--
1 Most of this is as OTL, except for João's children. ITTL, the second child who dies early is a daughter, and the third child is a surviving son, Francisco Antonio Pio (called Francisco iTTL, where his OTL namesake was called Antonio Pio). João also brings his OLDEST son with him, leaving the second son as viceroy in Brazil.


2 as OTL. The same forces that led OTL's Miguel to be conservative and autocratic make iTTL's namesake the same.


3 This will lead to a King Leopold I of Britain eventually. Remember that the second son (now heir), is named “ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Leopold Francis John”, and Francis and John are basically right out as regnal names. Sure, he COULD be another George or something, but the expectation would be that he'd choose one of his baptismal names. Note that his older brother, the one who should have been king, is LOADED with proper possible British regnal names...[/FONT]

Cool to see Portugal getting a more normal XIX century!

William's conversion, expanded

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The news of William's intentions leaked out (probably leaked by an MP who wanted public pressure to cover parliament's actions, and force William to do their will). However, the results were not what the leaker (presumably) hoped for. While voices on the Calvinist fringe (especially in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland) fulminated against the “Whore of Babylon” and similar, in general the public supported William. The story of the arranged political marriage that had turned into a love match had caught the fancy of the British population, and the general thought was on the order of “He can't be King, of course, but … Poor lamb... Let him marry the girl, and convert to that Papist nonsense if he really wants to.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There is no support for amending the laws to let him ascend the throne as a Roman Catholic, and indeed, William didn't ask for any such. All he asked was that his conversion not be considered treason. Faced with William's obstinacy, and the public support for the love-birds, Parliament finally legislated a solution, and William was able to convert, and then marry Antonia.[3][/FONT]

A good news for all the Catholics in the British Empire and a boost in the relations between Portugal and Britain.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

New England has a constitution that is almost cut and paste from the US one, with name changes, the Bill of Rights integral rather than amendments, and a few other changes (basically some of the ones the OTL Hartford Convention was pushing for). They do see themselves as 'true Republicans', and honour Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Not Madison and Monroe, however There history books are going to be a bit schizoid, true. But consistent themes of 'freedom from tyranny' and 'freedom to trade' can work. They will teach the various independence battles, but they won't be quite as close to their heart and soul as in the US (ATL or OTL).

That makes sense, in a way. But that does leave open a few questions:
*Are the Bill of Rights placed before describing the structure of government - in others, are the rights of the people placed before describing how the government should be run?
*How exactly would New England in TTL honour Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and maybe even Hamilton?
*Although obviously not mentioned in the Constitution, is New England eventually going to develop into something close to a parliamentary system?

1) no clue, actually! I'm not sure how the original proponents of the Bill of Rights wanted them in, and even if I did the New Englanders might do something different. My GUESS is an Article 8.

2)Ummm... Much the same way the US does today. Monuments. Hagiographies (oops, I mean biographies in classrooms. No, I did mean that). Being on currency. Naming ships after them. Didn't have anything specific in mind.
3) No, I don't think so. They LIKE their constitution, their officers swear their oaths to it, etc. OTOH, with only 6 states, it will be a rather looser, more states' rights kind of place (even if they WERE founded by Federalists).

New England has been closely allied with Britain for some 2 1/2 decades now, and are well used to dealing with titled personages, and kingdoms. I would imagine that several New Englanders (e.g. prominent ambassadors to the Court of St. James) might even have received honourary knighthoods - so a 'Sir James Pickering', say, might be entirely possible as a secretary of State in the New England government. Not saying it WOULD happen, just that it COULD.

And which would require an amendment allowing such things to happen in the first place.

If you're referring to Article 1, section 9, the wording is

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

(emphasis added) so all it needs is consent of Congress, which might well be more normal in New England. Since it would require an act of Congress, such titles would not be COMMON.

If I've missed something else, and remember I never studied this in school, be'in one o' them demmed furriners, please let me know.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Hoo boy. Alratan, I think Lusitania comes closer to the situation than you do, here.

Sorry, but Alratan has it right here, you're grossly underestimating the controversy this would cause.

1) The last SERIOUS Jacobite threat was ended in 1746 almost a century back, at the Battle of Culloden. Sure, Bonnie Prince Charlie wandered around Europe muttering at people and getting drunk, but he wasn't a serious threat. English Jacobites stopped sending him money in '60. I'm guessing the 1788 date refers to the Scots Catholics swearing loyalty? Or do you not consider "Henry IX" a threat?

The Gordon riots were in 1780, and Ireland revolted in 1797. And in reference to your point 5, Catholic Emancipation was passed not because the old hatreds of Catholics had abated but because of the very real risk that Ireland would revolt again if it didn't - see the Duke of Wellington's speech in support of emancipation, in which he explicitly warns that a failure to pass emancipation will lead to civil war. The "Catholic threat" is still in many ways a live issue.

2) the more Machiavellian English protestant leaders might actually WELCOME a major catholic Hannoverian royal - as it would split the loyalties of the very few remaining plotters.

Hmm. Name three. and the vast majority of the population of Ireland are not a "few remaining plotters."

3) By the terms of the Succession Act (I think the name was), any conversion to Catholicism immediately and permanently removes one from the line of succession. William realizes this and is more than happy to make any public formal statements/oaths/etc. agreeing to his removal from the line of succession. His line will have NO claim, and he knows it.

It doesn't stop any son or grandson of William's from claiming it was an unjust law and seeking foreign support. And parliament will be perfectly well aware of this - the Jacobites were cut out of the succession by act of parliament too after all and it didn't stop them.

4) William's not going to back down. The options for the British government are ... not good. They can swallow the bitter pill, and allow him his foolishness. Or they can permanently PO their closest European ally, and much of the British population INCLUDING THEIR QUEEN.

Then, to be blunt, William is a fool. And I think you're misreading the queen. Any child of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick is likely to be more aware than most of the damage such a controversy will do to the monarchy. As for PO'ing Portugal - it's *Portugal* that's just thrown a massive spanner in the works and completely disrupted the British monarchy. Portugal will be far more concerned about Britain's reaction.

5) Things like the Catholic Emancipation Act have already been passed. 'Catholic' is no longer the swear-word it used to be. While the politicians of all stripes are going to be deeply unhappy with William, I really think that you're positing opinions that, at this time, are decades out of date by ~1840.

"Despite the Emancipation Act, however, anti-Catholic attitudes persisted throughout the 19th century, particularly after the influx of Irish immigrants into England during the Great Famine.
The re-establishment of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in England in 1850 by Pope Pius IX, was followed by a frenzy of anti-Catholic feeling, often stoked by newspapers. Examples include an effigy of Cardinal Wiseman, the new head of the restored hierarchy, being paraded through the streets and burned on Bethnal Green, and graffiti proclaiming 'No popery!' being chalked on walls.[3] New Catholic episcopates, which ran parallel to the established Anglican episcopates, and a Catholic conversion drive awakened fears of 'papal aggression' and relations between the Catholic Church and the establishment remained frosty.[4] At the end of the nineteenth century one contemporary wrote that "the prevailing opinion of the religious people I knew and loved was that Roman Catholic worship is idolatry, and that it was better to be an Atheist than a Papist"[5]"

From FOAK

IMO, the government at this point COULD get away with POing the populace, I think, if they were so inclined; or they could PO the Queen; or the could PO close allies. Doing ALL THREE at once, which is what would happen here, is what would make it an almost nuclear option for them.

As for the populace, I think you're overestimating the effect to which the populace will be engaged with this issue - there is no radio and television after all, and newspapers are far too expensive for the great mass of people (and most of the papers that do exist, if they cover this story at all, are likely to be hostile to the prince's plans).

As for the queen, see above - I think she's more likely to be appalled at her son's abdication of his duty than charmed by his love story. As I said, she knows better than most people the damage that such controversies can cause the monarchy.

As for Portugal, they won't kick up a fuss. In fact the establishment there is likely to be as appalled as anybody else - this marriage was supposed to cement Portugal's position as Britain's oldest and closest ally after all, and instead it's caused a massive constitutional crisis and probably set back attitudes to catholics in Britain by decades.

After all, it should not be forgotten how this came about. It would not have been left to chance that the princess convert to Anglicanism before the marriage took place, it would have been explicitly laid out in advance in the relevant negotiations and agreed to by all parties - including the princess. But instead of honouring her agreement to convert, she subverts it by inveigling William to convert instead. Seriously, you could not have provided a better example of the old legend of devious, faithless Catholics sneakily undermining upright protestants by any means necessary if you tried.

 

[Dan1988]

1) no clue, actually! I'm not sure how the original proponents of the Bill of Rights wanted them in, and even if I did the New Englanders might do something different. My GUESS is an Article 8.

I see - either way, it could be interesting.

2)Ummm... Much the same way the US does today. Monuments. Hagiographies (oops, I mean biographies in classrooms. No, I did mean that). Being on currency. Naming ships after them. Didn't have anything specific in mind.

That could work. Though it could be interesting to see how there could be national parks related to War of 1812 (or later) sites where you have tour guides saying something akin to "this was built in case them crazy Americans wanted to invade" - i.e. how Canadians tend to view their War of 1812-related sites.

3) No, I don't think so. They LIKE their constitution, their officers swear their oaths to it, etc. OTOH, with only 6 states, it will be a rather looser, more states' rights kind of place (even if they WERE founded by Federalists).

Hmm, there is a snag - Boston is pretty much the city at this point, so naturally there are going to be tendencies towards centralization that prefer Boston over the regions, even if the Constitution's a bit looser in New England. Hence, *Western Massachusetts and even Maine could easily be hacked off and form separate states - and in the case of Maine, you could easily break it up into 4-6 smaller states. Even if there are separation of powers, I could theoretically see something like a parliamentary system taking shape - over time, the HoR could become more powerful than the Senate, and something akin to a semi-presidential republic could take shape - the reason being that New England is small enough where a parliamentary system and/or a semi-presidential republic could actually be pretty viable.

If I've missed something else, and remember I never studied this in school, be'in one o' them demmed furriners, please let me know.

Mais bien sûr. I actually really like you're handling this, actually.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Sorry, but Alratan has it right here, you're grossly underestimating the controversy this would cause.

Hmm... let's look at this some more. I could imagine I need to retcon this.

The Gordon riots were in 1780, and Ireland revolted in 1797. And in reference to your point 5, Catholic Emancipation was passed not because the old hatreds of Catholics had abated but because of the very real risk that Ireland would revolt again if it didn't - see the Duke of Wellington's speech in support of emancipation, in which he explicitly warns that a failure to pass emancipation will lead to civil war. The "Catholic threat" is still in many ways a live issue.

Certainly Catholics were ... not loved, and the Irish situation was unsettled. I never said otherwise.

Hmm. Name three. and the vast majority of the population of Ireland are not a "few remaining plotters."

The vast majority of Ireland was actively trying restore the Stuarts? or any catholic monarh? hunh? Fighting for their right to worship, yes. For independence, probably. For a right to vote, sure. For a catholic monarch? I'd like to see evidence.

It doesn't stop any son or grandson of William's from claiming it was an unjust law and seeking foreign support. And parliament will be perfectly well aware of this - the Jacobites were cut out of the succession by act of parliament too after all and it didn't stop them.

Ah. But the Jacobites WERE cut out, they didn't abdicate, nor were they immediate family. If Parliament treats William like I suspect you want them to, they will CREATE that very instability you're talking about.

Then, to be blunt, William is a fool.

Perhaps. What he is is a man of conscience. He will not disobey what he believes is God's will. If he should be martyred for it, he will. And wouldn't that set the cat among the pigeons.

And I think you're misreading the queen. Any child of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick is likely to be more aware than most of the damage such a controversy will do to the monarchy. As for PO'ing Portugal - it's *Portugal* that's just thrown a massive spanner in the works and completely disrupted the British monarchy. Portugal will be far more concerned about Britain's reaction.

"Despite the Emancipation Act, however, anti-Catholic attitudes persisted throughout the 19th century, particularly after the influx of Irish immigrants into England during the Great Famine.
The re-establishment of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in England in 1850 by Pope Pius IX, was followed by a frenzy of anti-Catholic feeling, often stoked by newspapers. Examples include an effigy of Cardinal Wiseman, the new head of the restored hierarchy, being paraded through the streets and burned on Bethnal Green, and graffiti proclaiming 'No popery!' being chalked on walls.[3] New Catholic episcopates, which ran parallel to the established Anglican episcopates, and a Catholic conversion drive awakened fears of 'papal aggression' and relations between the Catholic Church and the establishment remained frosty.[4] At the end of the nineteenth century one contemporary wrote that "the prevailing opinion of the religious people I knew and loved was that Roman Catholic worship is idolatry, and that it was better to be an Atheist than a Papist"[5]"

From FOAK

As for the populace, I think you're overestimating the effect to which the populace will be engaged with this issue - there is no radio and television after all, and newspapers are far too expensive for the great mass of people (and most of the papers that do exist, if they cover this story at all, are likely to be hostile to the prince's plans).

As for the queen, see above - I think she's more likely to be appalled at her son's abdication of his duty than charmed by his love story. As I said, she knows better than most people the damage that such controversies can cause the monarchy.

Oh, she's appalled, all right. OTOH, this her son, who is acting according to his conscience, and she doesn't want him executed or under death-threat or ... And if they make William a martyr to Catholicism, that's going to do even MORE damage to the monarchy, IMO.

As for Portugal, they won't kick up a fuss.

About William, no. About possibly breaking the betrothal, well, a token amount. About burning the king's daughter at the stake? Ya, I'd think so.

In fact the establishment there is likely to be as appalled as anybody else - this marriage was supposed to cement Portugal's position as Britain's oldest and closest ally after all, and instead it's caused a massive constitutional crisis and probably set back attitudes to catholics in Britain by decades.

Yes, they're probably appalled, too.

After all, it should not be forgotten how this came about. It would not have been left to chance that the princess convert to Anglicanism before the marriage took place, it would have been explicitly laid out in advance in the relevant negotiations and agreed to by all parties - including the princess.

Not her fault, really. The agreement was that she'd convert, she was willing to do so, not terribly happily, but she was going to do it. It's just that in the whole process, she kvetches a bit about leaving the True Church, and William bumps into Matthew 16:19 and goes "Oh, My God" in a non-blasphemous sense.

But instead of honouring her agreement to convert, she subverts it by inveigling William to convert instead.

Not what happened.

Seriously, you could not have provided a better example of the old legend of devious, faithless Catholics sneakily undermining upright protestants by any means necessary if you tried.

Certainly the Calvinist conspiracy theorists will believe so. I rather suspect many will understand that she is essentially innocent, here (which she is, in fact).


Keep in mind that Canada is going to be a Kingdom soon. As others have pointed out, if Canada is, and Ireland is not, Ireland is going to boil. With the various delays to setting Canada up as a Kingdom, people working behind the scenes are making sure that Ireland gets the same status - if not immediately, then at least it will be in process. If Ireland is spun off as a dependent kingdom within the British Empire, with a re-instatement of an Irish parliament, etc., then who do we place as king? Certainly, one could the 20th century OTL solution of the British monarch being, in addition, the monarch of the individual kingdoms. But if we already have a prince who's insisting on converting, shoving him off as King of a subsidiary kingdom of Ireland does several things 1) it puts a loyal king on the throne of Ireland, 2) it gives the Irish their own king, and 3) it gets this obnoxious stiff-necked problematic boy out of England....

William IS going to convert. What can Britain do. As I see it, the options are 1) do what I've proposed, get him well out of the line of succession of the UK, 2) chuck him into a dungeon, 3) execute him, 4) exile him and basically guarantee that some member of the family will be a Catholic Pretender at some point.

Am I missing an option? Which of those 4 options will prevent a Catholic martyr and revolt? Seriously, tell me what I'm missing.

Edit: I realize the last couple of paragraphs could be read as a rhetorical question. But, really, I am serious. If William goes ahead with his conversion, what will do the least damage? Honestly, it looks like option 1, to me. The other options really look to me like setting up a martyr - which would do more damage. If I'm wrong, or if there are other less damaging options, I'll listen. 'William as King of Ireland' is only in discussion here, and while it is my current favourite option, it is not 'canon' yet. I can throw him into the Tower, but I doubt it would help. Ah. How about Option 5 - he takes holy orders, and the pope makes him a bishop in Portugal or something? ??? do you think that would be a more politically possible step?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Let's also look an another of the quotes you provided.

"Despite the Emancipation Act, however, anti-Catholic attitudes persisted throughout the 19th century, particularly after the influx of Irish immigrants into England during the Great Famine.
The re-establishment of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in England in 1850 by Pope Pius IX, was followed by a frenzy of anti-Catholic feeling, often stoked by newspapers. Examples include an effigy of Cardinal Wiseman, the new head of the restored hierarchy, being paraded through the streets and burned on Bethnal Green, and graffiti proclaiming 'No popery!' being chalked on walls.[3] New Catholic episcopates, which ran parallel to the established Anglican episcopates, and a Catholic conversion drive awakened fears of 'papal aggression' and relations between the Catholic Church and the establishment remained frosty.[4] At the end of the nineteenth century one contemporary wrote that "the prevailing opinion of the religious people I knew and loved was that Roman Catholic worship is idolatry, and that it was better to be an Atheist than a Papist"[5]"

From FOAK

Note the bolded sections. Neither the Great Famine nor the re-establishment of the Roman hierarchy has happened. This may, MAY give us a brief window when things are slightly less explosive...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The treason here isn't neccessarily on the part of the Princess, but her chaplin, as she can't actually convert him. It wouldn't actually be burning at the stake at this point, anyway, or anything public. They'd just send her home in semi-disgrace and the chaplin would find himself sent to a monastary.

You yourself pointed out

Note that this is a mandatory death penalty offence.

The legislation mandates the drawing and quartering for men and burning for women. Even if it were 'private', it's still pretty public...

 

[Dan1988]

To illustrate what I mean when I said: "naturally there are going to be tendencies towards centralization that prefer Boston over the regions, even if the Constitution's a bit looser in New England. Hence, *Western Massachusetts and even Maine could easily be hacked off and form separate states - and in the case of Maine, you could easily break it up into 4-6 smaller states."

First off, let's have a look at Western Massachusetts vs. Eastern Massachusetts. Note that the municipal boundaries are contemporary to our time, but it could be slightly different in TTL.

The dark blue is Western Massachusetts (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties), whilst the light blue towns, which may or may not be considered part of Western Massachusetts (depending on your POV), are (from north to south) Royalston, Athol, and Petersham, all three in Worcester County, and Brimfield, Holland, and Wales, all three in Hampden County. All that area could easily be hacked off and created into another state very easily. The reason for that is that people in outlying regions would be resentful of the centralization of power in Boston - if not political, then certainly economic, social, and cultural - at the expense of the regions. Considering that, except for Vermont, all the New England states have been hacked off of Massachusetts at some point or another during the history of that state, something like hacking off Western Massachusetts from Eastern Massachusetts could work.

Now, as for Maine - I once had it divided into 6 "provinces", with northern *Maine divided between *Québec and *New Brunswick (of course, since this is a planned TL I'm talking about, both PQ and NB do not exist). Unless if you want to make divisions at the municipal level, I think splitting Maine into 4-6 states/provinces sounds about right - unless you want to keep Maine "whole", which could also work. However, I think splitting Western Massachusetts from Eastern Massachusetts is probably the idea that makes more sense at this point.

 

[RPW@Cy]

First of all, thanks for engaging with my somewhat OTT rant so patiently. But anyway...

The vast majority of Ireland was actively trying restore the Stuarts? or any catholic monarh? hunh? Fighting for their right to worship, yes. For independence, probably. For a right to vote, sure. For a catholic monarch? I'd like to see evidence.

Not a problem in the sense they were seeking to restore a Catholic monarch, but in a sense that they were a real and present danger to the order and security of the realm.

Not her fault, really. The agreement was that she'd convert, she was willing to do so, not terribly happily, but she was going to do it. It's just that in the whole process, she kvetches a bit about leaving the True Church, and William bumps into Matthew 16:19 and goes "Oh, My God" in a non-blasphemous sense.

Not what happened.

Certainly the Calvinist conspiracy theorists will believe so. I rather suspect many will understand that she is essentially innocent, here (which she is, in fact).

Frankly, what actually happened is irrelevant. Only the parties directly involved will know the truth of that. The popular view of events is much more likely to follow the scenario I laid out.

Keep in mind that Canada is going to be a Kingdom soon. As others have pointed out, if Canada is, and Ireland is not, Ireland is going to boil.

Actually, I believe it was me who pointed that out.

With the various delays to setting Canada up as a Kingdom, people working behind the scenes are making sure that Ireland gets the same status - if not immediately, then at least it will be in process. If Ireland is spun off as a dependent kingdom within the British Empire, with a re-instatement of an Irish parliament, etc., then who do we place as king? Certainly, one could the 20th century OTL solution of the British monarch being, in addition, the monarch of the individual kingdoms.

It's not a 20th century solution, it's the one that was actually being proposed at the time by O'Connell and the Repeal Association. I don't believe anybody was seriously considering a different king.

But if we already have a prince who's insisting on converting, shoving him off as King of a subsidiary kingdom of Ireland does several things 1) it puts a loyal king on the throne of Ireland, 2) it gives the Irish their own king, and 3) it gets this obnoxious stiff-necked problematic boy out of England....

Well, one could point out that the very fact of his conversion shows his loyalty has limits of course. And frankly I think a lot of people would rather he stayed in England, where an eye could be kept on him (see below for further thoughts on this)...

William IS going to convert. What can Britain do. As I see it, the options are 1) do what I've proposed, get him well out of the line of succession of the UK, 2) chuck him into a dungeon, 3) execute him, 4) exile him and basically guarantee that some member of the family will be a Catholic Pretender at some point.

Am I missing an option? Which of those 4 options will prevent a Catholic martyr and revolt? Seriously, tell me what I'm missing.

Ah. How about Option 5 - he takes holy orders, and the pope makes him a bishop in Portugal or something? ??? do you think that would be a more politically possible step?

Well, given that the whole thing came about because he met a girl who turned his head, I rather doubt that Holy Orders (complete with vow of celibacy) is a runner Incidentally, what sort of 21 year old lad finds a girl he falls in love with and who seems to return the sentiment, and then spends his available time with her discussing *theology* of all things???

But you asked a serious question so I'll offer a serious answer. I think your best bet is to look at what happened with Edward VIII in the 1930's - stripped of all royal titles, the marriage declared morganatic (so no children could succeed) and a new peerage being created for him (Duke of Windsor in Edward's case). Being a catholic wouldn't be so much of a problem as a peer - the dukes of Norfolk managed to stay catholic throughout the reformation, and still are in the 21stC. You could also do what was done with Edward if you like and pack him off to some remote colony (the Bahamas in Edward's case) as governor-general in the hope that the fuss dies down with him out of sight.

I would also suggest that the new Duchess of Wherever be strongly encouraged to throw herself into non-controversial good works - hospitals for orphans, that sort of thing. The family being as vigorously and as publicly English as possible would also help - William discovering a vocation to serve in the Royal Navy, the kids receiving their Catholic education at Ampleforth rather than anywhere on the continent, that sort of thing.

 

[Alratan]

Although I'm just restating my previous point, I think it bears repeating. Catholic Emancipation in the UK was a project of the elite, made, as mentioned above, for reasons of state, that was really very unpopular amongst the country at large.

There would be no public sympathy for the Prince of Wales in this case - you wouldn't PO the man in the street, it would the other way around, the government would have to ride the tiger of public rage at his perfidy to minimise what the mob would want to do.

I'd expect serious rioting and public disturbances against him if the news gets out, accompanied by potentially Catholic churches being burned and significant harassment of known Catholics. As mentioned above, this scenario falls into classic anti-Catholic propaganda. The pamphleteers would be all over this, and then it will hit the music hall equivalent, and that's how people got their news and how the popular agenda was set.

As to what will happen, I'm serious when I say that he'll probably disappear into an asylum or sanatorium to keep it from the public. As for international consequences, Portugal will be desperate to do anything they can to make the problem go away. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer a face saving solution like the princess choosing to take up holy orders so making the marriage impossible. Whatever happens, the Papacy is not going to act against the British here.