A New Stuart Queen?

I recently read in an article on Maria Ludwika Jablonowska, Princesse de Talmond, that while Bonnie Prince Charlie was in Avignon, he put feelers out for a marriage to the daughter of the “the landgrave of Hesse”. I am assuming that the landgrave mentioned is Josef, son of Ernst Leopold, Landgraf von Hessen-Rheinfels-Rotenburg, and that the “daughter” is either the future princesse de Soubise, or the future Princess Maximilian of Salm-Salm.
What if Charlie had married this girl (cousin to Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia; the prince de Carignano, the princesse de Lamballe, and the future prince de Condé)?
 
Firstly, this "girl" would more likely be the younger of the Erblandgraf of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rothenberg's daughters, Princess Luise Maria of Hesse-Rheinfels, since her older sister, Princess Anna Viktoria was married to Charles de Rohan, Prince de Soubise from 1745 on, and Charlie went to Avignon following his arrest in Paris in late 1748.

That said, Charlie in 1749 would probably be a more "dashing" and "romantic" figure than he was in '72 when he married Luise zu Stolberg-Gedern. The disappointment/disillusionment probably had not yet set in, and while the "nasty bottle" was present from as early the '45, this Hessian princess could put the brakes on that by her connections to the cadet branches of the Savoys and the Bourbons.

I can't find much about this princess although most seem to agree that she married (her cousin?), Maximilian of Salm, Duke of Hoogstraten in 1757, and that she had seven children with him between 1760 and 1773. And then died in 1800.

She wouldn't be a king's daughter but she was a three-great granddaughter of Elizabeth Stuart, the Winter Queen through her son, Eduard. Which seems (to me anyway) slightly bluer blood than Luise of Stolberg, who had a grandmother who was descended from the Bruces, thereby solving the problem that had come up with the Old Pretender's marriage "not important enough to marry a king's daughter, too important to marry just anybody".

I hope this helps
 
The trouble is that after the '45 there was never a realistic hope that Charlie would ever take the throne of Britain. Indeed even the Pope refused to recoginise his position after his fathe died in 1766.

As such it didn't matter who BPC married his children would never be considered for the British throne.
 
The beauty of alt history is that it CAN differ. If Charlie is married and settled down with a few kids, the pope might decide it's worth continuing to piss of England. Napoleon certainly thought it was, since he summoned Louise of Stolberg to Paris to tell him whether or not she and Charlie really had had a son as the rumors claimed. So if Napoleon (who saw a rumor as enough to try and cause ruckus with Britain) saw there being value in a continued line of Stuarts, his Holiness can hardly refuse.

After all "Although King Louis XV of France recognised the succession of the House of Hanover, he also hoped that the legitimate Stuart line would not die out and would be an ongoing threat to the Hanoverians."

And not only that, Charlie only married Louise in 1772, six years AFTER the pope refused to recognize him, IF he were to be married before then, the Pope (if it's the same cardinal elected at the 1758 conclave) might view it differently.
 
The beauty of alt history is that it CAN differ.

Yup. Possible knock-ons.

France doing anything with BPC during the SYW or ARW seems unlikely, as they didn't OTL.

alt-Napoleon may want to do something with the brood of Stuarts, though.

The most likely effect, oddly, is a negative literary-cultural one. OTL, by the 1800s Jacobitism was a colorful historical memory, This made possible the Highland nostalgia fad of that period. The Jacobites became a glamorous Lost Cause.

If the Stuart line is alive and still making trouble, that doesn't happen. The restrictions on the clans stay on longer, for instance. The whole Highland revival may be aborted. Scotland, culturally, may be a lot more like Wales.
 
If the Stuart line is alive and still making trouble, that doesn't happen. The restrictions on the clans stay on longer, for instance. The whole Highland revival may be aborted. Scotland, culturally, may be a lot more like Wales.

I think it's way too late to save Scots Gaelic the way Welsh was rescued. Anglicisation was much more advanced even at this stage.
 
Love the idea of a continuing House of Stuart. Any chance of a match between a Stuart Prince and British heiress? Assuming ,of course, that a female become's the heiress to the throne, like Charlotte or Victoria? Cause that would be really cool.
 
Love the idea of a continuing House of Stuart. Any chance of a match between a Stuart Prince and British heiress? Assuming ,of course, that a female become's the heiress to the throne, like Charlotte or Victoria? Cause that would be really cool.

Only if the prince were Protestant. Any heiress who married a Catholic would no longer be an heiress.
 
Only if the prince were Protestant. Any heiress who married a Catholic would no longer be an heiress.

True but I think at that point London would be work giving up the mass. Or the Reigning Queen could marry the Stuart heir. After all I don't think there's any law against the Sovereign marrying a Catholic, at least none that I've seen.
 
Sovereign can't marry a Papist

Act of Settlement said:
it is hereby enacted That all and every Person and Persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the Limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such Incapacities as in such Case or Cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established

Note that the exclusion is a Papist not a Catholic. In general it's the same thing, but there could be odd ball loopholes - eg the "Old Catholics" in Germany.
 
Well the OTL post James II Stuarts didn't think it was and as the Stuarts are going to be effectively confined to Catholic countries I suspect the same will be true in later generations.

Bonnie Prince Charlie did convert, in LONDON. So yes its certainly possible. All you need is a Stuart who's better at politics, like their ancestor Henri IV of France.
 
BPC might've taken Anglican rite communion (and supposedly converted to CoE) at a church in the Strand, but Queen Victoria also partook in Catholic communion during one of her stays in Switzerland, with her daughter Beatrice.

There still remains no proof that BPC ACTUALLY converted. One of the prerequisite of a conversion to be considered valid is that it must be sincere. If Charlie's just doing it for a crown - by whenever he was rumored to have done it - it was too late. What you need is a conversion back in 1701 - when James the Beshitten died.

Secondly, there was - I think it was Nathaniel Gorham - proposed Prince Henry of Prussia for king of the United States shortly after (or before can't remember) the end of the ARW. If BPC had had children, wouldn't one of them perhaps end as king of the US with French support instead?
 
BPC might've taken Anglican rite communion (and supposedly converted to CoE) at a church in the Strand, but Queen Victoria also partook in Catholic communion during one of her stays in Switzerland, with her daughter Beatrice.

There still remains no proof that BPC ACTUALLY converted. One of the prerequisite of a conversion to be considered valid is that it must be sincere. If Charlie's just doing it for a crown - by whenever he was rumored to have done it - it was too late. What you need is a conversion back in 1701 - when James the Beshitten died.

Secondly, there was - I think it was Nathaniel Gorham - proposed Prince Henry of Prussia for king of the United States shortly after (or before can't remember) the end of the ARW. If BPC had had children, wouldn't one of them perhaps end as king of the US with French support instead?


Tot the US thing, doubt it. The idea of a King was proposed but it never really caught on. The only person who would become King of the US was George Washington and he had no desire for it.
 
Two other dates when BPC could have converted without it looking totally opportunistic, would be the death of the Old Pretender (by which time it was probably too late); or the death of his mother.

But the real problem with conversion is a practical one : the Stuarts in exile were pretty much penniless, and depended totally upon the charity of various Catholic rulers (Louis, Pope etc). None of them, we may presume, would have looked kindly on a conversion - especially one which appeared sincere. So converting ahead of a successful restoration was difficult, to say the less. And converting DURING the 15 or the 45, even more so.

A really politic prince would have tried to establish some sort of bridgehead, then converted to consolidate his following.
 
Two other dates when BPC could have converted without it looking totally opportunistic, would be the death of the Old Pretender (by which time it was probably too late); or the death of his mother.

But the real problem with conversion is a practical one : the Stuarts in exile were pretty much penniless, and depended totally upon the charity of various Catholic rulers (Louis, Pope etc). None of them, we may presume, would have looked kindly on a conversion - especially one which appeared sincere. So converting ahead of a successful restoration was difficult, to say the less. And converting DURING the 15 or the 45, even more so.

A really politic prince would have tried to establish some sort of bridgehead, then converted to consolidate his following.

Death of his mother was unrealistic given that he was, what 15? Not likely to catch on. Neither would him converting after James III's death, because like you stated the Stuarts were essentially dependent on handouts from the Pope and the King of France, so it wouldn't go over well. But would a conversion during either major rising really be an impediment? I mean the French would know it was no doubt a political conversion and that the Stuarts would try their best to restore Political and Religious rights to Catholics either way. Personally, I think the best thing would be to have Charles Edward listen to his advisers and secure Scotland before trying for England. Once Scotland is secure and they are preparing the invasion of England, Charles could publicly convert, and it could offer a viable alternative to the Hanovarians. Like what James II's initial reign was like. James III would be Catholic but his heir was Protestant, so those who were on the fence because of the Catholic issue could be more likely to switch or rather rise in favor of the Jacobites. Not to mention that if Scotland is secure and it looks like the Jacobites have a real chance, then France would send aid either way. To not do so would be stupid and destroy the best chance they had to knock out their greatest rival and make it an ally.
 
Last edited:
Despite what we like to tell ourselves Britain was not France's biggest rival at this point. That was the Austrians.
 
Last edited:
Top