A question regarding Sweden

So, I'm planning a story where Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (b.1677) son of James II and Mary of Modena, survives and succeeds as King, under a regency. I'm going to have him marry Hedvig Sophia of Sweden, elder sister of Charles XII, and Ulrika Elenora. To keep butterflies to a minimum, Charles XII is still going to die without issue, but what I was wondering was, would the throne of Sweden pass to Hedviga Sophia and to her firstborn son by Charles? Or would it pass to her and their second born son?

Would there be a succession war?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
So, I'm planning a story where Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (b.1677) son of James II and Mary of Modena, survives and succeeds as King, under a regency. I'm going to have him marry Hedvig Sophia of Sweden, elder sister of Charles XII, and Ulrika Elenora. To keep butterflies to a minimum, Charles XII is still going to die without issue, but what I was wondering was, would the throne of Sweden pass to Hedviga Sophia and to her firstborn son by Charles? Or would it pass to her and their second born son?

Would there be a succession war?
Well Hedvig Sophia was the presumed heiress, and it was her death in 1708 that made Ulrika Eleonora heir. However alot will have to do with factions of nobles, who Ulrika Eleonora marries, what alliances the Swedish elite desires and so on.
 
Okay interesting, if Hedvig survives well past her brother, I imagine she'd remain the heiress. As regards Ulrika, would she still marry Frederick in this instance? I imagine the Swedes would rather have an alliance with a power that Britain was at this point, compared to some minor german prince.
 
How are you making Cambridge king under a regency? Killing off James early or some kind of exclusion bill thingy? I suspect the former is easier.

I s'pose much would depend on the domestic situation in England- whether Charles III is interested in the Swedish throne and (perhaps more importantly) whether the English people/parliament are willing to acquiesce (which might be difficult, especially if you're asking them for money to fight a faraway succession war).
 
How are you making Cambridge king under a regency? Killing off James early or some kind of exclusion bill thingy? I suspect the former is easier.

I s'pose much would depend on the domestic situation in England- whether Charles III is interested in the Swedish throne and (perhaps more importantly) whether the English people/parliament are willing to acquiesce (which might be difficult, especially if you're asking them for money to fight a faraway succession war).

Hmm, what I was originally thinking was that some form of glorious revolution happens, but that Cambridge, not William III is put on the throne when James II ultimately flees. Though if you think that killing of James is easier then that would be what I'd go with.

From what I've got in my notes, Britain is relatively stable domestically, and is going through something of a boom in regards to wealth.
 
Hmm, what I was originally thinking was that some form of glorious revolution happens, but that Cambridge, not William III is put on the throne when James II ultimately flees. Though if you think that killing of James is easier then that would be what I'd go with.

Wouldn't a deposed James potentially cause trouble? Or are you of the opinion that he wouldn't trouble his son?

The latter is a toss up- he obviously tried to regain the throne from his daughter and nephew/son-in-law, but they were adults and complicit in his deposition, whereas Cambridge is 8 and completely innocent of such things.

There's also the fact that IOTL James was trying to recover the throne for himself and his jilted heir, whereas here he's trying to claim the throne from someone who is his heir. Would he be content with (or resignedly accept) deposition because even if he regained the throne it would eventually be inherited by Cambridge/Charles III?

On the other hand, it is his throne that he's been driven off. And if he ends up on the continent he'll likely have people whispering in his ear that he should reclaim his rightful throne because having an active claimant to the English throne in your possession is a useful foreign policy tool.
 
Wouldn't a deposed James potentially cause trouble? Or are you of the opinion that he wouldn't trouble his son?

The latter is a toss up- he obviously tried to regain the throne from his daughter and nephew/son-in-law, but they were adults and complicit in his deposition, whereas Cambridge is 8 and completely innocent of such things.

There's also the fact that IOTL James was trying to recover the throne for himself and his jilted heir, whereas here he's trying to claim the throne from someone who is his heir. Would he be content with (or resignedly accept) deposition because even if he regained the throne it would eventually be inherited by Cambridge/Charles III?

On the other hand, it is his throne that he's been driven off. And if he ends up on the continent he'll likely have people whispering in his ear that he should reclaim his rightful throne because having an active claimant to the English throne in your possession is a useful foreign policy tool.

Aye, I was thinking James would cause trouble, especially if, when his son comes of age, the boy doesn't invite him back. Which could in his mind lead to him being removed from the succession.
 
Aye, I was thinking James would cause trouble, especially if, when his son comes of age, the boy doesn't invite him back. Which could in his mind lead to him being removed from the succession.

So would you have OTL The Old Pretender born on schedule, so that James has an alternate heir?
 
That I would yes,

Wouldn't having an Old Pretender running around the continent potentially be detrimental to a stable domestic situation in England? Though I suppose having a male, non-foreigner on the throne would take a significant bite out of any support for alt-Jacobitism (and if there's no succession conundrum maybe the act of Union doesn't go through and piss off the Scots?) and the Old Pretender could end up (even more?) of an irrelevancy.
 
Wouldn't having an Old Pretender running around the continent potentially be detrimental to a stable domestic situation in England? Though I suppose having a male, non-foreigner on the throne would take a significant bite out of any support for alt-Jacobitism (and if there's no succession conundrum maybe the act of Union doesn't go through and piss off the Scots?) and the Old Pretender could end up (even more?) of an irrelevancy.

Aye, I think it really depends on how Charles III plays it really. From what I remember there were times in the 1680s when the Scots really wanted an Acut of Union, and then didn't in 1707, mainly because they got the shaft. A better union deal for them would be fascinating to see.
 
Aye, I think it really depends on how Charles III plays it really. From what I remember there were times in the 1680s when the Scots really wanted an Acut of Union, and then didn't in 1707, mainly because they got the shaft. A better union deal for them would be fascinating to see.

Could random butterflies mean the Darien scheme never gets off the ground and/or goes better (I'm not sure how you can pull that off)? Putting the Scots in a better economic (and negotiating) position?
 
Could random butterflies mean the Darien scheme never gets off the ground and/or goes better (I'm not sure how you can pull that off)? Putting the Scots in a better economic (and negotiating) position?

Hmm, I think preventing the scheme from happening is easier than having it go better aha. Certainly having them in a stronger position to negotiate would be good. Especially as the balance of power would be resting with the crown in this timeline, rather than the more dominant shift that was happening otl.
 
Hmm, I think preventing the scheme from happening is easier than having it go better aha. Certainly having them in a stronger position to negotiate would be good. Especially as the balance of power would be resting with the crown in this timeline, rather than the more dominant shift that was happening otl.

Indeed, Darien was something of a beautiful catastrophe.

Won't the fact that James has still been driven off the throne have diminished the power/prestige of the crown?

Sorry for so thoroughly dragging this thread's focus away from Sweden. ;).
 
Indeed, Darien was something of a beautiful catastrophe.

Won't the fact that James has still been driven off the throne have diminished the power/prestige of the crown?

Sorry for so thoroughly dragging this thread's focus away from Sweden. ;).

Aye that it was.

And in a sense yes, but after a second civil war, some balance has been restored toward the crown.

Aha no worries.
 
And in a sense yes, but after a second civil war, some balance has been restored toward the crown.

Fair enough. Didn't George's foreignness and lack of English also contribute to parliament becoming more powerful? Because that's obviously avoided ITTL.
 
Fair enough. Didn't George's foreignness and lack of English also contribute to parliament becoming more powerful? Because that's obviously avoided ITTL.

Aye that it did as well.

I do think that France's persistance in hosting first James II and then James Francis Edward Stuart, will do a lot to sour relations between the two.
 
Aye that it did as well.

I do think that France's persistance in hosting first James II and then James Francis Edward Stuart, will do a lot to sour relations between the two.

Will Charlie's regency still get involved in the Nine Years War? Because if not the French might be less assiduous in their support for the Jacobites.
 
Top