charles Stuart the possible Stuart saviour

James II of England had a lot of children many of whom died, he had a son named Charles who was born in 1677, but that sob also died.

If that son survives, for the first eight years of his life he'd be raised Anglican but then when his father comes to the throne does his religious education change? If so how does parliament react? Do they try and take the boy away from the King? Is there still a glorious revolution? If there is does Charles get put on the throne, or flee into exile?
 
No Dutch invasion in the cards, for first. In first half of 1680ies there would be calls to bypass James in favor of his son, with (Anglican) regency council. The deposing of James II in favor of Charles III will likely be attempted, with said regency council being implemented.
 
Alright interesting, how successful would such a thing be? Might we see Anne serving on this council?

And perhaps an attempt at installing a bill of right as otl?

Furthermore I suspect James II might try to retake the throne as he did otl. Which creates intetesting consequences for his family once he's dead especially re James Francis
 
James II of England had a lot of children many of whom died, he had a son named Charles who was born in 1677, but that sob also died.
I'm sure that's a typo for 'son', but given the Stuart family, it works.
Given the pig-headed, stubborn, self-centredness of the whole family, it seems likely that any other member (at least male) in the family would suffer from the same faults as the OTL kings and pretenders.
 
I'm sure that's a typo for 'son', but given the Stuart family, it works.
Given the pig-headed, stubborn, self-centredness of the whole family, it seems likely that any other member (at least male) in the family would suffer from the same faults as the OTL kings and pretenders.
You think? Would being raised by people other than his family not have a different effect on the lad?
 
You think?
I may (or may not be, family legend is always untrustworthy) descended from a Stuart king, but boy did they give monarchy a bad name in Britain.
Would being raised by people other than his family not have a different effect on the lad?
Well, possibly. It depends a lot on whether the kid fixates on his lost family, or absorbs the 'proper' attitudes of his host family or ...

I guess, what I'm saying is more 'one more Stuart' isn't likely going to make a difference. A 'different Stuart' (raised in a different environment, or picking up 'oppose everything your parents stand for' meme so prevalent among teenagers and Hannoverians) might.

I, ummmm..., might have gone a bit overboard in blackening any possible redemption for them.
 
Oh what Stuart King?

And tbf, parliament had a stick up their arse as well aha.

Aha fair. I do think the struggle he'd undergo as he gets older would be fascinating to see
 
Oh what Stuart King?
Am I descended from? Family legend doesn't actually say.
Fact is, most branches of the family name a boy 'Stuart' in each generation. It MAY be that it's just a family name, and the 'descent from a king' is one of those 'just-so stories' families have to explain things. Or there may be a nugget of fact WAY back. It would have been one of the Scots Stuarts (pre-I&VI). And probably on the wrong side of the blanket. If it did happen.
 
With regards to the regency for Charles III whilst he's in his regency, would this suffice?

Princess Anne, Duchess of Cumberland, Prince George, Duke of Cumberland, Earl of Dorset, Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of Norfolk
 
Top