Charles XII of Sweden marries Louisa Maria Stuart - Personal union between Sweden and Britain?

admittedly this a very unlikely scenario, but let's say it goes ahead in 1710 when Charles XII was in the Ottoman court. They have a single son who survives through the normal dangers of childhood in the era. The family returns to Sweden in 1715 with Charles XII and Charles XII is still killed in 1718. The question now is, what will Sweden and Britain do with a personal union looming? While Louisa herself is ineligible due to her Catholicism, Charles XII would 99.9% raise the kid as a protestant, which means that the kid (let's name him Gustav for the sake of the thread) would have a senior claim to the British throne through his lineage to Charles I of England. Would a personal union take place? What would the implication of a surviving Zweibrucken Dynasty mean to both Sweden and northern Europe?
 
Last edited:
admittedly this a very unlikely scenario, but let's say it goes ahead in 1710 when Charles XII was in the Ottoman court. They have a single son who survives through the normal dangers of childhood in the era. The family returns to Sweden in 1715 with Charles XII and Charles XII is still killed in 1718. The question now is, what will Sweden and Britain do with a personal union looming? While Louisa herself is ineligible due to her Catholicism, Charles XII would 99.9% raise the kid as a protestant, which means that the kid (let's name him Gustav for the sake of the thread) would have a senior claim to the British throne through his lineage to Charles I of England. Would a personal union take place? What would the implication of a surviving Zweibrucken Dynasty mean to both Sweden and northern Europe?
I don't think a Personal Union would take place. Act of Settlement specifically placed the descendants of Sophia of Hanover behind Queen Anne. Louisa was disinherited due to her Catholicism. Whilst you might see some shenanigans looking to get the kid in the line of succession above George of Hanover, I'm not sure how successful those would be. I think it could come down to either a lot of political grandstanding, or some sort of compromise. Either that or war, but this time maybe Sweden hosts the Jacobites?
 
Yeah, it doesn't spell a Personal Union. Queen Anne would have passed away 4 years before Carolus Rex, so there's not much to favour the child at all versus any descendent of Sophia of Hanover.
 
I don't think a Personal Union would take place. Act of Settlement specifically placed the descendants of Sophia of Hanover behind Queen Anne. Louisa was disinherited due to her Catholicism. Whilst you might see some shenanigans looking to get the kid in the line of succession above George of Hanover, I'm not sure how successful those would be. I think it could come down to either a lot of political grandstanding, or some sort of compromise. Either that or war, but this time maybe Sweden hosts the Jacobites?
but would the Jacobites back a Protestant heir? Some of them were hardcore Catholics.
 
but would the Jacobites back a Protestant heir? Some of them were hardcore Catholics.
I think it depends entirely on what happens to James and his line. If James dies, then the Jacobites will swing to Louisa, they were more concerned with restoring the rightful line than religion (though many were hardcore Catholics as you say), if James is alive, then I think the sensible thing for James to do would be to head to Sweden and set up court there.
 
I think it depends entirely on what happens to James and his line. If James dies, then the Jacobites will swing to Louisa, they were more concerned with restoring the rightful line than religion (though many were hardcore Catholics as you say), if James is alive, then I think the sensible thing for James to do would be to head to Sweden and set up court there.
though i doubt James would be enthralled with his grandson. It is like increasibly probable that he would be raised in the Swedish Age of Liberty, meaning the man would be more inclined to semi-constitutional rule rather than absolutism favored by the Catholics and hardline jacobites.
 
though i doubt James would be enthralled with his grandson. It is like increasibly probable that he would be raised in the Swedish Age of Liberty, meaning the man would be more inclined to semi-constitutional rule rather than absolutism favored by the Catholics and hardline jacobites.
Indeed, still, parliaments going to view him with a lot of suspicion
 
The parliament will probably still force the young Gustav (under regency) to accept the end of absolutism. He might be able to assert himself to some extent, but the corruption of the Liberty Era will probably prevail, and Sweden that has lost the Great Northern War is in no position to assert a claim on the throne of Britain.
 
The parliament will probably still force the young Gustav (under regency) to accept the end of absolutism. He might be able to assert himself to some extent, but the corruption of the Liberty Era will probably prevail, and Sweden that has lost the Great Northern War is in no position to assert a claim on the throne of Britain.
hm, even a strong-minded and fair constitutional monarch (considering his father, there is a high possibility the child may reflect Karl XII in some aspects of his personality) would be able to stop the worst excesses of the age of liberty, which would be good for sweden in my view.
Possibly though the chances of her converting are slim, given she shared her brothers devoutness
yeah I do know its unlikely, though she seems to have favored protestants during her times in France as well. Louis XIV was a little put out over her otl in 1710 when she chose protestant handmaidens.
 
As to the position of this child in the English succession, it would be interesting to say thr least. You have a Protestant heir to Queen Anne who is more closely related than George I. The Act of Settlement/Bill of Rights would (theoretically) still be open to interpretation by Anne and her ministers. Louisa might have been raised Catholic, but she made no distinction between Catholic and Protestant supporters. She even put Louis XIV's nose out of joint by selecting Protestant ladies at one point.

As to Carl XII, he supported several Jacobite attempts (both the '15 and the '18 had Swedish support IIRC).

Useful POD might be James III dying in 1712 (OTL he survived a bout with measles and Louisa died). Removes anyone who'd support James III over Louisa and a Protestant child. Whether this would necessarily result in a PU with Sweden is debatable. If there's only ONE child, and she/the boy (Charles III/Carl XIII) are in London because they succeeded Anne in 1714, then it's possible Ulrika Eleonora tries her OTL shenanigans if Carl XII dies. Doubt she'd be successful unless there was a fear of regencies and foreign monarchs in Sweden. Especially if Ulrika herself doesn't have a child of her own, because then it really just winds up being a deposing Gustaf IV situation a few decades early.

No, unfortunately not. That would have been sufficient for the Bill of Rights. That only required that the King (or Queen) should not be a Papist, married to one etc .

But the Act of Settlement explicitly settled the Crown on Sophie of Hanover and her descendants, (naming her) .



So the Act would have to be specifically amended (can't be repealed, because that would let in the descendants of Henriette Anne. ).

Parliament in 1713 might (just might_) have been Tory enough to do that, if the Princess were very clearly a Protestant. But it's a big might.

Of course, there's always a faint chance that a Protestant Stuart claimant might have stiffened Tory sinews enough for them to be willing to contest the succession on the battle field in 1714 . Or that it might have swayed the result of the '15 enough to overthrown the Hanoverian dynasty. Very speculative. And bear in mind that the '15 explicitly relied on support from Louis, which probably would not have been forthcoming for a Protestant .
She would have had a better chance than her brother : sweet young girl, chivalry, easy to manipulate, chance for me, all that stuff.

But there's only two years to do it . 1712 to 1714. And Anne was no politician. The girl herself is too young, and it would have been a tough task even for Elizabeth.

So who would manage the business? Remember, Parliament is going to have to overturn the Act of Settlement. And will people believe such a conversion is genuine, especially given her father's reputation.

Atterbury, or Ormonde would have been man enough, but lacked the smarts . Harley or Bolingbroke may have been politician enough, but would they have had the courage . Bearing in mind, that failure would almost certainly mean death as a traitor.

Remember also, conversion isn't so simple. She can't readily be brought over to England (despite Lord Dartmouth's comment) since she would quite certainly be arrested and clapped up in the Tower as soon as she landed . And she (and her brother) relied on the charity of Louis to live. Once she announces her conversion to Protestantism, she'll be out the door, penniless.

By the way, Sophie herself was still alive, and as shrewd as ever. You may be sure she won't stand idly by and see a kingdom plucked from her hands .

Marriage to George (I presume it was George of Hanover was meant) isn't totally simple since his first wife Sophie Dorothea of Celle is still alive. Although their marriage has been dissolved, would the Church Of England (which was more conservative than the Lutheran) recognize that ? I think it would at least have required an Act of Parliament.

@Emperor Constantine @jb3
 
This is a very difficult scenario to form an answer to, IMO, but I'll try. Forewarned, this is going to be a very messy situation for EVERYONE involved. Now with that out of the way, I'll try to unbox this thing.

First, we have to look at Louisa herself. Will she convert? As @Kellan Sullivan points out, Louisa was no religious hardliner, and could be willing to say "London is worth an Anglican service". If she converts after marrying Karl XII, then the Tories will cream their pants. After all, she'd be their wet dream: a legitimate, Protestant Stuart heir in the direct line of succession. Moreover, she's married to one of the most powerful Protestant monarchs in Europe. The Tories under Harley and Bolingbroke would hold her up as a miracle, an example of God's ability to enlighten a wayward sinner to the true religion and begin preparations to repeal the Act of Settlement, likely backed by Ormonde as Captain-General. Anne, embittered, isolated and sickly, would be backed into a corner by her previous statements and her own hatred for the Hanoverians. Now I can't be sure how the Queen will react (she might support it if Louisa will stay out of Britain while the former is alive), but she'll be in a tough position for sure, as she's cut ties with the Whigs at this point and will be quite dependent on the Tories. If Anne does refuse to support the Tories, then we'll very likely see a coup at her deathbed or a civil war. Ultimately though, I'd think Louisa would win the throne. Now this might seem a bit rosy of a scenario, but I think it's quite realistic looking at the situation on the ground.

Second, Louisa refuses to convert but has a Protestant son. Slightly more complicated but still favors the Tories. The main Tory argument will inevitably be something along these lines; only Protestants can inherit the throne, so how can Anne's legitimate Protestant nephew be excluded? It's an argument that would be difficult to counter for the Whigs, and one likely to whip up public support for Prince "Charles". Now this scenario would be similar to the above, but with the caveat of a regency (no idea who would be Regent in this scenario; maybe a council under Ormonde or one of Charles II's bastard sons/grandsons?) and a lot would depend on Anne. Will she support the Tory-Jacobite position and allow a new succession act that invests it in the Protestant issue of Louisa or continue to cling to the Hanoverian succession? The former would be best for England, while the later would lead to civil war, with a good deal of the army supporting "Charles", backed by Swedish troops (Carl XII could make a peace with Peter the Great in order to free up troops to fight for his son's rights). Again, I'd predict a Jacobite-Tory victory.

Now something else to think about is the strong potential of an internationalization of the conflict, especially if there's a peaceful succession in Britain. At this point Sweden is still engaged in the Great Northern war against Russia, Prussia and Saxony-Poland, and British intervention on the side of Carl XII could tip the balance in his favor. Additionally, we could see Hanover enter the war around the same time as OTL, aiming to get Verdun and potentially get involved in a Whig equivalent of the '15 rising. I can't really predict how this would go (the Great Northern War isn't my strong suit), but the idea of a surviving Swedish Empire in union with Great Britain could be a very interesting idea to explore.

Finally, Sweden itself. Assuming that Carl XII dies on schedule, he will be succeeded by his son as Carl XIII. No ifs, ands or buts. The only reason Ulrika Eleonora was able to pull off her sh*t OTL was because the succession was muddled, as Carl XII didn't designate an heir and the heir by primogeniture was allied with the Russians/Danish against Sweden. Now if Carl had two sons he might try to split the succession, with his second son inheriting Sweden, but IDK about that. Later down the line, we could potentially see Charles III & XIII try to divide his domains a la Charles V, with Great Britain & Ireland going to one son and Sweden to another. But that would be it.
 
This is a very difficult scenario to form an answer to, IMO, but I'll try. Forewarned, this is going to be a very messy situation for EVERYONE involved. Now with that out of the way, I'll try to unbox this thing.

First, we have to look at Louisa herself. Will she convert? As @Kellan Sullivan points out, Louisa was no religious hardliner, and could be willing to say "London is worth an Anglican service". If she converts after marrying Karl XII, then the Tories will cream their pants. After all, she'd be their wet dream: a legitimate, Protestant Stuart heir in the direct line of succession. Moreover, she's married to one of the most powerful Protestant monarchs in Europe. The Tories under Harley and Bolingbroke would hold her up as a miracle, an example of God's ability to enlighten a wayward sinner to the true religion and begin preparations to repeal the Act of Settlement, likely backed by Ormonde as Captain-General. Anne, embittered, isolated and sickly, would be backed into a corner by her previous statements and her own hatred for the Hanoverians. Now I can't be sure how the Queen will react (she might support it if Louisa will stay out of Britain while the former is alive), but she'll be in a tough position for sure, as she's cut ties with the Whigs at this point and will be quite dependent on the Tories. If Anne does refuse to support the Tories, then we'll very likely see a coup at her deathbed or a civil war. Ultimately though, I'd think Louisa would win the throne. Now this might seem a bit rosy of a scenario, but I think it's quite realistic looking at the situation on the ground.

Second, Louisa refuses to convert but has a Protestant son. Slightly more complicated but still favors the Tories. The main Tory argument will inevitably be something along these lines; only Protestants can inherit the throne, so how can Anne's legitimate Protestant nephew be excluded? It's an argument that would be difficult to counter for the Whigs, and one likely to whip up public support for Prince "Charles". Now this scenario would be similar to the above, but with the caveat of a regency (no idea who would be Regent in this scenario; maybe a council under Ormonde or one of Charles II's bastard sons/grandsons?) and a lot would depend on Anne. Will she support the Tory-Jacobite position and allow a new succession act that invests it in the Protestant issue of Louisa or continue to cling to the Hanoverian succession? The former would be best for England, while the later would lead to civil war, with a good deal of the army supporting "Charles", backed by Swedish troops (Carl XII could make a peace with Peter the Great in order to free up troops to fight for his son's rights). Again, I'd predict a Jacobite-Tory victory.

Now something else to think about is the strong potential of an internationalization of the conflict, especially if there's a peaceful succession in Britain. At this point Sweden is still engaged in the Great Northern war against Russia, Prussia and Saxony-Poland, and British intervention on the side of Carl XII could tip the balance in his favor. Additionally, we could see Hanover enter the war around the same time as OTL, aiming to get Verdun and potentially get involved in a Whig equivalent of the '15 rising. I can't really predict how this would go (the Great Northern War isn't my strong suit), but the idea of a surviving Swedish Empire in union with Great Britain could be a very interesting idea to explore.

Finally, Sweden itself. Assuming that Carl XII dies on schedule, he will be succeeded by his son as Carl XIII. No ifs, ands or buts. The only reason Ulrika Eleonora was able to pull off her sh*t OTL was because the succession was muddled, as Carl XII didn't designate an heir and the heir by primogeniture was allied with the Russians/Danish against Sweden. Now if Carl had two sons he might try to split the succession, with his second son inheriting Sweden, but IDK about that. Later down the line, we could potentially see Charles III & XIII try to divide his domains a la Charles V, with Great Britain & Ireland going to one son and Sweden to another. But that would be it.
Hm, in your opinion, how would an Anglo-Swedish Personal Union be seen in Europe? Even without the Baltic Provinces, Sweden was a huge land power for its comparative side; and unlike Hanover, self-sufficient and self-reliant.
 
Hm, in your opinion, how would an Anglo-Swedish Personal Union be seen in Europe? Even without the Baltic Provinces, Sweden was a huge land power for its comparative side; and unlike Hanover, self-sufficient and self-reliant.
TBH, Sweden's enemies might be "relieved". Charles III/Carl XIII will have to be Janus (looking at Sweden/Britain simultaneously). Britain is not going to want to be roped in defending (say) Estonia any more than Sweden will want to be roped in to defend Jamaica or New England.

Unlike Hannover where Britain became the tail to wag the dog, Sweden and Britain will be more "on the same level".

Least IMO
 
TBH, Sweden's enemies might be "relieved". Charles III/Carl XIII will have to be Janus (looking at Sweden/Britain simultaneously). Britain is not going to want to be roped in defending (say) Estonia any more than Sweden will want to be roped in to defend Jamaica or New England.

Unlike Hannover where Britain became the tail to wag the dog, Sweden and Britain will be more "on the same level".

Least IMO
It would be somewhat of an anomaly as well I guess. The Riksdag and British Parliament functioned extremely differently too. Though the influence of the British parliament may stop the worst excesses of the age of liberty in Sweden.

Though an interesting question in the situation is Norway. With a union, inadvertently if not advertently, trade is going to be huge between Stockholm and London. Due to that unlike 1659 and 1701 Britain will have cause to support a Swedish annexation of Norway, which would have very interesting effects.
 
Top