Henry IX of of England and Ireland and Henry I of Scotland

Could Cardinal Duke of York, Henry Benedict Stuart get a dispensation to relinquish his position and vows to the Catholic Church ?

And would he even consider doing so to continue the Stuart line despite the Papacy in 1766, finally accepting the Hanovers as the legitimate rulers of Britain and Ireland.

His brother Charles died in 1788, Henry was 62, what would be his chances of siring and who would be available let alone interested in an aged ex Cardinal pretender to the throne in 1788 ? (or earlier as it was obvious Charles and Louise were not making whoopee for some time)... and avoiding a mass attack of butterflies !
 
Last edited:
Could Cardinal Duke of York, Henry Benedict Stuart get a dispensation to relinquish his position and vows to the Catholic Church ?

And would he even consider doing so to continue the Stuart line despite the Papacy in 1766, finally accepting the Hanovers as the legitimate rulers of Britain and Ireland.

His brother Charles died in 1788, Henry was 62, what would be his chances of siring and who would be available let alone interested in an aged ex Cardinal pretender to the throne in 1788 ? (or earlier as it was obvious Charles and Louise were not making whoopee for some time)... and avoiding a mass attack of butterflies !

The problem is Henry is not only a cardinal (since 1747), but also a priest (1748) and a bishop (1758). The Church did laicize non-priests cardinals quite easily, in some rare cases laicized priests but never ever bishops when they are consecrated and not just mere apostolic administrators.
 
thanks for your post Cornelis, I realise there would be difficulties but would Pius VI give a dispensation under the circumstances?

It was 2 Popes previous; Clement XIII that acknowledged the Hanovers, were the Stuarts 'dead in the water' as rightful claimant's to the throne, as far as the papacy was concerned.

There are historic precedents regarding dispensations, yes ?
 
No dispensation for consecrated bishops ever. There is no reason Pius VI would make such an extraordinary move for a so small political gain.
 
thank you Cornelis ... puts to bed that idea . Was thinking of this guy Henry ; 31 January 1512 – 31 January 1580) and then this guy António, Prior of Crato 1531 – 26 August 1595.

Even with little to gain politically, and Henry was more than in the midst of several papacies, It would be interesting to "what if" should he feel the stirring to create more Stuart controversy by leaving the ecclesiastic fold for dynastic reasons.
 
Last edited:
thank you Cornelis ... puts to bed that idea . Was thinking of this guy Henry ; 31 January 1512 – 31 January 1580) and then this guy António, Prior of Crato 1531 – 26 August 1595.

Even with little to gain politically, and Henry was more than in the midst of several papacies, It would be interesting to "what if" should he feel the stirring to create more Stuart controversy by leaving the ecclesiastic fold for dynastic reasons.

Henry was never laicized and continue to be cardinal and bishop (though he resigned his see) during his reign. Antonio was a knight of the order of Saint John (Knights Hospitalers), though a clerk, he was not in sacral orders (diaconate, priesthood), it was more easier to be laicized in that case, but he was not.

Henry's cardinalate was the longest in the history of the Church, so it would be a shame to ruin such a record ;)
 
Cesare Borgia was a cardinal released to continue family name.

Difference being that Cesare's dad was the pope. However, I'm not sure Cesare was released for that specific reason - since Juan Borgia, his brother, had two children before he died, plus there was Gioffre who had married Sancha of Naples (although the marriage produced no children), no one could've known that when Cesare was released from his cardinal's skirt.
 
Cesare Borgia was a cardinal released to continue family name.

Cesare Borgia was not a consecrated bishop, he was only appointed to the post of bishop of Pamplona, then to the post of archbishop of Valencia, but he never went there and was not consecrated in the order of bishop (so his title stayed technically "bishop-elect"). I am not even sure if he was ordained deacon or priest. A clerk not in major orders could be appointed to quasi all positions in the Church, including cardinal, the only condition was to stand ready to be ordained (so, not to marry). But then ordained, things were quite difficult to undone. For instance, Henry Benedict Stuart was a cardinal since july 3 1747, but stayed a mere clerk till august 25 1748 when he was ordained deacon. Before that date, laicization was quite possible. After, it became more difficult to think of, and after his consecration as bishop on november 19 1758 (some time after his appointment as bishop on october 2), it became impossible.

Technically, the cardinals can elect any catholic man to papacy. If he is a mere clerk or a layman, he will stay "pope-elect" till his ordination as priest and his consecration as bishop. He can even refuse the function, so there is the possibility of a (former) pope marrying ! Only theorical, of course, as only bishops were elected popes since the early middle ages.
 
cardinal Duke of York, Henry Benedict Stuart against his better reason decides to relinquish his consecrated vows,
Henry was 62, what would be his chances of siring and who would be available let alone interested in an aged ex Cardinal pretender to the throne in 1788 ?
How would the papacy react and would it be too late for Henry to woo a princess and what princess' would he woo in 1788. Avoiding butterflies !
 
cardinal Duke of York, Henry Benedict Stuart against his better reason decides to relinquish his consecrated vows,
Henry was 62, what would be his chances of siring and who would be available let alone interested in an aged ex Cardinal pretender to the throne in 1788 ?
How would the papacy react and would it be too late for Henry to woo a princess and what princess' would he woo in 1788. Avoiding butterflies !

If he did that, he is de facto excommunicated. No catholic princess would ever marry him, as it would be a great sin. I do not think he would be able to catch the eye of a protestant princess, as he is still seen as a Catholic priest. I suppose he could ever find a lowborn woman willing to marry him in a protestant country, but the legitimacy of his eventual children would be questioned.
 
Top