Henry IX, thoughts?

ok i thinking about Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester Henry is fun because he's one of the few people with not one but two POD's that could of made him king

First POD: unlike his brother and mother Henry was captured during English Civil War, being just 6 years old some Parliamentarians thought the boy should be made king and that with the right teachers he could be molded into the king they wanted

Second POD: Henry died of smallpox in 1660, years latter during exclusion crisis this fact was greatly lamented by Parliament who would of much rather had this Protestant warrior over the Catholic Duke of York or the Illegitimate Duke of Monmouth

so what are peoples thoughts on the effects of those PODs (you can tackle one or the other or both)
 
It is an interesting point because he and his sister Elizabeth are perhaps completely forgotten by history - had either of them lived and produced issue then they would have been natural alternatives to a Protestant Parliament desperate to find heirs of the right persuasion - goodbye House of Hannover.
Elizabeth was highly educated and apparently very intelligent she died in 1650 of pneumonia just shy of her 15th birthday. Henry was released by Cromwell in 1652 and joined his mother in France but it wasnt a happy reunion as he was devoutly Protestant.
Both Elizabeth and Henry were under Parliaments control from 1642 and therefore escaped some might so the influence of their mother when very young.
Had Henry not died and lived a full life he would have only been around 43 when James II ascended the throne - it may well have been Henry who lead the protestant cause against James and today he might well have been regarded as the true hero of the Glorious Revolution - supporting the reign of his niece and nephew William and Mary and on the death of Anne his children succeeding and the House of Stuart continuing well into the 18th century.
 
it was briefly suggested during the height of the civil war i believe (and this is from memory so forgive me if i am wrong) because of his age but was soon dismissed by the army and Cromwell. The trouble would have been it would have been no more effective making him King because to many Royalists he would simply have been a Parliamentary puppet (he was only 9 when his father was executed) and they would have still seen his brother as the rightful King and there were also still plenty of radical protestants within the army determined on a utopian republic (they had a hard enough time with the effective dictatorship of Cromwell).
One possibility would have been if at some point Henry had been perhaps sent to Scotland - instead of the Scots forcing Charles II into humiliating terms to give him an army to attack England they'd have been better placed to proclaim Henry as King of Scots and cut a deal with the new Republic South of the Border - easier to deal with a child than an angry young man!
And in 1659 when England's republic is collapsing and the army is looking for a new King does it look to the young man over the sea who is an unknown quantity still to many of them or do they look north to the young King of Scots - devoutly Protestant and ruling with parliament and the Kirk???
 
Top