Queen Anne has an heir

I see your point, I was wondering if that was what you meant, but I don't agree with it. Apart from anything, it strikes me that if you stick to this principle then this whole website is a little redundant - we can't predict how history will go beyond the lifespan of those alive at POD, and even then after a few years our ability to read personalities fade in the light of unanticipated events.

I don't mean offense, and it suddenly strikes me that without voice tones it probably seems that way, but I never quite bought into that idea all and every historical figure should be butterflied away if born after POD. To me it kind of seems to make all the talk about alternate history a bit pointless, at least past a few decades.

But if we go the other route and think "How will a Stuart Monarchy act when Hitler takes over? Or when Princess Diana dies?" It seems incredibly stupid to think things will get that convergent.

Its decent to take the middle route. The Buttefly effect can keep things farmiliar enough to be recognizable and yet different enough to be interesting. Also its all about likelyhood. If William living causes any differences in the myriad of wars until 1763, then France may not be able to take Corsica. That is gonna butterfly away a French Napoleon no matter what. Now he could have a different name (Same father and mother but different time of conception) and go on to be leader of Corsica or some other sufficently cool Italian state. Or he could go to Britain and become cooler than Nelson, but the reality is that it makes it all the more interesting to have this happen, so the butterfly effect makes alternate history not pointless but incredibly interesting.
 
I'd say that pretty much everything will change in the event of something as momentous as Queen Anne having a living heir. Certainly, British history will immediately take on an entirely different aspect. The surviving heir (I'm assuming we're speaking about William of Gloucester) will be the founder of a new royal family with close links to Denmark. Hanover's history is immediately changed, as the Hanovarian kings will never leave Hanover, staying and giving the place their full, unequivocal attention.

Quite aside from that, the butterflies mean there's no Napoleon, no George III, no Louis XVI. The effects of William of Gloucester not dying would radiate across the world fairly quickly, meaning that within a few years the world would be virtually unrecognisable. The odds of getting to the 19th century with anything even vaguely approaching OTL are virtually nill as far as I can see.

Well, that's how I see it anyway :D

In the short term, the Jacobite cause would have a more difficult time. The new King William IV will be born and brought up in England, as opposed to the unpopular, thoroughly German Hanovarians. He is directly, absolutely in line for the throne and has a logical connection with the old order. Doubtless, the Old Pretender will attempt to take back the throne, but his efforts will be even less likely to succeed than they were in reality.

That said, William might die without an heir, in which case the Hanovarians are back in line for the throne versus the Stuarts. He was an ill, sickly child even at the best of times, and assuming he survives into adulthood it's doubtful that he'll survive to anything approaching old age. With the health problems we know he had, there's a not inconsiderable chance that he won't have children. In which case, the throne would pass either to the Hanovarians, OR to any descendents of the Old Pretender who were willing to convert to Protestantism.

Either way, it sets up a completely different sequence of events to OTL.
 
The Jacobite risings would be greatly effected if a Stuart was on the Dual-Throne. In reading many books on the subject the Scottish cause was not religious but that there was a legitimate Stuart heir to the throne if I am correct in my interpretation then the 15 and 45 would not have much support in Scotland.
In America no 15 or 45 will lead to less Scottish and Scots-Irish immigration. This would have the effect of curtailing or even eliminating the settlement of the western portions of Pennsylvania and Virginia taking away a major cause of The French and Indian war, though perhaps not the Seven Years War. This could lead to no taxes or the Crown listening to the Colonist averting the ARW.
This could lead to France not bankrupting herself backing the Americans, thus giving Louis funds to use to avert the major grievances that lead to the Revolution in France.
 
Last edited:
The Jacobite risings would be greatly effected if a Stuart was on the Dual-Throne. In reading many books on the subject the Scottish cause was not religious but that there was a legitimate Stuart heir to the throne if I am correct in my interpretation then the 15 and 45 would not have much support in Scotland.
Well there was a religious aspect in that Scottish Episcopalians were significantly more likely to support the Old Pretender due to Presbyterian persecution, which might be even worse if the Scots Parliament survives. At the same time though the Union made many Scots look more sympathetically upon the Jacobite cause, so I suspect the overall effect is perhaps marginally less support for James and his heirs.

However I'm not sure that William surviving will butterfly the Union of Parliaments away in the long term, although it certainly could modify the final form in which it came to fruition. War with France would probably result in the King and his ministers (Scottish and English) looking to secure his northern flank especially if the Jacobites are still a cause for concern.

EDIT: whoops, my apologies for reviving a dormant thread - it was linked in another thread and I forgot which one I was posting in!
 
Once I had the occasion of looking at Jacobitism in more details. The claimants were:

James II & VII (1685-1701)
James III & VIII (1701-1766) - son of the former
Charles III (1766-1788) - son of the former
Henry IX & I (1788-1807) - brother of the former

After that, Jacobitism pretty much died out since the line of James II's descendants were dead. However, die hard Jacobites placed their bets on descendants of Henrietta, younger sister of Charles II and James II. Her claim were inherited by her grandson, Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia (who is listed as Charles IV) then to his brother Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (who is listed as Victor I). The pretentions then fell to his daughter who is oddly listed as Mary III & II... She shouldn't if Mary II were not to be counted as Queen of England.

From what I deduced, the Jacobites were thus just against the idea of having James II and his son James III kept away from the throne: while they probably disregarded Mary II and Anne as usupers, they would probably have accepted their descendants as legitimate Kings of Britain had they left one. Overall, it was more a matter of bloodline seniority than of Religion (though it de facto was) : after all, the Hanoverians and their successors were only descendants of James I while the Jacobite pretenders always descended from one of James I's children: the actual Jacobite "claimants" are descendants of Charles I via his daughter Henrietta for examples.

So, in other words, had Mary II or Anne left children behind, my thoughts are Jacobitism would have died out with James III's bloodline.

On a side note, I was surprised about people mentionning the Act of Union which create Great Britain might not happen if Anne had surviving issue. But wasn't that one of the Stuarts' objectives? To unite the Three Crowns (England, Scotland & Ireland) into a single Kingdom? It was apparently a wish of James I & VI from what I read.
 
Once I had the occasion of looking at Jacobitism in more details. The claimants were:

James II & VII (1685-1701)
James III & VIII (1701-1766) - son of the former
Charles III (1766-1788) - son of the former
Henry IX & I (1788-1807) - brother of the former

After that, Jacobitism pretty much died out since the line of James II's descendants were dead. However, die hard Jacobites placed their bets on descendants of Henrietta, younger sister of Charles II and James II. Her claim were inherited by her grandson, Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia (who is listed as Charles IV) then to his brother Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (who is listed as Victor I). The pretentions then fell to his daughter who is oddly listed as Mary III & II... She shouldn't if Mary II were not to be counted as Queen of England.

From what I deduced, the Jacobites were thus just against the idea of having James II and his son James III kept away from the throne: while they probably disregarded Mary II and Anne as usupers, they would probably have accepted their descendants as legitimate Kings of Britain had they left one. Overall, it was more a matter of bloodline seniority than of Religion (though it de facto was) : after all, the Hanoverians and their successors were only descendants of James I while the Jacobite pretenders always descended from one of James I's children: the actual Jacobite "claimants" are descendants of Charles I via his daughter Henrietta for examples.

So, in other words, had Mary II or Anne left children behind, my thoughts are Jacobitism would have died out with James III's bloodline.

On a side note, I was surprised about people mentionning the Act of Union which create Great Britain might not happen if Anne had surviving issue. But wasn't that one of the Stuarts' objectives? To unite the Three Crowns (England, Scotland & Ireland) into a single Kingdom? It was apparently a wish of James I & VI from what I read.



Well it may transpire differently of course, and I suspect there would over time be a convergence of views as it were, but as we all know...Scots and Irish can be very stubborn and obstinate in their independence as long as they have it... Probably a de jure personal union exists for some time yet, but a defacto union occurs in all but name over the next century.

The jacobite cause would lose traction once James IIs male line successors died out. It would probably be more along the lines of the Legitimist and Orleanist factions that accompanied Bourbon France post July revolution. With the Anglican Stuarts, or Stuart-Oldenburgs...or Stuart-Whatevers should William still die childless, transpiring as the more popular, for a time anyways, Orleanist faction.
 
Williams best prospects....

in the aftermath of Travendal...Ulrika Eleonore of Sweden, the maritime powers are guaranteeing that peace afterall, Karl the XII star is seemingly ascendant ( its a mirage of course, but who knows what people would see in say 1700/01) and this would be yet another reason for QA to continue to do so as OTL after her ascension to the throne.

Elizabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel should Archduke Karl marry instead say one of Williams sisters...I go with the supposition that William, Mary and Anne Sophia all survive to adulthood and marriage...Her father is ambitious afterall...though I think thats more in the German context, though he was intent initially on becoming the next King of Spain, so take your pick, Queen of England where she gets to keep her religion probably or Queen of Spain, where she has to convert...hmmm...I dont see a real contest here except that it doesnt put them in favour with the H.R. Emperor.

Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel....the Landgrave is renting his troops to the highest bidder afterall and they would be a good source of manpower on the continent.

the afore mentioned Sophia Dorothea of Hannover would be good match as well.

There are probably a few others...but of these, UE probably has the highest standing, I think, which would probably have the side effect of making Charles Frederick heir to Sweden on Charles XII death and thus probably no marriage to Anna Petrovna. They are first cousins, but that sort of thing was done all the time to keep things in the family as it were, and they dont need a papal dispensation either.

So put Mary in a marriage to John William Friso and Anne to either Archduke Karl or perhaps George II of Hannover or even Frederick William I of Prussia.

From Williams point of view Mary and John are probably a more suitable match but as the premier crown princess of England she is from parliaments point of view better suited to one of the latter three and Anne should go to the Netherlands. He will still, at least be stadtholder of Friesland and Groningen
 
Once I had the occasion of looking at Jacobitism in more details. The claimants were:

James II & VII (1685-1701)
James III & VIII (1701-1766) - son of the former
Charles III (1766-1788) - son of the former
Henry IX & I (1788-1807) - brother of the former

After that, Jacobitism pretty much died out since the line of James II's descendants were dead. However, die hard Jacobites placed their bets on descendants of Henrietta, younger sister of Charles II and James II. Her claim were inherited by her grandson, Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia (who is listed as Charles IV) then to his brother Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (who is listed as Victor I). The pretentions then fell to his daughter who is oddly listed as Mary III & II... She shouldn't if Mary II were not to be counted as Queen of England.


Iirc, some die-hard Jacobites considered Elizabeth I to have been a usurper, so that Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful Mary II of England.
 
I love this TL. I love the idea that the Stuarts might have lived on. Charles II was badass. Anne was badass. Other Stuarts were no good at all.

Real issue here is why the Stuarts had such low fecundity. I am happy that William and Mary had no children, but why did Anne have so many miscarriages and one sickly child? Some blame inbreeding, but I blame the arsenic makeup. Suppose Anne eschewed makeup? She might have had many healthy children.

Some Act of Union document would have been produced, but without any mention of the children of the Electress of Hannover if Anne was healthy herself and had three robust teenage children.

And if any of these kids had Anne's smarts and uncle Charles' cunning and ruled late in life because Anne lived longer, we could see the stepwise spinoff of the American colonies and perhaps an emancipationist agenda that could avert many future problems.
 
Or maybe if Charles I's youngest son, Prince henry, hadn't died of smalpox in 1660. He seems to have been a firm Protestant, so he or a son of his could have ascended the throne after Anne.
 
I would imagine that Prince William would marry a Scandinavian/German Princess but I doubt the Swedish Alliance makes much sense considering the young Prince is part of the Oldenburg Dynasty.

I wouldnt rule out Maria Amalia (1689-1771), the sister of John William Friso. This will reinforce the Royal connection to the Dutch Republic that William III was striving to maintain.


I could potentially see Denmark-Norway regain Scania and much of Holstein because it was largely due to Great Britain and Russia's involvement that Denmark wasnt able to gain much of the land they captured in the war but I could see young Prince William supporting the Danish over the Swedish


I would fully support any member that undertook to create a TL of Queen Anne having an heir
 
Top