The Bourbons flee to Britain...

If the Bourbons had managed or rather chosen to continue the journey to Britain rather than return to France or take of to Austria would Queen Charlotte and Marie Antoinette have pushed for Prinny to marry Madame Elisabeth after or even later on? I'm just curious about the idea especially as I can't help but believe that Marie Antoinette would have been delighted to marry her sister-in-law to her best friend's eldest son, at least if Madame agreed.

Also could Princess Amelia have married a surviving Dauphin or Louis-Charles if Louis-Joseph were to have passed away anyway and if both Queen's were to have pushed the issue as they might have?
 
Britain would have been the least likely refuge for the Bourbons simply because the British political establishment largely backed the revolutionaries until around 1792. Remember, British politicians, particularly the Whigs praised the revolution at least during its early stages. They compared it to the English Revolution of 1688, believing that parliamentary government would be the result. The April 1791 constitution was praised in the Commons. Throughout the parliamentary debates of 1790 into 1791, the views seem to be largely sympathetic. What is interesting is that there seems to have been more criticism of the revolution by this time in the United States.

After the Pillnitz Declaration in August 1791, the British government was more concerned with the plight of Turkey at the hands of the Russians and Austrians than with the French Royal Family. Britain's senior diplomat in Prussia, stated that Britain should remain neutral. Lord Hawkesbury, summed up the cabinet position when he stated "if the French monarchy is not restored, France is not likely to be our enemy, unless we provoke her to it." Indeed, the British were more suspicious of Austrian and Prussian motives to induce a counter-revolution.

The anti-revolutionary camp was still very much in the minority in Britain at least during 1791. The Whigs even applauded the new constitution in September 1791 (after Varennes), and anniversary of the fall of the Bastille was celebrated openly by some British in various cities. However, opinion was slowly beginning to change and tt seems that some politicians began claiming the king was a prisoner and not acting of his free will, despite this there was still praise for the French Government. This sympathy had evaporated after the purge of the National Assembly in August 1792.

Also, if the Bourbons chose Britain as a place of exile, they would likely be without much monetary assistance. At least in one of the Austrian lands, Savoy, Naples or Spain, they could rely on the assistance of family members who would make their exile comfortable. Keep in mind the Bourbons only chose England once Napoleon became master of Europe and were no longer welcome in Courland.
 
I found a dispatch from Lord Grenville, foreign secretary dated 9 August 1792 to Lord Gower, Britain's Ambassador in Paris. Lord Gower had asked Grenville for instructions regarding the French Royal Family. Grenville actually shares the King's views on not helping the French royals. Stating that "any measure in kind could only commit the king's name in a business in which he has hitherto kept himself unengaged without any reasonable hope of producing a good effect" and to "Express our (the king's) sentiments of regard, friendship, and goodwill, but make no declaration."
 
Britain would have been the least likely refuge for the Bourbons simply because the British political establishment largely backed the revolutionaries until around 1792. Remember, British politicians, particularly the Whigs praised the revolution at least during its early stages. They compared it to the English Revolution of 1688, believing that parliamentary government would be the result. The April 1791 constitution was praised in the Commons. Throughout the parliamentary debates of 1790 into 1791, the views seem to be largely sympathetic. What is interesting is that there seems to have been more criticism of the revolution by this time in the United States.

After the Pillnitz Declaration in August 1791, the British government was more concerned with the plight of Turkey at the hands of the Russians and Austrians than with the French Royal Family. Britain's senior diplomat in Prussia, stated that Britain should remain neutral. Lord Hawkesbury, summed up the cabinet position when he stated "if the French monarchy is not restored, France is not likely to be our enemy, unless we provoke her to it." Indeed, the British were more suspicious of Austrian and Prussian motives to induce a counter-revolution.

The anti-revolutionary camp was still very much in the minority in Britain at least during 1791. The Whigs even applauded the new constitution in September 1791 (after Varennes), and anniversary of the fall of the Bastille was celebrated openly by some British in various cities. However, opinion was slowly beginning to change and tt seems that some politicians began claiming the king was a prisoner and not acting of his free will, despite this there was still praise for the French Government. This sympathy had evaporated after the purge of the National Assembly in August 1792.

Also, if the Bourbons chose Britain as a place of exile, they would likely be without much monetary assistance. At least in one of the Austrian lands, Savoy, Naples or Spain, they could rely on the assistance of family members who would make their exile comfortable. Keep in mind the Bourbons only chose England once Napoleon became master of Europe and were no longer welcome in Courland.

On the contrary, I've heard Queen Charlotte apparently thought the Bourbons or at least Marie Antoinette fleeing to Britain was so likely that she had a residence prepared for the occasion.
 
On the contrary, I've heard Queen Charlotte apparently thought the Bourbons or at least Marie Antoinette fleeing to Britain was so likely that she had a residence prepared for the occasion.

Do you have a source for this? The only place I could find this is on wikipedia, where page 287 of Antonia Fraser's book on Marie Antoinette is cited. However, whoever did this clearly has a reading comprehension problem. The quote merely references Queen Charlotte's addressing of rumours that Marie-Antoinette is to be sent to the Val-de-Grâce convent.

On page 287 this is the only reference to Queen Charlotte:

The immurement of Marie Antoinette was not a new idea. As long ago as the Diamond Necklace Affair, the benevolent Duc de Penthièvre, father-in-law of the Princesse de Lamballe, had supposedly declared that in view of the threat to public morality "it would be prudent to shut up the Queen (Marie Antoinette) in the convent of Val-de-Grâce. The rumour continued to circulate. Now Queen Charlotte in England reported on 28 July 1789 that apartments were being prepared fro the French queen at Val-de-Grâce: "for Safety as some say but others say that the Third Estate insist upon her going there."
 
Do you have a source for this? The only place I could find this is on wikipedia, where page 287 of Antonia Fraser's book on Marie Antoinette is cited. However, whoever did this clearly has a reading comprehension problem. The quote merely references Queen Charlotte's addressing of rumours that Marie-Antoinette is to be sent to the Val-de-Grâce convent.

On page 287 this is the only reference to Queen Charlotte:

The immurement of Marie Antoinette was not a new idea. As long ago as the Diamond Necklace Affair, the benevolent Duc de Penthièvre, father-in-law of the Princesse de Lamballe, had supposedly declared that in view of the threat to public morality "it would be prudent to shut up the Queen (Marie Antoinette) in the convent of Val-de-Grâce. The rumour continued to circulate. Now Queen Charlotte in England reported on 28 July 1789 that apartments were being prepared fro the French queen at Val-de-Grâce: "for Safety as some say but others say that the Third Estate insist upon her going there."

Could be a misinterpreation, bit harsh saying they have a reading comprehension problem don't you think?
 
That Queen Charlotte had apartments prepared to accommodate the fleeing French royals isn't a misinterpretation. The location of the apartments in question I can't seem to make out, with one book I read suggesting Buckingham House (later Palace) another source I remember talking of Windsor (that was in a National Geographic Article on Windsor itself).
 
That Queen Charlotte had apartments prepared to accommodate the fleeing French royals isn't a misinterpretation. The location of the apartments in question I can't seem to make out, with one book I read suggesting Buckingham House (later Palace) another source I remember talking of Windsor (that was in a National Geographic Article on Windsor itself).

I'm not doubting its a possibility, but I really wouldn't trust any source that is not a primary one from the period. Meaning a letter from the Queen herself or someone at court, etc. The only ones I could find from the period was one where Queen Charlotte thanked Marie-Antoinette for a service of Sèvres porcelain, dated 1789.

I don't doubt that the British royals would have offered some assistance, but keep in mind that King George III still claimed to be King of France (until 1801). It should be noted that treaties and correspondence between the Britain and France simply refers to the French monarch as "His Christian Majesty" and nothing else. This probably would not have been too much of an issue for George III, but it might have been embarrassing for the French king.

Perhaps the biggest issue is why would the French royals choose England when they had far closer places with familial ties. The future Charles X only chose Scotland as a refuge from his gambling debts and the Comte de Provence (Louis XVIII) only arrived in England after he had been made unwelcome in Prussia and there was nowhere else he could go to escape Napoleon's grip. I could see Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette in Britain eventually, but at least at first they would probably go to the Austrian Netherlands or one of the small German states across the border from France. Once these were overrun by the French, somewhere in the Austrian Empire would be logical, but I doubt Vienna would have been chosen.

Exiled monarchs in this period were often offered palaces in former capitals, where they could establish mini courts that would not compete with the reigning court. For instance Louis XVIII was offered the use of palaces in Courland and later Holyrood House in Edinburgh. Brussels and later Prague would be the most likely place for them to settle in the Habsburg realms. Naples also offers a possibility as Marie Antoinette was closest with her sister Maria Carolina. Maria Carolina was the real ruler of Naples and wrote to her sister daily, it would not be unimaginable to see the French Bourbons establish a court at one of the lesser used palaces in Naples like Portici.
 
Top