The Countess of Albany's Son

In 1773 a Doctor Beaton was summoned to help a woman give birth in the utmost secrecy, complete with cloak-and-dagger blindfolds to his location, swearing never to reveal what he had seen and to leave the country (Tuscany) etc. Beaton recognized the portrait on the wall of the room as being of James III, and the curious mixture of Italian, English and German in which he had been summoned, not to mention he had reportedly seen the masked-woman earlier - in the company of Bonnie Prince Charlie as Louise of Stolberg.

That said, the masked woman gave birth to a son who was then smuggled out of Italy in the care of Admiral O'Halloran back to Scotland.

Now, let us assume for a moment that firstly, this account is at least half-true, but with the amount of cloak-and-dagger is discarded, and that this boy would be born with as much pomp and ceremony as any legitimate heir to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones. What if Louise had really given birth to a son in 1773? According to most historians, the Jacobite movement was a dying ember post-1745, but how might this affect history of the British Isles and the world later per se?
 
The Jacobite movement was a dead by the 1770's in terms of domestic British support but one butterfly of having Charles "III" succeed not by his brother the Cardinal as in OTL but a son say James "IV" is that when Napoleon is sweeping though Europe and more importantly Italy James "IV" won't be able to hide behind clerical status in the Vatican. I'm not sure how Napoleon would use him, the cross-over between ultra-reactionary Jacobitism and French libertie isn't exactly good but it could be a factor.
 
In 1773 a Doctor Beaton was summoned to help a woman give birth in the utmost secrecy, complete with cloak-and-dagger blindfolds to his location, swearing never to reveal what he had seen and to leave the country (Tuscany) etc. Beaton recognized the portrait on the wall of the room as being of James III, and the curious mixture of Italian, English and German in which he had been summoned, not to mention he had reportedly seen the masked-woman earlier - in the company of Bonnie Prince Charlie as Louise of Stolberg.

That said, the masked woman gave birth to a son who was then smuggled out of Italy in the care of Admiral O'Halloran back to Scotland.

Now, let us assume for a moment that firstly, this account is at least half-true, but with the amount of cloak-and-dagger is discarded, and that this boy would be born with as much pomp and ceremony as any legitimate heir to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones. What if Louise had really given birth to a son in 1773? According to most historians, the Jacobite movement was a dying ember post-1745, but how might this affect history of the British Isles and the world later per se?

The Jacobite movement permanently died with the accession of George III and the death of James III. If Charles III had a legitimate son the only difference is the main Stuart line continues. Though I admit it would be interesting to see how a Stuart heir plays out with a TTL Napoleon.
 

Redhand

Banned
This could create interesting butterflies with the United Irishmen 1798 movement if this so called heir gets in on that action. Culloden destroyed Scottish support for a Stuart Restoration and really any possible chance the Highlands could maintain any form of cultural distinction going forth.

Napoleon would have a field day with this.
 
Well at the time of the United Irishmen there was a Jacobite claimant, Cardinal Henry Stuart who they had nothing to do with as far as I'm aware.
 
Didn't he [Napoléon] summon Louise to Paris in order to enquire if there was any truth to the rumors that she and BPC had had a kid? IIRC he packed her off back to Florence when he found out it wasn't true, or something like that.
 

Redhand

Banned
Well at the time of the United Irishmen there was a Jacobite claimant, Cardinal Henry Stuart who they had nothing to do with as far as I'm aware.

Maybe, but keep in mind that almost anytime Irish unrest flared post-Henry VIII the Catholic Church was supportive in spirit and in some cases, actively aided and abetted the revolt with troops or supplies. Not sure about 1798, but it is certainly possible Henry Stuart was watching events very closely.
 
Maybe, but keep in mind that almost anytime Irish unrest flared post-Henry VIII the Catholic Church was supportive in spirit and in some cases, actively aided and abetted the revolt with troops or supplies. Not sure about 1798, but it is certainly possible Henry Stuart was watching events very closely.

I think the Stuarts were extremely unlikely to ally themselves with Revolutionary France.

As far as I know the Catholics (the higher ranking ones) did NOT support the 1798 uprising and sided with the British despite the still in place penal laws. Some of the peasantry did but without the support of the priests they didn't have enough widespread support (and many of the leaders of the Irish Uprising were Protestant and probably not inclined to a Stuart). Don't forget we are dealing with a French Republic at the time (Napoleon still hadn't made peace with the Pope) who basically destroyed the Church, killed nuns and priests and carried through a De-Christianization the likes of which Europe had never seen to that point. Nap wasn't that sort of man but his right-hand Fouche was one of the chief proponents of violent de-Chrisitianization (and a regicide) and his foreign minister, Talleyrand was a former bishop who had renounced his vows while at the same time annointing "Constitutional" bishops. The French officer sent to assist the United Irishman was General Hoche - the man who had finally pacificed (i.e. destroyed) the royalist, catholic resistance in Vendee. These are not the kind of men even Irish royalist jacobites would ally with.

The French hadn't really been friendly to the Stuarts since Louis XIV passed and it was the Pope who succored the Stuarts in Rome. Cardinal Henry Stuart had to flee from the French, I can't see any nephew of his doing otherwise.
 
Top