The Stuarts and the Oldenburgs

Instead of trying to make the Stuart/Oldenburg survival depend on the feeble Duke of Gloucester, I would prefer that Queen Anne's two infant daughters not contract smallpox and die. They might have grown up to be healthier than Gloucester.

If Queen Anne's not having listeriosis is our POD, those girls (pending butterflies, yada yada) would probably survive, and Anne might not feel the need to go on producing kids into the late 1680s. Ergo, no Gloucester anyway.
 
How would the survival of Queen Anne's son, William, Duke of Gloucester (and his production of issue, male and legitimate) affect the fortunes of the house of Stuart? I've read that the Jacobite risings were caused in part because James III was a nearer relation to the last king (Anne) than George I was and therefore was the rightful monarch.

The line of descent by strict male-preference cognatic primogeniture was:

James II
- his son James "III"
- his elder daughter Mary II
- his younger daughter Anne
-- Anne's son William of Gloucester

then

William III, only child of James II's older sister Mary

then

descendants of James II's younger sister, Henrietta, all Catholics

then

descendants of the older children of James II's paternal aunt, Ellzabeth, all Catholics

then

George I of Hanover, James "III"'s second cousin through Elizabeth's youngest child, who was Protestant

The "Glorious Revolution" deposed James II in favor of Mary II and his nephew William III, her husband. James and his son were excluded as Catholics. With that exclusion, Mary and William, and then Anne were the next in line. With their demise sans progeny, and the exclusion of the Catholic heirs, George was next.

The Jacobite rebellions were based on refusal to accept the exclusion, as a violation of the "true" line of inheritance.


But, if William succeeds as William IV, King of England, France, Scotland & Ireland (assuming that the Act of Settlement and Act of Union do not get passed, since they were passed after his OTL death), then by the law of proximity of blood, he is then a nearer relation than James - son versus brother.
The Jacobites did not argue that James should inherit instead of William; they argued that William III and Mary II, and Anne were all usurpers. James was Anne's brother, and should have been King before her.

The Jacobites actually dated back to the Glorious Revolution and the rebellion led by "Bonnie Dundee". Their rituals including squeezing an orange (in despite of William III of Orange) and toasting "the little gentleman in black velvet" (the mole whose burrow his horse stumbled on, leading to his death).

The reason for the rebellion being in 1715 was that Anne had been more acceptable than George - being British and of the previous royal line. Her acccession had been explicitly accepted. George was a distant cousin and a foreigner, so it seemed possible that there was enough opposition to support a successful rebellion.

Any thoughts on how the Jacobite movement might progress under a half-Stuart king rather than a complete foreigner? Would the Jacobite movement even develop?
The succession from Anne to William would be more acceptable than Anne to George. IMO there wouldn't be enough political energy for a rebellion. The Jacobite movement already existed, but would probably dwindle gradually, assuming the Oldenburg line continued.
 
Last edited:
Speaking under correction but its only recently that the succession laws were altered to allow pure primogeniture rather than male-preference. And also, Henry VIII divorced two wives for not giving him a son. Female monarchs were generally only allowed when they didn't have a male. Anne won't be any different and will keep having kids until she has Gloucester and AT LEAST a second son (George, b. 1693). If George Jnr dies, she'll accept her daughter Mary as heiress presumptive to Gloucester.
 
Speaking under correction but its only recently that the succession laws were altered to allow pure primogeniture rather than male-preference. And also, Henry VIII divorced two wives for not giving him a son. Female monarchs were generally only allowed when they didn't have a male. Anne won't be any different and will keep having kids until she has Gloucester and AT LEAST a second son (George, b. 1693). If George Jnr dies, she'll accept her daughter Mary as heiress presumptive to Gloucester.

The genders of Anne's children can be butterflied, and even if we go with OTL sperms she had at least one son before Gloucester (up to three) but yeah, sure, let's go with that.

Henry VIII is an interesting case, because 1) he was a bit mental; and 2) the principle of cognatic primogeniture hadn't been established at that point. Women could transmit succession rights to their sons and husbands, but they could only rule when Henry or Edward VI had no other options. Think about it: until the 1540s, Henry's younger sister had no male descendants, and his elder sister had only produced a King of Scotland, who was right out. This made it an absolute necessity to produce a boy or, failing that, establish a female-friendly line of succession.
Fast-forward to the Jacobite era, and female rule is enshrined by law and patriotism, and there are a plethora of potential successors (many of them were Catholic, but whatever). If Queen Anne purposely excluded her husband from the government, breaking with precedent, one would expect her to be fine with the prospect of a female successor, so there's no need for her to push out healthy baby after healthy baby - if anything, that spreads the Civil List pensions a bit thin - in the pursuit of 'an heir and a spare'. On the other hand, she was a bit mental :D
 
By all accounts Queen Anne's marriage with George of Denmark have been quite happy, even through obvious child issues.
 
Instead of trying to make the Stuart/Oldenburg survival depend on the feeble Duke of Gloucester, I would prefer that Queen Anne's two infant daughters not contract smallpox and die. They might have grown up to be healthier than Gloucester.

Funny you should mention that. I remember reading that of the two early daughters, one was found to be very delicate during the autopsy (something to do with her lungs I believe) while the other was found to have been very healthy and probably would have had great health if she wasn't struck down by smallpox. I honestly don't remember which was which but having the healthy one survive would have huge ramifications for the succession (and establish a dynasty of Queens in a way, with Mary II, Anne and Mary III/Anne II having ruled in a row, with only William III breaking up an all-female line).
 
Funny you should mention that. I remember reading that of the two early daughters, one was found to be very delicate during the autopsy (something to do with her lungs I believe) while the other was found to have been very healthy and probably would have had great health if she wasn't struck down by smallpox. I honestly don't remember which was which but having the healthy one survive would have huge ramifications for the succession (and establish a dynasty of Queens in a way, with Mary II, Anne and Mary III/Anne II having ruled in a row, with only William III breaking up an all-female line).

I wonder if somehow that daughter would maybe married to Jamie the Rover as a way of unifying the claims
 
How about having the surviving daughter marry one of the illegitimate descendants of Charles II and keep it all in the Stuart dynasty. Or would marriage to the mere nobility not have been acceptable vs. foreign royalty?
 
Who is Jamie the Rover? :confused:

James III earned various nicknames during his exile. First was Jamie the Rover given to him due to his expulsion from France, and his wandering through Lorraine and Italy. Then after the failure of the '15 and other planned Jacobite risings before the '45 he became 'Old Mister Misfortune'. And finally, the one most people know him by is 'the Old Pretender' in reference to Bonnie Prince Charlie.
 
Sian said:
By all accounts Queen Anne's marriage with George of Denmark have been quite happy, even through obvious child issues.
To complete this, as a bit of a sidenote, happilly matched royal/princely couples tended to have lots of kids. The most obvious example would be Maria Theresa of Austria and her husband Francis I who were said to love each other dearly and had sixteen children, ten of which lived up to adulthood. A more minor example would be Philip William of Neubourg, Elector Palatine, and his second wife Elisabeth Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt: the couple was regarded as extremly happy and they had seventeen children (and apparently only two died young).

Queen Anne went through seventeen pregnancies.
Kellan Sullivan said:
I wonder if somehow that daughter would maybe married to Jamie the Rover as a way of unifying the claims
If James was willing to convert to Anglicanism or willing to accept his children being raised as Anglicans, the match might be possible. Otherwise, I don't think anyone in England would agree to such a match.
 
Top