What if the Jacobites settle America and their head becomes the president of the United States, what would be the US foreign policy with Britain, would (s)he try to claim the throne?
If the Jacobite heir is sufficiently non-aristocratic to get elected President, relations with Britain will not be an issue unless the British want to make them one.
Leaving aside what convinced this particular branch of the European nobility to cross the ocean.
What if the Jacobites settle America and their head becomes the president of the United States, what would be the US foreign policy with Britain, would (s)he try to claim the throne?
Two reasons why that isn't a problem:I'm fairly certain that is unconstitutional based upon:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
I was thinking of Bonnie Prince Charlie's ATL son being married and settles in America and his direct descendant gets elected as President of the United States.
Well that depends on a lot. First off Jacobitism was pretty much dead by the time of the American Revolution, so U would have to find a way to reignite it Perhaps Charles Stuart's marriage produces a son or one of the many marriage plots that involved him go through.Personally I would love to see a House of Stuart survive into the nineteenth century. I mean how awesome would it be to have Queen Victoria marry the last Stuart heir?
Second do U mean a Jacobite supporter like an exiled noble or a full on blood heir like Bonnie Prince Charlie?
Third how do they get there? There would have to be a reason for a Jacobite to go to the colonies. U aren't going to get a Stuart Restoration by without foreign support and the colonies were controlled by England/Britain so it would be unlikely a place to flee to. Perhaps James Francis, the old pretender, remarries after his wife's death and that marriage produces a son. This son (being a good ten years younger then his half-brothers) gos to fight in the revolutionary war on the american side (either on his own as s punch in the face to the Hanovarians or as part of the aid from France) and is a very successful general. Then after the war, he remains in America and is eventually elected as President, maybe succeeding George Washington. Hell if there's a "home-grown" royal that fought on the American side, maybe the idea to crown a King gets more traction, especially if it gives a bid middle finger to Britain and George III.![]()
About as awesome as a can of spam in place of filet mignon.
And for the love of literacy, why are you spelling you as U?
Why would this son want to fight on the American side of the Revolution? It's possible, but it's not a given.
And why on earth would having a 'home grown" royal make anyone want a monarchy?
Sorry I tend to spell like I text. As for fighting on the American side, I can see a Jacobite son, Lets just call him James for his father, fighting in exchange for aid to get the Throne.
Perhaps a deal between Bonnie Prince Charlie and France, you send a figurehead to the colonies and we'll launch an invasion of England for you.
Lots of foreigners didn't. James wanting to thwart the Hanoverrians anyway he can makes sense, but "just because" doesn't.Or James just has a deep hatred of the Hanovarians and wants to see them bloodied by losing most of their colonies. After all, lots of foreigners fought on the American's side, whats another one?
Except that the odds of that happening are minimal to say the least. James is at best going to be like Lafayette here, and that hardly convinced America to adopt an aristocracy.As for having a homegrown royal making a monarchy more likely, having a Prince fighting along side the soldiers like he was one of them would do wonders for destroying the image of royalty as being elitist brats who don't give a damn about the people, especially if he go's up the ranks normally and not being commissioned as a Colonel or General.
Source?Also in OTL, there was a proposal by the Nathan Gorham,President of the Continental Congress to Prince Henry of Prussia, younger brother of Frederick the Great, to make him King of the US. It was revoked before an answer was given.
Not to mention that there is no reason why even a royal that isn't despised would be desired as the ruler. And why on earth would the colonists want "a nice insult to Britain"?Thats were I got the idea from. having a successful general, a hero that was royal would go a long was to bridging the gap to a monarchy. The constitution could put severe limits on the King's power, and add some sort of impeachment clause to keep him from becoming an absolute Monarch. Not to mention it would be a nice insult to Britain. However I will admit that if James doesn't convert to protestantism at some point then there would be zero chance of this happening and even then it would be a long shot.
The American colonists are in no position to provide a lick of assistance towards that goal.
Lots of foreigners didn't. James wanting to thwart the Hanoverrians anyway he can makes sense, but "just because" doesn't.
Except that the odds of that happening are minimal to say the least. James is at best going to be like Lafayette here, and that hardly convinced America to adopt an aristocracy.
Source?
Not to mention that there is no reason why even a royal that isn't despised would be desired as the ruler. And why on earth would the colonists want "a nice insult to Britain"?
That's an awfully petty thing to do, and part of the reason the AR worked is that being petty was generally not something the founders indulged in.
I meant aid from the French or perhaps the Spanish. I should have clarified that part.
Well America already had a plutocracy, all that was missing was the titles. But You're right that is a long shot, but the very idea of having a Jacobite as President is also a long shot.
True. However, maybe Britain does something to make it seem like a good idea. Raiding American shipping, encouraging Native Americans to attack US settlements, stuff like that. Actually didn't Britain do that stuff OTL?
Also, I don't think you could be a Jacobite without being a monarchist. Kind of comes with the territory.
To be a Jacobite is, by definition, to be a monarchist.
I think the wording of the OP is problematic, if I may say so. It would be better, simply, to say "an heir of the House of Stuart."
Of course, you would have to generate another son, since by 1789, the only direct line Stuart heir left was Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart. And I can't see the presidency being given to a Catholic bishop.