WI: a Jacobite becomes a US President

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.
 
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."
 
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.

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.
 
Jacobites settling the 13 colonies would have large enough ripple-effects to have dramatically changed British-American relations from the beginning. Also, I don't think you could be a Jacobite without being a monarchist. Kind of comes with the territory.
 
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?

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 a 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 big middle finger to Britain and George III.:D
 
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."
Two reasons why that isn't a problem:
1) He could accede before being elected, in which case the "King of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France" part is simply part of the package and isn't covered by that clause.
2) Congress could let him have the title anyway, assuming Britain doesn't care unreasonably.
 
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.

Supposedly in 1775 a group of Bostonians wrote a letter addressed to Bonnie Prince Charlie inviting him to come and be King of America, but somehow I think they might have been facetious.

But as to serious possibilities, Jacobitism in the colonies would require the Jacobite line to have converted to Protestantism, which would have large enough ripple-effects on Britain as to make the whole colonial situation entirely unpredictable.
 
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?

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? :mad:

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.:D

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?
 
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? :mad:



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. 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? 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. 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. 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.
 
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.

The American colonists are in no position to provide a lick of assistance towards that goal.

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.

:confused:

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?
Lots of foreigners didn't. James wanting to thwart the Hanoverrians anyway he can makes sense, but "just because" doesn't.

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.
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.

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.
Source?

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.
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.
 
considering most of the us presidents already are all distantly related to King John, it doesnt make a speck of difference to things
 
The American colonists are in no position to provide a lick of assistance towards that goal.


:confused:


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.

I know that parts a very big long shot. I was thinking something along the lines of the French hoping to create a monarchy in America that would be allied with France

I meant it as hurting the Hanovarians in anyway possible. Maybe James realizes the Jacobite cause is hopeless and wants to make the Usurpers hurt or something like that.

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.

I got it of Wikipedia but the sited book it is Prince Henry of Prussia and the Regency of the United States by Richard Krauel.

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?
 
Last edited:
I meant aid from the French or perhaps the Spanish. I should have clarified that part.

But then why would James go to the colonies?

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.

There's a huge difference between a plutocracy and an aristocracy.

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?

Not in peace.
 
I believe you're referring to the Jacobite claimant to the throne to be elected President, and not any particular claimant, but a generic claimant of some line or another.

Well, first, they'd need to be a natural-born citizen of the United States or have been resident there in 1776. Such a person would, by their very nature, have probably given up their aristocratic titles, at least in practice. If they make an active pretense as to their ruling over England, Scotland, France and Ireland, would probably disqualify them from serving as President - while it's not explicitly banned someone already with a title from taking a position in the United States, such a person would be highly suspicious to the American public.

And you'd need to get to a point in the United States where a Catholic could possibly be elected President. To eliminate that particular issue would require a PoD so far back that a "United States" as we would recognize it is probably butterflied away, and if you keep the issue, a Jacobite (who is almost necessarily Catholic) could not be elected President until the 20th century. By that point, a continuing Jacobite line in the U.S. is likely either so Americanized that they don't even want the throne or, well, is already President of the United States in the 20th century, so why the hell would they want to go back and be the powerless monarch of the United Kingdom (I'm sorry: England, Scots, France and Ireland), particularly as the Empire's crumbling?
 
Bonnie Prince Charlie desperately converted to Protestantism later in life, if I remember correctly. You'll have no problem getting a Stuart to become a good Protestant - Paris is worth a mass, etc. You're only ever a Catholic by choice, not by genetics - and if, in a new context, being Protestant works, it's the path that will be chosen.

Getting a Jacobite descendant to be president is real problem - Charles Edward needs a suitably talented son (second son?) who emigrates to America, fights for the Yankees, and becomes president after a public renunciation of his claim to the UK throne. If he's of a militant republican bent, all the better. He can cream off the fame of his ancestors with none of their absolutist ideological baggage.

I'm pretty sure the American ban on titles doesn't, however, entail renouncing the claims of ones children, who could either choose to press their claims in Europe or stay in America. There is a precedent for royalty doing this (there were Orleans princes who fought for the Union's side during the civil war, and a Bonaparte served as secretary of the navy).

And while they wouldn't be able to use their titles, there would always be an element of prestige to keep them high in American political and social circles.

The problem is getting said descendant to be king of America. I don't think the Americans would tolerate a king, and replacing a Hanovarian with a Stuart probably won't fly.

I'll agree, though, that a son of the American president, who also happens to represent the genealogically senior claim of descent on the British throne, marrying Queen Victoria does rather appeal, in an ASBish way. It would create a lot of goodwill between the two countries, cement Britain and America's relationship at an early stage, and prevent a lot of the British-American tensions we saw during the C19th. I doubt the British aristocracy would go for it, though (with the exception of the few remaining Jacobites, that is)

Bit like that story about John F Kennedy Jr having an affair with Diana. Kind of.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Well, it would be a problem. While it does not stipulate the president must be Catholic, Buddhist, Hindi, Taoist, Muslim or Protestant, Kennedy was the first American president to be anything but of the reformed church. IIRC, one person said to him explicitly "you'll never get the White House unless you change your religion".
sow, that was in the 1960s.
In the 1780s, with a majority reformed-faith colonists, it would be rather difficult to put a Catholic on the throne, let alone a Catholic cardinal, no matter how Jacobite the colonies would be post Culloden
 
Top