WI: A Restored Bonnie Prince Charlie Weds Emperor Karl VII's Eldest Daughter?

The question is what would the Danes be offered to make a restoration of the Hanoverians worth it? A domestic revolt in alliance with a joint Danish-Hanoverian invasion would have a great chance of success, in fact if the Royal Navy decides to let the Danish land a invasion force, Denmark could likely win on it own.

So here's my idea; the Stuart retake the British crown in 1745, the Hanoverians and much of the anti-Stuart British elite flee to Hanover. British foreign policy pretty much follow the same afterward as in OTL, simply because British interest haven't changed, so we still see the Seven Years' War happening, there Austria decides to support a Hanoverian reconquest of GB, they makes a deal together with Russia with Denmark-Norway to support the Hanoverian invasion against gaining Gottorp from Russia and Bremen-Verden from Hanover. In GB deals are made with opponents in the British navy of Stuarts to join the revolt. This result in domestic uprising, while a joint Danish-Hanoverian army land in England.

The result are that Seven Years’ War end in a Austrian victory and the Hanoverians return to power in GB.

That could be interesting. But by this point, Charlie is likely to have a son(s) of his own (probably born late '40s), while George II's heir is Friedrich Ludwig (who was considered English enough), and future George III (b.1738) has been raised in Germany between ages 7 and 18yo (so a far more "German" George than OTL). I wonder if they wouldn't just depose Charlie in favour of his son?
 
That could be interesting. But by this point, Charlie is likely to have a son(s) of his own (probably born late '40s), while George II's heir is Friedrich Ludwig (who was considered English enough), and future George III (b.1738) has been raised in Germany between ages 7 and 18yo (so a far more "German" George than OTL). I wonder if they wouldn't just depose Charlie in favour of his son?

The benefit with a Hanoverian is that the Hanoverians can bring foreign support. The benefit with the Seven Years' War as background are because there will be nobody to stab the Hanoverian and their potential Danish allies in the back. For Denmark especially this is a benefit, as they tried their best to stay neutral through the 18th century, but here they get a friendly regime on the British throne, while getting the backing of Austria, France and Russia. But they still need something to make it worth it. Gottorp and Bremen-Verden are pretty obvious, and for the Hanoverians trading Bremen-Verden for UK are worth, while the Russians can make a deal with Austria for territory elsewhere (Duchy of Prussia) for Gottorp (which really isn't worth a lot for Russia) and taking UK out are pretty much a cheaqp and easy way to end the conflict. The deal with Denmark could also be sweeted with relative worthless colonial concessions elsewhere (like the British Virgin Islands and Canada).

So why bring the Danes aboard, Denmark delivers a significant naval force, while having also having a army, which wouldn't be as obvious a hostile force to the British as for example a French army.
 
So why bring the Danes aboard, Denmark delivers a significant naval force, while having also having a army, which wouldn't be as obvious a hostile force to the British as for example a French army.

And if a Danish-Dutch army were to "swamp" Britain, the British would probably dance with them through the streets.

Could Charlie attempt to buy the Danes off? If he has a son/daughter of age (yeah, his father will probably pooh-pooh the match and want something like a good Austrian archduchess/French princess; but politically, a Protestant daughter-in-law would be seem to be a smart move), can he betrothe him/her to Christian VII or maybe Caroline or Vilhelmine? Both his younger daughters married cousins, so I imagine a second queen for a daughter would be quite the feather. As to her being Protestant, the British would probably cheer her.

Also, I think to get George II to want to take back England would require a shift in his personality. He didn't like Parliament's restrictions on him and he told Walpole(?) on one occasion: "the devil take your damned island to the bottom of the sea, as long as I can get out of it before he does." I wonder if he'd seriously be interested in taking the British throne back. Sure, it's a nice idea, and he'd probably still style himself as "His Majesty, the King of Great Britain, France and Ireland" rather than "HSH, the Elector of Hannover", but I wonder how much back he'd put into it.

Also, BPC seems a lot more flexible than what his dad/granddad was. Not that that makes him a political/military genius, mind you. But I do think he'd be willing to "give" on certain things - again, not saying that this will keep him in power - but give him 10 years on the throne (1745-1756) and he might be able to make some serious in-roads. Sure, he could be petty, arrogant, temperamental, and definitely his mother's child in some regards, but OTL he was bitter and a drunk, that was pissed off by how France had used him. (Yes, I know, this is perhaps grossly over-estimating Charlie and under-estimating the Stuart ability to fuck things up).
 
The question is what would the Danes be offered to make a restoration of the Hanoverians worth it? A domestic revolt in alliance with a joint Danish-Hanoverian invasion would have a great chance of success, in fact if the Royal Navy decides to let the Danish land a invasion force, Denmark could likely win on it own.

So here's my idea; the Stuart retake the British crown in 1745, the Hanoverians and much of the anti-Stuart British elite flee to Hanover. British foreign policy pretty much follow the same afterward as in OTL, simply because British interest haven't changed, so we still see the Seven Years' War happening, there Austria decides to support a Hanoverian reconquest of GB, they makes a deal together with Russia with Denmark-Norway to support the Hanoverian invasion against gaining Gottorp from Russia and Bremen-Verden from Hanover. In GB deals are made with opponents in the British navy of Stuarts to join the revolt. This result in domestic uprising, while a joint Danish-Hanoverian army land in England.

The result are that Seven Years’ War end in a Austrian victory and the Hanoverians return to power in GB.

The thing is though, while the Stuarts were on the English throne, England wasn’t actually all that anti France, and a restored Stuart monarchy, provided perhaps some guarantees like France leaves The Netherlands independent/doesn’t base a navy there, is reasonably likely to stay neutral in the 7YW, especially as the Stuart’s will likely be championing themselves as better for Britain as they don’t have the Hanoverian possessions and so Britain won’t be dragged into every German conflict that breaks out.
 
The thing is though, while the Stuarts were on the English throne, England wasn’t actually all that anti France, and a restored Stuart monarchy, provided perhaps some guarantees like France leaves The Netherlands independent/doesn’t base a navy there, is reasonably likely to stay neutral in the 7YW, especially as the Stuart’s will likely be championing themselves as better for Britain as they don’t have the Hanoverian possessions and so Britain won’t be dragged into every German conflict that breaks out.

That's actually a splendid point and one that might please the people after years of War...
 
The thing is though, while the Stuarts were on the English throne, England wasn’t actually all that anti France, and a restored Stuart monarchy, provided perhaps some guarantees like France leaves The Netherlands independent/doesn’t base a navy there, is reasonably likely to stay neutral in the 7YW, especially as the Stuart’s will likely be championing themselves as better for Britain as they don’t have the Hanoverian possessions and so Britain won’t be dragged into every German conflict that breaks out.

The Stuarts wasn’t anti-French, because it wasn’t in the geopolitical interest to side against France at the time as England lacked mainland interests and their interest was mainly colonial, where the Dutch and Spanish was their opponent. In the 18th century that have changed, at that point the French are the main threat toward the British colonial empire.
 
The Stuarts wasn’t anti-French, because it wasn’t in the geopolitical interest to side against France at the time as England lacked mainland interests and their interest was mainly colonial, where the Dutch and Spanish was their opponent. In the 18th century that have changed, at that point the French are the main threat toward the British colonial empire.

It really depends on how much the french are willing to concede when it comes to extra continental affairs. France has always been much much more focused on Europe while Britain the same for colonies, so it depends whether the french are able to realise this and secure the British friendship by means such as dismantling the unprofitable french east India company, ceding land in America (like how Voltaire said that ceding a few acres of snow was a great deal following the end of New France after the seven years war only before they lose)
 
The thing is though, while the Stuarts were on the English throne, England wasn’t actually all that anti France, and a restored Stuart monarchy, provided perhaps some guarantees like France leaves The Netherlands independent/doesn’t base a navy there, is reasonably likely to stay neutral in the 7YW, especially as the Stuart’s will likely be championing themselves as better for Britain as they don’t have the Hanoverian possessions and so Britain won’t be dragged into every German conflict that breaks out.
While many factors went into England entering the 7YW, the bottom line is that I don't see how the Stuarts are able to head off conflict in the Americas that predated Frederick moving against Austria. Maybe they don't respond by dispatching a lot of troops and important generals, but border conflict was hard to squash, especially considering the French practice of sending and funding Indian raids, which didn't allow for the Colonial governments a lot of leeway in prioritizing royal decrees over the outrage of the citizenry.

Come to think of it, how would a Stuart revival be received in the Americas? I can see New England having little patience for it, as there were uprisings against the last Stuart King parallel to the Glorious Revolution, and anti-Catholicism was pretty widely shared. The same goes for the Dutch factions in New York politics.

My theory is that a lot of the American Revolution's breakdown of who supported who and to what degree had roots in the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. I don't think its a coincidence that the Congregationalists of New England and the backcountry Presbyterians in Pennsylvania and Virginia were the two strongest groupings in their patriot leanings, nor am I surprised that High Church Anglicans and Catholics were much more prone to being Loyalists. Granted, much of this was about colonial politics (the two sides in the North Carolina Regulators War broke about the same way in 1775, as did the Quaker/Presbyterian split in Pennsylvania, and the Livingston/DeLancey factions in New York), but there is a reason why George III famously called it a "Presbyterian Rebellion".
 
Last edited:
The thing is though, while the Stuarts were on the English throne, England wasn’t actually all that anti France, and a restored Stuart monarchy, provided perhaps some guarantees like France leaves The Netherlands independent/doesn’t base a navy there, is reasonably likely to stay neutral in the 7YW, especially as the Stuart’s will likely be championing themselves as better for Britain as they don’t have the Hanoverian possessions and so Britain won’t be dragged into every German conflict that breaks out.

As to no continental entanglements, I feel that could make a major selling point.

In a way, I could see Britain being less interested in France leaving the Southern Netherlands. OTL, the French were the only ones to want it, and the British were the only ones who didn't want them to have it. However, that's more the Whig government/Hannoverians IIRC. The Stuarts might regard the Dutch with suspicion, especially given the whole relationship with them. Seeds for the next round of European conflict anyone? Russia, France, Austria vs. the Dutch and Prussia (maybe Friedrich II creates his Fürstenbund that he did for the War of the Bavarian Succession earlier) - unless directly involved (with no Hannover) England might enter her "splendid isolation" a century ahead of schedule.

The Stuarts wasn’t anti-French, because it wasn’t in the geopolitical interest to side against France at the time as England lacked mainland interests and their interest was mainly colonial, where the Dutch and Spanish was their opponent. In the 18th century that have changed, at that point the French are the main threat toward the British colonial empire.

Unless something major changes towards France's colonial policies (i.e. Choiseul gets his dream of settling Louisiane/Guiana), I don't think Britain has anything major to fear. Now India on the other hand...

It really depends on how much the french are willing to concede when it comes to extra continental affairs. France has always been much much more focused on Europe while Britain the same for colonies, so it depends whether the french are able to realise this and secure the British friendship by means such as dismantling the unprofitable french east India company, ceding land in America (like how Voltaire said that ceding a few acres of snow was a great deal following the end of New France after the seven years war only before they lose)

As I say, France probably wouldn't have a reason to want to hold onto Quebec or Louisiane (besides prestige), so they'll probably be happy to wave it goodbye - although, if France has (at least part of) the Southern Netherlands here (can't see the Dutch being comfortable with France as a neighbour), it could change France's outlook - I doubt it (unless Damiens or some TTL assassin bops of Louis XV).

While many factors went into England entering the 7YW, the bottom line is that I don't see how the Stuarts are able to head off conflict in the Americas that predated Frederick moving against Austria. Maybe they don't respond by dispatching a lot of troops and important generals, but border conflict was hard to squash, especially considering the French practice of sending and funding Indian raids, which didn't allow for the Colonial governments a lot of leeway in prioritizing royal decrees over the outrage of the citizenry.

Come to think of it, how would a Stuart revival be received in the Americas? I can see New England having little patience for it, as there were uprisings against the last Stuart King parallel to the Glorious Revolution, and anti-Catholicism was pretty widely shared. The same goes for the Dutch factions in New York politics.

My theory is that a lot of the American Revolution's breakdown of who supported who and to what degree had roots in the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. I don't think its a coincidence that the Congregationalists of New England and the backcountry Presbyterians in Pennsylvania and Virginia were the two strongest groupings in their patriot leanings, nor am I surprised that High Church Anglicans and Catholics were much more prone to being Loyalists. Granted, much of this was about colonial politics (the two sides in the North Carolina Regulators War broke about the same way in 1775, as did the Quaker/Presbyterian split in Pennsylvania, and the Livingston/DeLancey factions in New York), but there is a reason why George III famously called it a "Presbyterian Rebellion".

I must admit, this is one of the topics that is often glanced over in a Stuart Restoration/Survival discussion, so I honestly can't say how it would affect things. BPC might have to agree to "live and let live" for the colonies. But I'd be interested in seeing how the Stuarts deal with it.
 
I must admit, this is one of the topics that is often glanced over in a Stuart Restoration/Survival discussion, so I honestly can't say how it would affect things. BPC might have to agree to "live and let live" for the colonies. But I'd be interested in seeing how the Stuarts deal with it.

I think another factor to consider is that the economies of the colonies- the southern colonies with their focus on plantation agriculture probably wouldn’t fare well if they lost all their European markets which, if the Bourbon-Stuart friendship that controls the Atlantic put sanctions on them, they would. So I’d say there’s a decent chance the south would stay loyal. Maybe without the pan American sentiment being given time to build up we fracture into a loyalist south led by elite plantation owners and an independent New England
 
I think another factor to consider is that the economies of the colonies- the southern colonies with their focus on plantation agriculture probably wouldn’t fare well if they lost all their European markets which, if the Bourbon-Stuart friendship that controls the Atlantic put sanctions on them, they would. So I’d say there’s a decent chance the south would stay loyal. Maybe without the pan American sentiment being given time to build up we fracture into a loyalist south led by elite plantation owners and an independent New England

I think @Direwolf22 had a similar thing in Disaster at Leuthen where New England and the south end up being separate entities, but it's a long time since I read DaL, so I can't be sure.
 
ICR where I read it, unfortunately. Wish I could remember, since it would be kinda interesting. Maybe @Urbanus VII could help?

I think Edward Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719-1766, Cambridge, 2011... But I don't remember well :neutral:
In April 1729 Charles Edward returned with his father to the Palazzo Muti, while his mother remained in Bologna: Clementina did, however, come to Rome subsequently, although James Edward as a consequence spent much of the time at his summer residence at Albano with his sons. While in Rome Charles Edward rode, promenaded, attended mass, and socialized: in June the philosophe Montesquieu was very taken by both princes. James Edward, meanwhile, began to plan his elder son's future: an idea that he should marry The Holy Roman Emperor's youngest daughter, being succeeded by the suggestion of an alliance to the princess of Mecklenbourg.
 
I think Edward Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719-1766, Cambridge, 2011... But I don't remember well :neutral:

Thanks. I wonder why he [James] considered an alliance with Mecklenburg? She'd be Protestant and not particularly well connected, since IIRC, the only "princess" available around Charlie's age was the duke of Schwerin's niece. Unless he hoped for a union between James and Anna Leopoldovna/Elisabeth Katharina, which would've been considerably hard given that a) she wasn't even in his custody and b) not exactly either beautiful, wealthy or particularly well-connected (and shortly due to convert to Orthodoxy).
 
Top