WI: Continuing House of Stuart-in-exile

So this is an idea I've been wondering about for a while now. Lets say the House of Stuart doesn't go extinct in 1807 and instead continues. Either Charles "III" produces a son or Henry "IX" never becomes a Cardinal and instead marries and has children. The point is the line survives. What does this mean for history? Will an obvious surviving line lead to continuing Papal and French support and recognition for the Jacobite movement? Would Napoleon (if he or someone like him comes to power) attempt restore them to use as puppet Monarchs in the UK? Was there any chance of a reconciliation between the House of Stuart and the House of Hanover? And if Britain has a female heir, like say Charlotte of Wales, would there be any chance of a marriage between her and the Stuart Heir?
 
So this is an idea I've been wondering about for a while now. Lets say the House of Stuart doesn't go extinct in 1807 and instead continues. Either Charles "III" produces a son or Henry "IX" never becomes a Cardinal and instead marries and has children. The point is the line survives. What does this mean for history? Will an obvious surviving line lead to continuing Papal and French support and recognition for the Jacobite movement? Would Napoleon (if he or someone like him comes to power) attempt restore them to use as puppet Monarchs in the UK? Was there any chance of a reconciliation between the House of Stuart and the House of Hanover? And if Britain has a female heir, like say Charlotte of Wales, would there be any chance of a marriage between her and the Stuart Heir?

A possible marriage POD for that is Elisabeth Farnese marries into the Stuarts.
 
while Bonnie Prince Charlie was a mess, and a drunk, even if he'd been better put together and able to make an heir with his wife, the sun was setting the the Stuarts in Exile, by 1760 France pulled out and the Vatican just waited till the Old Pretender died to cut them off, I don't see an heir really helping, maybe some son or grandson of Charlie might come up in the Napoleon Wars, but not in a meaningful way, there's a reason that George III was the one paying Henry "IX" bills, he was by the 1790s totally harmless to the house of Hanover, and in fact something of a curio for them, and any heir would likely be the same, maybe during the Scottish Revival under George IV and Victoria the Stuarts might be asked back and set up as minor lords in Scotland with some office from their past, maybe the "Count of Albany" the title Charles used in the 1770s till his death
 
while Bonnie Prince Charlie was a mess, and a drunk, even if he'd been better put together and able to make an heir with his wife, the sun was setting the the Stuarts in Exile, by 1760 France pulled out and the Vatican just waited till the Old Pretender died to cut them off, I don't see an heir really helping, maybe some son or grandson of Charlie might come up in the Napoleon Wars, but not in a meaningful way, there's a reason that George III was the one paying Henry "IX" bills, he was by the 1790s totally harmless to the house of Hanover, and in fact something of a curio for them, and any heir would likely be the same, maybe during the Scottish Revival under George IV and Victoria the Stuarts might be asked back and set up as minor lords in Scotland with some office from their past, maybe the "Count of Albany" the title Charles used in the 1770s till his death

I wouldn't be so sure. Remember the fact that the last Stuart brothers were childless factored heavily into the loss of support from the Papacy and France. Hell the French were hoping that the Stuart line would continue, so that they would remain a threat to the House of Hanover. As to the financial assistance, it was actually money the British owed them, via Mary Beatrice of Modena's dowry. And there's a big difference between OTL and TTL. A Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church couldn't be a reasonable threat, while a young heir, able to marry and produce children would be. Really the Jacobites were a much bigger threat then historians, who tend to follow the Whig tradition of portraying them as minor at best, like to say.

Finally, I was thinking of something more in the line of Victoria marrying the Stuart heir (providing he converts) thus restoring the House of Stuart and unifying the claims.
 
Finally, I was thinking of something more in the line of Victoria marrying the Stuart heir (providing he converts) thus restoring the House of Stuart and unifying the claims.

Nope....and it would be political suicide for anyone to even mention she should try in Parliament

However, i could see the Stuarts perhaps marrying into another Royal families line, perhaps the Spanish or Italian thrones
 
Nope....and it would be political suicide for anyone to even mention she should try in Parliament

However, i could see the Stuarts perhaps marrying into another Royal families line, perhaps the Spanish or Italian thrones

Well obviously I don't mean OTL Victoria, as a POD in the 1700s would definitely change things up. I mean a marriage with a Stuart heir for an heiress. As long as the groom converts to Protestantism, Parliament can do jack shit. There's nothing illegal about the marriage.
 
Well obviously I don't mean OTL Victoria, as a POD in the 1700s would definitely change things up. I mean a marriage with a Stuart heir for an heiress. As long as the groom converts to Protestantism, Parliament can do jack shit. There's nothing illegal about the marriage.

One problem with that though

Even if a Stuart were to convert, the majority of people would still view it as a catholic plot...gotta remember people were still strongly against Catholicism til what...mid 19th century?....so the only way i see this at all happening is if the Jacobite rebellions dont happen at all and people allow catholic emancipation earlier....which, given the timeframe....aint gonna happen, less everyone suddenly got over their religious fears, very, very quickly
 
One problem with that though

Even if a Stuart were to convert, the majority of people would still view it as a catholic plot...gotta remember people were still strongly against Catholicism til what...mid 19th century?....so the only way i see this at all happening is if the Jacobite rebellions dont happen at all and people allow catholic emancipation earlier....which, given the timeframe....aint gonna happen, less everyone suddenly got over their religious fears, very, very quickly

Well I think your off date-wise. The only real reason that Catholic emancipation took so long was because of Kings George III and IV dragging their feet about it, saying it violated the Coronation oath or something like that. Considering that most of the British were accepting of Catholic emancipation in the beginning of the 19th century, I think that it would be fine.
 
Well I think your off date-wise. The only real reason that Catholic emancipation took so long was because of Kings George III and IV dragging their feet about it, saying it violated the Coronation oath or something like that. Considering that most of the British were accepting of Catholic emancipation in the beginning of the 19th century, I think that it would be fine.

the Duke of Wellington was violently against it, as was Sir Robert Peel, the King, while playing a major role was hardly alone, public opinion might support emancipation but there was a large and vocal minority against it, and allowing Catholics to vote is one thing, a Catholic (or ex-catholic, or member of famous catholic family) marrying the Monarch is something totally different
 
There's also the question of "what's in it for the British?" The Jacobites were no threat to anyone by this point (they might put on airs, but not even their nominal hosts took them seriously anymore). No advantage to be gained by going through all the conversion, etc. concerns, in order to marry a landless, dispossessed cousin.

Much simpler to just marry generic Protestant German Prince #2479, as the Hannoverians had been doing pretty much from day 1.
 
Well I think your off date-wise. The only real reason that Catholic emancipation took so long was because of Kings George III and IV dragging their feet about it, saying it violated the Coronation oath or something like that. Considering that most of the British were accepting of Catholic emancipation in the beginning of the 19th century, I think that it would be fine.

British anti-Catholicism was alive and well until at least the mid 19th century and in a reduced form later on. One of the reasons some Ultra-Tories pushed for the Great Reform was in the correct belief that expanding the electorate would down the social scale in England would prevent Emancipation. It's actually similar to attitudes to immigration which are much more favourable at the top of the social scale than the bottom.
 
One problem with that though

Even if a Stuart were to convert, the majority of people would still view it as a catholic plot...gotta remember people were still strongly against Catholicism til what...mid 19th century?....so the only way i see this at all happening is if the Jacobite rebellions dont happen at all and people allow catholic emancipation earlier....which, given the timeframe....aint gonna happen, less everyone suddenly got over their religious fears, very, very quickly

I think that a 'direct' conversion would be viewed with great suspicion. And the likelihood of a 19C British queen marrying against the wish of Parliament is very small indeed.

However, a second degree reunion might be possible. One of the Stuart brothers produces a legitimate daughter, and (somehow) retains a greater degree of relevancy than OTL. The daughter then marries into a Protestant, but non Rome-o-phobic dynasty,Prussia being an obvious choice, but Denmark, Netherlands, one of the small German states all possible, depending on how "good a catch" a Stuart "heiress" is seen as (not very good at all, OTL), converting to Protestantism as she does so. The son of that marriage (second son if the daughter is actually Queen), is then a "good Protestant", and could well be a suitable husband for a British heiress.
 
I think that a 'direct' conversion would be viewed with great suspicion. And the likelihood of a 19C British queen marrying against the wish of Parliament is very small indeed.

However, a second degree reunion might be possible. One of the Stuart brothers produces a legitimate daughter, and (somehow) retains a greater degree of relevancy than OTL. The daughter then marries into a Protestant, but non Rome-o-phobic dynasty,Prussia being an obvious choice, but Denmark, Netherlands, one of the small German states all possible, depending on how "good a catch" a Stuart "heiress" is seen as (not very good at all, OTL), converting to Protestantism as she does so. The son of that marriage (second son if the daughter is actually Queen), is then a "good Protestant", and could well be a suitable husband for a British heiress.


Small problem with that is....they wouldnt be a Stuart anymore....theyd be a German descended line, like the Hanoverians...kinda against the point were trying to make
And i never said shed go against Parliament, i was stating Parliament wouldnt allow it and she wouldnt do it
 
Well, if she were the only daughter , she would still be the Stuart heir. The Stuart line would be restored. After all, if Queen Anne's son William D. of Gloucester had lived , no one would have denied he was the Stuart heir ?
 
Well, if she were the only daughter , she would still be the Stuart heir. The Stuart line would be restored. After all, if Queen Anne's son William D. of Gloucester had lived , no one would have denied he was the Stuart heir ?

That just means that she is the last Stuart. Her son isn't a Stuart, he will be of whatever house her husband is a part off, whether that be the House of Holstein-Gottorp or the House of Hohenzollern.

It's a lot like Victoria in Great Britain. Queen Victoria was a Hanoverian, but her sons were not.

Edit: What needs to happen is you need to find a Protestant country (not the UK) that doesn't follow Salic law, like the Netherlands. Make one of the Stuart brothers have a son, have a woman be the queen of that country, and then marry that son to the queen. That way, you at least ensure that the descendents are Stuarts.
 
That just means that she is the last Stuart. Her son isn't a Stuart, he will be of whatever house her husband is a part off, whether that be the House of Holstein-Gottorp or the House of Hohenzollern.

It's a lot like Victoria in Great Britain. Queen Victoria was a Hanoverian, but her sons were not.

Edit: What needs to happen is you need to find a Protestant country (not the UK) that doesn't follow Salic law, like the Netherlands. Make one of the Stuart brothers have a son, have a woman be the queen of that country, and then marry that son to the queen. That way, you at least ensure that the descendents are Stuarts.

The Netherlands followed semi-Salic law until Wilhelmina when it became clear that she would be the only heir of Willem III and Emma of Waldeck-Pyrmont.

Monarchy Succession Laws before various changes:

Germany, France, Austria (HRE) and Italy followed Salic Law
Denmark, Hungary, Bohemia, the Netherlands and Sweden (semi-Salic)
Russia (I'm not sure) if it's Salic or semi-Salic. The wording of the Pauline Succession states semi-Salic (a girl only if/when all males in the house are extinct)
 
The Netherlands followed semi-Salic law until Wilhelmina when it became clear that she would be the only heir of Willem III and Emma of Waldeck-Pyrmont.

Monarchy Succession Laws before various changes:

Germany, France, Austria (HRE) and Italy followed Salic Law
Denmark, Hungary, Bohemia, the Netherlands and Sweden (semi-Salic)
Russia (I'm not sure) if it's Salic or semi-Salic. The wording of the Pauline Succession states semi-Salic (a girl only if/when all males in the house are extinct)

Wouldn't Spain be a good bet then? After all several illegitimate Stuart lines are Spanish nobles, Philip V was a supporter of the Jacobites and a Stuart Prince would be a good pick to keep the country from foreign entanglements.
 
Wouldn't Spain be a good bet then? After all several illegitimate Stuart lines are Spanish nobles, Philip V was a supporter of the Jacobites and a Stuart Prince would be a good pick to keep the country from foreign entanglements.

It would be interesting to get a Spanish Stuart king-consort for a *Isabella II however it would move him even further away from the possibility of being king for a *Victoria/Charlotte, since the British hated the Spaniards as much as they hated the Pope.

Also, in a book I read on the Peninsular War, it said that the British were disgusted in general by their Spanish allies, and even went so far as to bother the French camps in winter for supplies and vice versa.
 
Top