WI: Sophia of Hanover stillborn

Back to the English succession -
The Brydges claim is only valid if you accept the illegality of Lady Catherine Grey's marriage.
Given that James' VI and I allowed her grandson to succeed to her husband's title it would be enough to suggest that James' VI regarded Elizabeth's commission into the marriage to have been shall we say less than scrupulous.
If so then I think the heir at law under Henry VIII's will was the senior heir general of Mary Tudor Queen of France and Duchess of Suffolk...
Charles Bruce, 4th Earl of Elgin & 3rd Earl of Aielsbury (29 May 1682-10 Feb 1747); m.1st London 7 Feb 1706 Lady Anne Savile (d.18 Jul 1717); m.2nd Burlington House 2 Feb 1720 Lady Juliana Boyle; m.3rd Somerset House 18 Jun 1739 Lady Caroline Campbell (12 Jan 1721-London 17 Jan 1803)

Unfortunately his father had been a loyal supporter of James II!!!
 
Done some genealogical research and the only guy from that branch who might seriously consider conversion is this fellow Louis Otto the son of the Count of Salm.

He's a possibility I'll grant, but will he convert?

Also, in regards to your comment on three shiny new kingdoms, why do you assume Scotland will just go along with it. They threw up a bit of a fuss with the Hanovers IOTL you'll recall.

There was that...

Anyway, if I remember rightly, the Old Pretender promised to guarantee religious freedom if they chose him. Personally, I don't see the restored Stuarts staying Catholic for long if they get to be in charge again...

Which war was that? I certainly don't recall Savoy switching sides during the War of the Spanish Succession...

Yes. Savoy got Sicily, then swaped it for the Austrian-ruled Sardinia.

Would it really be that bad? In my opinion, it could be quite an interesting prospect.

I'm an Austro/Habsburgophile.

Do the math... :p

Just one crazy idea that might be interesting:

Before his marriage to Anne Marie d'Orleans, Victor Amadeus of Savoy was engaged to Isabel Luisa, the only daughter of Peter II of Portugal and heir of the throne. The marriage didn't happen both due to her fragile health and the fear that with Victor living in Portugal and probably being king there France would take the chance to invade and annex Savoy.

But suppose that ITTL the marriage happens anyway (it would happen in 1682). Now Anne Marie is available to marry anyone else. But the next year the wife of Peter II, Maria Francisca of Savoy, still dies as IOTL, and the king is forced to remarried in order to have a male heir and preserve the Braganza dynasty. Having upset the French with the marriage of Isabel and Victor Amadeus, Peter II decides to keep the diplomatical balance and marries a French princess: Anne Marie herself.

So, ITTL the Savoyard claim to England and Scotland would go to the Portuguese descendents of Anne Marie of Orleans. While Portugal was an extremely Catholic country it was also one of the most reliable allies of England. They already sent a princess to be the English queen (Catherine of Braganza) and Peter II was a man pragmatic enough to perhaps accept to have one of his sons be converted to Anglicanism if it means that he would receive a crown - or you could have the next king of Portugal forcing his younger brother to accept the deal, or even the king himself renouncing his throne in name of his brother in order to get a bigger kingdom to him. So, the House of Braganza ruling Britain?

Braganza Britain...

Nice. :D

Now if only we could get a Habsburg Britain (from the Austrian branch, of course)... *sigh*
 
There was that...

Anyway, if I remember rightly, the Old Pretender promised to guarantee religious freedom if they chose him. Personally, I don't see the restored Stuarts staying Catholic for long if they get to be in charge again...
Or vice versa :D



Yes. Savoy got Sicily, then swaped it for the Austrian-ruled Sardinia.

Wild thought. If the Duke of Savoy (or his son) had turned Protestant to get the British throne, might that swap have been done the other way round, with Sicily retained and the mainland territories being swapped for Sardinia? That gives Britain the two islands (useful for a sea power) while Austria gets a defensible alpine frontier for its Italian lands. At a pincg, Savy itself and Nice might have gone to France to console her for this.


Now if only we could get a Habsburg Britain (from the Austrian branch, of course)... *sigh*

Iirc, Archduke Charles of Austria was mentioned at various times as a possible bridegroom for Elizabeth I or Mary Queen of Scots.

Also during the Wars of the Roses, both Charles the Bold of Burgundy and his son-in-law, Archduke Maximilian, regarded themselves as residual heirs of the House of Lancaster after the destruction of its main line in 1471. However, both Charles and his daughter Mary died prematurely, in 1476 and 1482, leaving Max in a struggle with the Flemish towns for custody of his young son. By the time he got that sorted, the Tudors were firmly in possession. I understand that he had a secret treaty with the pretender Perkin Warbeck, naming him as Warbeck's heir presumptive.

Whether that last could have been made to stick is debatable, but had either Charles or Mary lived into Richard III's reign, they might have had a chance to intervene.
 
Futher thought.

Suppose Charles II's sister Minette had married Emperor Leopold I instead of Philippe d'Orleans. In 1688, the Habsburgs were William III's allies, so religion is the only obstacle. If Leopold has a spare son or grandson, and is willing to let him become an Anglican (bit of a problem here, as Leopold was a right bigot, but he might yield to temptation) you could get a Protestant branch of the Habsburg House ruling Britain.
 
There was that...

Anyway, if I remember rightly, the Old Pretender promised to guarantee religious freedom if they chose him. Personally, I don't see the restored Stuarts staying Catholic for long if they get to be in charge again...
Or vice versa :D





Wild thought. If the Duke of Savoy (or his son) had turned Protestant to get the British throne, might that swap have been done the other way round, with Sicily retained and the mainland territories being swapped for Sardinia? That gives Britain the two islands (useful for a sea power) while Austria gets a defensible alpine frontier for its Italian lands. At a pincg, Savy itself and Nice might have gone to France to console her for this.




Iirc, Archduke Charles of Austria was mentioned at various times as a possible bridegroom for Elizabeth I or Mary Queen of Scots.

Also during the Wars of the Roses, both Charles the Bold of Burgundy and his son-in-law, Archduke Maximilian, regarded themselves as residual heirs of the House of Lancaster after the destruction of its main line in 1471. However, both Charles and his daughter Mary died prematurely, in 1476 and 1482, leaving Max in a struggle with the Flemish towns for custody of his young son. By the time he got that sorted, the Tudors were firmly in possession. I understand that he had a secret treaty with the pretender Perkin Warbeck, naming him as Warbeck's heir presumptive.

Whether that last could have been made to stick is debatable, but had either Charles or Mary lived into Richard III's reign, they might have had a chance to intervene.

Do you mean Charles V (I)? IIRC Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VII and Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII, were at different times offered as a bride for Charles. Although Henry VIII's daughter Mary was rather young and Charles needed a heir, so he couldn't wait that long; and IIRC it was a change in alliances which prevented the marriage of Charles V with Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII.
 
There was that...

Anyway, if I remember rightly, the Old Pretender promised to guarantee religious freedom if they chose him. Personally, I don't see the restored Stuarts staying Catholic for long if they get to be in charge again...

Well yes the Stuarts. I was more concerned about the Hamiltons personally.

Yes. Savoy got Sicily, then swaped it for the Austrian-ruled Sardinia.

Yes I am familiar with those facts. What I was questioning was Savoy switching sides. I thought they stayed on the side of the Austrians throughout and getting Sicily as a reward.

I'm an Austro/Habsburgophile.

Do the math... :p

Let's see...hmm..yes...carry the dual monarchy...

Ok fair enough ;)
 
There was that...

Anyway, if I remember rightly, the Old Pretender promised to guarantee religious freedom if they chose him. Personally, I don't see the restored Stuarts staying Catholic for long if they get to be in charge again...

Do you mean Charles V (I)? IIRC Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VII and Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII, were at different times offered as a bride for Charles. Although Henry VIII's daughter Mary was rather young and Charles needed a heir, so he couldn't wait that long; and IIRC it was a change in alliances which prevented the marriage of Charles V with Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII.

No, the Charles I had in mind was his grandson, a younger brother of Emperor Maximilian II and eventually father of Emperor Ferdinand II of Thirsty Years War fame.

Charles V was also Carlos I of Spain, so that would give us a Spanish Habsburg rather than a Austrian one. The later Charles was Austrian.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am familiar with those facts. What I was questioning was Savoy switching sides. I thought they stayed on the side of the Austrians throughout and getting Sicily as a reward.

I slightly misremembered the sequence of events. Victor Amadeus switched sides toward the end of the "Grand Alliance" war, ie shortly before he became a possible candidate for the British throne.

If Trevelyan has it right, he made the proposal in 1700, just after the death of Anne's young son, but William III was offended by his defection from the Allies, and preferred the Hanoverians who had stayed loyal right through. Istr that William also considered the Hohenzollerns, specifically Frederick William I, later father of Frederick the Great, and such a loathsome personality as to even make George I look good. So at least we were spared something.
 
Forgive me if I'm repeating anything, but my laptop is under repair and I only have limited access via a friend's netbook.

IIRC the closest protesttant heir in 1701 was in fact Charles Schomberg (1683-1713) through his mother Caroline, daughter of the Pfalz Elector Karl (?). But he was overlooked as the powers that be thought he wasn't noble enough. Had he have been chosen, he wouldn't have become King Charles III as he died before Anne, so perhaps his sister Frederica (1688-1751) might have become Queen.


Again IIRC, if for some reason an English Protestant heir was deemed important, the closest in 1701 would have been the Duke of Somerset, Charles Seymour (1662-1748), by way of descent from Hnery VII's youngest daughter Mary.


Of course, were either of the above scenarios to have occurred, who knows who would be on the UK throne in 2010, as marriages etc would have inevitably taken different paths. Then again the UK might not be a 'K' ... we could have a Republic!
 
Top