WI: Stuart chosen as Pope

leaving aside the unlike hood of it, I'd guess a Pope who claims the British crown(s) would set back Catholic emancipation in the UK, even if Henry does nothing to claim it during his Papacy
 
leaving aside the unlike hood of it, I'd guess a Pope who claims the British crown(s) would set back Catholic emancipation in the UK, even if Henry does nothing to claim it during his Papacy


Actually it's not that unlikely. Cardinal Henry was a frontrunner in at least one conclave, though I can't remember which. But considering he would be elected at the time of the French revolutionary/Napoleonic wars, I'm not sure he would make a difference from OTL.
 
Not that unlikely at all. He took part in the conclaves from 1758 on, so could have been elected at any of them .

By the 1775 election he was a fairly senior cardinal. That election had no obvious candidate (about 30 cardinals were considered papabile apparently, and the conclave took about 5 months ) .

It was dominated by the Jesuit argument pitting the curial cardinals against the 'court' cardinals, led by Louis XVI's archbishop. I have no idea what Henry's position on the Jesuits was, but given a few butterflies, the fact that he was a 'curia' cardinal (I think) , but closely connected with the royal houses, and that France was currently fighting Britain, might have given him a chance as a compromise candidate .

I doubt his election would make much political difference, and it all washes out in 1807 anyway.
 
Not that unlikely at all. He took part in the conclaves from 1758 on, so could have been elected at any of them .

By the 1775 election he was a fairly senior cardinal. That election had no obvious candidate (about 30 cardinals were considered papabile apparently, and the conclave took about 5 months ) .

It was dominated by the Jesuit argument pitting the curial cardinals against the 'court' cardinals, led by Louis XVI's archbishop. I have no idea what Henry's position on the Jesuits was, but given a few butterflies, the fact that he was a 'curia' cardinal (I think) , but closely connected with the royal houses, and that France was currently fighting Britain, might have given him a chance as a compromise candidate .

I doubt his election would make much political difference, and it all washes out in 1807 anyway.

OK lets say that he's elected in 1775, what difference would that make, if any, for the Jacobite movement? I can guess that Henry would grant his brother recognition as the rightful King of England, Scotland and Ireland but what besides that? Would Charles "III" be able to get an annulment from Louise of Stolberg-Gedern and remarry a more fertile bride (considering Charles had at least two bastards its pretty obvious the problem was with her)? And what type of Sovereign would Henry be for the Papal states? Assuming he lives to his OTL death he would have ruled for 31/32 years, so how would this change Papal policy?
 
OK lets say that he's elected in 1775, what difference would that make, if any, for the Jacobite movement? I can guess that Henry would grant his brother recognition as the rightful King of England, Scotland and Ireland but what besides that? Would Charles "III" be able to get an annulment from Louise of Stolberg-Gedern and remarry a more fertile bride (considering Charles had at least two bastards its pretty obvious the problem was with her)? And what type of Sovereign would Henry be for the Papal states? Assuming he lives to his OTL death he would have ruled for 31/32 years, so how would this change Papal policy?

But that's 1775. I'm talking about the one in 1800.
 
1800, he only has 7 years, as a prisoner of Bonaparte. No effect at all. In 1775 he has time to make his mark, even if he does get captured in 1796 as OTL.

I don't really know enough about him to predict how he would behave. From all accounts (including unfriendly ones) he seems to have been a lot more sensible and "smart" than his brother (sort of Chas. II and James II, reversed). And he seemed to harbour little rancour toward England.

OTL Pius spent a lot of time wrestling with Gallicanism and Febronianism. With his royal English background, Henry might have been more sympathetic to those movements.

One might suspect that many Englishmen , despite being firmly anti-Papist, might have taken a perverse pride in an English pope , the first since Adrian IV .

I think he would have made a good Pope. As to the Jacobites, by 1775 Jacobitism was pretty much extinct as a political force. Henry's election might have given it a fillip, but Geo III was pretty popular with the Tories by then , and for the Whigs to take up a Stuart pretender would have required some fairly agile back somersaults.

(In 1775 he was 50 years old, which is rather young for a Pope. In 1800 he would be 75, and, based on reports of Englishmen who met him around that time, I think he would not have accepted )
 
1800, he only has 7 years, as a prisoner of Bonaparte. No effect at all. In 1775 he has time to make his mark, even if he does get captured in 1796 as OTL.

I don't really know enough about him to predict how he would behave. From all accounts (including unfriendly ones) he seems to have been a lot more sensible and "smart" than his brother (sort of Chas. II and James II, reversed). And he seemed to harbour little rancour toward England.

OTL Pius spent a lot of time wrestling with Gallicanism and Febronianism. With his royal English background, Henry might have been more sympathetic to those movements.

One might suspect that many Englishmen , despite being firmly anti-Papist, might have taken a perverse pride in an English pope , the first since Adrian IV .

I think he would have made a good Pope. As to the Jacobites, by 1775 Jacobitism was pretty much extinct as a political force. Henry's election might have given it a fillip, but Geo III was pretty popular with the Tories by then , and for the Whigs to take up a Stuart pretender would have required some fairly agile back somersaults.

(In 1775 he was 50 years old, which is rather young for a Pope. In 1800 he would be 75, and, based on reports of Englishmen who met him around that time, I think he would not have accepted )

So in a way he would have been a better pick as the Jacobite pretender then his brother. Kinda sad really.
 
So in a way he would have been a better pick as the Jacobite pretender then his brother. Kinda sad really.


Well, yes and no. At least he had a fairly fulfilling life and career, which was probably as good as he would have had (being a younger son and all) if 1688 had never happened.

Which may be why he doesn't come across as being bitter like his brother.
 
Well, yes and no. At least he had a fairly fulfilling life and career, which was probably as good as he would have had (being a younger son and all) if 1688 had never happened.

Which may be why he doesn't come across as being bitter like his brother.

Probably. Not to mention the fact that he actually had something to do with his time, instead of sit around drinking and plotting (like Charles "III").
 
(In 1775 he was 50 years old, which is rather young for a Pope. In 1800 he would be 75, and, based on reports of Englishmen who met him around that time, I think he would not have accepted )

Leo X was 39 when he was elected pope, it was considered "too young" for such an office - even his comment (sometimes said to be a relative's) "Since God has granted us the papacy let us enjoy it"

Cesare Borgia was named Cardinal by Alexander VI (most likely with the intention of him becoming pope in turn), if at Alex. VI's death he were elected pope he would've been 28.

So (while that was in the Renaissance) there is no real "good" age for a cardinal to be elected pope. At 50 he might be considered to be a better candidate - having more energy (he certainly showed it up to the day he died, rivalling the hated Prince Albert and the Conde de Olivares in workload), and perhaps more tact/finesse to be pope.
 
So in a way he would have been a better pick as the Jacobite pretender then his brother. Kinda sad really.

I agree, a cool POD would be if something were to happen to Charlie - maybe before '45 maybe during, that Henry can't take/stay in Holy Orders. Henry marries whomever (I saw a TL once where someone married him off to Louise Marie of France (Louis XV's youngest daughter) and although both of them were extremely pious, they managed to have 5 children, and were drawn together by their piety), and becomes a far better/more congenial candidate for everyone to back to take back England, rather than Charlie's puffed-up arrogance.
 
I agree, a cool POD would be if something were to happen to Charlie - maybe before '45 maybe during, that Henry can't take/stay in Holy Orders. Henry marries whomever (I saw a TL once where someone married him off to Louise Marie of France (Louis XV's youngest daughter) and although both of them were extremely pious, they managed to have 5 children, and were drawn together by their piety), and becomes a far better/more congenial candidate for everyone to back to take back England, rather than Charlie's puffed-up arrogance.

Any chance you remember what TL it was? I would love to check it out. Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure. Henry seemed to be a good, down to earth fellow, but he lacked ambition, boldness and I believe charisma, things desperately needed by the Jacobites. Charles "III" had all three in spades. That was one of the biggest problems with James "III & VIII", lack of charisma and boldness. Both were needed to really start a rising in Britain. Say what you want about Bonnie Prince Charlie, the fact that the man managed to raise an army in Scotland by a combination of charisma and bluffing is nothing short of amazing.
 
Top