Author Topic: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread  (Read 22347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« on: March 03, 2006, 06:41:14 AM »
If anyone's interested, here's a 'counterfactual' thread, like the one on the Tudor board.

One of the things I was thinking of is what might have happened to these various Stuarts who died young, if they had survived, or at least one of them had:
-Children of James VI/I
*Margaret Stuart 1598-1600
*Robert Bruce Stuart, Duke of Kintyre 1602
*Mary Stuart 1605-1607
*Sophia Stuart 1606

Who might the girls have married? Would Robert have been a close councilor/general for Charles I in the Civil War? Would the Cromwellians have executed him too?

-Children of Charles I
*Elizabeth Stuart 1635-1650
*Anne Stuart 1637-1640
*Catherine Stuart 1639
*Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester 1640-1660

The girls would have been 25, 23 and 21 at the time of the Restoration. Would they have been married by then? In all likelihood, Anne and Catherine would have been kept in England with Elizabeth and Henry. And what of Henry? Would he have been considered an alternative  king to James II (instead of Monmouth)?

-Children of James II and Anne Hyde
*Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge 1660-1661
*James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge 1663-1667
*Charles Stuart, Duke of Kendal 1666-1667
*Edgar Stuart, Duke of Cambridge 1667-1671
*Henrietta Stuart 1669
*Catherine Stuart 1671

If the eldest, Charles, had survived, he obviously would have been heir presumptive to the throne. However, since the legality (and indeed existence) of his father's 1659 marriage to Anne Hyde was in doubt, his legitimacy could always be questioned. No doubt Charles II would have had the other children - especially boys like James and Edgar - brought up as Protestants. Charles might have allowed James to bring up the girls as Catholics, since they wouldn't have a good chance to succeed the throne, and since it would give them a better chance of a good marriage.

-Children of James II and Mary of Modena
*Catherine Laura Stuart 1675
*Isabella Stuart 1676-1681
*Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge 1677
*Elizabeth Stuart 1678
*Charlotte Maria Stuart 1682
*Louise Marie Stuart 1692-1712

We speculated on Louise Marie's fate on another thread - might she have entered a convent, or maybe even married a Conti or Conde? Does anyone know if Isabella, the only one who lived to be a toddler (apart from Louise Marie) was intended to be a Catholic or a Protestant? If Charles, Duke of Cambridge (1677) had survived, wouldn't Charles II have had him made a Protestant? And who might the girls have married?

I know not everyone shares my passion for 'What if's but I'd love to hear your thoughts! :D
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline ilyala

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • il y a
    • View Profile
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2006, 09:18:08 AM »
actually i'm more interested in henry frederick, prince of wales, the oldest son of james vi/i... he seems like an interesting character, i know he was discussed before but i still can't help wondering about him.

as for the ones you mentioned,  the one i can think of is henry, duke of gloucester. had he lived till 1688, mary still would have been heir to the throne after her brother, however william would have been further down on the list. considerring the mysoginistic times (despite the fact that queen elizabeth had already existed) i'm thinking that maybe at least to some, henry would have been preferred to his aunt. unlike william, he wouldn't have been king to another country, which was quite an inconvenient...

i would also be interested in queen anne's son, who died when he was eleven... had he lived he would have been king... maybe had heirs... and so on...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by ilyala »
'loving might be a mistake, but it's worth making'
ilya


Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2006, 10:29:07 AM »
Quote

as for the ones you mentioned,  the one i can think of is henry, duke of gloucester. had he lived till 1688, mary still would have been heir to the throne after her brother, however william would have been further down on the list. considerring the mysoginistic times (despite the fact that queen elizabeth had already existed) i'm thinking that maybe at least to some, henry would have been preferred to his aunt. unlike william, he wouldn't have been king to another country, which was quite an inconvenient...


You mean Henry would have been preferred to his niece, Mary? Very possibly. Who could he have married? He would have been 48 in 1688 so probably settled down with a family.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline ilyala

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • il y a
    • View Profile
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2006, 03:29:05 PM »
yeah i meant his niece  :-[

as i said, he wasn't king of another country. probably by that time married with children... i've heard good reports of him... of course a person can change, but still
'loving might be a mistake, but it's worth making'
ilya


palatine

  • Guest
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2006, 03:33:28 PM »
Quote
If anyone's interested, here's a 'counterfactual' thread, like the one on the Tudor board.

One of the things I was thinking of is what might have happened to these various Stuarts who died young, if they had survived, or at least one of them had:
-Children of James VI/I
*Margaret Stuart 1598-1600
*Robert Bruce Stuart, Duke of Kintyre 1602
*Mary Stuart 1605-1607
*Sophia Stuart 1606

Who might the girls have married? Would Robert have been a close councilor/general for Charles I in the Civil War? Would the Cromwellians have executed him too?

-Children of Charles I
*Elizabeth Stuart 1635-1650
*Anne Stuart 1637-1640
*Catherine Stuart 1639
*Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester 1640-1660

The girls would have been 25, 23 and 21 at the time of the Restoration. Would they have been married by then? In all likelihood, Anne and Catherine would have been kept in England with Elizabeth and Henry.


Charles I's brother Robert probably would have waited to marry until after Charles did; by that time the Thirty Years War was going strong, limiting the pool of available brides.  To shore up Charles's French alliance, he probably would have married a French bride from the powerful families of Rohan, Tremouille, or Bouillon.  Those three families were Huguenots, which meant that Robert's French bride would have acted as a counterweight to the Catholicism of Charles's bride.

Robert would have been a member of Charles's privy council, but it's unlikely that he would have held any other important post.  Thanks to his father's tutelage, Charles would have been reluctant to allow a potential rival to hold a position of authority.  Once war broke out, Robert would have been appointed as one of Charles I's generals by virtue of being a member of the royal family.  It's unlikely that he would have been a good one, since he would have had no opportunity to gain practical experience of warfare.  I doubt that he would have been executed so long as one of his brother's sons remained alive and out of Parliament's clutches.  

As for Charles I's sisters, Margaret might have married Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden or possibly an Italian prince.  By the time the other two would have been old enough to marry, the Thirty Years War had broken out, limiting their choices.  It’s probable that one would have married Frederick Henry of Orange, while the other might have married an Italian prince.  They might also have married into the French nobility.

There is no reason to think that any of Charles II's siblings who were being held prisoner by Parliament would not have been released right on schedule.  They would have joined their mother as a matter of course.  It's unlikely that any of them would have married during the Interregnum due to their poverty.

After the Restoration, they would have had a narrow pool to choose from.  Charles II's decision to marry Catherine of Portugal alienated the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs and their clients.  Poor Henri Jules de Bourbon-Conde was considered a very eligible young man, and there were various Italian princes and princesses available.  Hortense Mancini would have been a dark horse candidate as a bride for Henry.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palatine »

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2006, 04:22:00 AM »
Charles II's youngest brother Henry married Elisabeth Charlotte (daughter of the elector Palatine). He saved his sister Minette's life when she fell ill suddenly in 1670. Remembering his own brush with death ten years earlier, he instructed that the doctors be sent away.

Minette and Liselotte corresponded regularly throughout their lives. Liselotte enjoyed hearing the gossip from Versailles, and Minette's funny stories about Monsieur, however she was glad she didn't have to live there!

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were among those who went over to William in 1688. Henry had sworn to his father to stay faithful to the Anglican church. He also disapproved of (both) his brothers' dissipated ways.

Henry died in 1695 (which was quite good going for a Stuart). He and Liselotte had only one daughter who survived into adulthood. She was named Elizabeth after Henry's sister.

Elizabeth, Electress of Hanover ascended the throne on the death of Queen Anne in 1714 (as Elizabeth II). Liselotte had been particularly fond of her grandmother Elizabeth Stuart and was proud to see her daughter on the throne of her ancestors.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2006, 06:34:30 AM »
Thanks for that interesting contribution Bell!  :D :D And thanks for your input too Palatine!

Does anyone have any thoughts on what might have been the future of Isabella Stuart 1676-1681?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2006, 07:06:18 AM »
Quote
Thanks for that interesting contribution Bell!  :D :D And thanks for your input too Palatine!

Does anyone have any thoughts on what might have been the future of Isabella Stuart 1676-1681?


She would have been taken into exile with her parents. I think she wouldn't have had much chance on the marriage market, like her younger siblings. By the time things began to look promising for the Jacobites (say 1710-1715) she would have been already over thirty. :(
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

palatine

  • Guest
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2006, 09:47:46 AM »
I like bell's hypothetical, but I don't think Liselotte would have been considered as a bride for Henry.  Liselotte was about eight years old at the time of the Restoration, twelve years younger than Henry.  Charles II would have wanted to marry Henry off immediately to counteract James's disastrous marriage to Anne Hyde, not wait for Liselotte to grow up.  Also, Liselotte's father was persona non grata to the Stuarts.

I think a marriage between Henry and Hortense Mancini would have been more likely.  Hortense was about fifteen, beautiful, and filthy rich.  She also had the backing of Henrietta Maria.

Henry's survival probably would have kept the Duke of Monmouth out of mischief by limiting the support he found among English politicians.  Henry might have been able to avert the Glorious Revolution by brokering a deal between William of Orange, James II and the Whigs to establish himself as Regent for young James Edward.  If he couldn't broker such a deal, Henry wouldn't have been considered as an alternate king after the deposition of James II because William had an army and Henry didn't.

An interesting hypothetical is what might have happened if everything had happened on schedule until circa 1699.  What if Philippe II of Orleans gave up on France, where his myriad talents were unappreciated, and moved with his family to England?  William III was already sounding out alternative successors to the throne, since he knew William of Gloucester was not long for the world and because Sophia was ambivalent about accepting the reversion of the throne.  If Philippe and his children had converted to the Anglican religion, their claims would have superceded those of his great-aunt Sophia.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palatine »

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2006, 12:42:35 PM »
Quote

An interesting hypothetical is what might have happened if everything had happened on schedule until circa 1699.  What if Philippe II of Orleans gave up on France, where his myriad talents were unappreciated, and moved with his family to England?  William III was already sounding out alternative successors to the throne, since he knew William of Gloucester was not long for the world and because Sophia was ambivalent about accepting the reversion of the throne.  If Philippe and his children had converted to the Anglican religion, their claims would have superceded those of his great-aunt Sophia.


Philippe's daughters would have not been exposed to all the temptations and luxuries on offer at Versailles, and would have become respectable churchgoing types....well, maybe not. :-/ He would have ruined the British economy insead of ruining the French one.
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2006, 01:50:06 PM »
Thanks so much for your input guys!  :D Do you think any sister of Mary II and Anne by Anne Hyde - Henrietta Stuart or Catherine Stuart for example - would also have been brought up Protestant at Charles II's insistence? And who might they have married?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

palatine

  • Guest
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2006, 03:14:45 PM »
Quote
Thanks so much for your input guys!  :D Do you think any sister of Mary II and Anne by Anne Hyde - Henrietta Stuart or Catherine Stuart for example - would also have been brought up Protestant at Charles II's insistence? And who might they have married?


Charles II probably would have insisted that they should be raised as Protestants, and he might have tried to arrange Protestant husbands for them.  George of Hanover had five younger brothers available, and the Elector of Brandenburg had an eligible son.  However, James II wanted to arrange Catholic marriages for his daughters.  He was forced to accept the Protestant marriages arranged for Mary and Anne, but he might have insisted on finding Catholic husbands for Henrietta and Catherine.

An interesting hypothetical:  What if William of Orange had married Liselotte, Mary had married the Dauphin, and Anne had married Carlos II the Bewitched of Spain?  Could the Glorious Revolution have taken place and succeeded under William and Liselotte’s leadership?  

(All three of these marriages were real possibilities at the time.  Anne really was a candidate for marriage to Carlos II, while James was eager to marry Mary to the Dauphin.  William of Orange was considered as a potential husband for Liselotte, but her father rejected the idea because he thought William didn’t have much of a future.  ;D )
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palatine »

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2006, 03:17:07 PM »
As ever, Palatine, you're a mine of information.  :-*

William and Liselotte certainly had sufficient character to pull off the Revolution - then again, most of William's right to the throne came from his marriage to Mary. So William would have to ignore the rights of both James II and Mary, and would thus have incurred definite French wrath!
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

palatine

  • Guest
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2006, 03:31:23 PM »
Quote

Philippe's daughters would have not been exposed to all the temptations and luxuries on offer at Versailles, and would have become respectable churchgoing types....well, maybe not. :-/ He would have ruined the British economy insead of ruining the French one.


If Philippe had gone to England and become king, its probable that the South Sea Bubble would have taken place right on schedule.  In addition to that disaster, perhaps John Law would have come to London and run his Ponzi scheme there instead of Paris.  

Still, Philippe might well have made a good king despite his lack of financial acumen, while his son, who was a well-behaved dullard, might have won the hearts of the churchgoing population.  I don't think Philippe's daughters would have made out well in England, but perhaps he could have arranged marriages for them that would have sent them far, far away.  

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2006, 08:40:33 AM »
Elizabeth Stuart, Charles I's daughter, fell into a deep depression after her father's execution. It was thought she would die as she was fading away. However in the spring of 1650 one of her servants planted a small acorn in a tub on her window sill. Watching the little oak tree grow cheered the princess up, and she recovered.

Elizabeth was returned to the care of her mother in the Hague together with her younger brother Henry.

It was while in the Hague that Elizabeth made a secret marriage. It is thought with a high ranking dutchman - but gossips said it was with Henry Hyde the son of Lord Clarendon. At any rate the Earl of Stepford (1654-1686), a dashing and scandalous figure at the court of Charles II was widely believed by contemporaries to be her son.

Elizabeth was a respected figure after the Restoration - she never married again, and used her influence with her eldest brother to represent the views of the Anglican party. In 1688 she was among the first to offer her support to William and Mary. However she rapidly lost favour in the early years of their reign due to her involvement in secret negociations for the restoration of James.

She was closer to her niece Anne, but by this time had grown enormously fat. She died of an apoplexy in June 1714, failing by two months to become Elizabeth II. However on her deathbed she dictated a letter to Anne, the contents of which have never been entirely revealed. It is supposed that it contained instructions or a prophecy which had been passed onto her by her father during their last meeting! Whatever the letter contained, it produced a new resolution of purpose in the Queen. In the last weeks of her reign she was able to persuade her ministers to make her brother heir to her three kingdoms.

The Marquess of Stepford (1684-1750) was an illegitimate son of the Earl of Stepford, who having become prime minister during the reign of James III, was able to regain the titles of his natural father. It was presumed that the King was aware of the part played by the minister's grandmother in his accession to the throne.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)