WI: Charles, Duke of Cambridge, survives

VVD0D95

Banned
Valena said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677)
It's an interesting PoD - a son of James Duke of York & Mary of Modena, but born during Charles II lifetime. What if he's born healthy - at least his brother "the Old Pretender"-level healthy?
How will the living prince that is obviously not a "Frying Pan child" affect the policies of British court till his uncle's death?
Click to expand...

Hmm this could be interesting, another thing that could be interesting if his older brother also named Charles born in 1660 had survived into adulthood
 
The Professor

The Professor

Valena said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677)
It's an interesting PoD - a son of James Duke of York & Mary of Modena, but born during Charles II lifetime. What if he's born healthy - at least his brother "the Old Pretender"-level healthy?
How will the living prince that is obviously not a "Frying Pan child" affect the policies of British court till his uncle's death?
Click to expand...

Could they find another reason to exclude him?
Perhaps claim he is not James's?

In any event I can see Parliament trying to draw up early plans to exclude Catholics. Perhaps they legislate for Head of the Church in England to go into commission among the (Protestant Bishops of the) House of Lords?
 
JonasResende

JonasResende

My two cents: considering Charles II insisted on Mary II and Anne's continued upbringing in the CoE despite Jimmy's conversion, it stands to reason that he would probably do the same with whichever Cambridge survives. I remember reading somewhere that Charles only agreed to Mary of Modena's request for a Catholic baptism for her child because tbe child was dying/dead.
 
Valena

Valena

JonasResende said:
My two cents: considering Charles II insisted on Mary II and Anne's continued upbringing in the CoE despite Jimmy's conversion, it stands to reason that he would probably do the same with whichever Cambridge survives. I remember reading somewhere that Charles only agreed to Mary of Modena's request for a Catholic baptism for her child because tbe child was dying/dead.
Click to expand...
My reasoning for this PoD, actually:)
 

Emperor Constantine

Its an interesting POD. I doubt an ATL "warming pan" theory would gain much traction here. In 1688 the opposition claimed that Mary Beatrice couldn't get pregnant again and was faking it. Here Charles would be born a year after Lady Isabel, so clearly she's still fertile. Plus having the backing of Charles II, who's popularity was raising with the near end of the Popish plot crisis, would definitely help.

As for religion, while eight is young its not improbable to think that Charles could already have developed his own opinions religiously. Look at Elizabeth I, as an example. She was also very young when she became Protestant and stayed that way until death.

Assuming that Cambridge resists conversion, there might not be a Glorious revolution. After all, as long as James II has a Protestant heir he's basically safe. Plus, if William were to invade as OTL, he'd have a lot more trouble excluding an Anglican Prince, especially one whose birth William himself attended.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Emperor Constantine said:
Its an interesting POD. I doubt an ATL "warming pan" theory would gain much traction here. In 1688 the opposition claimed that Mary Beatrice couldn't get pregnant again and was faking it. Here Charles would be born a year after Lady Isabel, so clearly she's still fertile. Plus having the backing of Charles II, who's popularity was raising with the near end of the Popish plot crisis, would definitely help.

As for religion, while eight is young its not improbable to think that Charles could already have developed his own opinions religiously. Look at Elizabeth I, as an example. She was also very young when she became Protestant and stayed that way until death.

Assuming that Cambridge resists conversion, there might not be a Glorious revolution. After all, as long as James II has a Protestant heir he's basically safe. Plus, if William were to invade as OTL, he'd have a lot more trouble excluding an Anglican Prince, especially one whose birth William himself attended.
Click to expand...

Would James II be treading of very thin ground then? Or would those at the heart of the GR, merely look to put Charles Duke of Cambridge on the throne as Charles III?
 

Perfidious Albion

The latter sounds easier to achieve; English Protestant noblemen are still just as unhappy with James II as in OTL, and overthrowing him in favour of his son is, if anything, an easier and therefore more tempting sort of revolution than overthrowing him in favour of William of Orange, since TTL's Charles III would have a stronger claim to the throne than William III so there would be more legitimacy and thus more ease of support. It's hard to imagine many people who would prefer a foreign, imported Protestant prince to a British Protestant prince with a much stronger claim to the throne.

Royal power might well still be stronger than OTL, because with a British Stuart king rather than imported Orange or Hanoverian ones there wouldn't be the problem of the king spending his time outside Great Britain and getting involved in wars for Hanover's benefit rather than Great Britain's, and therefore being commanded by Parliament to basically stay in the country and act like a British king.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Perfidious Albion said:
The latter sounds easier to achieve; English Protestant noblemen are still just as unhappy with James II as in OTL, and overthrowing him in favour of his son is, if anything, an easier and therefore more tempting sort of revolution than overthrowing him in favour of William of Orange, since TTL's Charles III would have a stronger claim to the throne than William III so there would be more legitimacy and thus more ease of support. It's hard to imagine many people who would prefer a foreign, imported Protestant prince to a British Protestant prince with a much stronger claim to the throne.

Royal power might well still be stronger than OTL, because with a British Stuart king rather than imported Orange or Hanoverian ones there wouldn't be the problem of the king spending his time outside Great Britain and getting involved in wars for Hanover's benefit rather than Great Britain's, and therefore being commanded by Parliament to basically stay in the country and act like a British king.
Click to expand...

Interesting, could this lead to a reduction in Parliamentary power? And perhaps a more controlling executive monarchy? Or another civil war?
 

Thoresby

VVD0D95 said:
Aye, though wouldn't everyone else just laugh at him.
Click to expand...

Yes but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't find some supporters who are mad enough at James II to back him despite his very dodgy claim and then once you'v raised rebellion there is really only one ending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top