WI/PC: Queen Anne Has Several Surviving Children

Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV and George III had some of the largest families of any English monarchs. A close contender might have been Queen Anne, however, many of her kids died in the womb or shortly after birth. There were at least five births that produced live children (the Princesses Mary, Anne Sophie and Mary II, plus two boys, William, duke of Gloucester and another son, George). But all these children died young.

So, what if Anne had had a brood of healthy surviving children (maybe just the five listed above (the eldest two daughters died in a fluke attack of smallpox IIRC), boys and girls? How would things in England/Britain progress with a surviving line of Oldenburgs? And where might these kids marry?
 
So, Anne having more than one surviving child obviously butterflies the Hannoverians from the throne. Would we see something similar to a clause about the "not marrying papists" that's in several important documents - like the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Settlement and of Union - still included? Since OTL it forced the Hannoverians to have a very Germanocentric view of European politics. And how might William and Mary's reign progress with the fruit of Anne's Ceres-like fertility in the picture? Where might these girls marry? I saw a cool idea - although it would be probably be pretty unlikely - where an alt-king of England (agewise either Anne's brother or a son of Charles II) marries one of his daughters to Philippe d'Anjou and another to an Archduke of Austria (alt-Karl VI) before the War of the Spanish Succession breaks out. What would be the chances that Leopold I would seek one of Anne's daughters to wed his son to? Since as long as Louis XIV rules in France, and James II is his guest, a French match is out.
 
Apologies, I should have put Lord Macauley.

Well, fortunately Macaulay is born in 1800, so Anne's eldest daughter has over a century's head-start on him. But why would there be persecution of the more Protestant sects under a Protestant line of rulers? I can understand if James II were restored or James III succeeded, but I can't see why Anne and her son/grandson would persecute the Protestants rather than the Catholics (if any persecution were to occur).
 
Wasn't the Act of Union at least partially motivated by an English desire to ensure Scotland didn't try to go its own way after Anne's death by selecting a different monarch? Because that's not a factor here.

A brood of kids born and raised in England (rather than the foreign Hanoverians) probably means even less support for later Jacobite attempts to regain the throne (especially if there's also no Act of Union, and less Scottish discontent to feed off).
 
Last edited:
Let me throw some famous, possible marriage partners for Anne's children out there:

Charles XII, King of Sweden
George II, Elector of Hanover
Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
Frederick William I, King of Prussia
Elizabeth, Empress of Russia
 
Wasn't the Act of Union at least partially motivated by an English desire to ensure Scotland didn't try to go its own way after Anne's death by selecting a different monarch? Because that's not a factor here.

A brood of kids born and raised in England (rather than the foreign Hanoverians) probably means even less support for later Jacobite attempts to regain the throne (especially if there's also no Act of Union, and less Scottish discontent to feed off).

That butterflies away the highlands rebellions.
I like that.

As much as I like the Jacobites - and who doesn't love a good lost cause? - this seems an interesting effect. Would there be those foreign powers willing to support a 1715 or 1719 Rising (much less a '45 analogue)?

Removing the Acts of Union completely is unlikely, they'd been in the works since the days of James I, IIRC. It was only in William and Mary-Anne's reign that Scotland was brought to the negotiating table. So we might see a modified Act of Union at a different date to OTL.

Let me throw some famous, possible marriage partners for Anne's children out there:

Charles XII, King of Sweden
George II, Elector of Hanover
Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
Frederick William I, King of Prussia
Elizabeth, Empress of Russia

Carl XII - the wildcard. He's proposed for Anne's sister (La Consolatrice), a Polish princess, a Welf princess, a Danish princess - none of which got very far. But perhaps his dad lives longer or his grandmother forces him to marry sooner (you can't go to war, Carl, until you marry and have a child and heir). However, Anne's Danish husband might see the match foundering on the rocks. Although I do wonder if England wouldn't get involved in the Great Northern War (given Anne's kids Danish connections)?

George II - out. His dad originally wanted a match with him to Carl XII's sister. When that didn't happen, George I let his son choose his own bride - Karoline of Ansbach - since he wanted to avoid a repeat of his own marriage to his cousin. Throw in Anne's hatred of the Hannoverians, and the match seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Elisabeth Christine - the most beautiful princess in Europe and loathe to convert to Catholicism to marry Karl VI. I wouldn't think it impossible that her grandfather - who married his eldest granddaughters off to the most powerful kings in Europe - the emperor, and the second girl to a coin-toss between Carl XII and Alexei, Tsarevich of Russia. So I'd say a match to the prince of Wales is not out of the question.

Friedrich Wilhelm I - Not sure. His mother - a Hannoverian princess - wanted him to marry his cousin. And Friedrich I was so in love with her, he would've walked barefoot to China if she'd asked (she didn't care much for him beyond friendship IIRC). But I'd say it's a possibility.

Elizabeth Petrovna - awkwardly placed. Her father tried for a match to Louis XV that foundered. And according to the bio I've read on James III, before the Old Pretender married his Sobieska wife, he considered Elizabeth. However, the Jacobite court persuaded him, saying that their king deserved far more than a mere bastard (and Elizabeth's parents' marriage was the main problem). Plus, she's born far enough after the POD in 1680s that it's unlikely she'll even be the same person, much less that Marta Skavronski will meet Peter the Great - she might stay a maid in Menshikov's household, or be killed as a casualty of war or whatever.
 
As much as I like the Jacobites - and who doesn't love a good lost cause? - this seems an interesting effect. Would there be those foreign powers willing to support a 1715 or 1719 Rising (much less a '45 analogue)?

Removing the Acts of Union completely is unlikely, they'd been in the works since the days of James I, IIRC. It was only in William and Mary-Anne's reign that Scotland was brought to the negotiating table. So we might see a modified Act of Union at a different date to OTL.

Assuming Darien goes as OTL Scotland will still be in dire straits financially, which the English could exploit in some way or other.
 
Assuming Darien goes as OTL Scotland will still be in dire straits financially, which the English could exploit in some way or other.

Probably true. Hence why said, that the Act of Union - while not set in stone - would most likely still occur (if not in it's OTL format or date)
 
It's worth pointing out that opposition to the Acts of Union was for most of the 17th century strongest in England, the Country Party in it's various incarnations was fairly consistently against viewing, it as an opportunity for the much poorer Scots to sponge off England in general and them as taxpayers in particular. In fact various Court inspired pushes for Acts of Union generally followed a fairly predictable cycle of proposal>Scottish interest>English MP's kick up a fuss>Scots take offence. What changed in OTL was the need to secure the Hanoverian succession and keep out the Stuart's got enough of English backbench MP's to shut up.
 
It's worth pointing out that opposition to the Acts of Union was for most of the 17th century strongest in England, the Country Party in it's various incarnations was fairly consistently against viewing, it as an opportunity for the much poorer Scots to sponge off England in general and them as taxpayers in particular. In fact various Court inspired pushes for Acts of Union generally followed a fairly predictable cycle of proposal>Scottish interest>English MP's kick up a fuss>Scots take offence. What changed in OTL was the need to secure the Hanoverian succession and keep out the Stuart's got enough of English backbench MP's to shut up.

Well, here the succession doesn't have to be secured for the Hannoverians, so in other words, the cycle might continue?
 
The US of A stays british because a true heir instead of dirty German pretenders can actually sympathize with the colonists, and there probably wont be a seven years war, and we'll all sing God save the King/Queen.
 
Well, here the succession doesn't have to be secured for the Hannoverians, so in other words, the cycle might continue?
How would Irish unionism fit into this?
How early did it appear in Ireland?
Would Ireland appear to bring in enough profit to offset the apparent loss to Scotland?
Etc etc.
(As you can tell I'm a fan of triple union tls!)

The US of A stays british because a true heir instead of dirty German pretenders can actually sympathize with the colonists, and there probably wont be a seven years war, and we'll all sing God save the King/Queen.
Sarcasm?
 
Top