Jump to content

Talk:Louisa Maria Stuart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Princess?

[edit]

I've pondered this article and wondered why she is referred to as a Princess? King James II/VII had been overthrown by the time that she had been born. At the time, there was no precedent that I am aware that would give her the title and status of a Princess. All claims to this title were in pretense if i'm not very much mistaken.. I may be wrong, but why does this article refer to her as a Princess?

Which George?

[edit]

In the quote from the Earl of Dartmouth regarding her death, there's a reference to prince George. Is it referring to George I of Great Britain or his son George II of Great Britain? Just wondering. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, that's the Earl of Dartmouth quoting Richard Hill, who had been ambassador to the Elector of Bavaria, the Duke of Savoy and the Dutch Republic. Hill clearly can't have meant the future George II, who was married at the time, so on the face of it he seems to mean the Prince Elector, the future George I, who was technically single (and more than thirty years older than Louisa Maria). But the Prince Elector's former wife Sophia Dorothea of Celle was still alive, and Mary of Modena would undoubtedly have considered such a marriage adulterous. Xn4 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've pondered some more and linked "prince George" to George I. This has all kinds of hidden depths, but it isn't hard to see why Richard Hill would think of exactly that. In 1712, Louisa Maria wasn't the heir to her brother Prince James Edward in his role as King James III, Queen Anne was that, but Anne had no posterity. If Anne had been able to come to terms with Louisa Maria (it seems unlikely she would have been, but if...) then it might have been carried off. Of course, Hill's line of thought leads us to ask ourselves whether the children of George and Louisa Maria, brought up in the Church of England, would have displaced George Augustus, the potential George II. The Act of Settlement 1701 would have needed an amendment at the time of such a marriage, and not later. We can't know that Louisa Maria would have gone into the marriage at all, but it seems hard to believe she would have done it on the basis that George Augustus would stand nearer to inheriting her sister Anne's thrones than her own children. So would George Louis have agreed to displace the son and daughter he already had? If he had, and if at his death he had left any surviving child by his second wife, then the succession to Hanover and to Great Britain and Ireland would have gone different ways when he died, instead of that happening when William IV died... there's more to think of, there. Xn4 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Xn4. It really has to be George I, unless Mr. Hill's fancy also embraced the death of Caroline of Ansbach. His 'solution' may have offered a way out of a problem that was to trouble the kingdom for another forty years, though, quite frankly, I think he was being over sanguine. I simply cannot see the young Princess marrying a man so many years her senior, nor can I envisaged any circumstances in which Mary of Modena would agreed to such a match, holding to her Catholic convictions, even if her daughter did not. Perhaps a more plausible scenario would have been a betrothal between Maria and Frederick, the future Prince of Wales. Even here there are problems, considering the seventeen-year age gap between the two. By the time Frederick would have been mature enough to marry, Louisa Maria would have come to a point in her life where child bearing was increasingly dangerous. One would also have to assume that George Augustus would have agreed to such a match, which seems highly unlikely.
Anyway, setting that to one side, let us assume,-as you have,-a possible marriage between the elderly George Louis and the young Princess, one which produced children. Given the state of George Louis' relations with George Augustus he may very well have put him to one side, though he would also have to have displaced his own grandson in the process. I would have thought, though, in terms of the strict rules of primogeniture, George Augustus would still have a superior right to any son born to a subsequent marriage to his father, even one to the Jacobite heiress. But, of course, by this time, the succession was an entirely political matter. Parliament would have to agree, both to the marriage between George Louis and Louisa Maria and to a major amendment to the Act of Settlement. Can you imagine George Augustus sitting quiet while this process was under way? He would almost certainly have made use of Robert Walpole and his other Parliamentary contacts to frustrate the passage of such a bill.
There is, I suppose, one last piece of counter-factual speculation that might be worth raising. Let us assume that George Louis and Louisa Maria married and had children. What then might have happened is the kind of solution that followed the death of William the Conqueror in 1087, which saw the political division of his realms. In the case of George Augustus he may have been reconciled to his loss of the crown by succession to the Electorate.
All fascinating stuff, but all speculation. Even as an exercise in virtual history I simply cannot see any of it working. Still, an interesting mind game!.
Before I go I have a piece of trivia for you that you might wish to add to the article. After the birth of Louisa Maria James declared that she had been sent by God as a consolation for him and Mary in their time of distress. In the years to follow she was often to be referred to as 'La Consolatrice'. You will find this in Callow's book at pp. 203-4. Anyway, I'll copy all of this to the relevant talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all that, Clio. I suppose Richard Hill, did say it, I can't think Dartmouth was pulling our Legge? I'll add your grace note in the Birth section. Regards, Xn4 01:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George I ForeverMe (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death

[edit]

I've added the places of her birth and death. 24.31.169.252 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Louisa Maria Stuart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louisa_Maria_Stuart&oldid=1208646653"