#either of which would have meant no William of Orange or Glorious Revolution

[asha-mage]

The most likely scenario is that Henry Fox's line descends from Anne Stuart who in real life never saw any of her children live to adulthood (despite seventeen pregnancies- most where still born or miscarried, those that survived infancy died in childhood) most likely her son, William (who lived the longest in real life and died at around ten most likely of an infection). It would still have been odd for him to style himself 'William Stuart' instead of 'William Oldenburg' after his father but might have been possible given anti-foreigner sentiment in England, or even as a way to honor his mother (George Oldenburg, his father, probably would not have objected had he lived to see his son's ascension- he and Anne seemed to have genuinely loved each and other and he was largely disinterested in political machinations for the pursuit of glory).

But that would still imply a truly wildly different historical ride: the Stuart dynasty had signed onto the English Bill of Rights at this point and had agreed to a more constrained constitutional monarchy, but they still retained considerable power (Anne Stuart was still vetoing bills passed by Parliament). Their wasn't even an official office of Prime Minister yet- it was only with the ascension of George I (who was thoroughly disinterested in England and it's affairs in favor his native Hanover lands in Germany) that Walpole secured enough power to essentially create the post. If Stuart was still the ruling dynasty- how did they loose that power? Or did they? Is there still a balance of power between the reigning monarch of Britain and Parliament? Does Henry's grandmother still have the right to say 'no' to Parliament and to influence policy? And how the hell did it become the House of Hanover-Stuart? Did a female descendant of the House Stuart come to power and marry a Hanover Prince and the joint name was a compromise to keep Stuart the principle dynasty?

It's theoretically possible that one of Anne's daughters survived (or that her sister Mary II had a living daughter instead) and married a Hanover leading to Hanover-Stuart, but it's extremely unlikely, since a daughter of Anne (or Mary II) would have been under incredible pressure to marry either an English noble (to shore up her legitimacy with her subjects) or a far more powerful foreign prince then a Hanover (to discourage a Jacobite invasion). Having a theoretical daughter of Anne Stuart marry George I might seem like a deceptively easy answer until you recall that their would be a twenty-five year age gap between them, and also in the eyes of the Anglican Faith he would still be considered married to his divorced-slash-imprisoned wife, Sophia of Celle. George II might make more sense (who would then be George I in this theoretical alternative timeline) since he's closer in age and you could maybe-sort-of justify then keeping the rest of the Georges (-1 in the count) and even things like the Regency or Victorian Eras, though it would still be a pretty weak political choice (and a truly bonkers love match) but that still leaves you with a British monarchy far more influential and powerful for longer then they where in history, and with those same questions- How did they loose that power? Or did they at all?

Proof that I am a complete weirdo: The most interesting thing about Red White and Royal Blue to me is the name "Henry Hanover-Stuart" and the vast swath of alternate universe English history it implies.

[scotianostra]

On August 5th 1704, the Act of Security was passed by the Scottish Parliament.

The Act of Security, which allowed the Three Estates to choose another successor to Queen Anne than the choice made by the English Parliament, if Scottish conditions were not met, was approved by the Scottish Parliament. The English responded with the Alien Act (1705) which demanded that if the Scots did not accept the Hanoverian succession, or begin proceedings on a union of parliaments, then Scottish imports to England would be banned and Scots living in England would be treated as aliens.

And the Scottish nobles sold their souls for English gold in 1707. 

The Act of Security was a brusque response by the independently minded Scottish Parliament of the early 18th Century to the English Parliament’s Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement of 1701. Both pieces of English legislation were designed to ensure the succession of the English Throne didn’t go – heaven forbid – to a Roman Catholic. That piece of 1704 Scottish legislation, together with the Act anent Peace and War of 1703, was in effect a declaration of its independence and somewhat retaliatory for the offence caused by the English through not having the manners to consult with the Scots on the matter of the succession in the first place. You see, at that time, the rule of both countries was still separate in one significant sense, despite the ‘Union of the Crowns’ having taken place around a hundred years previously. There was still to be a King (or Queen) of Scotland and a King (or Queen) of England, albeit since James VI & I, the Crowns had been worn by the same individual. Two separate countries, two separate Thrones, two separate Parliaments, one joined-up King (or mixed-up Queen) to rule them both and in the darkness bind them. The Act of Security allowed the Three Estates of Scotland to choose whom it liked as successor to Queen Anne, quite independently from the choice of the English Parliament, if certain, reasonable, Scottish trade concessions were not granted. Of course, the English were mortally afraid that the Scots would unilaterally restore the bona-fide line of Stuarts (Stewarts) and in particular, the Catholic James VII & II, who had lately been, in effect, deposed by the ‘Glorious Revolution’, which led to the Protestant Dutchman, William of Orange, stepping up to the Thrones of England and Scotland. In 1704, William’s sister-in-law, Big Annie Stuart, was Queen and as she was showing no sign of producing a live heir, the English Parliament was getting a bit jumpy. In a tit-for-tat response, the English duly passed legislation known as the Alien Act of 1705. That placed the threat of economic sanctions on the Scots unless they closed the loophole created by their Act of Security. So for a while, insecurity reigned. The Scots were graciously given a couple of options; either accept the Hanoverian succession or begin proceedings on a union of Parliaments in order to remove the potential for such dilemma to be occur. The economic sanctions threatened were such that Scottish imports to England would be banned and Scots living in England would be treated as foreigners with their rights withdrawn. Any land and property that they owned in England would be forfeited. Of course, this primarily affected the Lords and their Ladies, the Nobles, Magnates and landed Gentry; not the burghers and common people. However, from the economic viewpoint of Scotland as a country, it amounted to international blackmail. Poor Scotland was still reeling from the economic disaster of the Darien Scheme and with England threatening to cut trade and free movement between the two countries, it was caught between a rock and a hard place. One outcome, if Scotland had gone its own way, would have been the creation of a fully independent Scotland with its own Royalty, rather than the hybrid nation it became as a result of the Union of the Crowns. England, of course, had the same hybrid status as long as the two countries shared the same King or Queen. In reality, England had more to lose and as it was fighting a war with France, it needed Scottish cannon fodder. England, through its Parliament, determined that full union of the two Parliaments and nations was essential, before Anne's death, in order to rule out, once and for all, any partition. The representatives of the English Parliament set about their purpose with a will and used a combination of exclusionary legislation i.e., the Alien Act of 1705, politics with a small ‘p’, and bribery with a large ‘B’ to achieve the desired result. That end result was the Act of Union of 1707, which, by virtue of Article II, meant that the Act of Settlement effectively became part of Scots Law. And just to make sure, despite a separate Scottish succession being deemed void by the Act of Union, the new Parliament of Great Britain passed the Repeal of Certain Scotch Acts of 1707, which explicitly repealed both the Act of Security and the Act anent Peace and War. The Act of Union contained twenty-five articles, which were mostly economic. Likely opposition from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was negated by the promise that it would continue to be the official religion. In addition, it was agreed that the substantially different Scottish system of law would be preserved. The path to agreement was not easy as it was almost universally opposed by the common people of Scotland. Countless petitions and riots occurred, but were effectively ignored. On the other hand, many of the Scottish Nobility stood to benefit financially from, amongst other things, the relaxation of rules against trading with English (then to be British) colonies abroad. The treaty was passed by a large majority of 110 votes ‘for’ to 67 votes ‘against’, but only after the scandal of the bribery, which Robert Burns sums up nicely in his poem, ‘Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation’. “What force or guile could not subdue Thro' many warlike ages Is wrought now by a coward few For hireling traitor's wages.” Many have argued that Scotland benefited greatly from the Union and there is no doubt Scots played a significant part in the subsequent establishment of the British Empire. However, things could have been very different and the financial crisis, which led the ruling classes to accept the proposal, was provoked by the actions of the English in the first place.