Children
It appears that Clementina lived on in Fribourg, Switzerland, until her death in 1802 and that it was she who reared Charlotte's children in deliberate anonymity. Their identities were concealed by a variety of aliases and ruses and were not even being mentioned in Charlotte's detailed will, which makes reference only to Clementina and to Charlotte's desire that Clementina might be able to provide for "her necessitous relations". The reason that the children remained secret can be explained by the fact that the relationship between Archbishop Ferdinand de Rohan and Charlotte, who had been forbidden to marry, was highly illicit and would have been scandalous. The girls, arguably Victoire Adélaïde (born between 1781 and spring 1783) and Charlotte Maximilienne Amélie (born 1780), were thought to have been placed in the care of Thomas Coutts, the London banker, and a distant relative of the Walkinshaws. They remained in anonymity and were believed to have been simply absorbed into English society.
Charlotte's son Charles Edward (born in Paris in 1784) followed a different path. Calling himself Count Roehenstart (Rohan+Stuart), he was educated by his father's family in Germany and became an officer in the Russian army and a general in the Austrian service. He travelled widely by visiting India, America, and the West Indies before he came to England and Scotland. He told such tall tales of his origins and adventures that few believed his claims to royal descent. Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that the historian George Sherburn established that he was indeed who he had claimed to be.He died in Scotland in 1854 as the result of a coach accident near Stirling Castle and was buried at Dunkeld Cathedral, where his grave can still be seen. He married twice but had no issue.
It was generally believed that Charlotte's daughters also died without issue, but Peter Pininski believed that Charlotte's daughter, (Marie) Victoire Adélaïde, had issue. Pininski's 2002 book suggested that Jules-Hercule, Prince de Guéméné and Duke of Montbazon, the elder brother of Ferdinand de Rohan (and aide-de-camp to Henry Stuart in 1745) recognised Charlotte's offspring as his own, which gave her status in that tight family, and he claimed that in 1793, at the outbreak of the French Revolution, Marie Victoire de Rohan went to relatives in Poland and there met and married Paul Anthony Louis Bertrand de Nikorowicz, a Polish nobleman and son of a banker. They had a son, Antime, and she later died in Vienna in 1836. Antime was the father of Charles and a daughter, Julia-Thérèse, who married Count Leonard Pininski and became Peter Pininski's great-great-grandmother. Pininski's evidence for his thesis has been described as "often indirect, if not elliptical". The Rohans were a large family, and it is easy to confuse its many members. A former chairman of the Royal Stuart Society, however, stated that Pininski's evidence seemed "genuine", and the peerage editor Hugh Massingberd described it as "painstakingly researched ... proof to surely the most sceptical pedant's satisfaction".
Pininski's hypothesis is challenged by the genealogist Marie-Louise Backhurst in three articles in 2013, 2021 and 2023. Backhurst provides evidence that Charlotte's second daughter, who was always called Victoire Adélaïde, was married firstly at St Roch, Paris, in November 1804 to a military doctor, Pierre Joseph Marie de St Ursin, in the service of Napoleon. The marriage record has Victoire Adélaïde Roehenstart, daughter of Maximilien and his wife, Clementine Ruthven, the same parental record as her brother Charles. By St Ursin, she was the mother of Theodore Marie de St Ursin, who was born in Paris on 29 June 1809 and was resident in Paris in 1832. He had entered the seminary of St Sulpice at Issy in 1828 and been ordained a deacon there that year, but died a deacon, aged 29, at Castres, Tarn, on 6 August 1838. In 1823, his mother had married again, to the naval officer Corbet James d'Auvergne, brother of the adopted son of the Duke of Bouillon, and she eventually died at Nice in March 1871.
Backhurst has concluded that Madame Nikorowicz was actually Marie Victoire de Rohan, Mademoiselle de Thorigny (born June 1779), and more likely to have been the illegitimate daughter of Jules Hercule Mériadec, Prince de Rohan, brother of Ferdinand and thus a first cousin to Victoire Adélaïde and without the Stuart descent. Pininski had earlier argued that Backhurst's interpretation had been based on a destroyed document that was "reconstituted" seventy years later and that no document confirmed the birth of Marie Victoire's son.
Since then, Pininski has responded to Backhurst latest articles in a 2024 paper, in which he argues that every piece of evidence concerning Charlotte's three children is circumstantial, as their parentage is either false or not given in primary sources.
Pininski mentions that Charlotte's correspondence with her mother indicates the existence of a fourth child, Marie Aglaë, who has not been accounted for (and perhaps died young). He explains this by remarking that the idea Charlotte only had three children as indicated by her letters to her mother might be incorrect, since it could be that the children were not always together.
Furthermore, while he accepts that Marie Victoire and Victoire Adélaïde were probably different people, he rejects the possibility that the former might have been a natural daughter of Jules de Rohan. Pininski asserts that the two women were most likely siblings, both daughters of Charlotte Stuart and Ferdinand de Rohan. He maintains that the parentage of Madame Nikorowicz given in the baptismal record as Jules Hercule and Marie Grosset (the daughter of his secretary) seems to be fabricated, and refers to the refusal of the Abbé Barnabé of Veigné (near Tours) to baptise Charlotte's son, called Auguste Maximilian or Charles Edward, as a child of Jules as evidence.
According to Pininski, Jules Hercule was not known to have been unfaithful to his wife and would have been unlikely to sire Marie Victoire, as by 1779 he was 53 years old. Neither would he have had reason to recognize the child of "so humble a mother", nor grant her the prestigious style of "Demoiselle de Thorigny". Pininski also notes that when Marie Grosset was paid off by Jules de Rohan in 1782 for "services rendered" there was no mention of such a daughter. He argues that had she really been Jules's daughter the usual procedure would have been to register her with the French court, but he did not do that as it could have potentially revealed his younger brother's secret affair with Charlotte. Instead, he suggests that Jules Hercule might have been motivated by family loyalty to provide status to Charlotte and Ferdinand's illegitimate offspring.
Pininski states that the Nikorowicz clan seem to have had close ties to the Stuarts (through the Radiziwiłłs and even the House of Sobieski), but not to the House of Rohan. He speculates that Marie Victoire's marriage to Paul Nikorowicz may have been arranged by Ferdinand de Rohan through Charlotte's family connections. Furthermore, Charles Edward de Roehenstart ever only made one explicit reference to a sibling, when he was in financial difficulties in New York in 1813 and asked his one of his sisters for money. Pininski claims this could only have been Madame Nikorowicz (by then a rich widow), as Charlotte Maximilienne had died in childbirth in 1806, and, as pointed by Backhurst herself, Victoire Adélaïde had few resources of her own as the wife of a French military doctor imprisoned by the Russians.
Pininski observes that throughout her life Marie Victoire never mentioned her mother and that the only hint to her parentage comes from the family arms attributed to Madame Nikorowicz on an official genealogy provided by her great-grandson to the Habsburg court in the 1890s. He notes that her arms have "no similarity to those of Rohan, but instead display the Stuarts' fess on a gold shield, with only two minor modifications" comparable to the Stuart-based arms Charles Edward designed for himself.
Pininski concludes that Charlotte may have had four surviving children instead of three, and that perhaps they were divided in two sets of pairs. He points out that several facts of Marie Victoire's life indicate a close connection to Charles Edward, as they seem to have frequented the same Central and Eastern European emigré and ultraroyalist circles, and there are obscure references in his personal documents to de Roehenstart's Polish heirs. On the other hand, Charlotte Maximilienne and Victoire Adélaïde remained in France and both seem to have married middle-class men.