VVD0D95
Banned
-On Law: maybe. The thing is, figuring out who'll make Bishop if the church is higher is really difficult. So, for example, John Johnson, Vickar of Cranbrooke, is a good theologian who probably gets a Bishopric here, but how high can he go? Hard to say. Atterbury is almost certainly prominent: IIRC he was considered for Canterbury under Anne IOTL, but ultimately passed over [after which he became a Jacobite, corresponded with the Pretender, and essentially lit his episcopal career on fire].
I'll say this about Law: he was considered for episcopacy before he stumbled at the oath to George I, and even after he left the C of E, his Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor were highly respected by the high church party. So given his natural abilities, Canterbury's not totally crazy, though London or Oxford would also be possible.
And if Law does get Canterbury, his fusion of evangelical devotion with high church principles/piety will have a huge impact on the church. As in, could conceivably keep the Wesleys in it, leading to a variant of Methodist Anglicanism. I don't know what you have planned for the colonies, but tying the Methodist movement firmly into the national church has massive potential nock-on effects if those of us across the pond end up not separating.
Re: Sweden, I'd say it probably depends on what the union of churches means in terms of practical politics, but I could certainly see it as something he'd consider if there's another royal marriage. At a minimum, something like recognition of the mutual validity of orders and the right for communicants of one church to commune at the other when abroad would be a nice, and probably very doable, gesture. [Basically the Lambeth Agreement of 1908 two hundred years early].
The other pragmatic reason James might go for it? Swedes and Finns made really good colonists in North America, and having them in the church in the colonies--a thing that was already happening ad hoc at this point--would serve to strengthen that church more. Given his... hesitancy... re: nonconformists, that's probably desirable.
As for Scotland: I actually think getting the Scottish Episcopals to transition to the 1662 isn't that hard, particularly if it reconciles elements of the kirk to the new episcopal settlement. You might have a couple of Bishops pushing against this and really strenuously arguing for the 1637 because of a couple of liturgical components like the epiclesis that were in the 37 but not the 1662. [Basically the usager-non-usager split IOTL]. Interestingly, though, the IOTL Scottish Episcopal Church just authorized use of both rites, and as a pragmatic compromise it worked.
The irony is that I could see the king arguing "We need to make them all use the 62" while the more high church Bishops are for tolerating use of the 1637 because it was Laud's book and has a lot of the liturgical innovations they'd honestly prefer.
Interesting times in Scotland, to be sure, and with the Stuarts behind the Episcopal Church, will Presbyterians begin advocating for republicanism?
Oh interesting, and oh how so re Law and Methodist Anglicanism for the colonies?
And this is very true, I do think it would be interesting to see James having this discussion with his brother in law and later his nephew.
And oh very interesting, I can definitely see people on the West coast thinking republicanism might be something beneficial until they start reaping the rewards of the empire.