A Britain of Panthers and Lions: House of Oldenburg Britain

[VVD0D95]

-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.

 

[AJNolte]

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.

So, Law wrote A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, which inspired John and Charles Wesley's interest in holiness/pietism. At the time, Law was a nonjuror, and tutor to the Gibbon family, plus he kind of wandered into some mysticism later in life. The Wesleys--who actually started out pretty high church--eventually split from the C of E, largely because John ordained some Bishops for the colonies without following canonical procedure.

Here, the Serious Call would be written by a Bishop in communion with the church, which is higher than OTL and officially tolerant of Arminian doctrine. So the reasons John Wesley left the church might not apply here, and he could see himself more as a reformer from within. [And Charles flat out never wanted to leave the Anglican Church].

This means that the Methodist component of the First Great Awakening, and the development of Methodism in the colonies, happens under episcopal oversight as a reform movement within Anglicanism. And that means the Methodists are much more likely to be pro-crown. Now, butterflying the ARW is pretty easy, especially starting as early as you are, but a religious movement that's explicitly supportive of church and crown and also very popular in the colonies, will strengthen those bonds. Not so much because Methodists were patriots IOTL--Wesley's "calm address" was one of the primary pieces of Tory rhetoric at the time--but because Methodism within Anglicanism strengthens the Anglican Church in the colonies, which in turn ties them into the mother country more firmly.

 

[VVD0D95]

So, Law wrote A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, which inspired John and Charles Wesley's interest in holiness/pietism. At the time, Law was a nonjuror, and tutor to the Gibbon family, plus he kind of wandered into some mysticism later in life. The Wesleys--who actually started out pretty high church--eventually split from the C of E, largely because John ordained some Bishops for the colonies without following canonical procedure.

Here, the Serious Call would be written by a Bishop in communion with the church, which is higher than OTL and officially tolerant of Arminian doctrine. So the reasons John Wesley left the church might not apply here, and he could see himself more as a reformer from within. [And Charles flat out never wanted to leave the Anglican Church].

This means that the Methodist component of the First Great Awakening, and the development of Methodism in the colonies, happens under episcopal oversight as a reform movement within Anglicanism. And that means the Methodists are much more likely to be pro-crown. Now, butterflying the ARW is pretty easy, especially starting as early as you are, but a religious movement that's explicitly supportive of church and crown and also very popular in the colonies, will strengthen those bonds. Not so much because Methodists were patriots IOTL--Wesley's "calm address" was one of the primary pieces of Tory rhetoric at the time--but because Methodism within Anglicanism strengthens the Anglican Church in the colonies, which in turn ties them into the mother country more firmly.

Oh I like that a lot, and could very well help settle some things should they get testy.

And I'm not entirely sure what to do with the colonies ttl, so would take any advice you're willing to give. I do know what I'm doing with Franklin though-he's not going to Philly- so that's something but everything else is somewhat up in the air.

 

[AJNolte]

Oh I like that a lot, and could very well help settle some things should they get testy.

And I'm not entirely sure what to do with the colonies ttl, so would take any advice you're willing to give. I do know what I'm doing with Franklin though-he's not going to Philly- so that's something but everything else is somewhat up in the air.

Oh, I _definitely_ have thoughts...

Under the Stuarts, most charters were royal. So one of the arguments the colonists actually made was that, while the king could tax them, parliament couldn't.

Now, eventually, James III, or George I, or somebody, is going to realize: "Hey, if parliament won't give me money, I wonder what would happen if I asked the colonial legislatures? And, now that I think about it, if Scotland has a parliament but also has representation in the Britannic parliament, and same goes for Ireland, we should maybe think about something like that for the colonies."

Basically, either giving the colonies representation in the Britannic Parliament or keeping them as fully under royal authority, with the proviso that their own legislatures are going to handle the day-to-day business, probably prevents the ARW crisis entirely.

Which solution the king takes probably depends on what he wants/needs at the moment. If it's a source of revenue independent from parliament, asking the colonial legislature to provide funds for military expansion could work. If it's a source of loyalists in parliament, giving the colonials a few seats in parliament, on proportional property qualification grounds, might be a more preferred option. But either way, you vitiate the taxation without representation argument, and probably keep the colonies in the fold.

Also, it would be ironic if James Oglethorpe still founds Georgia, and it still gets named Georgia, only this time after a Stuart/Oldenburg Prince of Wales rather than a Hanoverian king. But you could also call it Jacobia, if Oglethorpe decides to flatter the king directly.

 

[VVD0D95]

Oh, I _definitely_ have thoughts...

Under the Stuarts, most charters were royal. So one of the arguments the colonists actually made was that, while the king could tax them, parliament couldn't.

Now, eventually, James III, or George I, or somebody, is going to realize: "Hey, if parliament won't give me money, I wonder what would happen if I asked the colonial legislatures? And, now that I think about it, if Scotland has a parliament but also has representation in the Britannic parliament, and same goes for Ireland, we should maybe think about something like that for the colonies."

Basically, either giving the colonies representation in the Britannic Parliament or keeping them as fully under royal authority, with the proviso that their own legislatures are going to handle the day-to-day business, probably prevents the ARW crisis entirely.

Which solution the king takes probably depends on what he wants/needs at the moment. If it's a source of revenue independent from parliament, asking the colonial legislature to provide funds for military expansion could work. If it's a source of loyalists in parliament, giving the colonials a few seats in parliament, on proportional property qualification grounds, might be a more preferred option. But either way, you vitiate the taxation without representation argument, and probably keep the colonies in the fold.

Also, it would be ironic if James Oglethorpe still founds Georgia, and it still gets named Georgia, only this time after a Stuart/Oldenburg Prince of Wales rather than a Hanoverian king. But you could also call it Jacobia, if Oglethorpe decides to flatter the king directly.

Hmm interesting, would Parliament themselves be happy with this? Given from what I remember otl, a lot of them were opposed to handing the colonies seats in Parliament?

 

[AJNolte]

Hmm interesting, would Parliament themselves be happy with this? Given from what I remember otl, a lot of them were opposed to handing the colonies seats in Parliament?

Almost certainly not. OTOH, John Locke never defended parliamentary supremacy ITTL, and it's certainly not a fully established precedent. You also never had the Act of Settlement, which gave parliament the right to determine the succession. So if the Oldenburgs want to keep some real power vested in the monarchy, championing the colonies interests, over against parliament if necessary, is a really easy and natural way to do this.

And based on the way your TL has developed thus far, it seems like maintaining some real power in the hands of the crown definitely is something they want.

 

[vandevere]

Almost certainly not. OTOH, John Locke never defended parliamentary supremacy ITTL, and it's certainly not a fully established precedent. You also never had the Act of Settlement, which gave parliament the right to determine the succession. So if the Oldenburgs want to keep some real power vested in the monarchy, championing the colonies interests, over against parliament if necessary, is a really easy and natural way to do this.

And based on the way your TL has developed thus far, it seems like maintaining some real power in the hands of the crown definitely is something they want.

Just imagine what it would be like if Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, got seats in Parliament, and maybe noble titles too?

 

[VVD0D95]

Almost certainly not. OTOH, John Locke never defended parliamentary supremacy ITTL, and it's certainly not a fully established precedent. You also never had the Act of Settlement, which gave parliament the right to determine the succession. So if the Oldenburgs want to keep some real power vested in the monarchy, championing the colonies interests, over against parliament if necessary, is a really easy and natural way to do this.

And based on the way your TL has developed thus far, it seems like maintaining some real power in the hands of the crown definitely is something they want.

Hmm this is very true, now this has my mind working in overtime.

Just imagine what it would be like if Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, got seats in Parliament, and maybe noble titles too?

I have some serious plans for Franklin I can tell you that much

 

[AJNolte]

Just imagine what it would be like if Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, got seats in Parliament, and maybe noble titles too?

I could actually see the Washingtons with a peerage--if peerages are granted in North America. IIRC one of Washington's ancestors fought for the royalists against Cromwell.

 

[VVD0D95]

I could actually see the Washingtons with a peerage--if peerages are granted in North America. IIRC one of Washington's ancestors fought for the royalists against Cromwell.

Oh very interesting

 

[vandevere]

The King could create American Peerages for American Peers...

 

[VVD0D95]

The King could create American Peerages for American Peers...

One concern I have is that the colonies could come to
Dominate the empire

 

[vandevere]

One concern I have is that the colonies could come to
Dominate the empire

You can deal with that as it happens. If it happens. Fresh blood and all that...

 

[VVD0D95]

You can deal with that as it happens. If it happens. Fresh blood and all that...

Aha true

 

[AJNolte]

You can deal with that as it happens. If it happens. Fresh blood and all that...

What he said. Even best-case scenario for the colonies, that's a mid-nineteenth-century challenge.

That was always the concern about the Raj, after all, but finding a way to integrate India, even if it meant India dominating parliament, was better than losing it.

And based on what's happening in India ITTL with the Marathas, Britain's going to probably need a different playground. North America's not a bad one.

Plus, when, probably not if, the scramble for Africa kicks off, demonstrating that you have a sensible policy for successfully integrating former colonial territories into the empire becomes a major plus.

On the other hand, the constant need to balance settler and native interests in North America gives ample possibilities for intrigue. [And even more when/if abolitionism becomes a major force in British politics, and a major source of possible division in the colonies]. The narrative possibilities are endless.

Granted, you can probably still get an ARW if you want one, but I tend to agree with Paul Johnson's take that it actually requires a substantial amount of incompetence to get there.

 

[VVD0D95]

What he said. Even best-case scenario for the colonies, that's a mid-nineteenth-century challenge.

That was always the concern about the Raj, after all, but finding a way to integrate India, even if it meant India dominating parliament, was better than losing it.

And based on what's happening in India ITTL with the Marathas, Britain's going to probably need a different playground. North America's not a bad one.

Plus, when, probably not if, the scramble for Africa kicks off, demonstrating that you have a sensible policy for successfully integrating former colonial territories into the empire becomes a major plus.

On the other hand, the constant need to balance settler and native interests in North America gives ample possibilities for intrigue. [And even more when/if abolitionism becomes a major force in British politics, and a major source of possible division in the colonies]. The narrative possibilities are endless.

Granted, you can probably still get an ARW if you want one, but I tend to agree with Paul Johnson's take that it actually requires a substantial amount of incompetence to get there.

Okay interesting, hmm, this has given me a lot to think about here. It would be fascinating to see Washington, Jefferson etc in the Britannic Parliament

 

[Valena]

I like this idea, personally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Plan
With a President General appointed by the Crown being a viceroy appointed from Royal cadet branches (the Oldenburgs are not going to be short of ones).

Probably this sounds as stupid to an American as the neighbouring Catherine II thread to an educated Russian, but pardon my ignorance about fine details.

 

[VVD0D95]

I like this idea, personally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Plan
With a President General appointed by the Crown being a viceroy appointed from Royal cadet branches (the Oldenburgs are not going to be short of ones).

Probably this sounds as stupid to an American as the neighbouring Catherine II thread to an educated Russian, but pardon my ignorance about fine details.

It does seem quite good, and tbf the circumstances ittl are vastly different to otl, so perhaps it might just work

 

[AJNolte]

I like this idea, personally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Plan
With a President General appointed by the Crown being a viceroy appointed from Royal cadet branches (the Oldenburgs are not going to be short of ones).

Probably this sounds as stupid to an American as the neighbouring Catherine II thread to an educated Russian, but pardon my ignorance about fine details.

No, it actually could work/could have worked. The devil, as always, is in the details. Particularly, the details over who has what authority.

-The British would be more likely to accept it with your stipulation about a cadet member of the royal house in charge.

-The colonial assemblies might accept it if there are restrictions on its ability to tax, or if it's deemed necessary to strengthen their position relative to the rest of the empire. Also if there's an associated benefit to joining.

So, for example, say that this North American government can select members to sit in parliament for North America--the same way the Scottish parliament selects members for the Britanic parliament. So any colony that's not a member doesn't get to send representatives.

Pretty strong incentive to sign up for it right there.

Now, what you need to make this happen is a strong incentive on the royal side.

 

[VVD0D95]

No, it actually could work/could have worked. The devil, as always, is in the details. Particularly, the details over who has what authority.

-The British would be more likely to accept it with your stipulation about a cadet member of the royal house in charge.

-The colonial assemblies might accept it if there are restrictions on its ability to tax, or if it's deemed necessary to strengthen their position relative to the rest of the empire. Also if there's an associated benefit to joining.

So, for example, say that this North American government can select members to sit in parliament for North America--the same way the Scottish parliament selects members for the Britanic parliament. So any colony that's not a member doesn't get to send representatives.

Pretty strong incentive to sign up for it right there.

Now, what you need to make this happen is a strong incentive on the royal side.

Hmm. Perhaps someone could be talking it up to the royal ear?