1715 Jacobite Uprising (2023 Thread)

[John Fredrick Parker]

Supposing the Jacobites manage to successfully restore the House of Stuart to the throne in 1715 or in the 1740's, what would be the geopolitical implications of such a change? How would his affect the American Colonies, the wars of France in Europe against Austria, and the broader state of the British Isles?

Would the Acts of Union be dissolved? What would happen to the Scottish Highlanders? What would the state of Catholicism be in the UK?

It would utterly wreck the UK. The country was overwhelmingly Protestant by this point and would not tolerate Catholic monarchy. The country would be ridden with civil war. The North American colonies would probably go for an early independence. Catholics, including Highlanders, would like face vigilante violence and genocide.

that's a bit deterministic. The country that was overwhelmingly Protestant had zero problem rising for a Catholic prince like Charlie. At that point (1745) England was involved in a war she had little-to-no-interest in (the Stuarts never cared who held the Southern Netherlands, and George II only jumped in because the Hannoverians had sworn to side with Austria- George II himself had voted for Karl Albrecht). George II had a yacht moored in the Thames to flee if Charlie passed a certain point. The country might not like a Catholic, but if your actual king isn't going to stand and fight for you, why should you die for him?

The North American colonies would grumble and there'd probably be local problems, but I don't see them going independent earlier than OTL, especially since a lot of the corrupt officials were Hannoverian appointees anyway (not saying the Stuarts would appoint less-corrupt officials). Given the travel times to the US and back, I suspect the rebellion in England is over before the Americans even know something's happened.

 

[NedStark]

republican revolution? Memories of Cromwell are fading and if there's a reactionary and unpopular monarchy and no suitable alternative candidates

And there wouldn't be another Restoration this time. Restorations never (or almost never) happened twice.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I think a rising anywhere between September, 1714-January,1715 could work. Alternatively getting the tories to get their shir together and go ahead with the coup of 1714 would be good.

How would the mechanics of such a coup work? How much power could the Stuarts retake in 1714/1715? Could they return to the status quo under Charles II/James II as William III and Anne were both usurpers? To my understanding William III agreed to stop collecting feudal dues in exchange for funds from Parliament. This total control of the purse strings really seems to have shifted the balance of power to the Parliament against the Crown.

We could have a stand off between Tory minisyers and Somerset abd Argyll if they’re still there. But overall I think they could have a relatively smooth tone getting to London.

Honestly that could work.

Yes James may not have wanted to convert but he showed in other matters that he was willing to work with the system and respect the rights parliament has accrued. He also had otl shown a willingness to have his sons tutored by a Protestant, and to insist they at the d both Protestant and catholic services in exile.
Furthermore the tories would’ve been in power I. 1714 and many of them wanted a strong monarchy. So those two taken Tofether is argue would show the system could work with James in in it.

I feel like this would probably be a repeat of the situation with Charles II and James I. James III would allow for the Stuarts to firmly entrench themselves once again on the English throne paving the way for his children to make further inroads into restoring royal power. Though regardless, I don't think he'd necessarily be moving against Catholicism. James would need a solid powerbase when coming to power which would be the Catholics in England, the Irish, and the Scottish Highlanders.

Though how would the situation regarding the Church of England and the King's Catholicism evolve? Could we potentially see a reunion between the Anglican Church and Rome with Britain adopting the Gallican approach that the French Kings took with the French Church?

James III in 1714 will be in a very weak position - he's not William III in 1688, marching into the capital at the head of a loyal army, he's more like Charles II in 1660, being invited in as the best compromise available.

What if France supports him? There was a struggle for the regency of Louis XV, and Philippe d'Orleans who won over his nephew (Louis XIV's choice) hated the Stuarts for feeling snubbed over the honor him not receiving an armchair, something not even Louis XIV would have granted him.

A republican revolution? Memories of Cromwell are fading and if there's a reactionary and unpopular monarchy and no suitable alternative candidates...

Eh I think a Republican Revolution is out of the cards for now. Cromwell still wouldn't be looked favorably.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Could James III seriously roll-back the Parliamentary Supremacy that had emerged under William III and Queen Anne -- maybe by restoring feudal dues, maybe by restoring monopoly status to royal companies (eg Royal Africa Company), or some other means? And while I think we all agree that his “restoration” is only really plausible if he converts, could he still manage to bring Catholic Toleration as a reward for his supporters (as a sort of mirror of Henry IV of France)? Do Scots get some kind of home rule?

And how does this affect things like Britain’s geopolitical influence, and the development of her colonial empire? And how does this affect the next half century of European history? Could James III reign until his death in the 1760’s; and if so, how does Britain fare after him?

 

[VVD0D95]

How would the mechanics of such a coup work? How much power could the Stuarts retake in 1714/1715? Could they return to the status quo under Charles II/James II as William III and Anne were both usurpers? To my understanding William III agreed to stop collecting feudal dues in exchange for funds from Parliament. This total control of the purse strings really seems to have shifted the balance of power to the Parliament against the Crown.


Honestly that could work.


I feel like this would probably be a repeat of the situation with Charles II and James I. James III would allow for the Stuarts to firmly entrench themselves once again on the English throne paving the way for his children to make further inroads into restoring royal power. Though regardless, I don't think he'd necessarily be moving against Catholicism. James would need a solid powerbase when coming to power which would be the Catholics in England, the Irish, and the Scottish Highlanders.

Though how would the situation regarding the Church of England and the King's Catholicism evolve? Could we potentially see a reunion between the Anglican Church and Rome with Britain adopting the Gallican approach that the French Kings took with the French Church?


What if France supports him? There was a struggle for the regency of Louis XV, and Philippe d'Orleans who won over his nephew (Louis XIV's choice) hated the Stuarts for feeling snubbed over the honor him not receiving an armchair, something not even Louis XIV would have granted him.


Eh I think a Republican Revolution is out of the cards for now. Cromwell still wouldn't be looked favorably.

Oxford abd Bolingbroke get their shit together and ensure they’ve got loyal men at the tower, the treasury and have managed to get James near London at the time Anne declines completely. Ormonde brings the army. You also need Somerset and Argyll arrested. Shrewsbury will side with whoever looks dominate. If James is there when Anne passes all the better.

I’d say the act of settlement could be repealed or replaced as could elements of the bill of rights (regarding the prevention of catholics succeeding.)

min terms of the church I’d say a compromise could be the convocation of the clergy retains more influence as it did before Henry ciii basically made them eunuchs. Formally control is with the sovereign but he acts on the advice of the clergy. That should keep the tories happy.

Could James III seriously roll-back the Parliamentary Supremacy that had emerged under William III and Queen Anne -- maybe by restoring feudal dues, maybe by restoring monopoly status to royal companies (eg Royal Africa Company), or some other means? And while I think we all agree that his “restoration” is only really plausible if he converts, could he still manage to bring Catholic Toleration as a reward for his supporters (as a sort of mirror of Henry IV of France)? Do Scots get some kind of home rule?

And how does this affect things like Britain’s geopolitical influence, and the development of her colonial empire? And how does this affect the next half century of European history? Could James III reign until his death in the 1760’s; and if so, how does Britain fare after him?

I think he could. There are some acts that can be repealed.

if it’s through a coup? No no home rule. If it’s through war? Maybe.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

James stays Catholic (he won't change this late in life. Although Charlie - as OTL - might express a desire to either rejoin the Anglican Church, or marry Protestant (a marriage was proposed for him with Anna Amalie of Prussia by Frederick the Great to settle the matter of the Sobieski inheritance), or even if he marries Catholic, insist on having his heir christened Anglican. Charlie was as stubborn as James (it was part of the reason for their estrangement all the years), and due to James disliking a "scene" (Charlie was very much his mother's son when it came to tantrums, and James had developed an aversion for them as a result of his marriage), I could see Charlie winning out.

Regarding the religious situation, as long as James doesn't fiddle on the Anglican Church - maybe agrees to the 1705 (?) proposal of a committee comprising the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and several other high ranking clerics "running" the CoE - I suspect that most people will be fine. The CoE had changed a lot since 1688 anyway, first playing up the Low Church aspects under the Calvinist WIlliam III, then trying to reassert itself when he converted after Mary II died. Then it got the Lutheran influences under the first two Georges. So James saying he wants to "reset it" to the "traditional" English manner might actually get him some support. At least from the bottom.

Contrary to popular belief, James has spent his life in exile, he's not going to want to change too much and risk being tossed out a third time (first from England in 1688, then from France in 1715, then again from England). He likely knows that to t go for Catholic Emancipation is a long walk off a short pier. Much as he might feel that the laws against the Catholics are repugnant, he's also going to be smart enough (he was an intelligent person OTL, and the Jacobite court at Rome had Anglicans among its number) to know not to fiddle.

Alternately, if James decides to be stiff-necked and try to bring the CoE more in line with Rome (why would he? He never expressed any such desires OTL AFAIK), then not so good. Obviously there will be accusations of him wanting to do this (regardless of their veracity) at regular intervals, every time he even looks like he's going to be doing something "popish".

Truth of the matter is that religion likely takes a backseat (IIRC in '45, both Canterbury and York were in the hands of staunch Hannoverians, so who's going to crown James?). What everyone is going to be getting into a tizz about is whether things (and these were - according to Aronson's Kings over the Water - the big concerns) since 1688 are going to be touched: i.e. the Acts of Union (Charlie spoke about "adjusting it" in Edinburgh, but this might have been "spin"), the Bill of Rights, the other major laws. Also, how do we accoutn for the 1688-1745 period? Was it a usurpation? And by whom? William III, Anne and the Hannoverians? Or do we only count the Hannoverians (i.e. from Anne's death)? The latter causes "fewer" problems, and James leaving the Bill of Rights and the Act of Union in place could go a long way to soothe ruffled feathers. That's not to say that either will not have acts passed to essentially nullify them (in practice, in theory they are untouched). The Act of Settlement (or whatever it's called) that prohibits a Catholic from holding the throne of England will likely have to be scrapped. Or at least, will be regarded as having become a "dead letter" since there is a Catholic king in London- put there by English bayonets rather than French ones.

The legal backlog will take (at least) three to five years to sort out, IMO. The stress and strain of actually having to do something (James III is 57yo in 1745, I don't see him making the 1760s as OTL) might be what finishes him off sooner. Charlie is "young", likely with a young Anglican family (if not a Protestant wife) and with the glamour of a war hero on him (no diving headfirst into the bottle like OTL), and more "flexible". Which, after a series of old men (and women, if you count Anne), might be greeted with great optimism.

 

[VVD0D95]

You know @John Fredrick Parker @Basileus_Komnenos your questions have got me thinking about ab old idea I had once. I may dig it back up again , and revamp it if you’d be interested?

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

You know @John Fredrick Parker @Basileus_Komnenos your questions have got me thinking about ab old idea I had once. I may dig it back up again , and revamp it if you’d be interested?

Yeah I'm down. I'm basically bouncing off ideas regarding the Jacobites for a Louis xv tl I'm planning on writing.

 

[VVD0D95]

Yeah I'm down. I'm basically bouncing off ideas regarding the Jacobites for a Louis xv tl I'm planning on writing.

Awesome I’ll send you a DM if that’s okay

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

And there wouldn't be another Restoration this time. Restorations never (or almost never) happened twice.

uh...what world are you living in?
France
Monarchy restored in 1815, 1830 and (very nearly) in 1871
Empire restored in 1815 and 1848/1851

Spain
Monarchy restored under Alfonso XII and Juan Carlos

Portugal
Monarchy would likely have been restored by Salazar (à la Franco in Spain) had the Bragança heir been willing to "wait". ICR the whole reason

Mexico
Two failed empires after republics

Belgium
Decided in 1830 to go with a monarchy rather than a republic, decided to stay a monarchy even after all the shit the politicians threw at Léopold III after WW2

And then that's not counting countries like Austria, Hungary, Czechia, Bavaria, Serbia, Italy etc where there are monarchist parties. In Czechia, in 2019, the monarchist party even had a replica made of St Wenceslas' crown to give to the Habsburg heir. In France, as late as 2019, Macron (or whoever the president was) felt insecure enough to blame some or other incident (ICR what it was) on "royalist extremists", when, judging by the photos, there was nothing remotely royal (no drapeau blanc, no fleur-de-lis, no vive le roi) in sight.

Rather than saying there wouldn't be another restoration, restorations never happened twice, can you supply any proof that, had Charlie moved a little faster or he had listened to his advisor (Murray, was it?) who had suggested another route, the Hannoverians would've stood and fought? When George II had a yacht moored in the Thames to run away?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

uh...what world are you living in?

Before getting into the question of the more abstract question monarchies can survive as second republic (at least in this thread), maybe we should first make sure we're all clear on whether, how, and when a Restored Stuart Monarchy would fall to a republic in the first place?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Before getting into the question of the more abstract question monarchies can survive as second republic (at least in this thread), maybe we should first make sure we're all clear on whether, how, and if a Restored Stuart Monarchy would fall to a republic in the first place?

 

[VVD0D95]

Before getting into the question of the more abstract question monarchies can survive as second republic (at least in this thread), maybe we should first make sure we're all clear on whether, how, and when a Restored Stuart Monarchy would fall to a republic in the first place?

I don’t think it would. James is far too cautious a man to go all madness when he’s restored (be it 1714 or 1715) and he could be a good restraining factor if restored I. 1745

 

[raharris1973]

A republican revolution? Memories of Cromwell are fading and if there's a reactionary and unpopular monarchy and no suitable alternative candidates...

Neat idea - How much more of the Enlightenment cannon had been written be the time this might pop off in the 5-10 or 15 years after 1715 in which this would have taken place?

Would England have become a 'mind its own business' republic, except for some hollow wave of the future rhetoric (like the USA, or the Puritan Commonwealth), although with global trade and imperial possessions and balance of power concerns its 'business' could be quite extensive, or would it incline to a French-style, universalist, rights of man at bayonet-point, messianic declare war on all your neighbors kind of republic?

 

[Aichi72]

Neat idea - How much more of the Enlightenment cannon had been written be the time this might pop off in the 5-10 or 15 years after 1715 in which this would have taken place?

Would England have become a 'mind its own business' republic, except for some hollow wave of the future rhetoric (like the USA, or the Puritan Commonwealth), although with global trade and imperial possessions and balance of power concerns its 'business' could be quite extensive, or would it incline to a French-style, universalist, rights of man at bayonet-point, messianic declare war on all your neighbors kind of republic?

I think that a likely outcome could be some kind of aristocratic republic, basically a kingdom without a king or an eternal regency type situation. Britain as Gondor or Franco/Horthy era Spain/Hungary? I wonder what would happen to Ireland in this situation.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Would there be risings against James if the coup succeeds do you think? Or would the lack of enthusiasm from Hanover prompt people
To sit and wait

I imagine there was going to be popular unrest, regardless of who held the throne after Anne's death; tensions were just high at this time. The question here is, will people of consequence try to overthrow James right away, or will they wait for George to arrive with backup? Because I can see George being the one who dithers here, alienating his supporters.

 

[VVD0D95]

I imagine there was going to be popular unrest, regardless of who held the throne after Anne's death; tensions were just high at this time. The question here is, will people of consequence try to overthrow James right away, or will they wait for George to arrive with backup? Because I can see George being the one who dithers here, alienating his supporters.

I think they’d wait and see. Firstly ti see what James does as king and secondly the English always seemed to need foreign support before they actually did anything.

As for George, I can’t remember if it’s Seward or Szechi but they make it clear George didn’t actually want to leave Hanover for London. And only did so when it became clear he had to go. Hence why he arrived so late/ arriving in September. So whether he’d do anything to help his supporters with James already in London I’m not sure.

 

[VVD0D95]

At his coronation, would James swear the coronation oath of 1689, or the oath that his father and his father's predecessors had all sworn?

 

[VVD0D95]

Additionally, something that @Kellan Sullivan pointed out, James may need to make a Protestant marriage to avoid causing any serious chaos on top of him being a Catholic king.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Additionally, something that @Kellan Sullivan pointed out, James may need to make a Protestant marriage to avoid causing any serious chaos on top of him being a Catholic king.

paging @Valena for a potential candidate please?

my favourite (Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick) is out of the running. And Joseph I's wife's nieces are all Catholic