1740s Jacobite Restoration: Long Term Affects?

[Emperor Constantine]

Inspired by my Jacobite bride thread a few weeks ago. What would the long-term affects of a 1740s Jacobite Restoration be? And if we can just discuss the long term affects and not get bogged down on whether its possible or ASB (which for the record its not) that would be great.

Would we see a repeal of the Act of Union or would it instead be renegotiated? Earlier Catholic emancipation? A Tory dominated British Government? Could we see a change in colonial administration?

What about the affects on European politics? Could France be able to annex the Austrian Netherlands in 1748 or at the least create an independent state out of it for a Bourbon Prince? Would we see a lasting Anglo-French alliance/ detente, not unlike what existed in the 1720s and early 1730s, or would Britain still see France as a threat no matter who rules in London? Could a Stuart Britain avoid the American revolution, keeping the Colonies?

Please discuss!

 

[Socrates]

The Act of Union and many other pieces of legislation passed by the usurpers will be considered nullified, in a similar way to Cromwell's government never being recognised after the restoration. Catholic emancipation will be immediate in all three Kingdoms.

Government will be from a combination of Tories and Jacobite exiles that return home, having had governing and military experience in other European powers. A large part of this will be because Whigs will mostly be imprisoned or chased into exile: the central premise of Whiggism is support for the 1688 revolution, so pretty much every Whig would have made speeches in support of this at some point or another.

The French are highly likely to take the Austrian Netherlands, as in our timeline this was swapped for Louisbourg. In this timeline, the British have no leverage and will now return all gains to France and drop out of the war. This leaves France and Prussia to continue to fight Austria and Hannover, where they will win. A Franco-British alliance will be maintained for at least several decades, as a Catholic dynasty in Britain will be on such shaky ground they will need French support to stay in power.

In America, there is likely to be an immediate revolution. Fear of Papist absolutist domination was extreme in the colonies in the 1700s. The reason the French and Indian war started was because they didn't want to be hemmed in by the Bourbons linking up Canada with Louisiana. One of the underrated reasons for independence was the Quebec Act, which annexed the Ohio country to Catholic-dominated Quebec and threatened (from the colonial perspective) of again hemming them in via a power that was not supportive of English liberty. Here, they will have much stronger grounds to worry. It is possible that the French could support the British in reclaiming the colonies, but likely would require acceptance of French claims in Ohio, limiting the British colonies to the Appalachians, and giving free travel through them to the West. The Americans will never accept this at all, and it will likely result in a horrendous guerilla war until the French go bankrupt.

 

[darthfanta]

For the Catholic dynasty to stay in power,wouldn't they need to decapitate the entire British ruling class?I'd presume the monarchy will get a significant buff in power to levels not unlike the absolute monarchy in France.

 

[ByzantineLover]

For the Catholic dynasty to stay in power,wouldn't they need to decapitate the entire British ruling class?I'd presume the monarchy will get a significant buff in power to levels not unlike the absolute monarchy in France.

Who's to say they would remain Catholic? James Edward Stuart was staunchly Catholic, but Bonnie Prince Charlie was willing to convert to Anglicanism if it meant he had a chance to become king. And if James and Charles are restored in the 1740s, Henry likely won't become a cardinal.

 

[darthfanta]

Who's to say they would remain Catholic? James Edward Stuart was staunchly Catholic, but Bonnie Prince Charlie was willing to convert to Anglicanism if it meant he had a chance to become king. And if James and Charles are restored in the 1740s, Henry likely won't become a cardinal.

But wouldn't their French benefactors have a say in this?

 

[ByzantineLover]

But wouldn't their French benefactors have a say in this?

The Bourbons might be the Stuart's benefactors, but the French state's still in enormous debt. Sooner or later, the costs of a French alliance are going to outweigh the benefits.

 

[VVD0D95]

But wouldn't their French benefactors have a say in this?

The French if they knew what was good for them would back the hell off.

 

[darthfanta]

The Bourbons might be the Stuart's benefactors, but the French state's still in enormous debt. Sooner or later, the costs of a French alliance are going to outweigh the benefits.

Given the Stuarts would have the support of the French troops when they first conquer the land,wouldn't they want to decapitate the nobility that could possibly turn against them with the help of the French in order to strengthen their position?It's not the first time they've deposed or even executed a king after-all.

I really can't see the Stuarts succeeding by negotiating for the throne,they probably would have to completely defeat the establishment.In such a case,a thorough purge may be needed.

 

[Socrates]

The Old Pretender still has twenty years to live if he is restored in 1745. He needs some power base during that time. That's going to be Catholics in his Kingdom, probably disproportionately Irish and Scots ones, and French military backing where needed. Any Whig political family has to be chased into exile because they've already been traitors from a Jacobite perspective.

Now maybe when the Young Pretender comes to the throne, he tries to do an Elizabeth, and converts to some form of High Anglicanism to bridge the gap. But the attraction of doing so is lessened when the Protestant ruling class has already left the country, and it would sell out the Catholic lords that is his natural base that's already in power. In addition, the existing Catholic ruling class is much more amenable to a strong monarchy, while a restored Protestant class would naturally distrust him as being a pseudo-absolutist. And he also loses French military protection, and it's not like the Dutch or Swedes have the power to replace that. On the other hand, the mass of the English population are Protestant and likely to rebel at any moment.

So either way Britain is screwed with instability for the next 50 years or so.

 

[VVD0D95]

The Old Pretender still has twenty years to live if he is restored in 1745. He needs some power base during that time. That's going to be Catholics in his Kingdom, probably disproportionately Irish and Scots ones, and French military backing where needed. Any Whig political family has to be chased into exile because they've already been traitors from a Jacobite perspective.

Now maybe when the Young Pretender comes to the throne, he tries to do an Elizabeth, and converts to some form of High Anglicanism to bridge the gap. But the attraction of doing so is lessened when the Protestant ruling class has already left the country, and it would sell out the Catholic lords that is his natural base that's already in power. In addition, the existing Catholic ruling class is much more amenable to a strong monarchy, while a restored Protestant class would naturally distrust him as being a pseudo-absolutist. And he also loses French military protection, and it's not like the Dutch or Swedes have the power to replace that. On the other hand, the mass of the English population are Protestant and likely to rebel at any moment.

So either way Britain is screwed with instability for the next 50 years or so.

Are you certain the mass british populace would rebel? Why should they rebel if they're getting food in their bellies and money in their pockets? The Stuarts were well known for winning the common man over, what's there stopping them doing that this time?

 

[Expat]

Why is some desperate, crippling civil war the go-to option? Compromise seems to be the order of the day. Whatever leverage France has over Great Britain cannot possibly be enough to force the nation into a religious civil war.

Not only will the Stuarts have to placate the various religious factions, they'll also have to prove that they're not going to govern as absolutists, which was an inextricable part of the fear of a Catholic monarchy in the 17th century.

This could be a chance for a significant political revolution. A weak Stuart monarchy comes to power and we could see a significant increase in the franchise.

Also, the reconstitution of the Scottish parliament and greater autonomy there could be very interesting. Scotland's relative egalitarianism is not a 20th century phenomenon, and we could see some interesting political theory emerge from Edinburgh. Of course in wonderful contrast, we've also preserved the clan system for the moment. Most feudal structures failed to make it out of the 19th century, and it's hard to imagine the clans pulling it off. But again, for feudalism, it's a relatively egalitarian ("flat") kind of feudalism. Perhaps the clans can evolve with the times.

 

[Just a Rube]

Are you certain the mass british populace would rebel? Why should they rebel if they're getting food in their bellies and money in their pockets? The Stuarts were well known for winning the common man over, what's there stopping them doing that this time?

Anti-Catholic riots were reasonably common OTL, and the Stuarts (especially if they try to rule as absolute monarchs with Catholic and French backing) are not going to be able to do much to win over the common man, given that a restoration will be accompanied by an influx of "foreigners" (exiles will have been out of the country for decades, and suddenly returning to form a ruling clique) and the need for new taxes to pay for securing the state.

Given the links between France and England in this scenario, it's quite possible the ATL French Revolution (and I expect France will still run up debts ITTL, even with the English no longer being a threat) is followed by a similar revolution in England.

 

[VVD0D95]

Anti-Catholic riots were reasonably common OTL, and the Stuarts (especially if they try to rule as absolute monarchs with Catholic and French backing) are not going to be able to do much to win over the common man, given that a restoration will be accompanied by an influx of "foreigners" (exiles will have been out of the country for decades, and suddenly returning to form a ruling clique) and the need for new taxes to pay for securing the state.

Given the links between France and England in this scenario, it's quite possible the ATL French Revolution (and I expect France will still run up debts ITTL, even with the English no longer being a threat) is followed by a similar revolution in England.

Hmm interesting, and though such a revolution might well fail within England, such a French revolution ittl would still be seen as foreign and scary, especially given english xenophobia

 

[Reydan]

Are you certain the mass british populace would rebel? Why should they rebel if they're getting food in their bellies and money in their pockets? The Stuarts were well known for winning the common man over, what's there stopping them doing that this time?

This is certainly an...interesting reading of the Stuart Dynasty. They were, at best, no better than other dynasties and, it could be argued, much worse!

Why is some desperate, crippling civil war the go-to option? Compromise seems to be the order of the day. Whatever leverage France has over Great Britain cannot possibly be enough to force the nation into a religious civil war.

Not only will the Stuarts have to placate the various religious factions, they'll also have to prove that they're not going to govern as absolutists, which was an inextricable part of the fear of a Catholic monarchy in the 17th century.

This could be a chance for a significant political revolution. A weak Stuart monarchy comes to power and we could see a significant increase in the franchise.

Also, the reconstitution of the Scottish parliament and greater autonomy there could be very interesting. Scotland's relative egalitarianism is not a 20th century phenomenon, and we could see some interesting political theory emerge from Edinburgh. Of course in wonderful contrast, we've also preserved the clan system for the moment. Most feudal structures failed to make it out of the 19th century, and it's hard to imagine the clans pulling it off. But again, for feudalism, it's a relatively egalitarian ("flat") kind of feudalism. Perhaps the clans can evolve with the times.

But on the main question...

Whilst "mass armed uprising" might be overplaying it, I have to say that its a bit unfair to argue that this is the "go-to" in alternate history. More often, I find, this forum tends towards smoothing things over to answer long-term questions. Whilst this is a fine tactic for alternate history - indeed the OP's question was what would change broadly in British history - it does massively ignore the anti-Catholicism and pro-Hanoverian parts of the British establishment.

Ordinary people don't just rebel because they have no money or food - many held deep political, cultural, social, and religious convictions that were at odds with the Jacobite offer.

Remember that this isn't the House of Stuart as a continuation of 1688 - a long time has passed in public memory. Any successful 1745 rebellion would be bloody, drawn-out, and involve a residue of bitter resentment among the defeated. Some would knuckle down and get on with life, as people have suggested, and others would learn to love the new regime, but others would rebel. Even if the Stuarts convert (I find this highly unlikely - neither the Old Pretender nor his son were pragmatists like Elizabeth I and also the situation is much more entrenched than 200 years ago) areas of profound Protestantism (South Wales, the West Country, Kent) would seethe in the immediate aftermath.

There is an excellent series of novels, by Joan Aiken, which has a slightly different POD (no Glorious Revolution) which posits the Hannoverians and their supporters as that timeline's Jacobites. Think about it - they have an overseas power-base, have ruled Britain for decades, and represent everything the current government is not - ITTL expect to see low-level resistance, sometimes boiling over into small-scale or even large rebellions, rumble on for decades. Civil Wars (which this is) never end smoothly.

Whilst the Stuarts might expand the franchise I don't see why they would - again, like with the Catholicism, James III was no moderate. Why listen to the people unless you have to? I'm not sure the franchise would change at a remarkably altered pace.

As for Clans surviving - its an interesting question. Ultimately, though, this POD doesn't butterfly the real reason for collapse - the decline of the crofting economy and the rise in profitability of herding over large areas in the Highlands. The economics of this, which will still swing into action in the 19th century regardless of this POD, are really what did for the Clans. They may well evolve with the times but will never be able to compete economically with the allure of tens of thousands of sheep and the wool profits that brought about their demise OTL.

 

[darthfanta]

Anti-Catholic riots were reasonably common OTL, and the Stuarts (especially if they try to rule as absolute monarchs with Catholic and French backing) are not going to be able to do much to win over the common man, given that a restoration will be accompanied by an influx of "foreigners" (exiles will have been out of the country for decades, and suddenly returning to form a ruling clique) and the need for new taxes to pay for securing the state.

Given the links between France and England in this scenario, it's quite possible the ATL French Revolution (and I expect France will still run up debts ITTL, even with the English no longer being a threat) is followed by a similar revolution in England.

Things will be so different that a French Revolution might be butterflied.Britain will be so screwed by a Stuart restoration that it will mostly focus internally instead of trying to screw with French attempts at hegemony.The Stuarts will also be dependent on their French ally for a long time.Probably butterflies away how much France had to borrow for the Seven Years' war.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I think the idea that a Stuart restoration equals a massive popular revolt is nothing short of insane. Look at Britain through the mid 18th century lens, not a 21st century one. Most of the common people were apathetic one way or the other. As long as the Stuarts don't try to impose Catholicism from above or raise taxes too high the lower classes would accept the new, or rather old dynasty.

Second, this isn't 1714/1715, so the returning Jacobites wouldn't automatically come to power. They have no base or experience in running a country, not to mention the serious factionalism among the various Jacobite groups (the English Jacobites vs the French Jacobites vs the Italian Jacobtes, ex ex). Chances are they'd be restored to their estates and have Court offices, but the government is more likely to be led by the Tories and the English (ie home) Jacobites.

Third, to the religious question, I think we'd only have a Catholic monarch till 1766 or whenever James III dies. Charles Edward more or less despised organized religion (no doubt stemming from his mother's extreme piety and aestheticism that lead to her death) and had no real love for Rome. Chances are he'd still, like OTL, convert to Anglicanism, though here he'd stay Protestant rather then returning to the Catholic fold. Sure James would be infuriated but he couldn't do much besides rage.

Fourth, I doubt that the Stuarts would need a constant French presence to guarantee their rule. The only real threat would be the Whigs and the Hanovarians on the continent. Now would could see a reverse rising later own, with the Whigs playing the role of the Jacobites and the Hanovarians the Stuarts, but not much else. I suppose we could see some of the British army and navy defect to Hanover or the Netherlands, but that depends on the crews wanting to role the dice on the chance of never going home again.

Now, anyone have opinions of the long-term foreign and colonial effects of the restoration?

 

[VVD0D95]

I think the idea that a Stuart restoration equals a massive popular revolt is nothing short of insane. Look at Britain through the mid 18th century lens, not a 21st century one. Most of the common people were apathetic one way or the other. As long as the Stuarts don't try to impose Catholicism from above or raise taxes too high the lower classes would accept the new, or rather old dynasty.

Second, this isn't 1714/1715, so the returning Jacobites wouldn't automatically come to power. They have no base or experience in running a country, not to mention the serious factionalism among the various Jacobite groups (the English Jacobites vs the French Jacobites vs the Italian Jacobtes, ex ex). Chances are they'd be restored to their estates and have Court offices, but the government is more likely to be led by the Tories and the English (ie home) Jacobites.

Third, to the religious question, I think we'd only have a Catholic monarch till 1766 or whenever James III dies. Charles Edward more or less despised organized religion (no doubt stemming from his mother's extreme piety and aestheticism that lead to her death) and had no real love for Rome. Chances are he'd still, like OTL, convert to Anglicanism, though here he'd stay Protestant rather then returning to the Catholic fold. Sure James would be infuriated but he couldn't do much besides rage.

Fourth, I doubt that the Stuarts would need a constant French presence to guarantee their rule. The only real threat would be the Whigs and the Hanovarians on the continent. Now would could see a reverse rising later own, with the Whigs playing the role of the Jacobites and the Hanovarians the Stuarts, but not much else. I suppose we could see some of the British army and navy defect to Hanover or the Netherlands, but that depends on the crews wanting to role the dice on the chance of never going home again.

Now, anyone have opinions of the long-term foreign and colonial effects of the restoration?

An interesting analysis.

I do think the colonies would be filled with unease regarding a restored Stuart dynasty, and one that might well have more leanings toward authoritarianism. Depending on relations with Parliament, either James/ Charles or Parliament will be seen as the boogeymen.

Definitely some closeness with France, and perhaps less of an alliance with Austria and Prussia.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

I think that there are two kinds of English Tory-ism. There are the political views of the Torys at any particular time and place. And then there is the root desire amongst large sections of the English population to have things operate The Way They Always Have. By 1745, for a big chunk of the English population, the Way They Always Have is the settlement of 1688. And the settlement of 1688 undergirds an awful lot of things here.

This is every parliamentary big Whigg (sorry) - and thus their entire trail of people who gain patronage from them, get paid by them, are part of their nascent organization, etc. Henry Fielding's Tom Jones provides a description of this (and so much else). These are constituencies, spread through the country, who'd like to continue to enjoy the money and status they get, and how are by definition people in the community who can drive opinion. Every holder of government debt - if we're getting rid of everything after 1688 here, most of that goes too. The East India Company has done a lot since 1688, and there are a great many people with a stake in keeping that going as well. Setting back the clock to 1688 involves revising a huge chunk of what had become English civil society during the long 18th. And while I doubt the population will rise in defense of parliamentary liberty, they will defend their stake in it.

Ah yes, my handle. I've held off on explaining this because I wanted to talk about the stakeholders before I talked about the human material that is running any Jacobite government. My handle is something I that have because I think it does one well to be reminded that one can be well born, charismatic, daring, good looking, possessed of a keen native intelligence - and still be capable of royally fucking up one's own's interests at nearly every turn and not learning from a single one of these fuck ups. This is Charles Edward Stuart - and he was the smart one of our two options for restored Stuart king. Yes, the '45 is quite romantic - it's also a catalogue of Charles Stuart's complete incompetence when it came to managing stakeholders he really fucking needed. Neither of these men is Elizabeth I, or even Charles II. They are uncompromising hardliners who view dissent as outright disloyalty.

Also, as far as the fact that neither James nor Charles weren't "really" Catholics. So what? Neither was Charles II. Part of English popular culture is the threat of the vile perfidious Catholics in the absence of any evidence for that threat existing. Foreigners are Catholics. Frenchmen are Catholics. The Stuarts, returning to lands they have little experience of from France, with French support, will get all of this hatred directed at them. James Stuart will seem pretty French, as will his English Jacobite supporters. And I don't think "oh, he actually grew up in Italy" will essay much in Charles' favor. And at the end of the day, they're still by descent Scotts, not English.

So to sum up, a successful restoration will have happened with foreign aid, put a foreign man with foreign advisors on the throne. This is not insurmountable, if the person involved is willing to trade ratification of a great deal of 1688 in exchange for support from the stakeholders. Neither of our options here is likely game for that; indeed, many of their English Jacobite supporters will be desperate to settle scores by burning down many of these institutions as they can. One suspects that for Jacobites in England, the reality of a restoration may pale after a bit. The taxation especially will - and if you turn the clock back to 1688, you're going to need a lot of that.

So if we assume all of this happening, the long-term effects are chaos. You have a King installed with foreign support, who is attempting to up end half a century of English life and society. The American colonies leave early, which is an interesting butterfly. The English get a much bigger standing army, much earlier - which is held at home to keep the monarchy intact. English trade and finances suffer - it's hard to be a financial capital with monarch's who've just defaulted on half a century of obligations. Really, I think the long-term effects are an English Republic, which could make for a really interesting timeline.

 

[Socrates]

Are you certain the mass british populace would rebel? Why should they rebel if they're getting food in their bellies and money in their pockets? The Stuarts were well known for winning the common man over, what's there stopping them doing that this time?

The late 1700s onwards was a time of revolution in our timeline, and that will likely be kicked off early by an American revolt here. In addition, the modern British identity from 1707 onwards was as a Protestant liberal nation, maintaining liberty against attempts of universal monarchy by various Catholic powers, especially France. The Gordon Riots happened just over partial elimination of Catholic discrimination. Parliament constantly struggled with being seen to be submissive to Hannoverian interests (which barely happened), so you can be sure there would be huge antagonism to actual submission to another power, especially the hated French.

 

[JMac]

It would make sense to see some Hanoverian sympathizers pack up and leave for the colonies. In northern Ireland, the Protestants who fought on the losing side might well flee to the colonies to avoid retaliation from their Catholic neighbors. Others might just want a place where the Crown's grip is traditionally weaker, and up until this point the Crown has for the most part left the colonies alone.

The problem is that Charles can't just keep leaving them alone. British settlers pushing west is going to put them in conflict Charles's ally, France. France wanted the lands to the west to stay unsettled by Europeans to support fur trading and their native allies. Trying to restrain the colonists from starting a war with his ally (probably with some sort of alternate Proclamation Line) is just one more thing to add to other reasons people have mentioned for unhappy colonists revolting.

What would that revolt look like, though? Any surviving Hanoverians are their most natural ally for fighting the Stuarts. An American Revolution in support of King George is an odd thing to contemplate.