1740s Jacobite Restoration: Long Term Affects?

You have to be careful mapping the attitudes of 1688 onto a hypothetical post 1745 Stuarts Triumphant scenario but Anglican sentiment was almost universally hostile to any diminution of the Penal Laws. I mean look at the reaction to the Papists Act of 1778. Now with that you are going to get a major backlash but with a recent victory over the Hannoverians I think the Stuarts could probably get it through. There would be riots that would have to be put down but it probably wouldn't trigger a sustained armed uprising if done in the immediate aftermath. If you go as far as the Edict of Nantes which actually was very broad and generous for the era especially the military clauses you are looking at English Civil War mk2. Certainly no conceivable Parliament would pass it. Now once again you might have the Stuarts triumph again but it would be an enormously uphill battle with 75%+ of the country united against them.




Well yes but that's money you're not spending on other things and like Secret Service money it's going to be controversial. Basically in this era bribery from whatever source could shift the scales but it couldn't transform things. It can shift a few "marginal" constituencies where you might have a weaker local Tories going against a strong Whigs presence. But it isn't going to get die hard Catholic Divine Right Jacobites who can be relied upon to back the Stuarts through thick and thin a majority elected in anything like sufficient numbers. Instead I suspect you would end with something very similar to the Parliament of 1685 aka the Loyal Parliament which was very loyal in 1685 and gave James II the customs duties for life at a high rate and then largely abandoned him and supported the Glorious Revolution in 1688.



That's easier said than done though. The various Jacobite Clans had been known and identified decades earlier and frequently the Clan Chiefs had had their lands confiscated and granted out. But the Clansmen tended not to co-operate and acknowledge their new landlords. Thus why the Highlands were a fairly violent and unpleasant place in this era. You can have a few Massacres of Glencoe analogues to clear a few Glens of Campbell's but that is just going to leave the remaining Campbell's (and there are lot it was the biggest Clan) even more pissed off.



Austria was a repeated battleground throughout the Napoleonic Wars while Italy was fought over continuously in the various Franco-Hapsburg Wars right up to 1815. Same applies to the Austrian Netherlands and the Rhine Region while the much of the Seven Years War happened in Silesia. I'm not saying the were wartorn wastelands on the scale of WW2 Western Russia but there was regular fighting which all the resulting confiscations, looting, shutting down of trade and general disruption. Those are unsurprisingly fairly poor soil for an Industrial Revolution to kick off. In this scenario the Hannoverians and the Whigs aren't going to just give up and leave the Stuarts alone. There will be risings, revolts and plots from them along with confiscations, witch hunts and paranoia from the Stuarts. That is inevitably going to disrupt the Industrial Revolution.

First, to the Edict of Nantes, I didn't mean the entire thing, more the parts that gave the Huguenots the right to practice their religion (relatively) unmolested provided their not in peoples faces with it (like Henrietta Maria and James II were). Law wise I think a combination of 1778 and 1791 could be doable, though there would be a backlash in any event.

As to the Tories, I think you might be underestimating them. At this point they're well aware of what would happen if the Stuarts are restored then deposed again. At best they'd lose power permanently (no thaw under Frederick I/George III), at worst they'd lose everything and be sent into exile like the Whigs. Basically the Tories would be in a corner; if they betray the Stuarts again they'll be screwed by the new/returning regime. Sure they won't be die-hard Catholic loving Jacobites, but certainly more loyal then the Tories of 1688: after all, at this point there would be no going back.

Third, the Highlands. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be, Scottish history isn't my strong suit) but between 1725 and the Austrian succession war, the Highlands were more or less kept in line by the Black Watch companies. This government backed police force (which is what it was, more or less) was formed into the 42nd Regiment and later sent to the continent in 1745 to fight in the Flanders campaign. The absence of a government force in the Highlands was a contributing factor to Charles Edward's success in the early '45. So couldn't a Jacobite Black watch be formed, recruited form loyalist clans, to keep the anti Stuart clans in line? I mean the Stuarts are going to be aware that they're not popular and wouldn't send most of their army to the continent for any reason. Or am I completely wrong (which I can be as again Scottish history is not my forte)?

Something else money-wise I remembered after finishing Bonnie Prince Charlie by Frank Mclynn: Mary of Modena's jointure. Under English law Mary Beatrice was owed a jointure of £50,000 a year, as was settled on her by Charles II and (I believe) Parliament. Under the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick a gentleman's agreement was made in which the English would pay the jointure but reneged, allegedly because they only promised to pay if the Stuarts were banished from France. In fact the only time the English made a payment was under Queen Anne, in 1713 I believe.

By Mary's death in 1719 the amount owed, when interest was added, was £2,500,000, which only grew larger as time went on. The Stuarts would no doubt get that money, which was probably much higher by 1745, if they were restored. As this money would be a private fortune of the Royal House, I can't help but wonder whether it could be covertly directed during elections.

Also, a question. I'm trying to find a way to prod the English Jacobites into rising during the '45. Was there anyone (Tory/Jacobite/anti-Hanoverian) in England at this point that could get the Jacobites to rise or rise first to get the ball rolling?
 
First, to the Edict of Nantes, I didn't mean the entire thing, more the parts that gave the Huguenots the right to practice their religion (relatively) unmolested provided their not in peoples faces with it (like Henrietta Maria and James II were). Law wise I think a combination of 1778 and 1791 could be doable, though there would be a backlash in any event.

As to the Tories, I think you might be underestimating them. At this point they're well aware of what would happen if the Stuarts are restored then deposed again. At best they'd lose power permanently (no thaw under Frederick I/George III), at worst they'd lose everything and be sent into exile like the Whigs. Basically the Tories would be in a corner; if they betray the Stuarts again they'll be screwed by the new/returning regime. Sure they won't be die-hard Catholic loving Jacobites, but certainly more loyal then the Tories of 1688: after all, at this point there would be no going back.

Third, the Highlands. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be, Scottish history isn't my strong suit) but between 1725 and the Austrian succession war, the Highlands were more or less kept in line by the Black Watch companies. This government backed police force (which is what it was, more or less) was formed into the 42nd Regiment and later sent to the continent in 1745 to fight in the Flanders campaign. The absence of a government force in the Highlands was a contributing factor to Charles Edward's success in the early '45. So couldn't a Jacobite Black watch be formed, recruited form loyalist clans, to keep the anti Stuart clans in line? I mean the Stuarts are going to be aware that they're not popular and wouldn't send most of their army to the continent for any reason. Or am I completely wrong (which I can be as again Scottish history is not my forte)?

Something else money-wise I remembered after finishing Bonnie Prince Charlie by Frank Mclynn: Mary of Modena's jointure. Under English law Mary Beatrice was owed a jointure of £50,000 a year, as was settled on her by Charles II and (I believe) Parliament. Under the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick a gentleman's agreement was made in which the English would pay the jointure but reneged, allegedly because they only promised to pay if the Stuarts were banished from France. In fact the only time the English made a payment was under Queen Anne, in 1713 I believe.

By Mary's death in 1719 the amount owed, when interest was added, was £2,500,000, which only grew larger as time went on. The Stuarts would no doubt get that money, which was probably much higher by 1745, if they were restored. As this money would be a private fortune of the Royal House, I can't help but wonder whether it could be covertly directed during elections.

Also, a question. I'm trying to find a way to prod the English Jacobites into rising during the '45. Was there anyone (Tory/Jacobite/anti-Hanoverian) in England at this point that could get the Jacobites to rise or rise first to get the ball rolling?

Would having a Jacobite black watch system not make some of the clans feel as if they were simply replacing one tyrant with another? Though it could be quite effective.

As for England, well risings in the north were planned I think, unless I am mistaking that for the 15. I think it might need to sit and wait for how things go within Scotland itself, unless there is a particular groundswell
 
As to the Tories, I think you might be underestimating them. At this point they're well aware of what would happen if the Stuarts are restored then deposed again. At best they'd lose power permanently (no thaw under Frederick I/George III), at worst they'd lose everything and be sent into exile like the Whigs. Basically the Tories would be in a corner; if they betray the Stuarts again they'll be screwed by the new/returning regime. Sure they won't be die-hard Catholic loving Jacobites, but certainly more loyal then the Tories of 1688: after all, at this point there would be no going back.

That's where I couldn't disagree more. From the perspective of 1686 in the immediate aftermath of the Rye House Plot and the destruction of the Whigs, the Tory Reaction, James II's ascension to the throne, the defeat of the Monmouth Rebellion and finally Parliament giving James II the Customs for life you would conclude that the Tories were tied at the hip to James II and couldn't go back. Obviously things were more complicated. Come 1688 and the Glorious Revolution Danby and Compton both committed Tories signed the Invitation to William while many other Tories in the army defected after William III landed. Finally in the Convention Parliament admittedly after a lot of manoeuvring the Tories mostly voted to for the joint Monarchy of William and Mary (The Whigs had wanted William alone to make the Crown clearly elected, the moderate Tories wanted Mary alone to stick with hereditary right though some wanted a Regency for James II. No one wanted James II back). Remember the Whigs didn't achieve dominance until George I arrived and that was mostly because Harley and Bolingbroke convinced him that the Tories were untrustworthy and were all secret Jacobites. Also because the failure of the 1715 rising convinced him that he didn't need the Tories any more.
Now you're not going to get a perfect repeat but if the Charlie captures London, summons a Parliament who then perform Tory Reaction mark II and purge the Whigs as much as possible and then for whatever reason the Stuarts start doing unpopular things again (Catholic Emancipation comes to mind though supporting France might also do it) I suspect you'll find some Tories willing to sign an Invitation to George II to return (assuming he promises to forgive them for deserting him in the first place). In fact from a Tory perspective a brief Stuart restoration followed by the return of George at least partly through their efforts might sound quite attractive. They would still have the Protestant succession and as a party have the Sovereign in the debt and who knew from recent experience that he had to bear their interests in mind and not rely completely on the Whigs. In an odd way this scenario might strengthen the Hanoverian Monarchy as instead of it's OTL role of presiding over Whigs governments it would instead be the arbiter between the Whigs and Tories.

Third, the Highlands. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be, Scottish history isn't my strong suit) but between 1725 and the Austrian succession war, the Highlands were more or less kept in line by the Black Watch companies. This government backed police force (which is what it was, more or less) was formed into the 42nd Regiment and later sent to the continent in 1745 to fight in the Flanders campaign. The absence of a government force in the Highlands was a contributing factor to Charles Edward's success in the early '45. So couldn't a Jacobite Black watch be formed, recruited form loyalist clans, to keep the anti Stuart clans in line? I mean the Stuarts are going to be aware that they're not popular and wouldn't send most of their army to the continent for any reason. Or am I completely wrong (which I can be as again Scottish history is not my forte)?

Well mid-18th century history isn't my forte, I did my dissertation on the Glorious Revolution and it's aftermath so my knowledge mostly stops with the death of Queen Anne. But yes the Stuarts are absolutely going to have to set up an alternative Black Watch (the Hanoverian Regiment had been sent to Flanders in 1745 in an incredibly piece of stupidity. Keep it at home and there probably wouldn't be a '45 Rising or it would fail rapidly.) however there are only so many loyal Highlanders. So every Highlander who stays in the Highlands is one not propping up the Stuarts in London.

Something else money-wise I remembered after finishing Bonnie Prince Charlie by Frank Mclynn: Mary of Modena's jointure. Under English law Mary Beatrice was owed a jointure of £50,000 a year, as was settled on her by Charles II and (I believe) Parliament. Under the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick a gentleman's agreement was made in which the English would pay the jointure but reneged, allegedly because they only promised to pay if the Stuarts were banished from France. In fact the only time the English made a payment was under Queen Anne, in 1713 I believe.

By Mary's death in 1719 the amount owed, when interest was added, was £2,500,000, which only grew larger as time went on. The Stuarts would no doubt get that money, which was probably much higher by 1745, if they were restored. As this money would be a private fortune of the Royal House, I can't help but wonder whether it could be covertly directed during elections.

That's simply not going to happen. The Stuarts might want it but considering the UK's GDP was about £70 million there is no way on earth they are getting that. Or at least if they do get that they aren't getting much other money from Parliament.

Also, a question. I'm trying to find a way to prod the English Jacobites into rising during the '45. Was there anyone (Tory/Jacobite/anti-Hanoverian) in England at this point that could get the Jacobites to rise or rise first to get the ball rolling?

Watkin Williams-Wynn was the leader of the Tories and had promised to help the Jacobites if they land with sufficient forces but considering his behaviour in OTL (i.e. he stayed in London and did nothing) I wouldn't rely on him.
 
Last edited:
That's where I couldn't disagree more. From the perspective of 1686 in the immediate aftermath of the Rye House Plot and the destruction of the Whigs, the Tory Reaction, James II's ascension to the throne, the defeat of the Monmouth Rebellion and finally Parliament giving James II the Customs for life you would conclude that the Tories were tied at the hip to James II and couldn't go back. Obviously things were more complicated. Come 1688 and the Glorious Revolution Danby and Compton both committed Tories signed the Invitation to William while many other Tories in the army defected after William III landed. Finally in the Convention Parliament admittedly after a lot of manoeuvring the Tories mostly voted to for the joint Monarchy of William and Mary (The Whigs had wanted William alone to make the Crown clearly elected, the moderate Tories wanted Mary alone to stick with hereditary right though some wanted a Regency for James II. No one wanted James II back). Remember the Whigs didn't achieve dominance until George I arrived and that was mostly because Harley and Bolingbroke convinced him that the Tories were untrustworthy and were all secret Jacobites. Also because the failure of the 1715 rising convinced him that he didn't need the Tories any more.
Now you're not going to get a perfect repeat but if the Charlie captures London, summons a Parliament who then perform Tory Reaction mark II and purge the Whigs as much as possible and then for whatever reason the Stuarts start doing unpopular things again (Catholic Emancipation comes to mind though supporting France might also do it) I suspect you'll find some Tories willing to sign an Invitation to George II to return (assuming he promises to forgive them for deserting him in the first place). In fact from a Tory perspective a brief Stuart restoration followed by the return of George at least partly through their efforts might sound quite attractive. They would still have the Protestant succession and as a party have the Sovereign in the debt and who knew from recent experience that he had to bear their interests in mind and not rely completely on the Whigs. In an odd way this scenario might strengthen the Hanoverian Monarchy as instead of it's OTL role of presiding over Whigs governments it would instead be the arbiter between the Whigs and Tories.



Well mid-18th century history isn't my forte, I did my dissertation on the Glorious Revolution and it's aftermath so my knowledge mostly stops with the death of Queen Anne. But yes the Stuarts are absolutely going to have to set up an alternative Black Watch (the Hanoverian Regiment had been sent to Flanders in 1745 in an incredibly piece of stupidity. Keep it at home and there probably wouldn't be a '45 Rising or it would fail rapidly.) however there are only so many loyal Highlanders. So every Highlander who stays in the Highlands is one not propping up the Stuarts in London.



That's simply not going to happen. The Stuarts might want it but considering the UK's GDP was about £70 million there is no way on earth they are getting that. Or at least if they do get that they aren't getting much other money from Parliament.



Watkin Williams-Wynn was the leader of the Tories and had promised to help the Jacobites if they land with sufficient forces but considering his behaviour in OTL (i.e. he stayed in London and did nothing) I wouldn't rely on him.


OK 1746 would not be like 1688. In 1688 the Tories hadn't burnt any bridges with the incoming monarchs of William and Mary. Here, by supporting the Stuarts they would have. Only an idiot would assume that George II can be taken at his word, considering who his ministers were and the high probability that he's going to want revenge. The Hanoverians wouldn't see them as loyalists but opportunists who supported then betrayed the Stuarts and now supports the Hanoverians themselves. From their prospective, whose to say the Tories won't flip flop again? In my eyes, the Tories would have made their bed with a Stuart Restoration and would have to lie in it at this point.

So a Stuart/Jacobite Black watch could created and be a success in keeping the pro-Hanoverian Clans in check? Good to know. As to the army, I think a combination of some Highlander bodyguards (maybe a highlander guard regiment?), recruited Jacobites from the pro-Stuart parts of the North (with a restoration the northerners on the fence on "coming out" would have the push to do so) and maybe some Swiss mercenaries should secure the country. We'd also have the Tories reentering the army for the first time sense 1715, so Tory officers would replace the Whigs as being in charge of the army regiments.

To the jointure, its not unrealistic if payed over some time. I mean OTL the civil list under the Georgians was £800,000 and Charles II had been voted £1,200,000 a year in 1660, so a onetime payment of several million would be doable.

Finally, I was thinking of a TTL person, like maybe a surviving (titular) 4th Earl of Derwentwater playing the part of his father and the 3rd Duke of Perth. He'd be the son of the martyred 3rd Earl, wealthy and not in exile. Plus young enough to be potentially impulsive/drawn into the rising. Could that work? Really though, its a shame there was no one in England that could be play Lord George Murray's role.
 
one thing I've always wondered about is how the regency of prince Charles goes.

In the second ('45 I think) attempt, as opposed to the year earlier attempt scuttled by the 'protestant wind', Bonnie Prince Charles was granted a regency to recapture the crown. So let's say he succeeds. Does he now step down in favor of his stick in the mud, diehard Catholic, unlikely to inspire Father? Or does he say 'stay in Italy, Dad, I'm in charge'?

I really can't see Charles retaking the throne and then turning it over. edit. to a guy very likely to lose it.
 
one thing I've always wondered about is how the regency of prince Charles goes.

In the second ('45 I think) attempt, as opposed to the year earlier attempt scuttled by the 'protestant wind', Bonnie Prince Charles was granted a regency to recapture the crown. So let's say he succeeds. Does he now step down in favor of his stick in the mud, diehard Catholic, unlikely to inspire Father? Or does he say 'stay in Italy, Dad, I'm in charge'?

I really can't see Charles retaking the throne and then turning it over. edit. to a guy very likely to lose it.

Charles was granted a commission of Regency in December 1743, before he left for France. It was in effect during both the 1744 invasion attempt and the '45.

Second, James was a devote Catholic to be sure, but he was by no means a bigot or an idiot. The man had spent his entire life, except for a few weeks, in exile. He's not going to do something radical enough to be deposed. Although, if it came down to it I'd guess we'd see a de-facto abdication, like Vittorio Emanuele III's in WWII. James would legally remain king but Charles would be the permanent Prince Regent.
 
OK 1746 would not be like 1688. In 1688 the Tories hadn't burnt any bridges with the incoming monarchs of William and Mary. Here, by supporting the Stuarts they would have. Only an idiot would assume that George II can be taken at his word, considering who his ministers were and the high probability that he's going to want revenge. The Hanoverians wouldn't see them as loyalists but opportunists who supported then betrayed the Stuarts and now supports the Hanoverians themselves. From their prospective, whose to say the Tories won't flip flop again? In my eyes, the Tories would have made their bed with a Stuart Restoration and would have to lie in it at this point.

Remember the Tories, like the Whigs are a big tent ranging from Catholic Absolutists through High Church Anglicans to people pissed off with and opposed to their local Whig magnate. Now obviously any Tory who takes active part in the rising and has Hanoverian blood on his hands is stuck with the Stuarts but they are going to be a minority. If you consider the "Jacobites" as a pyramid at the top you've got those who followed them into exile. They are going to get the first pick of Whig estates, plum jobs in the new government, new titles etc. Below them you have Jacobites who remained in Britain but who actively rose up in '45. Now these two groups are a. unlikely to defect to the Hanoverians and b. probably aren't going to be accepted. However these are both fairly small groups of people so if the Stuart's are going to have any chance of running the country they are going to need a third group as MP's, as JP's, Lord Lieutenants, High Sheriffs, Army Officers etc. those Tories who were excluded from government pre-'45 but who didn't take up arms in the rising. There simply won't be enough of the first two groups to make a functioning government. In fact they are probably going to need a fourth group of former Whigs who are willing to sell out the principals for power. Remember no Tory has had a role in the running of the country for 30 years so they will need some experienced Whig administrators.
Now these groups could under the right circumstances defect to the Hanoverians and the Hanoverians would have to be mad to refuse them. And as for double dealing consider John Churchill Duke of Marlborough. Despite being a key player in the Glorious Revolution he stayed in contact with the Jacobite court in exile for the rest of his life. I see no reason why Tories wouldn't behave the same way in this scenario.


To the jointure, its not unrealistic if payed over some time. I mean OTL the civil list under the Georgians was £800,000 and Charles II had been voted £1,200,000 a year in 1660, so a onetime payment of several million would be doable.

Parliament isn't a bottomless well of money. Just as now every tax you impose costs you political capital and while you certainly can raise taxes to pay off the jointure that's money you can't spend on other things. Like the Army. I suspect the Stuarts would demand and get a Civil list on a similar scale to the Hanoverian one and would direct the rest of the money they can get out of Parliament to the Exchequer.
 

Mrstrategy

Banned
fate of supporters of the previous king

do you think the new king might go after the families menbers of parliament that support william in the glorious revolution perhaps remove their tittle or seize their states or banish them
 
do you think the new king might go after the families menbers of parliament that support william in the glorious revolution perhaps remove their tittle or seize their states or banish them

The decision of where to draw the line on Acts of Attainder and Treason trials is going to be one of the key questions for the Stuarts immediately post seizing London and summoning a Parliament. The Pelham Brothers who are Prime Minister and Secretary of State (Foreign Minister in this era) are gone as are the various Whig Magnates who raised volunteers and took up arms during the rising, i.e. the Dukes of Argyll, Kingston and Dorset plus a few others. They are far too closely tied to the previous regime to ever be trusted and on the Henry VII basis can be said to have committed treason by taking up arms against the rightful King. But beyond that the Stuarts have a massive problem about where to draw the line. If they are too generous then they won't have enough confiscated land to reward their followers with and will have left their enemies too powerful. If on the other hand they go for very broad confiscations like Cromwell in Ireland then they will kill any hope of a quick victory as those who they intend to dispossess fight back rather than knuckle under. Considering the fundamental weakness of the Jacobite position (i.e. less popular support than the Hanoverians) that might be fatal.
Going by OTL precedent William and Mary were very lenient post the Glorious Revolution and were willing to forget and forgive providing the Jacobite Lords swore allegiance. Some didn't and went into exile but most did swear and some but not all repaid that by supporting the later Jacobite uprisings. After the Glorious Revolution the rule of thumb was that if you took up arms you were toast but talk was forgiven. While it didn't work out perfectly, there were Jacobite plots right up until '45, it did bring a measure of domestic peace. Another important factor is that in a society where politics is confined to the landed aristocracy anything that undermines property rights and smacks of arbitrary confiscation is going to scare and piss off your own supporters.
I personally think the Stuarts will follow precedent and only confiscate land from those Whig peers who actually take up arms, leaving the majority of Whigs in possession of their estates. It will still leave them vulnerable to Whig plots down the line and they won't have as much land to hand out as they would like but it is the line of least resistance in turn of giving the Whigs some motive to accept the new regime and not fight to the last man while reassuring neutrals that you're not going to be a tyrant.
 
Remember the Tories, like the Whigs are a big tent ranging from Catholic Absolutists through High Church Anglicans to people pissed off with and opposed to their local Whig magnate. Now obviously any Tory who takes active part in the rising and has Hanoverian blood on his hands is stuck with the Stuarts but they are going to be a minority. If you consider the "Jacobites" as a pyramid at the top you've got those who followed them into exile. They are going to get the first pick of Whig estates, plum jobs in the new government, new titles etc. Below them you have Jacobites who remained in Britain but who actively rose up in '45. Now these two groups are a. unlikely to defect to the Hanoverians and b. probably aren't going to be accepted. However these are both fairly small groups of people so if the Stuart's are going to have any chance of running the country they are going to need a third group as MP's, as JP's, Lord Lieutenants, High Sheriffs, Army Officers etc. those Tories who were excluded from government pre-'45 but who didn't take up arms in the rising. There simply won't be enough of the first two groups to make a functioning government. In fact they are probably going to need a fourth group of former Whigs who are willing to sell out the principals for power. Remember no Tory has had a role in the running of the country for 30 years so they will need some experienced Whig administrators.
Now these groups could under the right circumstances defect to the Hanoverians and the Hanoverians would have to be mad to refuse them. And as for double dealing consider John Churchill Duke of Marlborough. Despite being a key player in the Glorious Revolution he stayed in contact with the Jacobite court in exile for the rest of his life. I see no reason why Tories wouldn't behave the same way in this scenario.




Parliament isn't a bottomless well of money. Just as now every tax you impose costs you political capital and while you certainly can raise taxes to pay off the jointure that's money you can't spend on other things. Like the Army. I suspect the Stuarts would demand and get a Civil list on a similar scale to the Hanoverian one and would direct the rest of the money they can get out of Parliament to the Exchequer.

Again I see your point but categorically disagree with you on several points. Yes some of the lower tier Tories could defect to the Hanoverians, but not enough to make a difference in the plots and intrigue that will be occurring after the restoration. They would be in the same boat as the British Jacobites: none would chance a rising in favor of their chosen royals without foreign backing at the very least or a potential army at the most. And, unlike the Stuart-Jacobites, the House of Hanover has no major continental ally that had a navy.

The Dutch would be the only potentials but they would have their own problems: the OTL internal crisis that existed, the decline in trade and the military, loss of international influence and a Bourbon state (either France directly or a cadet branch) on their doorstep. Also, Willem IV, Prinz van Oranje only came to power in 1747 and died in 1751 (he had poor health and a curvature of the spine, so he's probably not going to live much longer than OTL), and while his wife (Anne, Princess Royal) did become Regent for their son, I can't see the Dutch allowing her to declare war on Britain on her family's behalf.

Its kind of ironic: the Stuarts had no permanent base, no army, no state yet were a major threat while the Hanoverians would rule a sizeable principality but be unable to create the same level of threat/fear in London that their rivals did. In many ways a Stuart restoration puts the nail in the British ambitions of the House of Hanover permanently, unless there's another Glorious revolution and invitation.

Finally, to the jointure, I think they could get most, if not the entire thing. Going by OTL (the Restoration and 1689 settlement) the monarch is going to get a very generous income from Parliament, which in cases like these (a sudden change in government) tends to be overgenerous in an attempt to show loyalty. Think the major grants James II got in 1685.

The decision of where to draw the line on Acts of Attainder and Treason trials is going to be one of the key questions for the Stuarts immediately post seizing London and summoning a Parliament. The Pelham Brothers who are Prime Minister and Secretary of State (Foreign Minister in this era) are gone as are the various Whig Magnates who raised volunteers and took up arms during the rising, i.e. the Dukes of Argyll, Kingston and Dorset plus a few others. They are far too closely tied to the previous regime to ever be trusted and on the Henry VII basis can be said to have committed treason by taking up arms against the rightful King. But beyond that the Stuarts have a massive problem about where to draw the line. If they are too generous then they won't have enough confiscated land to reward their followers with and will have left their enemies too powerful. If on the other hand they go for very broad confiscations like Cromwell in Ireland then they will kill any hope of a quick victory as those who they intend to dispossess fight back rather than knuckle under. Considering the fundamental weakness of the Jacobite position (i.e. less popular support than the Hanoverians) that might be fatal.
Going by OTL precedent William and Mary were very lenient post the Glorious Revolution and were willing to forget and forgive providing the Jacobite Lords swore allegiance. Some didn't and went into exile but most did swear and some but not all repaid that by supporting the later Jacobite uprisings. After the Glorious Revolution the rule of thumb was that if you took up arms you were toast but talk was forgiven. While it didn't work out perfectly, there were Jacobite plots right up until '45, it did bring a measure of domestic peace. Another important factor is that in a society where politics is confined to the landed aristocracy anything that undermines property rights and smacks of arbitrary confiscation is going to scare and piss off your own supporters.
I personally think the Stuarts will follow precedent and only confiscate land from those Whig peers who actually take up arms, leaving the majority of Whigs in possession of their estates. It will still leave them vulnerable to Whig plots down the line and they won't have as much land to hand out as they would like but it is the line of least resistance in turn of giving the Whigs some motive to accept the new regime and not fight to the last man while reassuring neutrals that you're not going to be a tyrant.

All the Whigs who raised their own regiments/militia in the '45 will lose their lands, that goes without saying, though I wonder about the estates of John Spencer, the father of the first Earl Spencer, for example. He inherited the lands of his grandmother the Duchess of Marlborough (one of the largest landowners in the country) but as far as I know he didn't raise any troops or actively participate in the rising. I wonder if he'd manage to hang onto his estates or would the Crown work with the 3rd Duke of Marlborough (who arguably had a better claim to the estates than his cousin) to dispose Spencer and divide the lands between them.

I will say that, luckily for the Stuarts, most of the Whig grandees did raise troops for the government in the '45, so they and their supporters are going to get a large windfall once they begin passing attainders. But your right that the lesser Whigs would keep their estates, unless they owned lands of an attained Jacobite peer/landowner that's returning. In that case they'd probably lose some land and be compensated elsewhere.
 
Top