Alternate 1715-16 Jacobite Rebellion

For the past year and a half or so I’ve read extensively on the Jacobites. I just finished “King Over the Water” by Alice Shields. In it I came across a very interesting paragraph which explained that in January of 1716, when the Old Pretender was in Perth with his troops, he sent numerous letters to the Duke of Argyll about the possibility of joining together their two armies, but these were suppressed by a jealous Earl of Mar who was worried about being supplanted. I was wondering what if the Duke of Argyll switched sides and merged his army with the Pretenders and became Commander. Would the 1715 rising succeed, how different will the rising be from OTL, what would come of the Earl of Mar, and what would the reaction in London be.

Thanks,
Nmale
 
Last edited:
Earlier 1745 panic perhaps?
This is 1715. But I can see London getting unnerved at the beytrayal of the Duke of Argyll. But I don’t see mass panic. The Whigs will probably be able to raise troops, as the War of Spanish Sucession is now over and they can also invite the 6,000 Dutch troops if they needed to. But I don’t know about the troops in England in 1716 so I wouldn’t know the specifics.
 
This is 1715. But I can see London getting unnerved at the beytrayal of the Duke of Argyll. But I don’t see mass panic. The Whigs will probably be able to raise troops, as the War of Spanish Sucession is now over and they can also invite the 6,000 Dutch troops if they needed to. But I don’t know about the troops in England in 1716 so I wouldn’t know the specifics.

Actually no. The troop deposition at OTL rebellion time was rather... idiotic. It was arranged in such a way that had Argyll been defeated, they had no way to mount an effective defense. By effective I'll define as cobbling together a force of at least 4,000 to confront the rebels' advance, because any less would just get steamrolled. Other formations could not be mobilized in the time it took for a march on London, were too small, or were out of contact. John Churchill of Marlborough had 32,000 (some astute members on the forum and Stuart fans hopefully note that they are more loyal to Churchill and the idea of England/Britain's crown than the Hannover regime... but he is loyal to George I so that's a completely moot point) and could easily reinforce London or even march north to intercept the rebel army. However, in OTL he opted to send three teams of cavalry scouts to asses the situation, scouts who incompetently got lost before reaching Northumbria (apparently they couldn't read road signs). So if Argylle gets defeated or defects, it's entirely probable that the rebels march right into London with the only force large enough to respond in time sitting around on its thumbs doing nothing.

Of course, the rebels then have to try to actually run the country. This is very unlikely. It's an exaggeration to say they have no support, but most British don't want them there. There were strong Jacobite sentiment in Cornwall, Lancashire, and Kent, even crossing religious lines. This is surprising since there were English Angelians who wanted a Catholic to be in charge of the Church of England. Even more surprisingly, the sentiment in favor of the rebels in Scotland and Ireland was considerable even among protestants and reaching very high levels among Catholics. However, 3/4 of the population base at that time was in England and aside from some unusual locations, the Protestant majority did not want the rebels. In other words, the rebels lack support and legitimacy in most of GB.

George can just retreat to Hannover and wait for the counter-coup and he can be restored in style. The Jacobites have no reasonable way to hold the country. In short, while the troop deposition and communication network was completely ill suited towards countering either a coup or a rebellion from Northern England or Scotland, there is no realistic way for the Jacobites to hold the damn country together. The Georgite loyalists can beat the Jacobites simply by calling for passive resistance.
 
Actually no. The troop deposition at OTL rebellion time was rather... idiotic. It was arranged in such a way that had Argyll been defeated, they had no way to mount an effective defense. By effective I'll define as cobbling together a force of at least 4,000 to confront the rebels' advance, because any less would just get steamrolled. Other formations could not be mobilized in the time it took for a march on London, were too small, or were out of contact. John Churchill of Marlborough had 32,000 (some astute members on the forum and Stuart fans hopefully note that they are more loyal to Churchill and the idea of England/Britain's crown than the Hannover regime... but he is loyal to George I so that's a completely moot point) and could easily reinforce London or even march north to intercept the rebel army. However, in OTL he opted to send three teams of cavalry scouts to asses the situation, scouts who incompetently got lost before reaching Northumbria (apparently they couldn't read road signs). So if Argylle gets defeated or defects, it's entirely probable that the rebels march right into London with the only force large enough to respond in time sitting around on its thumbs doing nothing.

Of course, the rebels then have to try to actually run the country. This is very unlikely. It's an exaggeration to say they have no support, but most British don't want them there. There were strong Jacobite sentiment in Cornwall, Lancashire, and Kent, even crossing religious lines. This is surprising since there were English Angelians who wanted a Catholic to be in charge of the Church of England. Even more surprisingly, the sentiment in favor of the rebels in Scotland and Ireland was considerable even among protestants and reaching very high levels among Catholics. However, 3/4 of the population base at that time was in England and aside from some unusual locations, the Protestant majority did not want the rebels. In other words, the rebels lack support and legitimacy in most of GB.

George can just retreat to Hannover and wait for the counter-coup and he can be restored in style. The Jacobites have no reasonable way to hold the country. In short, while the troop deposition and communication network was completely ill suited towards countering either a coup or a rebellion from Northern England or Scotland, there is no realistic way for the Jacobites to hold the damn country together. The Georgite loyalists can beat the Jacobites simply by calling for passive resistance.
I’m not sure about that. From what I’ve read James had a lot of support in the Army and the population and that many preferred him over a foreigner, as long as he didn’t mess with the Church of England. Almost everyone in England hated George I as much as they hated popery, and many would rather be ruled by a Catholic monarch as long as he didn’t meddle in the affairs of the Church. There were also many riots on the day of George I’s coronation all across England calling for the restoration of the Pretender even in places you wouldn’t expect. I also read that when he served with France in the War of Spanish Succession that he would often converse with British troops and was not once shot at.

As for the Duke of Marlborough, he was not completely Hanoverian. When it came to the Glorious Revolution and Jacobite rebellions, he supported whoever he was confident would win. I’m confident if the Duke of Argyll defected and London was taken, that he would’ve defected back to the Stuart’s.

Overall, while I agree that they would’ve had a rough time keeping England together, I think it could be done. Not to mention how George I hated England. I don’t know if he’d be very keen on fighting for a Kingdom he knew wasn’t even loyal to him.
 
I’m not sure about that. From what I’ve read James had a lot of support in the Army and the population and that many preferred him over a foreigner, as long as he didn’t mess with the Church of England. Almost everyone in England hated George I as much as they hated popery, and many would rather be ruled by a Catholic monarch as long as he didn’t meddle in the affairs of the Church. There were also many riots on the day of George I’s coronation all across England calling for the restoration of the Pretender even in places you wouldn’t expect. I also read that when he served with France in the War of Spanish Succession that he would often converse with British troops and was not once shot at.

I didn't know that. I assumed support between "James III' and George I in 1715 and 1718 wasn't actually all that different. If what you are saying is true, that means many of the English were fence sitters. I know James had Army support (you were more likely loyal to your superior, a paycheck, or James outright than George outright), but I thought the general population didn't want the rebels. The Whigs must be good at PR and damage control post rebellion then, since the Poertestant English certainly were fine with George.

I’m confident if the Duke of Argyll defected and London was taken, that he would’ve defected back to the Stuart’s.

That would at least buy a decade of control for the Stuarts (or the Old Pretender's life, whichever is shorter) since it would leave the ability of the Hannover supports little short term ability to wrest control (since there would be no troop blocks that could retake London even if they could convince some to defect back).

I don’t know if he’d be very keen on fighting for a Kingdom he knew wasn’t even loyal to him.

George I considered himself a Hannoveran, ironically loyal to the Catholic Hapsburgs (it's how his family became important). he wasn't too interested in Great Britain or Ireland, but it was rich and had supporters. I doubt he'd go out of his way to fight for a Kingdom not too loyal to him. At the first sign of trouble, he's going home. But if his loyalists safeguard England, I can imagine him coming back, with at most 1/8 of his loyal Hannover troops to bolster if necessary. for a mop-up. I doubt he'd initiate any moves to fight for Great Britain and let local supports do the same. I assumed Marlborough was a George supporter that Hannover loyalists could rally around. If this is not the case, the Hannover supporters might not have anyone to rally around since their figurehead would be back in the Holy Roman Empire and not coming back until his supporters do the first action.
 
Now a few more questions are raised in my mind. If Argyll defected to James at Perth, how would the rest of the Fifteen go. What would become of Mar? Would the Jacobites regain the support they had early in the rebellion? Would they march cautiously into England after securing Scotland, or would they march quickly and recklessly like Prince Charles did in 1745? And now, importantly, would a foreign power send help once realizing the rebellion has a chance at succeeding?
 
Now a few more questions are raised in my mind. If Argyll defected to James at Perth, how would the rest of the Fifteen go. What would become of Mar? Would the Jacobites regain the support they had early in the rebellion? Would they march cautiously into England after securing Scotland, or would they march quickly and recklessly like Prince Charles did in 1745? And now, importantly, would a foreign power send help once realizing the rebellion has a chance at succeeding?

Mar would still be rewarded generously and in fact I think he might be considered one of the rebel's top supporters. IN OTL, someone commented that Mar knew how to march around and look cool, but have no idea on how to actually win a war. This would not bode well for the rebellion if the troop deposition of the Hannover loyalists (or... rather since you mentioned it wasn't as strong as in 1718, perhaps the status quo autopilot forces) wasn't so idiotic.

There are various speeds for an army. A forced march really stretches the limit of the forces. There is a slower march that would be the maximum speed one sends the army without tiring itself. Slower still is marching while being on the lookout for immediate flanking attempts or ambushes, but with the objective of still getting troops from point A to B. All of these are faster than consolidating ground. These speeds depend on the era and on the troop quality. If Mar is a third of the speed that is the maximum one can walk without tiring oneself, he should have enough time to reach London.

Since Argyll is the better commander, he should be the methodical one. Mar should just move to London. Prince Charles was reckless in 1745 and it failed hard against a half-competent defense. Mar might be an even weaker tactician, but he really shouldn't let the Hannover loyalists consolidate their numerical advantage. Said loyalists were lethargic in OTL, so he could easily sit on his butt for three weeks and then go slowly, but he doesn't have enough time to cautiously consolidate all of England. I say march at one third maximum speed while trying to persuade locals while Argylle does the consolidating (and maybe even someone in Cornwall raises another rebel army) would be the best bet.

This change could easily lead to near universal Scottish and Irish support, but it's thue English that needs to be won over to prevent a counter coup.

The Dutch and the Austrians are the ones most invested in the Hannover regime. The Dutch aren't toooooo invested in them. The Austrians are only so because George I likes them and the Old Pretender likes France. of the two, the Austrians are move motivated, but they lack the ability to make a speedy response.
 
This change could easily lead to near universal Scottish and Irish support, but it's thue English that needs to be won over to prevent a counter coup.
In a Rising I don’t think the Irish would be of much help. They were beat into submission by William after the Battle of the Boyne in 1691 and I’m pretty sure would be to scared to help. As for the Scottish do you think they would come back to the Army, as after Sheriffmuir, they deserted in droves and their ranks which were 20,000 before the battle dwindled to 5,000.

And a very important question is, would a foreign power come to aid the Jacobites. If Scotland falls under James’ control, which at this point I’m sure it would quickly do, would France or Spain be willing to help and send troops. I’m sure Spain would be willing to send at the least some financial assistance as they did in OTL.

I’m also curious to know how you think the rest of the Fifteen would go and I’d love to hear what you think.
 
Last edited:
On Milord Witty Jack Marlborough, it's worth remembering he was pretty well-placed whichever way the cat jumped. When he and his wife fell from favour in London they took themselves to the continent for a holiday. They met Georg I and Electress Sophia - who liked and admired him, and were disgusted at Queen Anne's treatment of Sarah IIRC. It was also during this time that Sarah flirted with converting to Catholicism.

Not to mention that Berwick and the other FitzJameses were the children of James II and Marlborough's sister.

So if Georg gets in, Milord Marlbrouk has made a favourable impression on German George. If Jamie winds up king, Marlborough is uncle to Jamie's chief general and half-brother (who James was close to).
 
On Milord Witty Jack Marlborough, it's worth remembering he was pretty well-placed whichever way the cat jumped. When he and his wife fell from favour in London they took themselves to the continent for a holiday. They met Georg I and Electress Sophia - who liked and admired him, and were disgusted at Queen Anne's treatment of Sarah IIRC. It was also during this time that Sarah flirted with converting to Catholicism.

Not to mention that Berwick and the other FitzJameses were the children of James II and Marlborough's sister.

So if Georg gets in, Milord Marlbrouk has made a favourable impression on German George. If Jamie winds up king, Marlborough is uncle to Jamie's chief general and half-brother (who James was close to).
I'm having thoughts here aha
 
On Milord Witty Jack Marlborough, it's worth remembering he was pretty well-placed whichever way the cat jumped. When he and his wife fell from favour in London they took themselves to the continent for a holiday. They met Georg I and Electress Sophia - who liked and admired him, and were disgusted at Queen Anne's treatment of Sarah IIRC. It was also during this time that Sarah flirted with converting to Catholicism.

Not to mention that Berwick and the other FitzJameses were the children of James II and Marlborough's sister.

So if Georg gets in, Milord Marlbrouk has made a favourable impression on German George. If Jamie winds up king, Marlborough is uncle to Jamie's chief general and half-brother (who James was close to).
I think Marlborough would this time choose family over a foreign German. The question is though, would he be given a place in Government. The Jacobites at this point are rife with military talent. The Duke of Ormonde, Duke of Argyll, Duke of Berwick, etc. He also didn’t get along well with many of the Tories.

I’m also still curious about how the rebellion would look after Argylls defection. Would there be any foreign aid for James, and how would the rebellion look overall?
 
I think Marlborough would this time choose family over a foreign German. The question is though, would he be given a place in Government. The Jacobites at this point are rife with military talent. The Duke of Ormonde, Duke of Argyll, Duke of Berwick, etc. He also didn’t get along well with many of the Tories.

I’m also still curious about how the rebellion would look after Argylls defection. Would there be any foreign aid for James, and how would the rebellion look overall?

Foreign aid, perhaps from Spain. Certainly not from France if Le Regent is in control. Apparently he supremely disliked (read hated) James III and the Stuarts, I'm not sure why. @Emperor Constantine, @Spelf or @VVD0D95 (or any other Jacobites) might know. But I imagine it was due to James having higher precedence as a king than le Regent who was simply a prince du sang (similar to how Maria Anna of Bavaria used to receive Mary of Modena while the dauphine was in bed, so as to avoid having to giving Mary precedence).
 
Foreign aid, perhaps from Spain. Certainly not from France if Le Regent is in control. Apparently he supremely disliked (read hated) James III and the Stuarts, I'm not sure why. @Emperor Constantine, @Spelf or @VVD0D95 (or any other Jacobites) might know. But I imagine it was due to James having higher precedence as a king than le Regent who was simply a prince du sang (similar to how Maria Anna of Bavaria used to receive Mary of Modena while the dauphine was in bed, so as to avoid having to giving Mary precedence).
I believe the Regent didn’t like James for the stupidest reason. A while ago I read the Stuart Court in Exile where it said the Regent was mad at the Pretender as he was not allowed to sit in his presence while other Princes of the Blood were. However, in King Over the Water I read that the Regent was really well disposed towards the Jacobites but could not act due to the Treaty of Utrecht. I’m going with the first though because it is newer than King Over the Water, which while a great source, was written in I believe 1924.

I’m eager to know how you think George I would react. It sounds like there was not much resistance to the Stuart’s and that to put down the rebellion he’d have to hire foreign forces.
 
I’m eager to know how you think George I would react. It sounds like there was not much resistance to the Stuart’s and that to put down the rebellion he’d have to hire foreign forces.

George I considered himself King of Hannover, part of the Holy Roman Empire. He was not terribly interested in Great Britain and in fact thought the succession was fishy. However, since he thought that it would be shirking his duties as a king to not go over to his British supporters. As long as he could go home to Hannover anytime he wanted, they could have their island and have him sit there. He is not hiring mercs to put down the rebellion and he isn't going to commit all of Hannover's manpower. A week before London falls, he's on a ship to Hannover and going to play the waiting game.

I assumed that people who liked him in 1718 must have been supportive of the Hannover ascension the whole time. George I would never make a "first move" to retake England, he'd wait for his supporters to clear a landing and pry defections from a restored Stuart monarchy's forces. Operating under the assumption that the English Protestants preferred the German over the Papist, this wouldn't take long. He would have a landing cleared, some Hannoveran troops acting as a loyal core, and some allies of dubious loyalty helping him back. I doubt he'd go back Great Britain though, he'd probably write off Ireland as a loss.

You pointed out there were actually riots against George I. If this is the case, his support is weaker than I thought and when the coutner coup doesn't come George I would take that as a sign that he should absolutely stay in Hannover where he likes the people and they like him. I doubt he'd give up the claim to the throne entirely unless concessions could be made from the Stuarts (a pension or maybe a favor in a future war.... whatever), but he wouldn't make any active attempts to come back.
 
George I considered himself King of Hannover, part of the Holy Roman Empire. He was not terribly interested in Great Britain and in fact thought the succession was fishy. However, since he thought that it would be shirking his duties as a king to not go over to his British supporters. As long as he could go home to Hannover anytime he wanted, they could have their island and have him sit there. He is not hiring mercs to put down the rebellion and he isn't going to commit all of Hannover's manpower. A week before London falls, he's on a ship to Hannover and going to play the waiting game.

I assumed that people who liked him in 1718 must have been supportive of the Hannover ascension the whole time. George I would never make a "first move" to retake England, he'd wait for his supporters to clear a landing and pry defections from a restored Stuart monarchy's forces. Operating under the assumption that the English Protestants preferred the German over the Papist, this wouldn't take long. He would have a landing cleared, some Hannoveran troops acting as a loyal core, and some allies of dubious loyalty helping him back. I doubt he'd go back Great Britain though, he'd probably write off Ireland as a loss.

You pointed out there were actually riots against George I. If this is the case, his support is weaker than I thought and when the coutner coup doesn't come George I would take that as a sign that he should absolutely stay in Hannover where he likes the people and they like him. I doubt he'd give up the claim to the throne entirely unless concessions could be made from the Stuarts (a pension or maybe a favor in a future war.... whatever), but he wouldn't make any active attempts to come back.

Could he consider an offer of marriage between James III's future son and his granddaughter?
 
Could he consider an offer of marriage between James III's future son and his granddaughter?

Possibly. I don't think he's all that stuck up on religion like many others at that time. I think he would allow her a veto over it. It's one thing to allow a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant (less zealot nobles did it in Germany once the embers of the Thirty years War wore off), but forcing it on a daughter/sister/granddaughter/great-granddaughter like a run-out-of-the-mill political marraige would be unheard of.
 
Other than a possible Hanover match, who else is a likely match for now King James III. Keep in mind this is about late 1716 or early 1717. There’s always a French match, I’m sure the Regent would not refuse to marry his daughter to James now that he’s King, but it would confirm the worst fears in the minds of the remaining Whigs and hardcore Protestants.

There’s a Russian match, which Peter the Great proposed to James in 1718 when he was still a Pretender. And there is also the possibility of an Austrian match, as was attempted by James around 1710 (Charles VI told him to wait until he was restored). I also wouldn’t be too surprised if James married into an English family, a daughter of the Duke of Marlborough was also proposed.
 
Other than a possible Hanover match, who else is a likely match for now King James III. Keep in mind this is about late 1716 or early 1717. There’s always a French match, I’m sure the Regent would not refuse to marry his daughter to James now that he’s King, but it would confirm the worst fears in the minds of the remaining Whigs and hardcore Protestants.

There’s a Russian match, which Peter the Great proposed to James in 1718 when he was still a Pretender. And there is also the possibility of an Austrian match, as was attempted by James around 1710 (Charles VI told him to wait until he was restored). I also wouldn’t be too surprised if James married into an English family, a daughter of the Duke of Marlborough was also proposed.

The French match is probably a bad idea. Austria? It would be a great way of reconciling the Stuart and Hannovers indirectly (remember, the Hapsburgs made George I's father go from an untitled aristocrat to King so...)
 
The French match is probably a bad idea. Austria? It would be a great way of reconciling the Stuart and Hannovers indirectly (remember, the Hapsburgs made George I's father go from an untitled aristocrat to King so...)
Yeah I know it’s really surprising. But I read that in the late 1700’s and early 1710’s that James planned on marrying Charles VI’s sister, but as I mentioned, Charles wanted to wait and see if he was restored. So we may actually see and British-Austrian alliance even with a Stuart on the throne.
 
Top