[ARW AH] - Jacobite America?

See above. Could the Stuarts have taken advantage of the American Revolution in anyway to claim, be petitioned to take up or receive an American crown? Were there any embers of royalism or anti-Parliamentary sentiment that could be used to effect this?
 
In short, not a chance. For starters the American Revolution was heavily tied into republicanism, even if Continental Congress didn't initially push for independence the voices calling for it were there and none of them were asking for another king and the philosophers behind the revolution were republican liberals talking about stuff like the Rights of Man and calling for an end to tyranny, something closely associated with the monarchy. More problematic though is the fact that Jacobitism was very heavily tied in with religious sectarianism. Now there was a sectarian element to the American Revolution, but that was royalist Anglicans vs republican Baptists. Catholics were a small group in America at the time and Americans had inherited a strong anti-Catholic bias from the English that lasted well into the 20th Century.

So basically, no way in hell. These are largely English people who initially started the fight to restore the rights owed to all Englishmen who then decided that Parliament (and the King) were too damn obstinate and they all really liked the sound of living in a republic. They're never going to ask for a European, practically French, nobleman who identifies themselves with a highly unpopular religion to take over as king when they were fighting to get rid of one entirely. In a way the Founding Fathers were the ideological heirs of the Good Old Cause of the English Civil War, the Cause that resulted in a Stuart getting his head chopped off.
 
What? Since when?
Since 1775 I'd imagine. What, do you think I'm talking about the Republican party or something? It's no secret that even before July 4th 1776 a lot of patriots were talking about creating an independent country with republican values, as in no king.
 
Since 1775 I'd imagine. What, do you think I'm talking about the Republican party or something? It's no secret that even before July 4th 1776 a lot of patriots were talking about creating an independent country with republican values, as in no king.

The business about the monarchy was undecided - don't mistake what Thomas Paine was thinking/writing about with what the founders/country as a whole believed. Most of these guys that became Federalists were crypto-monarchists. Hamilton was openly monarchist in the vein of the Polish crowned republic. Earlier in the revolution a lot of the unrest was directed at Parliament - they wanted HRH George III to step in and directly administer the colonies on their behalf rather than deal with Westminster
 
I think you need a pre-1775 POD.

Something like James II doesn't become Catholic but is still suspected of Catholic leanings and is still ousted by the Orange troops. But his pro-toleration moves are less obviously just a mask for pro-Catholicism so he still has some favor among the dissenter types.

Then in exile the House of Stuarts continue to position themselves as defenders of toleration and maybe manage a delicate dance of maintaining ties both with the old tories and radical protestants. In response maybe there is some bigger effort to impose Anglican bishops on New England. The Stuarts make sympathetic noises.

Add in that in the Jacobite rebellions, the Stuarts put a little more emphasis than OTL on the traditional rights of Englishmen, etc., as part of the reason for the rebellion. Also, have the Stuarts express sympathy for more of the colonists' grievances.

I think that could easily end up with a strong pro-Jacobite sentiment in America, especially if a Stuart youngling comes to fight merely as a common patriot.

That sounds like a lot of PODs, but its really just two: James II not becoming Catholic and a more savvy House of Stuart in exile.
 
The business about the monarchy was undecided - don't mistake what Thomas Paine was thinking/writing about with what the founders/country as a whole believed. Most of these guys that became Federalists were crypto-monarchists. Hamilton was openly monarchist in the vein of the Polish crowned republic. Earlier in the revolution a lot of the unrest was directed at Parliament - they wanted HRH George III to step in and directly administer the colonies on their behalf rather than deal with Westminster
There was a "what the founders/country as a whole believed", but it clearly didn't take very long into the actual fighting for the majority of them to push for independence from Britain, and independence was only ever going to be in the form of a democratic republic.
What about taking command in the french colony of Louisiana, before the French Revolution?
How and why? The Stuarts are guests of the French, but the French monarchy already owns Louisiana so why give it up to their wards?
 
was only ever going to be in the form of a democratic republic.

According to who? The Framers certainly weren't as sure about this - and an elective republican executive was such a new concept that none of them really knew how to even address him, let alone handle the institution politically. Being the first-of-its-kind (the Italian Doges were much different, as were the Roman Consuls, etc.) was certainly not something you could say "was only ever going" to happen
 
How and why? The Stuarts are guests of the French, but the French monarchy already owns Louisiana so why give it up to their wards?
Fearing attack from a Hanovian anarchist, the Jacobites leave the court of Paris, to take up life in New Orleans, when news reaches of the French Revolution, the Jacobites, claim Louisiana as Royalist in favour of the monarchy and on behalf of the Bourbon monarchy
 
According to who? The Framers certainly weren't as sure about this - and an elective republican executive was such a new concept that none of them really knew how to even address him, let alone handle the institution politically. Being the first-of-its-kind (the Italian Doges were much different, as were the Roman Consuls, etc.) was certainly not something you could say "was only ever going" to happen
But it was the only option besides sticking with the British, which was obviously unacceptable. The colonies had been governing their own affairs democratically for decades with Parliament and the King having taken a very hands-off approach to governing America. Besides, there were contemporary republics as well as republican movements in the world besides Venice, like the Dutch.
 
But it was the only option besides sticking with the British, which was obviously unacceptable. The colonies had been governing their own affairs democratically for decades with Parliament and the King having taken a very hands-off approach to governing America. Besides, there were contemporary republics as well as republican movements in the world besides Venice, like the Dutch.

as I said not really applicable - the Stadtholder was a hereditary monarch in all but name, and the Doge had a lot of similarity to the King of Poland. the American Executive was revolutionary and not a foregone conclusion
 
as I said not really applicable - the Stadtholder was a hereditary monarch in all but name, and the Doge had a lot of similarity to the King of Poland. the American Executive was revolutionary and not a foregone conclusion
And the Americans were clearly ready or at least willing to experiment. I don't buy any of that stuff about seriously proposing George Washington become king.
 
And the Americans were clearly ready or at least willing to experiment. I don't buy any of that stuff about seriously proposing George Washington become king.
The impression I got was that they were concentrating on kicking out Parliament control first before deciding what form of government to set up. The King got added in to be binned as he wouldn't oppose Parliament.

As to the OP, the ARW is too late for a Jacobite America. Perhaps a delayed Protectorate and the colonies house exiled Royals for a time? With the Restoration the new king makes sure there are separate Parliaments. However James still becomes Catholic and gets kicked out, eventually fleeing to the colonies where he makes several concessions to obtain their loyalty (albeit not sure how to reconcile this with the Puritans!), a great war eventually secures the separation of the colonies under James's descendants.
 
Last edited:
Maybe more Royalist forced into exile to the New World? So if a Stuart pretender shows up they have a power base to start with.
 
Top