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

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

@VVD0D95, @NedStark, @Emperor Constantine, @Kellan Sullivan, @Socrates
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Well which one are they getting restored in? A coup in 1714 is the best bet for a young James iii.

dor the 45 deoebds how they winS
 
Supposing the Jacobites manage to successfully restore the House of Stuart to the throne in 1715 or in the 1740's, what would be the geopolitical implications of such a change? How would his affect the American Colonies, the wars of France in Europe against Austria, and the broader state of the British Isles?

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

@VVD0D95, @NedStark, @Emperor Constantine, @Kellan Sullivan, @Socrates
It would utterly wreck the UK. The country was overwhelmingly Protestant by this point and would not tolerate Catholic monarchy. The country would be ridden with civil war. The North American colonies would probably go for an early independence. Catholics, including Highlanders, would like face vigilante violence and genocide.
 
It would utterly wreck the UK. The country was overwhelmingly Protestant by this point and would not tolerate Catholic monarchy. The country would be ridden with civil war. The North American colonies would probably go for an early independence. Catholics, including Highlanders, would like face vigilante violence and genocide.
that's a bit deterministic. The country that was overwhelmingly Protestant had zero problem rising for a Catholic prince like Charlie. At that point (1745) England was involved in a war she had little-to-no-interest in (the Stuarts never cared who held the Southern Netherlands, and George II only jumped in because the Hannoverians had sworn to side with Austria- George II himself had voted for Karl Albrecht). George II had a yacht moored in the Thames to flee if Charlie passed a certain point. The country might not like a Catholic, but if your actual king isn't going to stand and fight for you, why should you die for him?

The North American colonies would grumble and there'd probably be local problems, but I don't see them going independent earlier than OTL, especially since a lot of the corrupt officials were Hannoverian appointees anyway (not saying the Stuarts would appoint less-corrupt officials). Given the travel times to the US and back, I suspect the rebellion in England is over before the Americans even know something's happened.
 
It would utterly wreck the UK. The country was overwhelmingly Protestant by this point and would not tolerate Catholic monarchy. The country would be ridden with civil war. The North American colonies would probably go for an early independence. Catholics, including Highlanders, would like face vigilante violence and genocide.
I’ve read that the London Stock Exchange almost collapsed in the 1740’s during the Jacobite rising in Scotland in anticipation of a French invasion.

At that point (1745) England was involved in a war she had little-to-no-interest in (the Stuarts never cared who held the Southern Netherlands, and George II only jumped in because the Hannoverians had sworn to side with Austria- George II himself had voted for Karl Albrecht). George II had a yacht moored in the Thames to flee if Charlie passed a certain point. The country might not like a Catholic, but if your actual king isn't going to stand and fight for you, why should you die for him?
How would the religious situation evolve in the UK long term supposing the Stuarts hold the throne long-term?
 
I’ve read that the London Stock Exchange almost collapsed in the 1740’s during the Jacobite rising in Scotland in anticipation of a French invasion.
weren't most of the people who ran the stock exchange secretly pulling for Charlie @VVD0D95 ?
How would the religious situation evolve in the UK long term supposing the Stuarts hold the throne long-term?
James stays Catholic (he won't change this late in life. Although Charlie - as OTL - might express a desire to either rejoin the Anglican Church, or marry Protestant (a marriage was proposed for him with Anna Amalie of Prussia by Frederick the Great to settle the matter of the Sobieski inheritance), or even if he marries Catholic, insist on having his heir christened Anglican. Charlie was as stubborn as James (it was part of the reason for their estrangement all the years), and due to James disliking a "scene" (Charlie was very much his mother's son when it came to tantrums, and James had developed an aversion for them as a result of his marriage), I could see Charlie winning out.

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

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

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

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

The legal backlog will take (at least) three to five years to sort out, IMO. The stress and strain of actually having to do something (James III is 57yo in 1745, I don't see him making the 1760s as OTL) might be what finishes him off sooner. Charlie is "young", likely with a young Anglican family (if not a Protestant wife) and with the glamour of a war hero on him (no diving headfirst into the bottle like OTL), and more "flexible". Which, after a series of old men (and women, if you count Anne), might be greeted with great optimism.
 
I wonder how this affects the Anglican Church? Would something like Anglo-Catholicism arise earlier? How would the position of the Supreme Governor be handled for the Church of England, would James or Charles hold the position? Not sure if a Catholic can head the Church of England.
 
Top