Jacobite Britain

Si I'm writing a different War of the Austrian Succession TL and one of the features I have is a Jacobite Britain thanks to French intervention led by Saxe and Bonnie Charlie, with James becoming the king.

I'm thinking I'll kill James early, because he would not work out as British king. Meanwhile Bonnie Charlie will probably be a king ruled by his advisers and a Protestant convert, though lots of toleration for Catholics.

I want to know who would be his advisers in this situation, I'd guess Tories, but which ones? And under this Tory government what sort of policy would Britain pursue? Would it abandon its French allies to go after British interests or what?

Comments, replies, and questions please.
 
Since he would have no support in England, he would have to do what the French say and get propped up by their bayonets.
 
Since he would have no support in England, he would have to do what the French say and get propped up by their bayonets.

No support? The Jacobites had lots of support. Mainly it was among Irish, Scots, Catholics, and Tories, but there were other sources as well. Also support doesn't equal lack of control it is dissent that does, and for most part as long as Charles didn't force Catholicism or unsavory policies on the English they wouldn't really care. This was seen in the Glorious Revolution and the War of 1715. The English commoners honestly didn't care who was their king it was the aristocracy.

Also the Hanoverians were actually not very popular at the time. They were seen as Germans, because they were all born in Germany and they mainly spoke German until George III. Neither was the Hanoverians supporters among the aristocracy the Whigs that well liked. So in fact the Hanoverians were the more unpopular ones. The reason OTl the English didn't rise up is because they didn't think that Charles would win because he was leading a band of ragtag Scots. Had he had a French army many authors agree that he probably would have seen a pro-Jacobite rebellion.
 
The reason OTl the English didn't rise up is because they didn't think that Charles would win because he was leading a band of ragtag Scots. Had he had a French army many authors agree that he probably would have seen a pro-Jacobite rebellion.

Which authors or sources have you in mind, particularily?
(I was under the impression that the absence of a real support in England was because of the past depradations of Jacobite and especially Scottish armies, for exemple).

As for French support : in the case of a successful Jacobite re-establishment, I don't see it lasting past a short time, for inner matters both in Britain and France.
Even a Jacobite support would eventually turn back to a certain continental rivalry as it happened with Stuarts restauration. I'd think political survival with the really narrow manoeuvre marge that Jacobites would have then would impose such.

As for France, Bourbons never demonstrated a so vibrant support for Stuarts for that they'd be willing to spend needed resources for their own continental policies and strategies into supporting all by themselves against another revolution attempt the proverbial cat-like dynasty in Britain : giving away Scottish and Irish guards and regiment is a distinct possibility, but more seems illusory to me.
 
Si I'm writing a different War of the Austrian Succession TL and one of the features I have is a Jacobite Britain thanks to French intervention led by Saxe and Bonnie Charlie, with James becoming the king.

I'm thinking I'll kill James early, because he would not work out as British king. Meanwhile Bonnie Charlie will probably be a king ruled by his advisers and a Protestant convert, though lots of toleration for Catholics.

I want to know who would be his advisers in this situation, I'd guess Tories, but which ones? And under this Tory government what sort of policy would Britain pursue? Would it abandon its French allies to go after British interests or what?


Comments, replies, and questions please.

To begin with LOVE the idea. I've always had a passion for the Jacobites and their representation of legitimate monarchy. There is so few TLs on them that its just sad. That being said I wouldn't write off James III so soon. His uncompromising on his beliefs and the way he accepted each and every blow he was dealt without complaint won him many admirers that never translated over to his son. An example would be that most of the French support came from those who knew James during his early life in France. Charles Edward was too bold to many of the traditional allies of the Jacobites.

James was often described by those who knew him as the personification of the English gentlemen, something that would definitely help in building relations with his (new) subjects.

As for the government, that's more difficult to tell. Chances are it would be a combination of the Tories in Britain and the returning Jacobites who acted as advisers to James in Rome. I'll have to go through my books on specifics.

To foreign policy, I think James would likely withdraw Britain into a form of splendid isolationism, with discreet aid to France. Overt support for France early in the Restoration would likely lead a good deal of damage to the government at home and accusations of a puppet regime. Neutrality would be the best he could do.

In domestic policy, we'd see earlier Catholic emancipation and some kind of legislation that keeps a Catholic Sovereign from interfering with the Anglican Church. Removing the fear that the King will drag Britain back to Rome kicking and screaming would go a long way to stabilize the new regime. Remember that for the most part England was apathetic to the Monarch's religion as long as the Anglican Church and a few other fundamental rights weren't interfered with.

The real question early on will be Scotland. If 1744 succeeds, then we'd probably see some kind of federal model that keeps the union intact but restores autonomy to the Scots. However, if this is a successful '45, then things are different and the Scots have a stronger bargaining position to repute the union and restore Scotland's independence.

Finally, to Anglo-French relations, I think we'd see something similar to the relations that existed in the 1720s and 1730s, allied and friendly but not to the point that they would prioritize the alliance over national interests. Eventually interests will divide, international politics will shift and the alliance would be pointless.

Since he would have no support in England, he would have to do what the French say and get propped up by their bayonets.

ENTIRELY NOT TRUE!!!:mad: Everyone who claims that the Jacobites had no support in England has obviously done little to no research on this topic whatsoever. The Whigs and the House of Hanover were never popular; all of their propaganda had to portray the Jacobites as having little support and being on the edge of society because the truth, that the Georges and Whigs were on very shaky ground, was much worse. Remember that the Tories still managed to maintain a large standing in the Commons even with the levers of power held by the Whigs. Clearly the Whigs could fix the elections but not the minds of the electorate, which says something when one considers that, at the most, 3% of the population could vote. After years of Whig and foreign rule the political elite had reached the point of preferring an English Catholic to a Protestant German.

The Jacobites had always said they would not rise without a foreign force to form a core for the uprising. That's just a fact. If the 1744 invasion had landed or if Charles had stayed in Scotland until the French force was launched, then things would be very different.

Sorry for the rant but the Whig historiography that has dominated the historical opinion on the Stuarts and Jacobites is complete BS and I'm sick of people citing tired arguments without any real research on the subject.
 
Which authors or sources have you in mind, particularily?
(I was under the impression that the absence of a real support in England was because of the past depradations of Jacobite and especially Scottish armies, for exemple).

As for French support : in the case of a successful Jacobite re-establishment, I don't see it lasting past a short time, for inner matters both in Britain and France.
Even a Jacobite support would eventually turn back to a certain continental rivalry as it happened with Stuarts restauration. I'd think political survival with the really narrow manoeuvre marge that Jacobites would have then would impose such.

As for France, Bourbons never demonstrated a so vibrant support for Stuarts for that they'd be willing to spend needed resources for their own continental policies and strategies into supporting all by themselves against another revolution attempt the proverbial cat-like dynasty in Britain : giving away Scottish and Irish guards and regiment is a distinct possibility, but more seems illusory to me.

I can think of at least one. Bonnie Prince Charlie: Charles Edward Stuart by Frank McLynn. The Jacobite Peers and gentry could rise a good deal of men from their tenants but most had no leadership experience. They wanted a foreign force, either French, Spanish, Franco-Irish or other, to form a core that the Jacobite army could form around. Without that core the English Jacobites had concluded, more or less correctly, that any army they could create would lack the leadership and experience to defeat the government.

As for Anglo-French relations, I agree with you. Any detente or alliance would eventually be eclipsed by national interests. Although I'll bet that the British would keep the alliance for the lifetime of James III, who in my opinion would be unlikely to break any agreement that he signed with the nation(s) that aided in his restoration.

While Louis XIV was, from everything I've read, truly devoted to a Stuart restoration and alliance (he envisioned a triple alliance of Britain, France and Spain, bound by the shared bounds of childhood and personal friendship between James III, Felipe V and at the time the Duc de Bourgogne), Louis XV was not.
 
While Louis XIV was, from everything I've read, truly devoted to a Stuart restoration and alliance (he envisioned a triple alliance of Britain, France and Spain, bound by the shared bounds of childhood and personal friendship between James III, Felipe V and at the time the Duc de Bourgogne), Louis XV was not.

"Truly devoted" is really not how I'd put it.
See how he strongly advised the Old Pretender to stop being an idiot about ignoring Protestantism was a thing in England, or how he never really provided sufficient funds or worth of mention management, for instance.

If something Louis XV was more prone to give Stuarts a role, as it was planned to let them do their part in the planned 1744 operation.

Eventually, one have really to distinguish what the king as a person tought (and even there, true devotion do Stuarts for Louis XIV would work if it means "pitied attention") and the royal policies of having them going native after three decades, and critically applying Utrecht Treaty without too much fuss.

Not to say he saw them as only an auxiliary force, but in facts, it was how they were treated at first. Then as walking embarassments.
 
Which authors or sources have you in mind, particularily?
(I was under the impression that the absence of a real support in England was because of the past depradations of Jacobite and especially Scottish armies, for exemple).

As for French support : in the case of a successful Jacobite re-establishment, I don't see it lasting past a short time, for inner matters both in Britain and France.
Even a Jacobite support would eventually turn back to a certain continental rivalry as it happened with Stuarts restauration. I'd think political survival with the really narrow manoeuvre marge that Jacobites would have then would impose such.

As for France, Bourbons never demonstrated a so vibrant support for Stuarts for that they'd be willing to spend needed resources for their own continental policies and strategies into supporting all by themselves against another revolution attempt the proverbial cat-like dynasty in Britain : giving away Scottish and Irish guards and regiment is a distinct possibility, but more seems illusory to me.

An Osprey about the Jacobites and Bonnie Prince Charlie by McLaren (I think don't have it on me right now).
Your right in that definitely playing a big part, but its undeniable that the cause seeming unwinnable without french support hurt it a lot.

That seems likely, the alliance would definitely survive through James' rule. However in Bonnie Charlie's region the alliance expiring is a possibility, because Bonnie Charlie seems more willing to deviate to be King. Unlike James who was one of the most devout Catholics of his time.
I also agree the French wouldn't pour tons of resources into maintaining the Stuarts, it simply isn't worth it.
The Scottish and Irish regiments I could see be given to the Stuarts and I think that would be really interesting.

I agree that France wouldn't be devoted to maintaining the Staurts, because first off the Staurt and French partnership will eventually fracture due to geopolitics alone.

But I'm more interested in if within the 1750s and 60s would the Tories lead the country towards a break with France and how will domestic politics look.

To begin with LOVE the idea. I've always had a passion for the Jacobites and their representation of legitimate monarchy. There is so few TLs on them that its just sad. That being said I wouldn't write off James III so soon. His uncompromising on his beliefs and the way he accepted each and every blow he was dealt without complaint won him many admirers that never translated over to his son. An example would be that most of the French support came from those who knew James during his early life in France. Charles Edward was too bold to many of the traditional allies of the Jacobites.

James was often described by those who knew him as the personification of the English gentlemen, something that would definitely help in building relations with his (new) subjects.

As for the government, that's more difficult to tell. Chances are it would be a combination of the Tories in Britain and the returning Jacobites who acted as advisers to James in Rome. I'll have to go through my books on specifics.

To foreign policy, I think James would likely withdraw Britain into a form of splendid isolationism, with discreet aid to France. Overt support for France early in the Restoration would likely lead a good deal of damage to the government at home and accusations of a puppet regime. Neutrality would be the best he could do.

In domestic policy, we'd see earlier Catholic emancipation and some kind of legislation that keeps a Catholic Sovereign from interfering with the Anglican Church. Removing the fear that the King will drag Britain back to Rome kicking and screaming would go a long way to stabilize the new regime. Remember that for the most part England was apathetic to the Monarch's religion as long as the Anglican Church and a few other fundamental rights weren't interfered with.

The real question early on will be Scotland. If 1744 succeeds, then we'd probably see some kind of federal model that keeps the union intact but restores autonomy to the Scots. However, if this is a successful '45, then things are different and the Scots have a stronger bargaining position to repute the union and restore Scotland's independence.

Finally, to Anglo-French relations, I think we'd see something similar to the relations that existed in the 1720s and 1730s, allied and friendly but not to the point that they would prioritize the alliance over national interests. Eventually interests will divide, international politics will shift and the alliance would be pointless.

That's an interesting point you bring up about James, but I think for the stake of a Stuartist England I'd have to kill him sooner than OTL. Because though he won the hearts of Jacobites, Catholics, Tories, and Frenchmen he also needs to win the hearts of the English.

Him being nice will no doubt aid his reign, but his devout Catholicism still remains a major contention. Yet maybe you can persuade me otherwise.

That sounds plausible, but I have a question would the Tories and Jacobites from Italy get along well?

I like this idea and agree with the argument behind it.

Sounds good.

It's going to be 1744, so probably some concessions to the Scottish, but not too much.

When do you think this divergence would occur and what might be the final straws.


More or less agree, but I don't know enough about Louis XIV to warrant a comment on that

"Truly devoted" is really not how I'd put it.
See how he strongly advised the Old Pretender to stop being an idiot about ignoring Protestantism was a thing in England, or how he never really provided sufficient funds or worth of mention management, for instance.

If something Louis XV was more prone to give Stuarts a role, as it was planned to let them do their part in the planned 1744 operation.

That's a helpful titbit (seriously it is).

Louis XV I'm not so sure about, but his ministers most definitely. Maurepas was definitely all for the scheme (I mean sending Saxe is very telling).

And no comment I'm not a Louis XIV guy.
 
Top