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.