Jacobite restoration, any Hanoverian marriage?

Personally I tend to see the Glorious Revolution in quite a positive light all around but, realistiscally, if you want to prevent it you need at the very least you someone willing to accept that:

a) Pre-Civil War royal power, let alone absolutism ala-Louis XIV, isn't gonna happen. That ship had sailed at Naseby, if not Marston Moor.
b) England and Scotland where protestant nations and that wasn't about too change. That ship had sailed when those of the Armada where sunk.

Charles II was willing to live with both and his heir might have been. James II and his descendants only reconcilied with b) when their causes was defacto dead and never truly accepted a).
Indeed, Charles II seemed willing to accept that.

I feel the glorious revolution simply allowed parliament to justify its lecherous nature aha
 
Indeed, Charles II seemed willing to accept that.

I feel the glorious revolution simply allowed parliament to justify its lecherous nature aha
Yeah, I read a bit of your stuff and I've grasped you seem to have fairly attypical political opinions.

Without starting a debate witch, I feel, would be far more approriate for chat I would say that the Glorious Revolution and the years after proved to be extremely fructuous years for Great Britain, during witch British political, economic and military power grew immensely.

Therefore, I feel that its pretty hard the rulling parliament created by the Bill of Rights didn't do a good job.
 
Yeah, I read a bit of your stuff and I've grasped you seem to have fairly attypical political opinions.

Without starting a debate witch, I feel, would be far more approriate for chat I would say that the Glorious Revolution and the years after proved to be extremely fructuous years for Great Britain, during witch British political, economic and military power grew immensely.

Therefore, I feel that its pretty hard the rulling parliament created by the Bill of Rights didn't do a good job.
Indeed, though one has to wonder why they didn’t enable such a thing during the reign of Charles II or James.
 
Indeed, though one has to wonder why they didn’t enable such a thing during the reign of Charles II or James.
Long story short, it was part of the deal. Parliament accepted and helped along the ascension of William III and Mary and joined the fight against France (William III was in it to save the Netherlands, first and foremost) and in exchange they will get the settlement they wanted as far king vs parliament was concerned.
 
There were a fair amount of Jacobites of the Protestant persuasion who had a "wait and see" approach for most of the uprisings. In the event of a restoration, it's fair to assume that James III has more political capital than dear old dad. Such as it was, he was already married.

Why bother securing a Hanoverian marriage? It doesn't do anything to help legitimize him - the Hanoverians were never legitimate to begin with (in the eyes of the Jacobites, anyway). The politics of a French match may make sense if the Stuarts are still intent on alliance there
 
There were a fair amount of Jacobites of the Protestant persuasion who had a "wait and see" approach for most of the uprisings. In the event of a restoration, it's fair to assume that James III has more political capital than dear old dad. Such as it was, he was already married.

Why bother securing a Hanoverian marriage? It doesn't do anything to help legitimize him - the Hanoverians were never legitimate to begin with (in the eyes of the Jacobites, anyway). The politics of a French match may make sense if the Stuarts are still intent on alliance there
This is true, a French or Spanish marriage perhaps
 
Top