Jacobitism in the Colonies?

[Yorel]

Jacobitism was a political movement that supported the restoration of James II and his descendants on the thrones of Great Britain & Ireland. James II's bloodline died with Cardinal Henry Stuart (claimant under the name Henry IX & I) and, as a result, Jacobitism was reduced to a small number of people who supported the rights of the descendants of Henrietta Anne Stuart (sister of James II who married Louis XIV's brother, Duke Philip of Orléans).

From what I understood, Jacobitism was movement that was mainly linked to Britain & Ireland. I don't recall you had Jacobite uprisings in any of the British colonies of the time.

Could there have been Jacobite uprisings in the colonies? And if so, which colonies would be the most likely to support the Jacobite cause?

 

[MAlexMatt]

Was she a Catholic?

 

[Maniakes]

The middle-to-southern colonies, I think would be most likely to support Jacobitism. In particular, Maryland (founded as a haven for Catholics) and Virginia (where many royalists had previously gone into exile during the Commonwealth/Protectorate). Jacobitism in New England would be a complete non-starter, as Puritans were generally the most anti-Jacobite demographic, and as there was already an ongoing revolt in New England against James II's governor when the Glorious Revolution started.

The big problem with Jacobitism in the colonies is that it doesn't make sense for a Jacobite pretender to try to raise a rebellion from the colonies. They make a lousy stepping-stone to reclaiming the English throne, and didn't have anywhere near the strength to hold out against a determined effort by Britain to crush a rebellion until much, much later than Jacobitism was a viable cause.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

Everything Maniakes said is true, but all we really need is one more decent candidate from the House of Stuart. There could be a confused tangle of Jacobinism near the American Revolution; George Washington has refused the crown, but rather than engage in this risky 'Republic' experiment, why not dust off Bonnie Prince Charlie and crown him King of America? It'd be popular from Maryland south, New York and Pennsylvania not so much, New England not at all. Failing that, Henry could renounce his vows, marry some girl and churn out an heir. The major problem is that the surviving Stuarts are all Catholic; I expect the Americans would want a Protestant, and there simply aren't any. Although perhaps Bonnie Prince Charlie could agree to having his children raised Protestant even if he personally remained Catholic...

 

[Major Major]

Everything Maniakes said is true, but all we really need is one more decent candidate from the House of Stuart. There could be a confused tangle of Jacobinism near the American Revolution; George Washington has refused the crown, but rather than engage in this risky 'Republic' experiment, why not dust off Bonnie Prince Charlie and crown him King of America? It'd be popular from Maryland south, New York and Pennsylvania not so much, New England not at all. Failing that, Henry could renounce his vows, marry some girl and churn out an heir. The major problem is that the surviving Stuarts are all Catholic; I expect the Americans would want a Protestant, and there simply aren't any. Although perhaps Bonnie Prince Charlie could agree to having his children raised Protestant even if he personally remained Catholic...

By 1776 Charles is an alcoholic and in poor health. (He did take a certain pleasure in the British losses in the ARW.)

Prince Charlie's Bluff by Donald Thomas had that, but he did have something improbable by way of spouse for the new King of America . . .

http://www.uchronia.com/bib.cgi/label.html?id=thomprince

(As with Katherine Kurtz's Two Crowns for America, Thomas has to invent excuses for Charles's personal health then.)

Thomas does point to a very real proposal by William Byrd III of Virginia (ancestor of Admiral Byrd and the Senators Byrd) to recall the Stuarts but as I've said it wouldn't go once they actually got a look at the candidate.