James II: King of America

As to New York I remember reading somewhere that the colonists wrote a letter to William and Mary asking to be given back to the Dutch, as William was Dutch. William was loathe to do this as getting the crown of a nation and then giving part of it to your homeland isn't the best optics. New York's citizens wanted to be free to run their own affairs, so I'd think they'd side with whoever gives them the most local autonomy.

As for the Caribbean, at the times those little specs in the ocean were highly valuable real-estate and I can't see the British just giving them up. James is in a pretty precarious position, it wouldn't be smart to push his luck.
 
As for the Caribbean, at the times those little specs in the ocean were highly valuable real-estate and I can't see the British just giving them up. James is in a pretty precarious position, it wouldn't be smart to push his luck.
Not very smart, but terribly American. Push away James!
 
As to New York I remember reading somewhere that the colonists wrote a letter to William and Mary asking to be given back to the Dutch, as William was Dutch. William was loathe to do this as getting the crown of a nation and then giving part of it to your homeland isn't the best optics. New York's citizens wanted to be free to run their own affairs, so I'd think they'd side with whoever gives them the most local autonomy.

As for the Caribbean, at the times those little specs in the ocean were highly valuable real-estate and I can't see the British just giving them up. James is in a pretty precarious position, it wouldn't be smart to push his luck.

I think you're right on both counts. This makes me think New York goes with James--who is further away than the royal governor in New England.

I think the issue with the Caribbean isn't James pushing for it, so much as that some of the Caribbean planter class might prefer jacobitism. But you're probably right to think this is more likely to mean they wind up emigrating to the Carolinas than actually successfully bringing any of the islands to James.

Oh, by the way, slavery's going to be a hot mess. Not necessarily because James or his followers will push for abolition--sadly, they won't for quite some time at least--as because getting cut off from Britain's slave-trading networks is going to jack up the cost of slaves far and fast. So until they actually get a treaty with Great Britain, importing new slaves will be difficult.

You could, if that's where you want to go with the TL, probably use this to push for reformation of slave treatment; if nothing else, rarity makes value, so the idea that slaves and endentured servants are these mutually irreconcilable categories that Virginia, for example, tried to establish after Bacon's Rebellion, might not seem practical. Even reforming the laws to treat slaves and white indentured servants more equally could very well have huge, and I'd say probably positive, nock-on effects later.

But that's a best case: probably more likely that the planter aristocracy tries to go on as they have thus far and pushes James to slap together a quick trade treaty with... basically anybody who's got a stake in the slave trade.

And obviously, this is a bigger deal for [relatively new] Carolina and [well-established] Virginia than it is for Pennsylvania. Abolition in Pennsylvania will happen soon regardless due to the quaker influence.
 
Meanwhile in the United Kingdom: "What do we do with the Scots, Welsh, Irish and other dissidents and debtors?" . "Why don't we send them to James, he will have to take them since he needs people."
 
1.jpg
 
A couple of people have been treated to the first part of the next chunk so hoping to have it posted towards the end of next week.

I'd love to do those Wikipedia boxes you see on some threads, but I'm restricted to my phone for typing this up lol
 
Last edited:
I think you're right on both counts. This makes me think New York goes with James--who is further away than the royal governor in New England.

It's hardly just a matter of what the local burghers want though. How much the British are willing to give to their deposed monarch is another matter.

Now, what is interesting is that should Mary and Anne not have children OTL, there is the potential that a protestant offspring of the transatlantic branch of the family might be preferable to the Hanoverians.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Just as a suggestion, but instead of landing in Virginia, what about landing in Charleston? By 1690, it was the fifth largest city in the Americas and by far the wealthiest on a per capita basis. Having the King establish his Royal residence there would probably be a more attractive option than Virginia.
 
Just as a suggestion, but instead of landing in Virginia, what about landing in Charleston? By 1690, it was the fifth largest city in the Americas and by far the wealthiest on a per capita basis. Having the King establish his Royal residence there would probably be a more attractive option than Virginia.

Admittedly, my choice of Virginia was based on a search for period mansions and castles and coming up with Bacon's Castle. The capitol of the Kingdom will be moving to TTL version of Williamsburg and a new castle/palace will be built - but there are scribbles about a second palace in my notes.
 
Admittedly, my choice of Virginia was based on a search for period mansions and castles and coming up with Bacon's Castle. The capitol of the Kingdom will be moving to TTL version of Williamsburg and a new castle/palace will be built - but there are scribbles about a second palace in my notes.
I thought it was because Virginia was both the most populous colony, and not a bad name for a Kingdom. Will that be sorted out during James' reign?
 
I thought it was because Virginia was both the most populous colony, and not a bad name for a Kingdom. Will that be sorted out during James' reign?

The name for the Kingdom? I do have an idea for them to sit down and go "Isn't 'Kingdom of Virginia and of His Majesty, The King of Virginia's Other Colonies' a bit wordy ... ?" A name change is possible in due course.

A wholesale change of capitol is also a possibility, but in the scribbles I've got, it won't change until at least 1800.
 
Question for you all - If the Stuart's are to try and set up a new nobility, do you think that it would have followed the French or the English model (or Scottish!) with regards to titles etc

I'm talking Comte vs Earl etc, and of any inherited title being able to move via a female line.
 
Question for you all - If the Stuart's are to try and set up a new nobility, do you think that it would have followed the French or the English model (or Scottish!) with regards to titles etc

I'm talking Comte vs Earl etc, and of any inherited title being able to move via a female line.
A part of me wants to see if they might be able to avoid making a new nobility as the Brazilian monarchy did. They, if I remember correctly, gave non-inheritable titles as rewards for service etc. But at the same time this is taking place early enough that I could very well see these early monarchs giving titles as a way to garner support. You also have to ask yourself, "Would Americans willingly create a House of Lords?" Of course there's more to it. The 13 colonies already have an aristocracy. I propose that non-inheritable titles be given out for a lifetime, while inheritable titles only be given for the most exemplary merits. None should ever be placed above a duke. Dukedoms should only be created for Branches of the house of Stuart in line for the Throne. Like in all those aforementioned nobilities, inheritance is largely based on the specific title. Interestingly when I read about the Highland clearances that many were mentioning. I came upon a Countess Sutherland. Her husband (an earl) would be made a duke, and when they're last male line descendant died, the Count and Duke titles would split to separate people based on gender.

So really it depends on you.
 
A part of me wants to see if they might be able to avoid making a new nobility as the Brazilian monarchy did. They, if I remember correctly, gave non-inheritable titles as rewards for service etc. But at the same time this is taking place early enough that I could very well see these early monarchs giving titles as a way to garner support. You also have to ask yourself, "Would Americans willingly create a House of Lords?" Of course there's more to it. The 13 colonies already have an aristocracy. I propose that non-inheritable titles be given out for a lifetime, while inheritable titles only be given for the most exemplary merits. None should ever be placed above a duke. Dukedoms should only be created for Branches of the house of Stuart in line for the Throne. Like in all those aforementioned nobilities, inheritance is largely based on the specific title. Interestingly when I read about the Highland clearances that many were mentioning. I came upon a Countess Sutherland. Her husband (an earl) would be made a duke, and when they're last male line descendant died, the Count and Duke titles would split to separate people based on gender.

So really it depends on you.

I know my plan at the moment is for the title of Prince to be for the sons of the monarch, the sons of the sons of a monarch, with special provision made to the sons of the eldest son of the Crown Prince. Similar to how a Dukedom ceases to be a "Royal Dukedom" after it passes to the great grandchild of the originating monarch.

I've got a plan for two titles in the nobility, other than Crown Prince and Princess Royal, but they are brought in for a very specific set of circumstances.

I'm also looking at no plans for a House of Lords equivalent, in line with the softly softly approach the Stuart's are taking in Virginia.
 
Question for you all - If the Stuart's are to try and set up a new nobility, do you think that it would have followed the French or the English model (or Scottish!) with regards to titles etc

I'm talking Comte vs Earl etc, and of any inherited title being able to move via a female line.

I would think it would be a mix of English and Scottish. You could use the title of Earl in the same way the French used the title of seigneur in New France. More or less copying that system and applying it within the Kingdom. Allowing for orderly land distribution and settlement for fleeing loyalists.
 
Top