PC: No '45 Scottish Uprising

We all know that the 1745 Stuart uprising failed. And while I've seen many threads about the possibility of said uprising being successful, I can't recall that I have seen one where the rising doesn't happen. This is not to say that it doesn't happen it all, but if it were to emulate the previous risings (the 1712 one where James III was ill when he arrived in Scotland; or the 1717/1718 one where the rising was premature and "easily" crushed, for instance) and fail shortly after BPC arrives in Edinburgh. He takes to his heels (I imagine the British would wish to avoid killing him in the fight or keeping him in custody for much the same reason as William III avoided disposing of James II in 1688 - it makes him a martyr, inflames public opinion against the English/Hannoverians etc etc) and hightails it back to France.

Would the restrictions on the Scots be as prohibitive as what was brought in post 1745? Or would the cauldron of differences between Scotland and England continue to simmer? And how would Charlie's flight impact the Jacobite movement? Would it be seen as an act of cowardice by some/many? Would France wish to make use of him at some later point in a future war?
 
Would it be seen as an act of cowardice by some/many?

I'm reminded of the possibly apocryphal incident after the Battle of the Boyne:

King James II, to an Irish noblewoman: "Madam, your countrymen have run away".

Noblewoman: "Sire, it seems your majesty has won the race".

More broadly, I think that the Jacobite movement will fizzle due to the massive disappointment of the TTL '45 and the fact that the Bonnie Prince, as shown by his OTL fate, was not what one might call an inspiring or charismatic figure. Rather than being romanticized, it will be forgotten like the earlier risings. Likewise, the suppression of highland culture will be lesser de jure, but the same socioeconomic factors that lead to the final destruction of the Clan system will come into play. Nonetheless, the impact of nationalism will still be reduced, but simultaneously will be more associated with economic disadvantages of Scotland by England.
 
I'm reminded of the possibly apocryphal incident after the Battle of the Boyne:

King James II, to an Irish noblewoman: "Your countrymen, madam, can run well".

Noblewoman: "Not quite so well as your majesty, for I see that you have won the race".

IIRC the noblewoman in the anecdote was the sister of the duchess of Marlborough (the duchess of Tyrconnell, I think) and I've never heard that it was apocryphal, simply because apparently la belle Jenyngs was the sort of wit who would've made such a comment.

Nonetheless, the impact of nationalism will still be reduced, but simultaneously will be more associated with economic disadvantages of Scotland by England.

This is probably a stupid question, but how do you mean?
 
What would they do if they caught him?

Say his ship was captured by a naval vessel before he even landed, not super unlikely.

Do they turn him away then if killing him would martyr him?

Henry going into the faith basically means it doesn't matter if he gets martyred because the Stuart line will end.
 
This would also have interesting impacts on the War of the Austrian Succession.

The governor of the Austrian Netherlands, Count Kaunitz, was forced to withdraw his administration north to Antwerp. The siege severely damaged his view of Austria's allies, principally Britain and the Dutch Republic, who he considered had done virtually nothing to protect Brussels from the French. A decade later Kaunitz would be one of the architects of the Franco-Austrian Alliance in which Austria abandoned its former alliance with Britain and joined with its traditional enemy France.

The British withdrew their troops, 28,000 strong, because of the rebellion. The siege of Brussels will go completely differently.

Edit: Actually they withdrew 12,000 troops which is still a significant amount.
 
Last edited:
Henry going into the faith basically means it doesn't matter if he gets martyred because the Stuart line will end.

Not necessarily. IIRC JFES gave permission for Henry to join the church BECAUSE Charlie was there to "carry on" the Stuart name. Henry only went into the church AFTER the Rising (although the idea might have predated it) and Charlie was massively pissed when he heard (he threw a fit, shouted about he should've been consulted, refused to see his father/brother after their "betrayal" ad nauseam).

If he's left as last man standing, JFES might NOT let him into the church. However, Henry was certainly more adroit and less arrogant than Charlie was (his whole handling of his brother and mediating between Charlie and their dad, Charlie and the pope, Charlie and Luise of Stolberg etc etc for the next forty years shows that). His desire to "PROVE" Charlotte of Albany's bastardy shows a certain ambitious/ruthless streak on his side (if he had no desire to be king, he would've simply shrugged his shoulders and said "yes Charles, she is your heiress" IMO). That he DID nothing could also prove he was more realistic than BPC/JFES (even his going into the church indicates something of this) - that he KNEW they were never going back to London (after the 45), so it hardly mattered what he did (become a cleric; NOT contact France to launch a Jacobite invasion; etc).

Admittedly, my interpretation of Henry is probably nothing you'd find in a textbook. In fact, IDK if Henry even has a published bio of his own (he's generally a supporting character in a BPC bio and a footnote in most Stuart/Jacobite histories I've read).

Do they turn him away then if killing him would martyr him?

Well, if you're George II you've got an Elizabeth-Mary, QoS choice. Murder the prince and inflame ALL of Scotland/Europe against you (BPC was related to George's ally Maria Theresia and the king of Portugal; as well as Isabel Farnese; his dad was friends with Felipe V; BPC personal friends with Carlos III; and Louis XV (another cousin) would hardly sit back and watch - in theory). Or keep him in jail and watch people try to free him.
There was a reason William III basically left the key in James II's Tower accomodation's door. Billy knew if he killed him or kept him prisoner he'd make a martyr or a lightning rod of him.
 
Do you think that if they keep him in prison they could make him renounce his claims to the throne? What about something bad but not execution, castration? Most of the people they'd piss of by executing him are already at war (either allied or against), and so can't or won't materially change their position. It might hasten the diplomatic revolution later perhaps.

His death will inflame the Catholics but I'm not sure it would cause an immediate rebellion, I think they'd be more seditious but they'd need a French landing or something to spark it. And France didn't want to land in OTL's Rebellion so without Charles there rallying the cause it's hard to see them doing more. I don't know if Parliament would pass the acts that they did OTL afterwards like the banning of tartan so you would have a much longer simmering there.

Edit: Also if Henry doesn't have issue then the House of Savoy will end up being the claimant to the throne which could be interesting.

Royal_family_tree_charting_the_Jacobite_succession.svg
 
Last edited:
Castration seems a bit barbaric. And that's even comparing it to what the Russians did to Ivan VI.

Forcing a renunciation won't help either. Divine Right says you can't remounce rights to the throne, since these are God-given. Also, someone jailbreaks Charlie, what's his first action going to be? Say that the renunciation is anyway invalid since it was signed under duress.

Keeping him jail will be expensive (in the long run). Can't trust Anglo-Scots soldiers to guard him, so you're going to have to bring in Germans for the job. You also run the risk of Charlie becoming a figure attracting public sympathy and the Jacobites using that to their advantage. This isn't Ivan VI who was an 18month old kid when deposed, packed in a kibitki to Kholmogory (originally bound for Solovky Monastery in the White Sea) where the Empress Elizabeth could sign an order that if the boy fell ill to NOT send for a doctor and only for a priest if was about to die. And nobody (not even his parents who lived in the same house as Vanya knew their son was so close). This is a 24-25yo young man, who all of Europe knows is in British custody, and who much of Catholic Europe regards as the rightful king (even if they swear otherwise). Disappearing him into a dungeon is going to be very very difficult.

Which is why I posit that the British will capture him and then say "whoops, he escaped", perhaps behead one or two suspected Jacobite sympathizing soldiers for aiding in the escape. It saves them a massive headache - both domestically and internationally. And it also lets them point the finger at BPC/the Stuarts as the ones who broke faith (they can use anti-papist/anti-Scots/Gallophobic) propaganda to portray how George II is the rightfully crowned/anointed king of England and JFES/BPC are French Catholic puppets come to tyrannize over all good Englishmen.
 
Castration is barbaric but I do wonder why it wasn't more common. Better than execution, more permanent than a renunciation, which has you rightly say holds no weight

If he escapes surely he'll just come back again and again. I don't see Charles giving up and going home unless he was soundly defeated ala otl. Even then he was still stirring for the cause.

What about something more seditious? While transferring him there was an attempted escape and he was killed in battle or lost at sea or something like this where they didn't deliberately kill him. Bad dungeon conditions means he contracts a disease perhaps.

Not sure why this picture didn't work before:

1280px-Royal_family_tree_charting_the_Jacobite_succession.svg.png


There's alternative paths to power, what the crown does if all of Sophia's descendants perish which isn't that impossible considering she was just one generation from George II.

Or a reconciliation where Charles is married back into the line or Franz married Elizabeth (unlikely). It would require an interesting monarch for sure.

I'm writing a George III self insert and Charles is captured on his ship heading towards Scotland. I think encouraging his execution will make it easier to pass catholic emancipation/religious freedom.
 
What about something more seditious? While transferring him there was an attempted escape and he was killed in battle or lost at sea or something like this where they didn't deliberately kill him. Bad dungeon conditions means he contracts a disease perhaps.

It'll be Richard of Gloucester and the princes in the Tower all over again. It'd just be too convenient for historians and conspiracy theorists not to have a field day with it.

There's alternative paths to power, what the crown does if all of Sophia's descendants perish which isn't that impossible considering she was just one generation from George II.

After George II gets married and has kids it becomes exceedingly difficult to do so without it seeming ASB. The order would run George II>Frederick, Prince of Wales>the duke of Cumberland>his sisters and their offspring>Sophie Dorothea of Hannover>her offspring (she had fourteen kids, 10 of whom survived infancy, and only two of those ten (Fritz, Prince Heinrich) left no issue).

Or a reconciliation where Charles is married back into the line or Franz married Elizabeth (unlikely). It would require an interesting monarch for sure.

Charles won't marry back into the Hannoverian line and take a secondary role, nor will any Hannoverian offspring be allowed to wed someone with a better claim to the throne IMO. AFAIK, there was talk (by Frederick the Great) wherein Charlie would marry Anna Amalie of Prussia. But it never came to anything.
 
Castration is barbaric but I do wonder why it wasn't more common. Better than execution, more permanent than a renunciation, which has you rightly say holds no weight

Because it was barbaric. Sure it might have been a good idea in a purely pragmatic sense, but most people have more senses than the purely pragmatic. I mean, why don't we castrate people nowadays? It would be a good way to stop sex offenders, for example.
 
It'll be Richard of Gloucester and the princes in the Tower all over again. It'd just be too convenient for historians and conspiracy theorists not to have a field day with it.

Oh absolutely but will it be enough to sway the public? All their concerned with is having Charles causing no trouble and them being able mostly to wash their hands of it.

After George II gets married and has kids it becomes exceedingly difficult to do so without it seeming ASB. The order would run George II>Frederick, Prince of Wales>the duke of Cumberland>his sisters and their offspring>Sophie Dorothea of Hannover>her offspring (she had fourteen kids, 10 of whom survived infancy, and only two of those ten (Fritz, Prince Heinrich) left no issue).

I always imagine a family wedding fire to be the cause of these things but that does seem impossible.

Charles won't marry back into the Hannoverian line and take a secondary role, nor will any Hannoverian offspring be allowed to wed someone with a better claim to the throne IMO. AFAIK, there was talk (by Frederick the Great) wherein Charlie would marry Anna Amalie of Prussia. But it never came to anything.

Why wouldn't they marry someone with a better claim to the throne? I can see why Charles personally wouldn't want to become secondary but it seems to me common sense to shore up your claim later on.

Because it was barbaric. Sure it might have been a good idea in a purely pragmatic sense, but most people have more senses than the purely pragmatic. I mean, why don't we castrate people nowadays? It would be a good way to stop sex offenders, for example.

Well, I don't see any reason why we don't offer people castration as a way to chop some years of their sentence. Though to be fair I think part of the negative association these days is with mandatory sterilisation and Nazis. But if they had had access to some plant that sterilised someone in the past? They would use that all the time I bet. Sterilisation isn't near as bad as castration.
 
Why wouldn't they marry someone with a better claim to the throne? I can see why Charles personally wouldn't want to become secondary but it seems to me common sense to shore up your claim later on.

Time, mostly. By the time the reign of George III rolled around, although the direct Stuarts were still alive and kicking, the traditional view of "legitimate English born monarch vs foreign pretender" had reversed. James III might've still been English born, but so was George III (as opposed to his predecessors), while BPC was born in Rome.

And also the fact that any person with a better claim to the throne than the descendants of George I is likely to be Catholic. Although there WAS a TL once where George IV married a Savoyard (and thus higher up in the traditional succession) princess. The premise was Savoy needs an ally against Revolutionary France, said princess converts to Anglicanism and she and George have a far happier marriage than he and Karoline did OTL.
 
Top