Princess Over The Water

Orford would never give allegiance to James (even if James were willing). He would head to the Netherlands (not Hannover, no water ). How many of the ships would follow him, I have no idea. Fleet discipline then was not as strong as it was 100 years later, many captains would make up their own minds. Berkeley might make peace, though he was still pretty bitter against the Tories.

I wouldn't be too blase about James getting over the Channel. The Whigs know when he'll be coming and there are only so many ports. If he comes with a French fleet, that's very noticeable. If he comes in secret (smuggled on a shipping vessel) , he is vulnerable if any word leaks out. It's all a matter of the wind.

You couldn't get 14000 men into London, and if you did you couldn't feed them. A smaller force of very loyal men _in_ London, others around it. And send some decent sized squads to reinforce friendly Lords Lieutenant, they are very important.

The Tories must seize Somerset and Argyll at all costs especially the latter , if he escapes to raise Scotland it'll be 1645 all over again. And make sure Lord Stair is secured, if Marlborough and Ormonde are working together he is certain to be on the other side.

Ormonde was definitely in London when Anne died (or very near it ) , it was he to whom Atterbury issued the famous lawn sleeves challenge.

Remember that Marlborough will be heavily (and competently) spied on. By several different parties. Evading his shadows will not be trivial, and if he simply disappears from sight , the spies will guess what's up and notify the Whigs.

EDIT: Actually, the best thing of all, if men had the nerve for it, would be for both Marlborough _and_ James to be smuggled into England inn the last week of July. Then as soon as the Queen dies, Atterbury gets his chance to proclaim King James, and the King himself pops up like Jacque-in-the-box (did you see what I did there ;-). The man on the spot ! But it would take some very smart prescience and a hell of a lot of courage.
 
Last edited:
Orford would never give allegiance to James (even if James were willing). He would head to the Netherlands (not Hannover, no water ). How many of the ships would follow him, I have no idea. Fleet discipline then was not as strong as it was 100 years later, many captains would make up their own minds. Berkeley might make peace, though he was still pretty bitter against the Tories.

I wouldn't be too blase about James getting over the Channel. The Whigs know when he'll be coming and there are only so many ports. If he comes with a French fleet, that's very noticeable. If he comes in secret (smuggled on a shipping vessel) , he is vulnerable if any word leaks out. It's all a matter of the wind.

You couldn't get 14000 men into London, and if you did you couldn't feed them. A smaller force of very loyal men _in_ London, others around it. And send some decent sized squads to reinforce friendly Lords Lieutenant, they are very important.

The Tories must seize Somerset and Argyll at all costs especially the latter , if he escapes to raise Scotland it'll be 1645 all over again. And make sure Lord Stair is secured, if Marlborough and Ormonde are working together he is certain to be on the other side.

Ormonde was definitely in London when Anne died (or very near it ) , it was he to whom Atterbury issued the famous lawn sleeves challenge.

Remember that Marlborough will be heavily (and competently) spied on. By several different parties. Evading his shadows will not be trivial, and if he simply disappears from sight , the spies will guess what's up and notify the Whigs.

So the fleet would divide up between Tory/Jacobite and Hanoverian/Whig, though more would probably side with the Tories, if for noting else but to stay loyal to Britain.

So getting James over the channel would be more difficult but not undoable, if his arrival is kept secret enough. Or if he's escorted in force by the French Fleet. IDK what's more likely. On one hand the French were pretty lukewarm with support to the Jacobites but on the other hand if there was any time that the French would give full support to them it would be under Louis XIV.

I didn't mean 15000 men in London (maybe a garrison in the Tower of around, what 600 to 1000?) and a few hundred soldiers patrolling the city itself. I would guess that the troops would be spread out around the area around London and the channel.

Could the Dukes be ambushed and arrested during the council meeting on the 29th? That would be the best opportunity and sense Anne lost the ability to speak the next day, there would be no way to order his release if its kept secret long enough. Where was Stair during Anne's final days? If he's in London he could be arrested fairly quickly but if he's out of reach then it would be difficult.

So it would be difficult for Marlborough to slip away. Could some of the spies be flipped or could the news be delayed from reaching England? The only other things I can think of would be for him to fake being ill as a cover or have a stand in stay behind wit Sarah (though that might be a little too elaborate).
 
Some captains would certainly realise that reconciliation with James and the Tories was impossible. Of course, _cunning_ conspirators would have been subverting the fleet officers for months past.

With the advantage of hindsight, seizing those Dukes at the Council meeting seems very logical. Of course, that's then the point of no return, the conspirators have to go full ahead from there. No delays, no hesitation. Start seizing key points before the Queen is dead, the moment she breathes her last proclaim King James. l'audace, et encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace

Which means that Marlborough (and James ? see my edit below) need to be on hand.

Perhaps Marlborough could use a little misdirection. He and Sarah conspicuously set off for Hanover: the Duke slips away and a double takes his place in the coach and continues to Hanover (where they would likely have a hot reception) . It would require a lot of nerve, but Sarah had a lot of nerve. Quite hard to spy on someone in a coach, and hotel keepers etc could be told the Duke was indisposed, not uncommon when travelling in those days.

Stair would be on the Continent, but there is more time to get him.
 
Some captains would certainly realise that reconciliation with James and the Tories was impossible. Of course, _cunning_ conspirators would have been subverting the fleet officers for months past.

With the advantage of hindsight, seizing those Dukes at the Council meeting seems very logical. Of course, that's then the point of no return, the conspirators have to go full ahead from there. No delays, no hesitation. Start seizing key points before the Queen is dead, the moment she breathes her last proclaim King James. l'audace, et encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace

Which means that Marlborough (and James ? see my edit below) need to be on hand.

Perhaps Marlborough could use a little misdirection. He and Sarah conspicuously set off for Hanover: the Duke slips away and a double takes his place in the coach and continues to Hanover (where they would likely have a hot reception) . It would require a lot of nerve, but Sarah had a lot of nerve. Quite hard to spy on someone in a coach, and hotel keepers etc could be told the Duke was indisposed, not uncommon when travelling in those days.

Stair would be on the Continent, but there is more time to get him.

I was thinking the same thing. If your creating a conspiracy in an island country your going to need to get the Navy (or as much of it as you can). I'd imagine distributing propaganda threw-out the country and military would be a big plus.

Yes starting while the Queen is dieing is part of my plan but is it believable or ASB? I was thinking of using the examples of what happened before and after Henry VIII and Edward VI's deaths, though with more success then the Council plot in 1558.

I agree with being on hand. Marlborough definitely and James, if not before Anne's death, then as soon as possible after her death. I do have an idea with it but I'm pretty sure its out of left field and ASB. If James can get into England before her death, is there any chance that he and Anne would be able to meet? Or at the very least have that idea planted in the country? Having Anne acknowledge him as her successor or at least her brother, would go a long way for helping him.

I like the idea of the misdirection. Iron will would be needed but if any one had that it would be Sarah. After all she's the one who had Anne slip away from Whitehall during the Glorious Revolution. Do you mind if I use that idea or a variation of it?

Any idea where on the continent? If its either the Netherlands or Hanover he's pretty much out of reach (unless a servant can be persuaded to kill him) but if he's in Germany or the Austrian Netherlands there might be a chance to get him, though such a far reaching conspiracy would be difficult to keep secret.

Just a thought: Could Sarah's Whig connections be used to help create misinformation back home or to spy on the Whig plans?
 
I was thinking the same thing. If your creating a conspiracy in an island country your going to need to get the Navy (or as much of it as you can). I'd imagine distributing propaganda threw-out the country and military would be a big plus.

Something a bit more personal and subtle I think. It is only the officers who need to be bought, the tars will follow their officers. .

Yes starting while the Queen is dieing is part of my plan but is it believable or ASB? I was thinking of using the examples of what happened before and after Henry VIII and Edward VI's deaths, though with more success then the Council plot in 1558.

I think it could be believable. The Queen was obviously dying, she had been having a series of "funny turns" (strokes and/or transient ischemic attacks) for months.Admittedly, she had shown an awkward habit of recovering between them, but the recovery was less each time. It was the Whig Dukes (Somerset and Argyle) who demanded that a report be obtained for the council from the physicians. The report said without qualification that she was dying and there was no hope . That was two days before she died. If the Tory Council had the sense to get that report before grabbing the Dukes, they would know they were fairly safe. Even if the Queen hung a few days more, she was in no condition to do anything (she was unconscious or at best semi conscious most of the time)

I agree with being on hand. Marlborough definitely and James, if not before Anne's death, then as soon as possible after her death. I do have an idea with it but I'm pretty sure its out of left field and ASB. If James can get into England before her death, is there any chance that he and Anne would be able to meet? Or at the very least have that idea planted in the country? Having Anne acknowledge him as her successor or at least her brother, would go a long way for helping him.

It might be possible for them to meet , but only once the Tories had begun their coup. And then it would be on Anne's death bed. But the historical evidence (such as it is) suggests that she had an affection for her brother (probably mixed with guilt). Clever psychology could work that into a death bed reconciliation. Anne passes St Edward's Staff to her brother , instead of the famous incident where she passed the Treasurer's wand to Shrewsbury (He would probably have joined the Tories by then, no man ever had a better ability to sense which way the wind was blowing)

I like the idea of the misdirection. Iron will would be needed but if any one had that it would be Sarah. After all she's the one who had Anne slip away from Whitehall during the Glorious Revolution. Do you mind if I use that idea or a variation of it?

Go for it.

Any idea where on the continent? If its either the Netherlands or Hanover he's pretty much out of reach (unless a servant can be persuaded to kill him) but if he's in Germany or the Austrian Netherlands there might be a chance to get him, though such a far reaching conspiracy would be difficult to keep secret.

Just a thought: Could Sarah's Whig connections be used to help create misinformation back home or to spy on the Whig plans?

Don't know where Stair would be, probably in the Netherlands. Using connections and friends as spies goes without saying, it was normal practice.

There are still two big hurdles though. The really big , big one is James Catholicism. The other is the Act of Settlement.

Problem is , the conservative sort of people , who would support James because "he _is_ the rightful King" are the very people who would be most put off by the fact that He is Catholic - "But, but, he is a Papist, can we who worship the memory of Elizabeth, and the Royal Martyr, support a Papist?"; and also the sort of people who would have a great respect for the law. And the Act of Settlement _is_ the law.

Neither are insurmountable - after all James II & VII nearly managed the first. And the Act of Settlement can quickly be changed once James is in place (It could probably be changed before that, the Tories had enough Parliamentary majority in 1714 to do it, but it would be a dead give-away) ; but both are a great danger.
 
Something a bit more personal and subtle I think. It is only the officers who need to be bought, the tars will follow their officers. .


I think it could be believable. The Queen was obviously dying, she had been having a series of "funny turns" (strokes and/or transient ischemic attacks) for months.Admittedly, she had shown an awkward habit of recovering between them, but the recovery was less each time. It was the Whig Dukes (Somerset and Argyle) who demanded that a report be obtained for the council from the physicians. The report said without qualification that she was dying and there was no hope . That was two days before she died. If the Tory Council had the sense to get that report before grabbing the Dukes, they would know they were fairly safe. Even if the Queen hung a few days more, she was in no condition to do anything (she was unconscious or at best semi conscious most of the time)



It might be possible for them to meet , but only once the Tories had begun their coup. And then it would be on Anne's death bed. But the historical evidence (such as it is) suggests that she had an affection for her brother (probably mixed with guilt). Clever psychology could work that into a death bed reconciliation. Anne passes St Edward's Staff to her brother , instead of the famous incident where she passed the Treasurer's wand to Shrewsbury (He would probably have joined the Tories by then, no man ever had a better ability to sense which way the wind was blowing)



Go for it.



Don't know where Stair would be, probably in the Netherlands. Using connections and friends as spies goes without saying, it was normal practice.

There are still two big hurdles though. The really big , big one is James Catholicism. The other is the Act of Settlement.

Problem is , the conservative sort of people , who would support James because "he _is_ the rightful King" are the very people who would be most put off by the fact that He is Catholic - "But, but, he is a Papist, can we who worship the memory of Elizabeth, and the Royal Martyr, support a Papist?"; and also the sort of people who would have a great respect for the law. And the Act of Settlement _is_ the law.

Neither are insurmountable - after all James II & VII nearly managed the first. And the Act of Settlement can quickly be changed once James is in place (It could probably be changed before that, the Tories had enough Parliamentary majority in 1714 to do it, but it would be a dead give-away) ; but both are a great danger.

Not necessarily. I think the common sailors are the ones who sided with Mary I during the 1558 crisis, though I'm not sure. It could be individual officers. Though your probably right. Any ideas as too which admirals would be pro-Jacobite?


So Anne was a bit like Carlos II in that regard. It wouldn't be hard to bribe the doctors for the report beforehand. I'm glad it's not ASB because I really like that idea. Though with Anne you can never be sure what her real thoughts on James were. After all she is the one who persuaded Mary that James wasn't their brother, thus partially contributing to the Glorious revolution. Though in later life, I always got the feeling that she regretted what she did but could never admit it because that would mean admitting her own guilt. Though your right a deathbed reconciliation would be powerful propaganda.


Thanks :D. It's a great idea.

So if he's in the Netherlands he's untouchable, for the most part. Again unless a servant can be persuaded to kill him but that sounds unlikely.

As for the other points you brought up, I would say the Catholicism would be a bigger problem then the Act of Settlement. I came up with an idea with that. After the reconciliation, Anne order's the act repealed (never mind that at that point she's in and out of consciousness, If only the conspiracy members see her its a moot point) thus when she dies James is immediately proclaimed King. The religion is a bigger problem, though again not impossible. Perhaps a law could be passed limiting a Catholic monarch's power over the Church of England? The only example I can think of would be Saxony. The Elector had converted to Catholicism to become King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and transferred authority over the Lutheran churches and schools to a government board. So a law could be passed by parliament doing something to that effect. Oh and a guarantee that his children would be raised protestant. Though I would assume that the Royal family would be more sympathetic to the Catholics and other religious dissenters.

So that now We've pretty much planned out the conspiracy, any ideas, or books to recommend, about how James III would reign? I would guess he would be a very cautious about how he governs, especially on the first years of his reign. He would have to be more like his uncle Charles and (somewhat at least) his greatgrandfather James I, rather than James II and Charles I. I also wonder what would happen with the Act of Union? I mean on one hand the Stuart Heirs always use both the English and Scottish numbering and a large amount of their support came from Scotland (and a lesser extent Ireland) but on the other hand, the Kingdom of Great Britain seemed to be the dream of many Stuart Sovereigns.

Also any ideas as to a wife? I guess she would have to be protestant ,though I wonder if an Habsburg would be acceptable thanks to Britain's alliance with Austria? The ones I found are:princess Charlotte Amalie of Denmark, Princess Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden, Archduchess Maria Josepha of Austria, and Infanta Francisca Josefa of Portugal.

I'm reluctant with Charlotte since she's only 8 in 1714 and with Ulrika Eleonora sense she's a bit old and the heiress to Sweden. IDK if Britain would want to rick being involved with Sweden and the Northern War. The only real problem I see with the Archduchess is her religion. Its the same with the Infanta, though she has another problem, in the sense that the last Infanta was barren and James would no doubt be reluctant to risk a barren marriage.

Also, I'm not sure if I want to have Louisa survive in 1712 or not, but if I decide to do so, any ideas as for a husband? Personally I like her for King Philip V but I know that it's unlikely. I'm not sure if a better spouse would be a King or sovereign or a low ranking Prince who could stay in England (similar to Prince George of Denmark and Anne), epically sense she's the heiress presumptive to the throne.

Finally I can't help but wonder how this would effect British politics long-term. In OTL the Glorious Revolution's bill of rights and Act of Settlement are what began the shift of power from the Crown to Parliament but with the act being thrown out and the Bill of rights possibly being edited (I would guess the parts about James II and any parts about Catholic succession) I wonder if the Crown would maintain its power and continue to use royal prerogative longer?
 
Not necessarily. I think the common sailors are the ones who sided with Mary I during the 1558 crisis, though I'm not sure. It could be individual officers. Though your probably right. Any ideas as too which admirals would be pro-Jacobite?

Not really, though apart from Orford and Berkeley themselves, most of the captains would probably have been at least crypto-Jacobites. The Navy was more sympathetic to James than the Army. James had been Lord high Admiral before he was King, he was a good sailor, and well respected by sailor men . And the effects of James's proselytising were less marked at sea than on land. Also, the Navy had been fighting the Dutch for centuries, there was little love lost there. A few captains would follow Orford out of persona few would go over to James immediately, most would wait and see.

So Anne was a bit like Carlos II in that regard. It wouldn't be hard to bribe the doctors for the report beforehand. I'm glad it's not ASB because I really like that idea. Though with Anne you can never be sure what her real thoughts on James were. After all she is the one who persuaded Mary that James wasn't their brother, thus partially contributing to the Glorious revolution. Though in later life, I always got the feeling that she regretted what she did but could never admit it because that would mean admitting her own guilt. Though your right a deathbed reconciliation would be powerful propaganda.


Thanks :D. It's a great idea.

So if he's in the Netherlands he's untouchable, for the most part. Again unless a servant can be persuaded to kill him but that sounds unlikely.

It would not be necessary to bribe the physicians (doctors then were lawyers or churchmen) . They were happy to provide the report, just the Council never asked for one until the Dukes took over.

Anne reportedly became very guilty about her treatment of her father and brother later in life.

So long as Stair _stays_ wherever he is, he's probably no problem. It's only if he tries to return

As for the other points you brought up, I would say the Catholicism would be a bigger problem then the Act of Settlement. I came up with an idea with that. After the reconciliation, Anne order's the act repealed (never mind that at that point she's in and out of consciousness, If only the conspiracy members see her its a moot point) thus when she dies James is immediately proclaimed King.

Problem is, that Anne can't (even in her senses) simply order the Act repealed. An Act of Parliament can only be repealed (or amended) by Parliament. I think that the Parliament of 1714 might have been willing to amend the Act, but these things take time. Weeks , at least, not days. And setting that in motion would be a dead give away.

The religion is a bigger problem, though again not impossible. Perhaps a law could be passed limiting a Catholic monarch's power over the Church of England? The only example I can think of would be Saxony. The Elector had converted to Catholicism to become King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and transferred authority over the Lutheran churches and schools to a government board. So a law could be passed by parliament doing something to that effect. Oh and a guarantee that his children would be raised protestant. Though I would assume that the Royal family would be more sympathetic to the Catholics and other religious dissenters.

But that would destroy the principle that the King is Head of the Church on Earth, an absolute fundamental point of the Church of England. I also think that if he were willing for his children to be raised Protestant, he would be willing to convert himself. It is useful to bear in mind, that apart from the issue of the Pope of Rome, there was not a lot of theological difference between the High Church (the supporters of indefeasible hereditary right and passive obedience, James's natural constituency) and the Roman church. It was the Pope that was objected to. A shrewder James might make use of that. Though, again, I cannot but think that a shrewder James would declare himself Protestant (even if he lied !) .

So that now We've pretty much planned out the conspiracy, any ideas, or books to recommend, about how James III would reign? I would guess he would be a very cautious about how he governs, especially on the first years of his reign. He would have to be more like his uncle Charles and (somewhat at least) his greatgrandfather James I, rather than James II and Charles I. I also wonder what would happen with the Act of Union? I mean on one hand the Stuart Heirs always use both the English and Scottish numbering and a large amount of their support came from Scotland (and a lesser extent Ireland) but on the other hand, the Kingdom of Great Britain seemed to be the dream of many Stuart Sovereigns.

Also any ideas as to a wife? I guess she would have to be protestant ,though I wonder if an Habsburg would be acceptable thanks to Britain's alliance with Austria? The ones I found are:princess Charlotte Amalie of Denmark, Princess Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden, Archduchess Maria Josepha of Austria, and Infanta Francisca Josefa of Portugal.

I'm reluctant with Charlotte since she's only 8 in 1714 and with Ulrika Eleonora sense she's a bit old and the heiress to Sweden. IDK if Britain would want to rick being involved with Sweden and the Northern War. The only real problem I see with the Archduchess is her religion. Its the same with the Infanta, though she has another problem, in the sense that the last Infanta was barren and James would no doubt be reluctant to risk a barren marriage.

Also, I'm not sure if I want to have Louisa survive in 1712 or not, but if I decide to do so, any ideas as for a husband? Personally I like her for King Philip V but I know that it's unlikely. I'm not sure if a better spouse would be a King or sovereign or a low ranking Prince who could stay in England (similar to Prince George of Denmark and Anne), epically sense she's the heiress presumptive to the throne.

Finally I can't help but wonder how this would effect British politics long-term. In OTL the Glorious Revolution's bill of rights and Act of Settlement are what began the shift of power from the Crown to Parliament but with the act being thrown out and the Bill of rights possibly being edited (I would guess the parts about James II and any parts about Catholic succession) I wonder if the Crown would maintain its power and continue to use royal prerogative longer?


As to the nature of a reign of James III & VIII, it is hard to say. The OTL James would I think have made a stuff up of it, he was in the mould of James II & VII or Charles I , not James I & VI or Charles II. But, this is alternate history, and something must make it alternate, so we may perhaps assume that *James is a shrewder man, more like Charles II .

How would Charles II have managed things. Well, probably first, a Declaration of Pardon, like the Declaration of Breda. Then something to try to reassure the religious folk - " although my conscious doth forbid me to turn from the faith in which I was born and raised, yet knowing full well the love my people have for the Church of England, and I loving it kindly , for the love they bear it, and I them, I do vow by all that is holy that in all matters relating to religion I will be straitly guided and counselled by such goodly divines as my beloved Parliament shall propose etc etc ". Another Hampton Court conference, perhaps?

The Union was very unpopular in Scotland, (the Scotch Parliament was heavily bribed to pass it). A cunning man might repeal it, and then use Scotland as a foil to England.

I think that one place where a Jacobite Restoration would have enormous effect would be Ireland. In OTL, it was despised , not least because of its Roman Catholicism. That would be a plus for James. So we would probably see Ireland treated a lot more nicely, and having a lot more influence. Of course, that might well mean a civil war in Ireland, the Establishment wouldn't take it lying down.

Marriages, I'm not good at marriages. He must repeal the Act of Settlement , and being a Roman himself, he may as well marry another Roman Catholic. Perhaps a Habsburg Archduchess could bring a port in the Austrian Netherlands as her dowry ? (I've always wanted to see England get a foothold back on the Continent).

Louisa's marriage prospects, of course, improve immeasurably if her brother becomes King. From a nobody, a penniless refugee, she now becomes the sister of a King. And with a dowry , too. A very enticing morsel. But whoever she marries, even if only a minor prince, she would of course live at his court. The situation of the Prince of Denmark was anomalous, because Anne was in the direct line of succession. We know that James was fertile, so we can expect that there will be a *Bonny Prince Charlie to carry on the line, so Louisa becomes just another princess.

Long term politics, would be utterly different. Almost impossible to predict the extent of difference, but huge. James III & VIII would _rule_. Not just reign.
I doubt that even the Stuarts Restored could convince the English of the Divine Right of Kings. But passive obedience would certainly be loudly preached. It depends a little on whether James's succession is peacefully accepted , or if he has to fight for it. If he fights , and wins, he is sure (unless he is a fool) to greatly change the relationship of Parliament and King. To make it much more like the Continental models. Parliament proffers petitions, and registers the King's ordinances. And taxes are voted for life, at least. Whether he and his successors could do that without setting off another Revolution, is another matter. If he is peacefully accepted, then the opportunity to redefine matters is not there, and he will have to box clever, like Charles II . But, no matter what, he will _rule_.
 
Last edited:
Not really, though apart from Orford and Berkeley themselves, most of the captains would probably have been at least crypto-Jacobites. The Navy was more sympathetic to James than the Army. James had been Lord high Admiral before he was King, he was a good sailor, and well respected by sailor men . And the effects of James's proselytising were less marked at sea than on land. Also, the Navy had been fighting the Dutch for centuries, there was little love lost there. A few captains would follow Orford out of persona few would go over to James immediately, most would wait and see.



It would not be necessary to bribe the physicians (doctors then were lawyers or churchmen) . They were happy to provide the report, just the Council never asked for one until the Dukes took over.

Anne reportedly became very guilty about her treatment of her father and brother later in life.

So long as Stair _stays_ wherever he is, he's probably no problem. It's only if he tries to return



Problem is, that Anne can't (even in her senses) simply order the Act repealed. An Act of Parliament can only be repealed (or amended) by Parliament. I think that the Parliament of 1714 might have been willing to amend the Act, but these things take time. Weeks , at least, not days. And setting that in motion would be a dead give away.



But that would destroy the principle that the King is Head of the Church on Earth, an absolute fundamental point of the Church of England. I also think that if he were willing for his children to be raised Protestant, he would be willing to convert himself. It is useful to bear in mind, that apart from the issue of the Pope of Rome, there was not a lot of theological difference between the High Church (the supporters of indefeasible hereditary right and passive obedience, James's natural constituency) and the Roman church. It was the Pope that was objected to. A shrewder James might make use of that. Though, again, I cannot but think that a shrewder James would declare himself Protestant (even if he lied !) .




As to the nature of a reign of James III & VIII, it is hard to say. The OTL James would I think have made a stuff up of it, he was in the mould of James II & VII or Charles I , not James I & VI or Charles II. But, this is alternate history, and something must make it alternate, so we may perhaps assume that *James is a shrewder man, more like Charles II .

How would Charles II have managed things. Well, probably first, a Declaration of Pardon, like the Declaration of Breda. Then something to try to reassure the religious folk - " although my conscious doth forbid me to turn from the faith in which I was born and raised, yet knowing full well the love my people have for the Church of England, and I loving it kindly , for the love they bear it, and I them, I do vow by all that is holy that in all matters relating to religion I will be straitly guided and counselled by such goodly divines as my beloved Parliament shall propose etc etc ". Another Hampton Court conference, perhaps?

The Union was very unpopular in Scotland, (the Scotch Parliament was heavily bribed to pass it). A cunning man might repeal it, and then use Scotland as a foil to England.

I think that one place where a Jacobite Restoration would have enormous effect would be Ireland. In OTL, it was despised , not least because of its Roman Catholicism. That would be a plus for James. So we would probably see Ireland treated a lot more nicely, and having a lot more influence. Of course, that might well mean a civil war in Ireland, the Establishment wouldn't take it lying down.

Marriages, I'm not good at marriages. He must repeal the Act of Settlement , and being a Roman himself, he may as well marry another Roman Catholic. Perhaps a Habsburg Archduchess could bring a port in the Austrian Netherlands as her dowry ? (I've always wanted to see England get a foothold back on the Continent).

Louisa's marriage prospects, of course, improve immeasurably if her brother becomes King. From a nobody, a penniless refugee, she now becomes the sister of a King. And with a dowry , too. A very enticing morsel. But whoever she marries, even if only a minor prince, she would of course live at his court. The situation of the Prince of Denmark was anomalous, because Anne was in the direct line of succession. We know that James was fertile, so we can expect that there will be a *Bonny Prince Charlie to carry on the line, so Louisa becomes just another princess.

Long term politics, would be utterly different. Almost impossible to predict the extent of difference, but huge. James III & VIII would _rule_. Not just reign.
I doubt that even the Stuarts Restored could convince the English of the Divine Right of Kings. But passive obedience would certainly be loudly preached. It depends a little on whether James's succession is peacefully accepted , or if he has to fight for it. If he fights , and wins, he is sure (unless he is a fool) to greatly change the relationship of Parliament and King. To make it much more like the Continental models. Parliament proffers petitions, and registers the King's ordinances. And taxes are voted for life, at least. Whether he and his successors could do that without setting off another Revolution, is another matter. If he is peacefully accepted, then the opportunity to redefine matters is not there, and he will have to box clever, like Charles II . But, no matter what, he will _rule_.

I had forgotten about James' time in the navy. So the Navy would for the most part side with the Jacobites with a few stragglers going to the Netherlands,

So all the council needs to do is to request to report. I would guess it would be a definite necessity with the conspiracy ready to move.

So Stair is pretty harmless at this point.He'll probably stay in the Netherlands or go to Hanover. In fact, I wonder how many Whig grandees will head to the Court of the man they will regard as the legal King? We could see a reverse Jacobite movement.

Could such a repeal not be forced threw? By the time Anne would see her brother, the Whig Dukes would have been arrested, the Jacobite soldiers would have seized the Tower and the rest would be getting into position. So would revealing the conspiracy, which by that point could have the Queen's support, really doom it or no? At the very least could Anne overturn the attainder on James? Or would even that be impossible for her?

I find it hard to believe that James would convert. If it was in his personality he would have earlier or during the 15 in OTL. IDK if if was because of his devotion or because of something to do with his father but either way he wouldn't budge. That's one of the main problems with the Church issue. Creating a Board would be compromising the stance on the Church but not doing so would create fear that he would drag Britain back to Rome.

Again guessing hes type of governing is difficult. Personally, I think it could go either way. For my TL I'm going to have him be more like Charles II then James II.

The main problem with a Declaration of Berda type is the time and type of Restoration. In 1660 Charles was called back by fairly popular demand and most of his enemies were either dead or sidelined. James III, on the other hand, would be restored by a military coup. Being that it was internal is a plus but a coup non the less. So pardoning his enemies at this point would be creating danger, like when Caesar pardoned all his enemies and they ended up killing him. Personally I think the main Whigs would be detained until James was crowned, then released, either fully or to be placed under house arrest. Even then, they would be closely watched encase they try to either flee to the continent or organize a Hanoverian Rebellion. The Hampton Court idea is sound, though I feel it would mainly serve as propaganda or a bit of theater, nothing more. Going back to the Saxon idea, if not a council that completely controls the Church, what about a Council on Religious matters, set up to advise the King in matters of Religion (read Anglicanism/Presbyterianism). That way its a give on both sides. The truth is James is going to have to through a bone to the Whigs. Even if its merely symbolic it would be necessary. The religious issue would be the biggest point for both the Whigs and common people so I thought it would be the best thing to use.

Thats what I was thinking in regards to Scotland. Well that or an early devolved Parliament. Though that might be too advanced for the politics of the era.

Ireland is a much trickier issue. On on hand Ireland would be the Kingdom James would get the most support in terms of Religion but on the other hand, like you said, Ireland was hated by much of the English people. I had the idea of an earlier Catholic Emancipation but doing something about it in the early years of his reign would just be asking for trouble. Better to wait for the late 20's or early 30's at the earliest. Though on the other hand, Ireland was technically independent. So theoretically the anti-catholic laws could be repealed without any say form London. Perhaps a start would be restoring the rights and properties of all the Irish who went into exile with James II.

Well the act would definitely have to be repealed but would England accept a Catholic King and Queen-Consort? It would effectively be a repeat of James II's reign, at least in the eyes of many people. Again an example of that would be Saxony but England had very differing views then the Saxons. But either Austria or Portugal would be the only acceptations when it comes to Catholic brides (no way there would be a French one, that's for sure).

So either way for Louisa. As for fertility, we know that today, but in 1714 the British people would have no way of knowing. James didn't have any bastards to prove his virility (personally I find that a bit odd when compared to his horndog father and uncle) and should anything happen to him Louisa would be Queen. From the eyes of the Tory government, I doubt marrying her to a Catholic ruler would be in their initial best interests.

So he would be a true Stuart King. That's what I guessed as well. I haven't really decided if his ascension is peaceful yet or not. Personally I like the idea of a reverse Hanoverian movement, with an attempted rising in 1715. if something like that happens, Parliament would be at a severe disadvantage. The Whigs would no doubt be behind such a rising and James would be in a position to demand more power for the defense of the Realm, similar to James II. Of course he would have to handle it better, so little to no Catholic officers and no openly hearing mass in front of the troops. At the very least, the King's Guard would be expanded, with the Scots and Irish Guards Regiments being formed much earlier. Though Parliament would never be as weak as the continental ones were, I can see it's power being reduced to either Pre Glorious Revolution or as it was under Charles II. I can't see it going as far back as Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I. Though if the Whig grandees revolt and fail, then the King could seize there assets, lands and properties. These could be added to the Crown Estate and help make the crown semi-independent financially.
 
...

Could such a repeal not be forced threw? By the time Anne would see her brother, the Whig Dukes would have been arrested, the Jacobite soldiers would have seized the Tower and the rest would be getting into position. So would revealing the conspiracy, which by that point could have the Queen's support, really doom it or no? At the very least could Anne overturn the attainder on James? Or would even that be impossible for her?

I'm afraid that I don't see how. To do so would be to resurrect the Suspending power of the King that was one of the greatest objections at the Revolution. After all, if the King can , by his sole fiat, repeal a law, then he can likewise make one .

Best I think to stick with the Jacobite position that the Act of Settlement was null and void anyway as being an illegal Act passed by a usurper . And tidy things up once the fuss dies down.

I find it hard to believe that James would convert. If it was in his personality he would have earlier or during the 15 in OTL. IDK if if was because of his devotion or because of something to do with his father but either way he wouldn't budge. That's one of the main problems with the Church issue. Creating a Board would be compromising the stance on the Church but not doing so would create fear that he would drag Britain back to Rome.

I don't believe that an OTL James would convert either . His character seems to be much like his father's. But, this is alternate history, and there must be something different to make it alternate. A James whose capability and personality was as OTL would not be capable of pulling off such a coup anyway. So perhaps the thing that is different to cause the alternative, is that TTL *James is his uncle's nephew rather than his father's son. Of course he doesn't necessarily have to believe in his renunciation - just dissemble as his uncle did for many years.
Again guessing hes type of governing is difficult. Personally, I think it could go either way. For my TL I'm going to have him be more like Charles II then James II.

The main problem with a Declaration of Berda type is the time and type of Restoration. In 1660 Charles was called back by fairly popular demand and most of his enemies were either dead or sidelined. James III, on the other hand, would be restored by a military coup. Being that it was internal is a plus but a coup non the less. So pardoning his enemies at this point would be creating danger, like when Caesar pardoned all his enemies and they ended up killing him. ...

Well, the Declaration of Breda expressly excluded the Regicides and specific named persons. The idea is not so much to forgive his immediate enemies, but to reassure people that he will not be delving back into what happened in 1688.

Going back to the Saxon idea, if not a council that completely controls the Church, what about a Council on Religious matters, set up to advise the King in matters of Religion (read Anglicanism/Presbyterianism). ..

Now, that gives me an idea. Such a council already existed. It was called the Convocation of the clergy. It was very ancient and enormously respected by the Anglican clergy. Originally, it acted as a sort of clerical Parliament (one reason why Church of England clerics could not sit in Parliament). It passed church laws (called canon laws) , voted taxes on church incomes and property , and so on. Until Henry VIII passed the Act of Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals in 1534. That Act made the Convocation into a Royal instrument. It forbade Convocation to pass any Canon Law that was not sent them by the King (like Poyning's Law in Ireland) and required them to pass any law the King told them to (I oversimplify a complex matter, but that is the gist). At about the same time Henry changed the rules about the election of Bishops. They used to be elected by their Cathedral chapters. They still are today, but Henry brought in a system called the Royal Conge d'elire, whereby the King sent the Cathedral chapter a letter telling them to elect X. Or else. Mary Tudor repealed Henry's laws, Elizabeth reinstated them

The Convocation last met in 1701, when the Whigs found it to troublesome.

Now, if James were to announce that he would call Convocation regularly (like Parliament) , and restore to it it's ancient right to initiate Canon Law (subject to approval by the King, like secular laws passed by Parliament, which was the ancient practice) ; and to allow the free election of Bishops (provided they were Anglicans of course) ?

I think that would get the Tory church so excited that they would be willing to overlook the fact that this present came from a Roman Catholic

...Though on the other hand, Ireland was technically independent. So theoretically the anti-catholic laws could be repealed without any say form London. Perhaps a start would be restoring the rights and properties of all the Irish who went into exile with James II.

...

So he would be a true Stuart King. That's what I guessed as well. I haven't really decided if his ascension is peaceful yet or not. Personally I like the idea of a reverse Hanoverian movement, with an attempted rising in 1715. if something like that happens, Parliament would be at a severe disadvantage. The Whigs would no doubt be behind such a rising and James would be in a position to demand more power for the defense of the Realm, similar to James II. Of course he would have to handle it better, so little to no Catholic officers and no openly hearing mass in front of the troops. At the very least, the King's Guard would be expanded, with the Scots and Irish Guards Regiments being formed much earlier. Though Parliament would never be as weak as the continental ones were, I can see it's power being reduced to either Pre Glorious Revolution or as it was under Charles II. I can't see it going as far back as Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I. Though if the Whig grandees revolt and fail, then the King could seize there assets, lands and properties. These could be added to the Crown Estate and help make the crown semi-independent financially.

I can definitely see an attempted counter coup , maybe in 1715, but probably a purely internal affair. George of Hanover is unlikely to waste further effort on trying to secure the throne after it all goes wrong. His attitude was that if the British handed him the throne on a platter, he'd be a fool to refuse it. But he wasn't going to risk much himself on the gamble. If the Whigs could pull off a counter-coup, he would accept the throne, but he wouldn't initiate anything himself.

Absolutely definitely James must seize and hang on to the estates of the Whig Grandees. They were very large and very valuable. One of the biggest problems that the late Stuarts had, was that there was virtually nothing left of the Crown estates, they had all been granted away, which left the King totally dependent on Parliament.
 
I'm afraid that I don't see how. To do so would be to resurrect the Suspending power of the King that was one of the greatest objections at the Revolution. After all, if the King can , by his sole fiat, repeal a law, then he can likewise make one .

Best I think to stick with the Jacobite position that the Act of Settlement was null and void anyway as being an illegal Act passed by a usurper . And tidy things up once the fuss dies down.



I don't believe that an OTL James would convert either . His character seems to be much like his father's. But, this is alternate history, and there must be something different to make it alternate. A James whose capability and personality was as OTL would not be capable of pulling off such a coup anyway. So perhaps the thing that is different to cause the alternative, is that TTL *James is his uncle's nephew rather than his father's son. Of course he doesn't necessarily have to believe in his renunciation - just dissemble as his uncle did for many years.


Well, the Declaration of Breda expressly excluded the Regicides and specific named persons. The idea is not so much to forgive his immediate enemies, but to reassure people that he will not be delving back into what happened in 1688.



Now, that gives me an idea. Such a council already existed. It was called the Convocation of the clergy. It was very ancient and enormously respected by the Anglican clergy. Originally, it acted as a sort of clerical Parliament (one reason why Church of England clerics could not sit in Parliament). It passed church laws (called canon laws) , voted taxes on church incomes and property , and so on. Until Henry VIII passed the Act of Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals in 1534. That Act made the Convocation into a Royal instrument. It forbade Convocation to pass any Canon Law that was not sent them by the King (like Poyning's Law in Ireland) and required them to pass any law the King told them to (I oversimplify a complex matter, but that is the gist). At about the same time Henry changed the rules about the election of Bishops. They used to be elected by their Cathedral chapters. They still are today, but Henry brought in a system called the Royal Conge d'elire, whereby the King sent the Cathedral chapter a letter telling them to elect X. Or else. Mary Tudor repealed Henry's laws, Elizabeth reinstated them

The Convocation last met in 1701, when the Whigs found it to troublesome.

Now, if James were to announce that he would call Convocation regularly (like Parliament) , and restore to it it's ancient right to initiate Canon Law (subject to approval by the King, like secular laws passed by Parliament, which was the ancient practice) ; and to allow the free election of Bishops (provided they were Anglicans of course) ?

I think that would get the Tory church so excited that they would be willing to overlook the fact that this present came from a Roman Catholic





I can definitely see an attempted counter coup , maybe in 1715, but probably a purely internal affair. George of Hanover is unlikely to waste further effort on trying to secure the throne after it all goes wrong. His attitude was that if the British handed him the throne on a platter, he'd be a fool to refuse it. But he wasn't going to risk much himself on the gamble. If the Whigs could pull off a counter-coup, he would accept the throne, but he wouldn't initiate anything himself.

Absolutely definitely James must seize and hang on to the estates of the Whig Grandees. They were very large and very valuable. One of the biggest problems that the late Stuarts had, was that there was virtually nothing left of the Crown estates, they had all been granted away, which left the King totally dependent on Parliament.

OK so no forcing the repeal. Better to just ignore the whole thing and quietly repeal it later.

I'm still up in the air about a conversion but it could go either way for me. As for a change in personality, could a near death experience do the trick, like in 1712? Perhaps it makes him realize something profound. IDK but seems likely and people always loved religious visions, especially in that
era.

So a Declaration of Breda (in this case I would call it the Declaration of saint germain) could "pardon" his subjects while leaving the masterminds of the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement out of it. That could work and fit in with his personality and those of the Jacobites.

I thought there was some sort of Religious Council Thanks:D. Not only would it assure the subjects and at least partially help with the Whigs. Also restoring an ancient tradition and the election of Bishops would be a huge popularity coup.

I agree with the George part. I could maybe, maybe mind you, see OTL's George II get involved but besides him the rest of the Hanovarians are out. I wonder if the dutch would offer covert help or not? Perhaps some "volunteer" regiments would participate in such a revolt. I would guess the revolt would be led by the Whig Dukes or their partisans.

I wonder how many Whig estates could, reasonably be sized? Perhaps any lands granted after the Glorious Revolution could be made subject to seizure by the Crown? I'd imagine some lands would be exempt (Marlborough's for instance. Though that sucks because of the massive wealth they accumulated) but many of them, especially any in Scotland and Ireland, would be up for grabs.

Edit: I had a thought and was wondering if it was possible. During WWI Parliament passe the Titles Deprivation act, which allowed enemies of the UK to be deprived of their British Peerages and Honors(this is a highly simplified summery: it authorized the King to create a committee to investigate the Peers who sided with the Central powers and recommend weather or not the Peer would lose their title or not). So could what amounted to a universal Act of attainder be able to pass in the era of an early Jacobite restoration, either in 1714 or in response to a Whig/Hanoverian revolt in 1715?
 
Last edited:
...
I agree with the George part. I could maybe, maybe mind you, see OTL's George II get involved but besides him the rest of the Hanovarians are out. I wonder if the dutch would offer covert help or not? Perhaps some "volunteer" regiments would participate in such a revolt. I would guess the revolt would be led by the Whig Dukes or their partisans.

I wonder how many Whig estates could, reasonably be sized? Perhaps any lands granted after the Glorious Revolution could be made subject to seizure by the Crown? I'd imagine some lands would be exempt (Marlborough's for instance. Though that sucks because of the massive wealth they accumulated) but many of them, especially any in Scotland and Ireland, would be up for grabs.

Edit: I had a thought and was wondering if it was possible. During WWI Parliament passe the Titles Deprivation act, which allowed enemies of the UK to be deprived of their British Peerages and Honors(this is a highly simplified summery: it authorized the King to create a committee to investigate the Peers who sided with the Central powers and recommend weather or not the Peer would lose their title or not). So could what amounted to a universal Act of attainder be able to pass in the era of an early Jacobite restoration, either in 1714 or in response to a Whig/Hanoverian revolt in 1715?

I doubt the Dutch would want to get actively involved. Unless, perhaps James married a major French princess, which they would see as making him an auxiliary of France. But they would certainly lend moral and maybe financial support to the Whigs


The question of what to seize is mainly a political one. Being too greedy risks alienating potential supporters. On the other hand the more you seize the more you have to reward followers (though the King _must_ keep the majority for himself). But there would be plenty to go round . The Whig grandees were immensely rich. Devonshire, about 200000 acres. Argyle, not much less. The Duke of Somerset, inheritor of the vast Percy fortune, the richest man in England. The Dukes of Kent, Montrose, Roxborough, Bolton, Wharton. Unfortunately , I think the D of Bedford was an infant so he may escape.

As to an Act of Attainder. I guess there could be a general Act of Attainder. Specific Acts of Attainder were common enough then. But I think that lawyers of the time would ask "Why ? It is risky, likely to be unpopular, and unnecessary".

The reason why the Titles Deprivation Act was necessary was because by then successive Parliaments had made such a mess of the law, that there was no longer any clear test of who was or was not a subject. And outlawry had been abolished. So if someone had a British Title, and was not a British citizen, or in British territory, there was no way to reach him. He was (probably - the law was unclear) not a subject of the King. And he could not be brought before a British court.

But in 1714, matters were simpler. Anyone who had a English Scottish or Irish title was a subject of the King (Jacobite titles were no exception - just a different King !). And by definition, revolt is high treason. So, if in England (Scotland, Ireland etc) , and he can be brought before the courts, he can be convicted of treason, which is an automatic attainder. If he cannot be brought before the courts , he can be outlawed, with the same result. And in each case, his lands and chattels are forfeit to the King. If there are too many traitors for the ordinary courts to cope, then Commissioners can be appointed as Henry VIII did on a number of occasion.
 
Can i just ask the question of, had Louisa lived and married (assuming she marries while in exile, since a reigning queen of England would need no dowry), where might her dowry have come from?

No king is going to marry her without a dowry. And Mary Beatrice was in such straitened circumstances that she had no money to replace her coach that was falling apart, or her horses when they died. So, the chances of her coming up with a dowry suitable to the king of England's daughter are small.

She could marry the duc de Berri, if Louis XIV decides to waive a dowry in exchange for his great-grandchildren inheriting the English throne, but without the certainty that there would be children from said marriage, this is small.
 
Can i just ask the question of, had Louisa lived and married (assuming she marries while in exile, since a reigning queen of England would need no dowry), where might her dowry have come from?

No king is going to marry her without a dowry. And Mary Beatrice was in such straitened circumstances that she had no money to replace her coach that was falling apart, or her horses when they died. So, the chances of her coming up with a dowry suitable to the king of England's daughter are small.

She could marry the duc de Berri, if Louis XIV decides to waive a dowry in exchange for his great-grandchildren inheriting the English throne, but without the certainty that there would be children from said marriage, this is small.

Due to Mary of Modena's financial situation she might have taken a leaf oout of Henry VII or Luiza of Medina-Sidonia's books when financing the marriage of her daughter..

AFAIK Henry VII arranged the marriage of Catalina of Aragon to Arthur, Prince of Wales. Catalina's dowry (which should've been returned with her when Artie died) was hung onto by Henry. When Catalina finally married Henry VIII, the money that had been paid over for her dowry, was used (in addition to several outstanding pensions that the French king owed Henry) to serve as the dowry of Mary Tudor when marrying Louis XII.

Catherine of Braganca's dowry was actually paid by the French. The money for said dowry coming from the dowry paid for Elisabeth-Francoise of Savoie-Nemours (granddaughter of Henri IV) when she married Afonso VI. Her dowry was subtracted and given to Charles II.

Ergo, Mary might decide to marry James off first - somewhere wealthy (i.e. France - to one of the regent's daughters - or Portugal - that took more gold, silver and diamonds from Brazil 1700-1750 than Spain from the rest of the New World 1500-1820). Then subtract her expenses from said dowry, and use the rest (and maybe twist le Roi Soleil's arm for an addition) to pay for Louisa Maria.

That said, Anne, might decide to marry her sister off to her own ends, and insist on Parliament paying the moneys (dower money, jointure etc) that was owed to Mary Beatrice. According to Theo Aronson's "Kings Over The Water", by the time tghe British offered a pension to the Cardinal Duke of York, this amount was well into £100000s or £1,000000 (of which they only paid a fraction).

Louis XIV might decide to use her as a pawn in his own politicking. He might agree to pay her dowry should she marry someone of the French king's choosing to help forge an alliance with France (for instance, after Mary Tudor was widowed, before encouraging a match to Brandon, Francois I had tried to arrange a marriage for her himself to further French policy).
 
Top