Successful French invasion of Great Britain 1744

In February 1744 a French fleet that was intended to carry around 10,000 or so men under Maurice de Saxe from Dunkirk to Maldon was destroyed. It was intended that this army could quickly defeat the small British force protecting London and force the British into accepting a Jacobite restoration and kick Britain out of the War of the Austrian Succession. Say that this had worked perfectly to plan - the French win an easy victory close to London, George II resigns the throne in favor of James Stuart, the British stop assisting Maria Theresa and quit penalizing Spanish trade in the Caribbean, etc. etc. How does this effect the German theater of the War of the Austrian Succession? Is France emboldened by its success against Britain into wanting to conquer the Austrian Netherlands? Does Prussia reenter the war on France's behalf anyways? And for Britain - how long can a Jacobite regime survive without compromise in the 1740s? How much would the Jacobites compromise their principles to be able to rule Britain long-term (I've felt that Charles might convert to Protestantism)? Does George II seek restoration to the throne after being defeated or is that mantle immediately taken up by Prince Frederick?
 
In February 1744 a French fleet that was intended to carry around 10,000 or so men under Maurice de Saxe from Dunkirk to Maldon was destroyed. It was intended that this army could quickly defeat the small British force protecting London and force the British into accepting a Jacobite restoration and kick Britain out of the War of the Austrian Succession. Say that this had worked perfectly to plan - the French win an easy victory close to London, George II resigns the throne in favor of James Stuart, the British stop assisting Maria Theresa and quit penalizing Spanish trade in the Caribbean, etc. etc. How does this effect the German theater of the War of the Austrian Succession? Is France emboldened by its success against Britain into wanting to conquer the Austrian Netherlands? Does Prussia reenter the war on France's behalf anyways? And for Britain - how long can a Jacobite regime survive without compromise in the 1740s? How much would the Jacobites compromise their principles to be able to rule Britain long-term (I've felt that Charles might convert to Protestantism)? Does George II seek restoration to the throne after being defeated or is that mantle immediately taken up by Prince Frederick?

Ah I love a Jacobite WI. First of all, lets assume that George II either abdicates or flees like James II. Either way he's gone. Now do the rest of the Hanovarians flee or does a few stay behind and organize a resistance? Second, and this is one of the main problems with a Jacobite restoration during the Austrian succession war, do the British armies remain loyal to London and the new regime or side with the Hanovarians? There's no guarantee that the British Armed forces deployed on the continent and around the world will support James III. Third, France DID conquer the Austrian Netherlands, Louis XV just stupidly handed it back. So I can't see that really changing. Fourth, Prussia. Now Prussia has already got what they wanted from Austria, so I'm not sure if they would want to re-enter the war and risk a defeat.

Now, to the Jacobites, this is a tricky one. Now I doubt we'll see much actual change in domestic governing between the Hanovarians and the Stuarts, at least in the first few years. Sure the Whigs will be out of power, replaced by the returning Jacobites and the Tories, but not much else. The most pressing issue in the early years will be Great Britain itself, or more specifically whether or not it will continue. The Jacobites had long held that the Act of Union was illegal, and that they would seek to restore Scotland's independence, but I question whether or not they would try to undo it, once in power. So until Charles Edward becomes King the Crown is gonna be pretty symbolic and not actually intervening politically.

Now that will change once Charles III becomes King. I can't see him converting while his father's alive, but definitely after James' death. Bonnie Prince Charlie was pretty liberal religiously and saw religion as a hat to take on and off, not unlike his great-uncle and namesake Charles II. Really that was the main problem the Jacobites had. When they finally had someone willing to compromise, someone active and able, the movement is already in decline and by the time Charles became Jacobite pretender it was pretty much dead. Anyway, Charles will probably be more like George III, intervening via patronage and influence rather then like his grandfather. And really as long as he marries and has children, the succession is assured. Oh and we can be assured that Henry Benedict won't be becoming a Cardinal.

Finally, as to George II, it depends. Fleeing the country won't win George II any supporters, either abroad or within the country. Now he'll remain the Elector of Hanover and Hanovarian pretender (in an odd reversal of the Jacobite movement) but I have the feeling that Frederick would try to take more of the reigns, though considering their horrible relationship there's gonna be a whole lot of infighting there.
 
Finally, as to George II, it depends. Fleeing the country won't win George II any supporters, either abroad or within the country. Now he'll remain the Elector of Hanover and Hanovarian pretender (in an odd reversal of the Jacobite movement) but I have the feeling that Frederick would try to take more of the reigns, though considering their horrible relationship there's gonna be a whole lot of infighting there.

He wouldn't run. Geo II was many things but coward was never one of them. And he was the last King of England to personally lead his men into battle. He'd fight. (He said as much in '45). And there'd be a lot would fight beside him. A Papist prince , at the head of a French army , even Jacobites are going to feel dirty about that.

And Fred doesn't have long to go, it's unlikely that the chest infection that killed him would be butterflied away (though the exact date might be )
 
Ah I love a Jacobite WI. First of all, lets assume that George II either abdicates or flees like James II. Either way he's gone. Now do the rest of the Hanovarians flee or does a few stay behind and organize a resistance? Second, and this is one of the main problems with a Jacobite restoration during the Austrian succession war, do the British armies remain loyal to London and the new regime or side with the Hanovarians? There's no guarantee that the British Armed forces deployed on the continent and around the world will support James III.

Hmm... this is the big question: how loyal can the country be to Catholic monarchs instated by the French? The answer is probably not very, but what shade of not very are we talking? Long-time disgruntlement that eventually fizzles away, or rebellions and assassinations? I can see anything from long-term Stuart rule (eventually as Protestants) to a second English Civil War and another Cromwell and all that. I really don't know enough to say, but I am really interested in trying to figure it out.

Here's another question I should have posed but didn't: do the French dare keep troops in Britain to protect the new Jacobite regime? I feel like it would be offered by Louis but that James would decline it, knowing how bad that would make him look. What are your thoughts?

Third, France DID conquer the Austrian Netherlands, Louis XV just stupidly handed it back. So I can't see that really changing.

What I meant was France keeping the Austrian Netherlands afterwards - without Britain conquest of the Austrian Netherlands should be significantly easier for France than OTL. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Louis returned it IOTL to appear more diplomatic and gain further concessions for its allies, but with Britain ruled by French-instated monarchs France is in a much stronger position than OTL, and Louis might not care so much for appearances.

Fourth, Prussia. Now Prussia has already got what they wanted from Austria, so I'm not sure if they would want to re-enter the war and risk a defeat.

Well if it's Austria v. everyone, the odds of Prussia joining France and ending on the losing side is pretty low. That said there probably isn't a good enough casus belli for Frederick to join Louis a second time, outside of extending his Silesian conquests into Moravia and Bohemia.

Now, to the Jacobites, this is a tricky one. Now I doubt we'll see much actual change in domestic governing between the Hanovarians and the Stuarts, at least in the first few years. Sure the Whigs will be out of power, replaced by the returning Jacobites and the Tories, but not much else. The most pressing issue in the early years will be Great Britain itself, or more specifically whether or not it will continue. The Jacobites had long held that the Act of Union was illegal, and that they would seek to restore Scotland's independence, but I question whether or not they would try to undo it, once in power. So until Charles Edward becomes King the Crown is gonna be pretty symbolic and not actually intervening politically.

Would that be in character for James, to be a symbolic king when he believed so much in the divine right of kings stuff? I understand that politically he might be somewhat tied even after replacing Parliament with Jacobites and Tories, but he strikes me as someone who would want his impact felt once he finally became king. Or maybe more accurately it strikes me as human nature that he want to make his impact felt as king after having been exiled from his "rightful kingship" his whole life to that point.

And this is just musing a bit, but your note on the Act of Union (which I agree btw, that James wouldn't try and re-separate the kingdoms legally) just made me think of Thomas Jefferson opposing the First Bank of the US vehemently until he became President himself. Just the way of politics.

Now that will change once Charles III becomes King. I can't see him converting while his father's alive, but definitely after James' death. Bonnie Prince Charlie was pretty liberal religiously and saw religion as a hat to take on and off, not unlike his great-uncle and namesake Charles II. Really that was the main problem the Jacobites had. When they finally had someone willing to compromise, someone active and able, the movement is already in decline and by the time Charles became Jacobite pretender it was pretty much dead. Anyway, Charles will probably be more like George III, intervening via patronage and influence rather then like his grandfather. And really as long as he marries and has children, the succession is assured. Oh and we can be assured that Henry Benedict won't be becoming a Cardinal.

Any ideas on who Charles would be married to? I can't see him marrying a daughter of Louis XV, because of how politically bad that looks. But he's got to marry a Catholic while James is alive. Maybe the youngest daughter of Philip V of Spain, Maria Antonia Ferdinanda?

Is there any chance I wonder for Charles to agree to convert to Protestantism while James is alive, and then for him to marry say Prince Frederick's eldest daughter Augusta to merge the Stuarts and Hanoverians and end the feud? I almost wonder if in a civil war scenario if something like that ends up happening.

I suppose that Henry Stuart not becoming a cardinal is the only thing we can know for certain won't happen. :p

Finally, as to George II, it depends. Fleeing the country won't win George II any supporters, either abroad or within the country. Now he'll remain the Elector of Hanover and Hanovarian pretender (in an odd reversal of the Jacobite movement) but I have the feeling that Frederick would try to take more of the reigns, though considering their horrible relationship there's gonna be a whole lot of infighting there.

Absolutely. If Frederick is the one whom the British want to restore, I've got to wonder how much if at all George II would help him try and reclaim the throne from the Jacobites.
 
He wouldn't run. Geo II was many things but coward was never one of them. And he was the last King of England to personally lead his men into battle. He'd fight. (He said as much in '45). And there'd be a lot would fight beside him. A Papist prince , at the head of a French army , even Jacobites are going to feel dirty about that.

Good points.

It's a great image, George II personally leading the British defense against an invading French army. It probably would be seen as a second Hastings, actually.

And Fred doesn't have long to go, it's unlikely that the chest infection that killed him would be butterflied away (though the exact date might be )

Wasn't the chest infection from being hit by a cricket ball? Or is that a legend that grew from him just liking cricket? In any case obviously one is butterfly-able and the other is less so.
 
Good points.



Wasn't the chest infection from being hit by a cricket ball? Or is that a legend that grew from him just liking cricket? In any case obviously one is butterfly-able and the other is less so.
Yes and no. The cricket ball blow caused a large long standing abscess to burst. Absent cricket ball the abscess, would have killed him in a short while anyway.
 
He wouldn't run. Geo II was many things but coward was never one of them. And he was the last King of England to personally lead his men into battle. He'd fight. (He said as much in '45). And there'd be a lot would fight beside him. A Papist prince , at the head of a French army , even Jacobites are going to feel dirty about that.

And Fred doesn't have long to go, it's unlikely that the chest infection that killed him would be butterflied away (though the exact date might be )

I agree that it wasn't really in George II's personality to flee. His father, maybe but I can't see George turning tail. So he's either defeated in battle and flees or dies in combat for this idea to work. The former would blacken his rep but the later would make him a kind of martyr to the Whig/Hanoverian cause. But with a significant French army in England (as opposed to a few hundred French soldiers in Scotland) we might see the English Jacobites more willing to gamble and rise in support of their King. That might help a bit in regards to the Jacobite reputation.

Hmm... this is the big question: how loyal can the country be to Catholic monarchs instated by the French? The answer is probably not very, but what shade of not very are we talking? Long-time disgruntlement that eventually fizzles away, or rebellions and assassinations? I can see anything from long-term Stuart rule (eventually as Protestants) to a second English Civil War and another Cromwell and all that. I really don't know enough to say, but I am really interested in trying to figure it out.

Here's another question I should have posed but didn't: do the French dare keep troops in Britain to protect the new Jacobite regime? I feel like it would be offered by Louis but that James would decline it, knowing how bad that would make him look. What are your thoughts?



What I meant was France keeping the Austrian Netherlands afterwards - without Britain conquest of the Austrian Netherlands should be significantly easier for France than OTL. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Louis returned it IOTL to appear more diplomatic and gain further concessions for its allies, but with Britain ruled by French-instated monarchs France is in a much stronger position than OTL, and Louis might not care so much for appearances.



Well if it's Austria v. everyone, the odds of Prussia joining France and ending on the losing side is pretty low. That said there probably isn't a good enough casus belli for Frederick to join Louis a second time, outside of extending his Silesian conquests into Moravia and Bohemia.



Would that be in character for James, to be a symbolic king when he believed so much in the divine right of kings stuff? I understand that politically he might be somewhat tied even after replacing Parliament with Jacobites and Tories, but he strikes me as someone who would want his impact felt once he finally became king. Or maybe more accurately it strikes me as human nature that he want to make his impact felt as king after having been exiled from his "rightful kingship" his whole life to that point.

And this is just musing a bit, but your note on the Act of Union (which I agree btw, that James wouldn't try and re-separate the kingdoms legally) just made me think of Thomas Jefferson opposing the First Bank of the US vehemently until he became President himself. Just the way of politics.



Any ideas on who Charles would be married to? I can't see him marrying a daughter of Louis XV, because of how politically bad that looks. But he's got to marry a Catholic while James is alive. Maybe the youngest daughter of Philip V of Spain, Maria Antonia Ferdinanda?

Is there any chance I wonder for Charles to agree to convert to Protestantism while James is alive, and then for him to marry say Prince Frederick's eldest daughter Augusta to merge the Stuarts and Hanoverians and end the feud? I almost wonder if in a civil war scenario if something like that ends up happening.

I suppose that Henry Stuart not becoming a cardinal is the only thing we can know for certain won't happen. :p



Absolutely. If Frederick is the one whom the British want to restore, I've got to wonder how much if at all George II would help him try and reclaim the throne from the Jacobites.

Exactly. I can see the continental armies breaking up a bit, with desertions and defections to Hanover. But at the same time much of the officer corps are made up of Peers and aristocrats, so I have the feeling that they'll stay loyal out of pure greed, if anything else.

To troops, yes and no. I can't see direct French troops, but perhaps those from the Irish brigade and Swiss Guards. That way they aren't technically French but at the same time are much less likely to revolt. Actually returning the whole Irish Brigade to British command might be workable, as I believe that they were officially on loan to the French government, until the Stuarts are restored to the throne or something like that.

Ah, I see your reasoning there. With Britain eliminated as a rival for the time being and Austria ruined, I can't see any diplomatic reason why Louis XV would return the Netherlands. If he tried something like that TTL he's advisers would no doubt heavily object, which might be enough to get him to keep it.

As for Prussia, remember that the Russian giant is still looming large. OTL Empress Elizabeth backed out after a plot to depose her was relieved to have some Austrian backers. Now if Prussia seems to be becoming a threat, the Russians might decide to re-enter the war themselves, to keep Prussia from becoming a threat. Considering the Empress's later position, that's not inconceivable.

To James III, I'm honestly not sure. For the most part he was a fairly passive, depressive man, much more similar to his cousin Philip V of Spain then any of his close relatives. He just lacked his own Elizabeth Farnese (now THAT would be an interesting match: James III & VIII and the most influential Spanish Queen in history). Now I can see him wanting to do something as a legacy, like repealing the penal laws/ early Catholic emancipation, but not much more. He'd be very cautious, both internationally and domestically. Remember he's been absent from Britain and British internal politics for all of his life, in a way he'll be like George I in 1714. So we might see a few direct interventions in politics, but not as many as he would like.

And glad you agree. I can maybe see a kind of early devolved rule in Scotland, or more autonomy but definitely not a full repeal. The Jacobites position always smacked heavily of politics in regards to Scotland. After all, the Scottish were the ones most likely to rise in support of them, so no need to alienate your base.

As for marriages, your right. While a wiser man would marry his sons to good, protestant brides (maybe even a subject, like the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough tried with her granddaughter and the Prince of Wales) I get the feeling that James III wouldn't not be that man. That being said, I doubt he'd be stupid enough to try for a French bride or to a lesser extent a Spanish one. The best picks would be a Portuguese bride or a German one. For the Portuguese, the only one really available is Infanta Mariana Francisca of Portugal, who would be around nine. Good for reinforcing Anglo-Portuguese ties and a fairly nonthreatening Catholic match, but realistically she wouldn't be available for full marriage until 1750, at the earliest. So maybe she can marry Henry Benedict.

There are a few main German contenders, most of which are a bit young. First there's Duchess Maria Antonia of Bavaria, oldest daughter of Emperor Charles VII of Bavaria. She would make a good back-door marriage for an alliance with France, as Bavaria was a key ally of France's against Austria (it was in fact the girls mother that allowed the Elector to claim the Austrian crownlands) and wouldn't be as threatening. Finally I found Maria Anna Sophia of Saxony & Poland. Older sister of the future Dauphine of France, she would be a potential bride, as her father is King of Poland-Lithuania and Elector of Saxony. Plus marrying into a dynasty that converted for a throne but still respected their native country's religious views can't be a bad thing.The idea of a marriage to unify the claims isn't bad, but unrealistic so soon after the restoration.
 
Geo I was a good general, better probably than his son, though no doubt more likely to say 'to hell with this, it's not worth it, Hanover is where I love'

But Geo II was quite competent, and he liked soldiering. Politics and diplomacy confused and vexed him, but fighting was straight forward. Us. Them. Charge. And he had sense enough to listen to men like Ligonier , who knew when to charge.

But the French have only 10000 men. That's not many George can turn out a lot more than that. So they must be relying on mustering local levies.

Which may or may not happen, the Jacobite generals were pretty bad at organisation. My own great(n)-grandfather set off from Staffordshire in '45 to join the Pretender before Derby. He did join too, but was so disgusted at what a balls-up it was, that he packed up again and went home, and was a loyal subject of King George ever after. Lots may react the same way. God save King James, but I can't actually come and fight, uh, I have to wash my breeches tonight.

I would predict that it would end in a stand off. But however it ends, it's all win for Louis. At best he gets an ally on the English throne. At worst England has to pull her armies back from the Continent. That's a very good result for an investment of only 10000 men, and they perhaps not the best.
 
Geo I was a good general, better probably than his son, though no doubt more likely to say 'to hell with this, it's not worth it, Hanover is where I love'

But Geo II was quite competent, and he liked soldiering. Politics and diplomacy confused and vexed him, but fighting was straight forward. Us. Them. Charge. And he had sense enough to listen to men like Ligonier , who knew when to charge.

But the French have only 10000 men. That's not many George can turn out a lot more than that. So they must be relying on mustering local levies.

Which may or may not happen, the Jacobite generals were pretty bad at organisation. My own great(n)-grandfather set off from Staffordshire in '45 to join the Pretender before Derby. He did join too, but was so disgusted at what a balls-up it was, that he packed up again and went home, and was a loyal subject of King George ever after. Lots may react the same way. God save King James, but I can't actually come and fight, uh, I have to wash my breeches tonight.

I would predict that it would end in a stand off. But however it ends, it's all win for Louis. At best he gets an ally on the English throne. At worst England has to pull her armies back from the Continent. That's a very good result for an investment of only 10000 men, and they perhaps not the best.


So would it be wiser to have the French take a beachhead and wait for reinforcements/ English Jacobites or no? And considering that this is a French army, wouldn't the French be in charge of organization, making the situation better for the Jacobites? I mean even if the French army wasn't as good as it was in Louis XIV's day it was still a highly capable, organized body, one of the best in Europe.
 
So would it be wiser to have the French take a beachhead and wait for reinforcements/ English Jacobites or no? And considering that this is a French army, wouldn't the French be in charge of organization, making the situation better for the Jacobites? I mean even if the French army wasn't as good as it was in Louis XIV's day it was still a highly capable, organized body, one of the best in Europe.


Mustering then was all about personal contact. Squire might turn out for King James if asked by an Englishmen. Get a Frenchman fronting up, and no way.

(Damn fool rules about using electronics devices! Hold the thought)
 
Yes and no. The cricket ball blow caused a large long standing abscess to burst. Absent cricket ball the abscess, would have killed him in a short while anyway.

Probably a good thing as it passes his rights to his British-born son, later George III. "Bonnie Prince Georgie"?
 
Probably a good thing as it passes his rights to his British-born son, later George III. "Bonnie Prince Georgie"?

More like the old Hanovarian pretender. George III would be 5/6 when he's exiled with the rest of his family. Most likely he'd be in the same boat as James "III & VIII" was OTL and considering his fragile mental state, things don't bod well for old King George.
 
So would it be wiser to have the French take a beachhead and wait for reinforcements/ English Jacobites or no? And considering that this is a French army, wouldn't the French be in charge of organization, making the situation better for the Jacobites? I mean even if the French army wasn't as good as it was in Louis XIV's day it was still a highly capable, organized body, one of the best in Europe.

I'm not sure that waiting by the beach would be a good strategy, since it would give the Hannoverians time to recall their troops from the Continent. Also, unless ITTL the French manage to defeat the British navy, they're going to have a hard time bringing reinforcements and supplies across from France. Their best bet is probably to try and push on as far as possible before their enemies can get organised.
 
I'm not sure that waiting by the beach would be a good strategy, since it would give the Hannoverians time to recall their troops from the Continent. Also, unless ITTL the French manage to defeat the British navy, they're going to have a hard time bringing reinforcements and supplies across from France. Their best bet is probably to try and push on as far as possible before their enemies can get organised.

Probably right. I think it would depend on how delayed the British response is. The French would have a very small window, maybe a few days or hours. So realistically unless the French have more troops waiting by the coast then there is the best bet is to push for London. From what I've read the British only had about 10,000 troops in the whole country and 7,000 of those were deployed around Britain. Comparably the French had between 7,000 and 15,000 troops ready for the invasion. Lets say 15,000, being generous so the French have a good chance to win against the British. Sure the British can call up their militia but I doubt that they'll be that effective, aside from cannon folder. Now maybe 2,000 to 5,000 Jacobites will rise, again fairly generous considering the English Jacobites usual low turnout. So thats about 15,000 to 20,000 Franco-Jacobites versus lets say 15,000 British (not sure how much militiamen can be called up). Now I'm still unsure about the French ability to take London, but if they place it under siege, with all hope of realistic help weeks away (generous guess as to how how long it will take to recall the armies on the continent and the troops in the rest of the Isles), the government might be more willing to negotiate a restoration, or a few Tories might be able to let the French into the city. That's as far as I've guessed for how the invasion will go.
 
Geo I was a good general, better probably than his son, though no doubt more likely to say 'to hell with this, it's not worth it, Hanover is where I love'

But Geo II was quite competent, and he liked soldiering. Politics and diplomacy confused and vexed him, but fighting was straight forward. Us. Them. Charge. And he had sense enough to listen to men like Ligonier , who knew when to charge.

Geo II might've been willing to stay and fight, but there might be enough Tory politicians who would remember his comments of a few years previously saying: "The Devil take your island...and your parliament with it. As long as I can get out and go back to Hannover". The Jacobites could maybe use that and show that the king was "not truly patriotic" or somesuch. 18th century smear campaign:D
 
Yes and no. The cricket ball blow caused a large long standing abscess to burst. Absent cricket ball the abscess, would have killed him in a short while anyway.

Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up.

To troops, yes and no. I can't see direct French troops, but perhaps those from the Irish brigade and Swiss Guards. That way they aren't technically French but at the same time are much less likely to revolt. Actually returning the whole Irish Brigade to British command might be workable, as I believe that they were officially on loan to the French government, until the Stuarts are restored to the throne or something like that.

Hmm... that's an interesting alternative. Although Irish troops wouldn't be particularly well-received either....

Ah, I see your reasoning there. With Britain eliminated as a rival for the time being and Austria ruined, I can't see any diplomatic reason why Louis XV would return the Netherlands. If he tried something like that TTL he's advisers would no doubt heavily object, which might be enough to get him to keep it.

Exactly. And a France that controls the Austrian Netherlands will be that much harder to defeat in future wars.

As for Prussia, remember that the Russian giant is still looming large. OTL Empress Elizabeth backed out after a plot to depose her was relieved to have some Austrian backers. Now if Prussia seems to be becoming a threat, the Russians might decide to re-enter the war themselves, to keep Prussia from becoming a threat. Considering the Empress's later position, that's not inconceivable.

I didn't really think about Russia... you're right that they might check Frederick from reentering the war.

To James III, I'm honestly not sure. For the most part he was a fairly passive, depressive man, much more similar to his cousin Philip V of Spain then any of his close relatives. He just lacked his own Elizabeth Farnese (now THAT would be an interesting match: James III & VIII and the most influential Spanish Queen in history). Now I can see him wanting to do something as a legacy, like repealing the penal laws/ early Catholic emancipation, but not much more. He'd be very cautious, both internationally and domestically. Remember he's been absent from Britain and British internal politics for all of his life, in a way he'll be like George I in 1714. So we might see a few direct interventions in politics, but not as many as he would like.

Interesting...

As for marriages, your right. While a wiser man would marry his sons to good, protestant brides (maybe even a subject, like the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough tried with her granddaughter and the Prince of Wales) I get the feeling that James III wouldn't not be that man. That being said, I doubt he'd be stupid enough to try for a French bride or to a lesser extent a Spanish one. The best picks would be a Portuguese bride or a German one. For the Portuguese, the only one really available is Infanta Mariana Francisca of Portugal, who would be around nine. Good for reinforcing Anglo-Portuguese ties and a fairly nonthreatening Catholic match, but realistically she wouldn't be available for full marriage until 1750, at the earliest. So maybe she can marry Henry Benedict.

There are a few main German contenders, most of which are a bit young. First there's Duchess Maria Antonia of Bavaria, oldest daughter of Emperor Charles VII of Bavaria. She would make a good back-door marriage for an alliance with France, as Bavaria was a key ally of France's against Austria (it was in fact the girls mother that allowed the Elector to claim the Austrian crownlands) and wouldn't be as threatening. Finally I found Maria Anna Sophia of Saxony & Poland. Older sister of the future Dauphine of France, she would be a potential bride, as her father is King of Poland-Lithuania and Elector of Saxony. Plus marrying into a dynasty that converted for a throne but still respected their native country's religious views can't be a bad thing.

Of the three you mentioned, I think I like the Maria Antonia match best. Old enough to marry right away, plus I think one of the big butterflies from this PoD is that the House of Wittelsbach might maintain control of the Holy Roman Empire instead of it going to Francis of Lorraine and then Habsburg-Lorraine. If the Portuguese princess was older she might be better just to avoid the whole French connection entirely, but I would think the Stuarts would want Charles married ASAP.

Well, I guess I'll ask: what do you think about Charles VII's son Maximilian's chances at being elected Emperor ITTL? He is young, only 18 when his father died IOTL, but the Habsburgs are in a much worse position than IOTL. If he does get elected he could marry one of Louis XV's many unmarried daughters. Although if that all happens, then we have the Stuarts and the Bourbons somewhat related again via the Wittelsbachs....

The idea of a marriage to unify the claims isn't bad, but unrealistic so soon after the restoration.

Fair enough.

But the French have only 10000 men. That's not many George can turn out a lot more than that. So they must be relying on mustering local levies.

It might not be that big an army, but it's plenty big enough to stand against the small militia defending London, especially considering they are French regulars. I don't think the French were depending on Jacobites to bolster their ranks so much as to get off a quick battle against that militia and make London/George II their hostage. I don't even think Bonnie Prince Charlie was going to be travelling with the French army. (which that seems kind of foolish to me, but meh)

Which may or may not happen, the Jacobite generals were pretty bad at organisation. My own great(n)-grandfather set off from Staffordshire in '45 to join the Pretender before Derby. He did join too, but was so disgusted at what a balls-up it was, that he packed up again and went home, and was a loyal subject of King George ever after. Lots may react the same way. God save King James, but I can't actually come and fight, uh, I have to wash my breeches tonight.

That's a pretty neat family story!

But however it ends, it's all win for Louis. At best he gets an ally on the English throne. At worst England has to pull her armies back from the Continent. That's a very good result for an investment of only 10000 men, and they perhaps not the best.

Absolutely, it's a great example of a low-risk high-reward bet. At least in this case. The later French invasion schemes were much more risky.

I would predict that it would end in a stand off.

I'm not sure that waiting by the beach would be a good strategy, since it would give the Hannoverians time to recall their troops from the Continent. Also, unless ITTL the French manage to defeat the British navy, they're going to have a hard time bringing reinforcements and supplies across from France. Their best bet is probably to try and push on as far as possible before their enemies can get organised.

Probably right. I think it would depend on how delayed the British response is. The French would have a very small window, maybe a few days or hours. So realistically unless the French have more troops waiting by the coast then there is the best bet is to push for London. From what I've read the British only had about 10,000 troops in the whole country and 7,000 of those were deployed around Britain. Comparably the French had between 7,000 and 15,000 troops ready for the invasion. Lets say 15,000, being generous so the French have a good chance to win against the British. Sure the British can call up their militia but I doubt that they'll be that effective, aside from cannon folder. Now maybe 2,000 to 5,000 Jacobites will rise, again fairly generous considering the English Jacobites usual low turnout. So thats about 15,000 to 20,000 Franco-Jacobites versus lets say 15,000 British (not sure how much militiamen can be called up). Now I'm still unsure about the French ability to take London, but if they place it under siege, with all hope of realistic help weeks away (generous guess as to how how long it will take to recall the armies on the continent and the troops in the rest of the Isles), the government might be more willing to negotiate a restoration, or a few Tories might be able to let the French into the city. That's as far as I've guessed for how the invasion will go.

Consulting Reed Browning's The War of the Austrian Succession (which is the book that inspired the question), he claims that the French invasion force was 12,000 men and that a French survey had found in 1743 that the British had around 16,000 men total around all of Great Britain (so the 10,000 total and 7,000 local are probably for England and London, respectively). Looking at it that way, before any kind of patriotic mob reinforcements adds on to the totals of either army, you have 12,000 French regulars versus 7,000 British militiamen, which is a pretty heavy advantage in favor of the French. When you add that the French don't have any intention of trying to supply their army from Europe or sending more reinforcements, and that the British have a lot of soldiers who are weeks but not days or hours away, I think it's in France's best interest for its army to make a beeline for London and try and force a battle as soon as possible. At such a battle I don't think the added numbers of patriotic Whiggish Londoners or country Jacobites really matter - it's the 12,000 and the 7,000 that matter. And the fact that the French have their best commander, Maurice de Saxe, commanding their army - George II while a competent man is not a military genius. France will almost assuredly win such a battle. From there, I'd expect that George and/or Parliament would recognize that the situation is lost and would sue for peace rather than force the French to besiege London and try and make a last-ditch effort to bring back the regulars from Europe and other militiamen from around Britain, that would fail anyways because the French would break through such a siege long before any reinforcements could arrive.

Geo II might've been willing to stay and fight, but there might be enough Tory politicians who would remember his comments of a few years previously saying: "The Devil take your island...and your parliament with it. As long as I can get out and go back to Hannover". The Jacobites could maybe use that and show that the king was "not truly patriotic" or somesuch. 18th century smear campaign:D

lol, I can see that happening.
 
Last edited:
Top