The Stuart pretender-prisoner

WI James Stuart was captured by the Hanoverians after landing in Scotland during the Rising of 1715?

Edit: It's amazing how I keep getting these sub-forums mixed up.
 
WI James Stuart was captured by the Hanoverians after landing in Scotland during the Rising of 1715?

Edit: It's amazing how I keep getting these sub-forums mixed up.

I don't know much about this period, but I believe he wouldn't be killed. Probably James would be forced to sign some kind of document recognizing George I as the rightful king, and renounce any claim he could have for the throne. Surely he would be put under arrest for some time, but I'm not sure if he would be imprisoned for life or would just be let to go to exile.
 
Maybe do a Mary Queen of Scots on his arse - keep him in close custody until he signs a document officially abdicating and recognising George I as the legitimate monarch whereupon he gets released to a supervised country estate under permanent house arrest. Remember that Parliament had passed a bill of attainder against him for treason back in 1702 so technically they could have just dragged him out back and executed him if they wanted to.
 
I agree; it seems to me likely that he'd be forced to renounce his claim to the throne and kept in the country.

There would be a variety of small ramifications as the paranoia about Jacobites in British foreign and domestic policy is lessened; but the biggy, of course, is no '45 uprising. Personally I don't think the effects of that would be terribly massive. The system of governing at arm's length by blood-feud that had prevailed up to that point might continue for two more decades of four, but the power of the state in the Highlands was always expanding, and more mechanisms of control had been established under William III. Eventually the private armies will vanish, less traumatically, but vanish they will; speaking of which the tradition of Highland regiments will probably still arise (the first ones were pre-45, IIRC), but it will certainly be differant.

Since far from all of the clan leaders were punished with confiscations (a good number had been Georgist, anyway), many having simply been turned from local warlords into ordinary landlords, I think that assuming historical trends to be broadly the same, Anglophilia and the Clearences will still happen.

The lack of a 40-year ban will put some more vitality into Highland dress and custom, which will have interesting consequences when *Sir Walter Scott comes along.
 
Last edited:
James Stuart was not executed but sent with his family into exile in the American Colonies, where he died in 1766.

His son Charles Edward (31 December 1720 – 31 January 1804) was born in Boston, Massachussetts and, despite his father's opposition, married Hannah Arnold, of Connecticut, in 1759.

When the conflict between Britain and the colonies broke out, Charles came to prominence, some say due to the influence of his brother-in-law Benedict, who succeeded George Washington as Commander-in-Chief when the latter was killed by a sniper's bullet in 1782 .

Following the drawn-out and argumentative Philadelphia Convention (1787-1791), he became the first King of the United States, almost as a last gasp compromise solution.

Upon his death in 1804, his son Henry ascended the throne.


(In OTL Charles, "Bonnie Prince Charlie", died on 31 January 1788)
 
I agree; it seems to me likely that he'd be forced to renounce his claim to the throne and kept in the country.

I am not so sure. As Elizabeth eventually discovered, having a claimant under house arrest may seem like a good thing, but it also gives the opposition a directly-accessible alternative monarch in a way which they don't have when that person is in exile. And there is also, of course, the strong possiblity of escape.

'15 is well before wee Charles was born. (1720 IIRC) The temptation to bump off James - by hook or by crook, and why publicly execute when there's poision sloshing around - would be pretty substantial.
 
I am not so sure. As Elizabeth eventually discovered, having a claimant under house arrest may seem like a good thing, but it also gives the opposition a directly-accessible alternative monarch in a way which they don't have when that person is in exile. And there is also, of course, the strong possiblity of escape.

'15 is well before wee Charles was born. (1720 IIRC) The temptation to bump off James - by hook or by crook, and why publicly execute when there's poision sloshing around - would be pretty substantial.

That's a good point. I'm not really sure either way, so I'll leave to more knowledgeable people; I'm thinking mainly about Scottish ramifications.
 
Where would the English keep him prisoner? The Tower? Some fortified place in England far from the coast and the areas with Jacobite sympathies? America?
 
Could it lead to some kind of political division, as Tories wanting to keep him "imprisoned" in some nice countryside manor, while the Whigs put pressure to have James executed?
 
With the capture/death of James III I guess the Jacobite Succession would follow similar lines to OTL, focusing on the grandchildren of Henrietta Anne Stuart, making Charles Emmanuel III of Savoy next in line for the Jacobite Succession...or not?
 
Top