What would the Monmouth Rebellion need to succeed?

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
What would the Monmouth Rebellion need to succeed?

It already had John Churchill and Daniel Defoe. A protestant pretender verses an unpopular catholic king (James II).

More financial backing? Hold out in the Somerset Levels while training the recruits? More Cavalry?

William of Orange was bound by treaty, but he could have put some money into it?
 

Thande

Donor
Interesting question, I would like to see someone do a TL based on a successful Monmouth Rebellion. As for your question: I believe the reason why Monmouth was defeated OTL despite having similar numbers of troops to the King was the better training of the regulars on the royal side. So maybe if Monmouth had access to some foreign mercenaries? Only trouble is that then it would be easy for James to spin Monmouth as the puppet of a foreign power and turn public opinion against him.
 
Interesting question, I would like to see someone do a TL based on a successful Monmouth Rebellion. As for your question: I believe the reason why Monmouth was defeated OTL despite having similar numbers of troops to the King was the better training of the regulars on the royal side. So maybe if Monmouth had access to some foreign mercenaries? Only trouble is that then it would be easy for James to spin Monmouth as the puppet of a foreign power and turn public opinion against him.

Agreed, that would probably make him lose some support. But could he perhaps be lucky enough to avoid capture, hiding in Ireland or Scotland, fleeing Britain and coming back each time that a "Monmouthist" declares rebellion against the king? Maybe it could go on for some years, until James II have his Catholic heir to mess the situation completely.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Perhaps if the two Revenue men are stopped from riding to warn the King (by Monmouth's Cavalry). Monmouth (James Scott) can take Bristol and establish himself there? Recruit more widely and train up a sizeable force. Maybe extra financial backing from William of Orange (unofficial) has allowed him to bring a personal German mercenary Cuirassier battalion/regiment (582? A colonel, a major and four captains of 4 squadrons of 144, each armed with lances and four pistols) with him. Not enough to make his overall force seem foreign, but enough to make up for the OTL small cavalry element to his forces. James II wouldn't find it so easy to outflank. Seven ships instead of three?
 
Last edited:
What about having James II and Mary of Modena have a son shortly before the Monmouth Rebellion? Monmouth arrives on the scene and is seen as an acceptable alternative to having a Catholic Dynasty.
 
What about having James II and Mary of Modena have a son shortly before the Monmouth Rebellion? Monmouth arrives on the scene and is seen as an acceptable alternative to having a Catholic Dynasty.

Trouble is, it might not have the same impact three years earlier.

In 1685, James was still behaving himself, saying he would respect the established order, and that "as to our personal beliefs, none shall see that we entertain them". After Sedgemoor, victory seems to have gone to his head, and he set off on a programme of nullifying laws against Catholicis, and filling important posts with his fellow RCs. That was when things turned aginst him, and made the prospect of a Catholic dynasty so frightening.

Afaics, Monmouth's best chance is simply to wait three years, letting James weave lots of rope to hang himself. Better still if William III takes sick and dies, so that James' opponents have only Monmouth to turn to.
 
Afaics, Monmouth's best chance is simply to wait three years, letting James weave lots of rope to hang himself. Better still if William III takes sick and dies, so that James' opponents have only Monmouth to turn to.

How about Mary dies. That probably would reduce William's claim to the Enlish and Scotish throne enough for him to be out of the picture (unless both Monmouth and Anne don't produce an heir) and would still have him around to finance part of Monmouths expedition, as I am not so sure the Dutch merchants who would take over in the Netherlands after William's death would do so.
 
It was a bit late for Monmouth not to produce an heir, when he died he had two legitimate sons and a daughter living (the elder son, aged 11 when his father was executed, was the ancestor of the still-extant Dukes of Buccleuch), plus an illegitimate son and daughter. It is by the way very questionable whether Monmouth was in fact the son of Charles II; he was acknowledged, but this is more likely to be due to that King's generous nature than anything else. Apparently he was born seven months after the affair between Charles and Monmouth's mother Lucy Walter began, which I would think was in those days too premature for survival, and she had previously been carrying on an affair with one Robert Sidney, to whom Monmouth allegedly bore a strong resemblance. One cannot help feeling that if Monmouth had somehow gained the throne these facts would have been used to undermine his reign, which might have been brief in consequence.
 
Last edited:
How about Mary dies. That probably would reduce William's claim to the Enlish and Scotish throne enough for him to be out of the picture (unless both Monmouth and Anne don't produce an heir) and would still have him around to finance part of Monmouths expedition, as I am not so sure the Dutch merchants who would take over in the Netherlands after William's death would do so.

well, William technically had no claim to the throne so Mary dying means there is zero chance of him making s claim. I'd they had had s child then he would have a claim but they didn't and William would still not have one anyway. William only demanded the kingship as compensation for his military endeavours and his wife was what got him those. no Mary no glorious revolution, no GL no English crown, in that order.
 
well, William technically had no claim to the throne so Mary dying means there is zero chance of him making s claim. I'd they had had s child then he would have a claim but they didn't and William would still not have one anyway. William only demanded the kingship as compensation for his military endeavours and his wife was what got him those. no Mary no glorious revolution, no GL no English crown, in that order.

William's mother was a Stuart, he actually came into the Succession after Mary and Anne. So he could still be seen as a Protestant alternative in lieu of Mary and Anne not having children.
 
Top