WI: Bonnie Prince Charlie is competent

It seems to me that in the various Jacobite schemes in which "Charles III" (as recognized by supporters of the cause) was the primary actor, he presented himself as a drunk, a coward, surly, and generally useless and incapable. How would the prospects of the Jacobite cause be improved were he, alternatively, gallant, publicly sober, and a competent commander and would-be ruler?

I generally don't expect the Jacobites able to win by the 1730s-40s period, but I'm sure this might help. Would he marry sooner? I suppose as a side-bar, for what reason did he not marry until he was 52?
 
My understanding is that he was quite charismatic and inspirational. The drunk Charles didn't show up til after the failure of '45. He was plagued by a bit of bad luck. First, '44 was blown asunder by an untimely storm, and then France never fully backed his play in '45. a minimum of French troops could have turned the tide in '45. He still had a shot, but chose not to listen to more experienced military minds, and this doomed the adventure.

Whether success would have staved off the drinking is hard to say. One can be more prone to alcoholism, but that doesn't mean alcoholism is inevitable.

What happens next is debatable. the predominant view is that a Stuart restoration is most likely to be a horrible disaster. I personally feel that the challenges are daunting, but not insurmountable. The bad Charles came out after the adventure failed. It's possible the good Charles could have stuck around. By all accounts, he had the charisma. Whether he had the administrative ability is a different question.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
He was pressured not to advance into England but to solidify his position in Scotland and wait for French help to arrive or for the British to seek terms. Neither seems likely to have happened, but it probably would have been better than his disastrous advance into England.
 
He got as far as Derby in the '45—didn't his commanders pressure him to turn back, and he did? A double agent was also spreading rumors that the government had a third army that was closing in, when it wasn't true. Really, when he was in Derby, he had Cumberland at his rear, and a poorly trained and hastily summoned militia force that was guarding London at Finchley, IIRC. If he'd pressed forward from Derby instead of retreating, he could've certainly caused some damage. He probably would've been able to defeat the militia defending London—there were certainly sympathetic Jacobites in the capital, it might've finally roused the English Jacobites to act, and the French would've certainly sent out the invasion fleet under the Duke of Richelieu. The big problem was he didn't have much support outside the Scottish clans. The English Jacobites adopted an attitude of wait and see, as did the French. It ultimately doomed the venture. If he takes London, I'm not sure if it'd make the rising a success, but it'd definitely be interesting to see how things go...

Ultimately, I think the Jacobites would be more successful in the 1710s. If James III had abandoned Catholicism, Anne would've willingly adopted him as her heir in lieu of the Hannoverians, whom she hated. I think that's the best chance of a Restoration versus the numerous failed risings.
 
He got as far as Derby in the '45—didn't his commanders pressure him to turn back, and he did? A double agent was also spreading rumors that the government had a third army that was closing in, when it wasn't true. Really, when he was in Derby, he had Cumberland at his rear, and a poorly trained and hastily summoned militia force that was guarding London at Finchley, IIRC. If he'd pressed forward from Derby instead of retreating, he could've certainly caused some damage. He probably would've been able to defeat the militia defending London—there were certainly sympathetic Jacobites in the capital, it might've finally roused the English Jacobites to act, and the French would've certainly sent out the invasion fleet under the Duke of Richelieu. The big problem was he didn't have much support outside the Scottish clans. The English Jacobites adopted an attitude of wait and see, as did the French. It ultimately doomed the venture. If he takes London, I'm not sure if it'd make the rising a success, but it'd definitely be interesting to see how things go...

Ultimately, I think the Jacobites would be more successful in the 1710s. If James III had abandoned Catholicism, Anne would've willingly adopted him as her heir in lieu of the Hannoverians, whom she hated. I think that's the best chance of a Restoration versus the numerous failed risings.
Londres vaut bien une messe, right?
 
Ultimately, I think the Jacobites would be more successful in the 1710s. If James III had abandoned Catholicism, Anne would've willingly adopted him as her heir in lieu of the Hannoverians, whom she hated. I think that's the best chance of a Restoration versus the numerous failed risings.
Perhaps so. The rules about a person being illegible for the throne if they or their spouse had ever been Catholic didn't come until well after this, didn't it? And yes, getting adopted as heir is one way for him to get the crown. If he converted to a Protestant denomination he would be missing on out on Highlander support, English Catholics, and certain foreign powers. So he would likely try to set things up before hand. Wait, think I mixed up James and Charles for a moment. Then again, he went over there to fight on his father's behalf, didn't he? I really should read up more on it. Anyways, the conversion will need to seem somewhat genuine as people were rather concerned about it. Can't do having a secret or not-so-secret Catholic as chief administrator of your Church. They had bad experiences with James II about that and were a bit wary. Perhaps if we do go back to James II and have his things on freedom of religion expanded then James III will be seen more favorably by the non-Conformists.
 
Can't do having a secret or not-so-secret Catholic as chief administrator of your Church. They had bad experiences with James II about that and were a bit wary. Perhaps if we do go back to James II and have his things on freedom of religion expanded then James III will be seen more favorably by the non-Conformists.

Actually, IIRC James II's whole "tolerance' thing with regards to religion - while almost a century ahead of its time - didn't go over so well with the Anglican community. The Anglicans in government were fine with James being papist, however, they didn't like the idea of there being equal opportunities for Anglicans and non-Anglicans (Catholics, non-Conformists, etc.).

As to having a Catholic/not-so-secret Catholic as chief administrator: worked fine in Saxony or the Palatinate. Someone (IDK why but I'm thinking Mary of Modena, but I could be wrong) suggested a similar device to the set-up that the Catholic Elector Palatine had done in mid-1680s/1690s when he'd succeeded: namely that a commission of clerics - archbishop of Canterbury/York and the most senior bishops - run the Church of England, with the king having final say in any other matters (if they didn't want a Catholic in charge of the CoE (which had happened twice in the past already).
 
Perhaps so. The rules about a person being illegible for the throne if they or their spouse had ever been Catholic didn't come until well after this, didn't it? And yes, getting adopted as heir is one way for him to get the crown. If he converted to a Protestant denomination he would be missing on out on Highlander support, English Catholics, and certain foreign powers. So he would likely try to set things up before hand. Wait, think I mixed up James and Charles for a moment. Then again, he went over there to fight on his father's behalf, didn't he? I really should read up more on it. Anyways, the conversion will need to seem somewhat genuine as people were rather concerned about it. Can't do having a secret or not-so-secret Catholic as chief administrator of your Church. They had bad experiences with James II about that and were a bit wary. Perhaps if we do go back to James II and have his things on freedom of religion expanded then James III will be seen more favorably by the non-Conformists.

Well, the Act of Settlement was passed in 1701, which conferred the succession onto the Electress Sophia of Hanover and the heirs of her body. This was passed in the reign of William III—Queen Anne herself, who succeeded William, definitely had sympathies. She was constantly troubled by the fact she had technically usurped her father's throne—in 1696 she wrote to him, promising to restore the crown to James' line if she was allowed to succeed William. James II refused to reply to the letter, and though she technically acquiesced to the Act of Settlement, she was never a fan of the Hanoverians, and the Jacobites were certainly a stronger force in this time period than later on. Many Tories would've been happy to see James III succeed Anne. I think the conversion is the best shot, as we can see in the numerous Jacobite risings that there wasn't enough support for them to simply seize the throne. The only real foreign support in the period of James II / James III came from France, and that was only until the end of the War of the Spanish Succession: even then, the French tended to see the exiled Stuarts as a way to cause trouble for the English. They never whole-hardly supported any Jacobite enterprises, given their continental aspirations were more important.

Actually, IIRC James II's whole "tolerance' thing with regards to religion - while almost a century ahead of its time - didn't go over so well with the Anglican community. The Anglicans in government were fine with James being papist, however, they didn't like the idea of there being equal opportunities for Anglicans and non-Anglicans (Catholics, non-Conformists, etc.).

As to having a Catholic/not-so-secret Catholic as chief administrator: worked fine in Saxony or the Palatinate. Someone (IDK why but I'm thinking Mary of Modena, but I could be wrong) suggested a similar device to the set-up that the Catholic Elector Palatine had done in mid-1680s/1690s when he'd succeeded: namely that a commission of clerics - archbishop of Canterbury/York and the most senior bishops - run the Church of England, with the king having final say in any other matters (if they didn't want a Catholic in charge of the CoE (which had happened twice in the past already).

Yes, I believe Mary of Modena suggested that a commission of Bishops handle appointments to the CoE. This was during her time as "Regent" for James III. It was during some wrangling when the Jacobites tried to convince her to let James III convert to secure the crown. She refused, and her counter "offer" so to speak was that they'd limit the amount of Roman Catholic priests in England and that the king would not inference in the administration of the CoE.
 
Could we have JFES marry a daughter of George? Perhaps even with corule?

George I's only daughter was Sophia Dorothea, who married the Crown Prince of Prussia (future Frederick William I) in 1706. If something happened to George II, she'd be her father's heiress—but I think without a male heir, George I would probably remarry in hopes to sire a son, given Sophia Dorothea would not be eligible to inherit Hannover. George I was divorced from his first wife in 1694, so he could certainly remarry.

I don't see any way for a match to happen—James III would have to secure the succession in shape or form before her Prussian marriage, and that seems like it'd be hard to do. Maybe if Mary of Modena listens to some of Jacobites and lets James III convert, but it seems really out of character for her. I'm not sure how the Hannoverians would feel about the match if they'd suddenly lost the succession to them, but given George I and even George II's preference for Hannover, maybe they'd come around. The British public would definitely support a Protestant marriage—if James III does end up converting, a Protestant bride would be the best way to show that he's sincere and isn't going to revert to the old Stuart policy of Crypto-Catholicism and Catholic royal marriages.
 
George I's only daughter was Sophia Dorothea, who married the Crown Prince of Prussia (future Frederick William I) in 1706. If something happened to George II, she'd be her father's heiress—but I think without a male heir, George I would probably remarry in hopes to sire a son, given Sophia Dorothea would not be eligible to inherit Hannover. George I was divorced from his first wife in 1694, so he could certainly remarry.

AFAIK, he was divorced in the sense that Karl I of the Palatinate was divorced. It was more a legal separation than a divorce, per se. @Stateless did a TL on this possibility - George II catching smallpox/whatever Karoline of Ansbach had shortly after their marriage, and kicking. George I then remarries to Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden.

I don't see any way for a match to happen—James III would have to secure the succession in shape or form before her Prussian marriage, and that seems like it'd be hard to do. Maybe if Mary of Modena listens to some of Jacobites and lets James III convert, but it seems really out of character for her. I'm not sure how the Hannoverians would feel about the match if they'd suddenly lost the succession to them, but given George I and even George II's preference for Hannover, maybe they'd come around. The British public would definitely support a Protestant marriage—if James III does end up converting, a Protestant bride would be the best way to show that he's sincere and isn't going to revert to the old Stuart policy of Crypto-Catholicism and Catholic royal marriages.

Anne wanted, OTL, if James III had died of measles instead of Louisa Maria, to marry her half-sister to the electoral prince of Hannover (according to Fraser's bio of Louis XIV), and thus cut Sophia and George I (both of whom she despised) out of the British succession completely. Not sure how she planned to do it though.
 
Ironically the 15 had a better chance of seizing the government than the 45. The latter was a better planned rebellion, but the government was so unprepared in the former that there were almost nothing standing between the supporters of "James III" and London after a few Jacobite defeats over the Hannoverans. One historian estimated that the best that could be scraped together if they marched on was militia 1/7 the size of the rebels, with no heavy guns or large regular formations to act as a nucleus. He guessed the easiest part of the Jacobite cause at that point was the Earl of Mar marching on London and the hardest part was staying in power. The government was not without its own supporters (you know, including the Royal Army REGULARS), they were just kind of mobilized with slow urgency (possible since Mar is better at parading his guys than as a general). Once the Jacobites seize London, the government's ministers can just flee to army bases, regroup, and win the civil war. Without radio and with the confusion of London falling to the rebels, the majority of the slowly mobilizing government forces will at first be clueless and separated from each other, but then commanders should quickly fall to a default action of "Gather around George I" instead of lunching separate uncoordinated attacked to retake London. Once they regroup, then retake London. I don't think the rebels would last 3 months in London (they are numerically inferior and the only reason they got in was due to slow mobilization of the Georgite-British not the lack of Geogrtie-British) and they would soon be forced back in Scotland (where oddly "James III" was popular not only among Catholics but Protestants. It's like the Scottish prefer the Stuarts over the Hanoverians)​
 
Ironically the 15 had a better chance of seizing the government than the 45. The latter was a better planned rebellion, but the government was so unprepared in the former that there were almost nothing standing between the supporters of "James III" and London after a few Jacobite defeats over the Hannoverans. One historian estimated that the best that could be scraped together if they marched on was militia 1/7 the size of the rebels, with no heavy guns or large regular formations to act as a nucleus. He guessed the easiest part of the Jacobite cause at that point was the Earl of Mar marching on London and the hardest part was staying in power. The government was not without its own supporters (you know, including the Royal Army REGULARS), they were just kind of mobilized with slow urgency (possible since Mar is better at parading his guys than as a general). Once the Jacobites seize London, the government's ministers can just flee to army bases, regroup, and win the civil war. Without radio and with the confusion of London falling to the rebels, the majority of the slowly mobilizing government forces will at first be clueless and separated from each other, but then commanders should quickly fall to a default action of "Gather around George I" instead of lunching separate uncoordinated attacked to retake London. Once they regroup, then retake London. I don't think the rebels would last 3 months in London (they are numerically inferior and the only reason they got in was due to slow mobilization of the Georgite-British not the lack of Geogrtie-British) and they would soon be forced back in Scotland (where oddly "James III" was popular not only among Catholics but Protestants. It's like the Scottish prefer the Stuarts over the Hanoverians)​

That would be a pretty bad blow to the legitimacy, prestige, and stability of the Hanoverian regime, no?
 
That would be a pretty bad blow to the legitimacy, prestige, and stability of the Hanoverian regime, no?

What do you mean? George I is a not-Catholic monarch with more guys than the rebels in charge of London. He just literally needs to land and let the majority gather around him and while it's possible the rebels might beat a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, it's not likely. The Old Pretender thought Malbrough was on his side and his 30,000 soldiers were more loyal to Marlborough than the Hannoverian regime. He was right about the latter but Malbroyugh was a Georgite not a Jacobite. Funny given that the Whigs and William III screwed over some of his allies and mentors, but you can't accurse him of bring a traitor.

Typical conversation will go like this.
Messenger: Sir, the Jacobites took London. We don't even know where our allies are!
Commander Officer: Shit, I'm not going to let the country go to the filthy Papists!
Officer A: What do we do, there is only a thousand of us? Others may have gathered, but the only group large was the one defeated by the rebels and Marlborough who didn't get to London in time to fortify it. (switch dialogue if you imagine Marlborough going traitor)
Officer B: Communications when mobilizing are supposed to go through London, I don't even know where to receive orders from!
Officer C: What do we do? They caught us flat-footed and they decapitated our chain of command.
Messenger: George I landed!
Commander Officer: Go to him! All hail the true King!

In short, if the Jacobites control the government and Parliament (and probably most of the MPs too) temporarily, they will have trouble holding it. It's a pretty bad blow of legitimacy to the Hanoverian regime, but most Protestants won't stand for the Jacobites even if their faith in the Hanoverian reigime is shaken. Except the Protestant Jacobites in Scotland, Lancashire, and Cornwall (who for some reason want a Catholic in charge of the Church of England) but those crazies are the minority. Aside from the government forces coalescing around George I the moment their "true king" arrives, he can count on almost every Protestant in England to be eyes and informants. Even if the Jacobites take London and repulse an initial counterattack, how can they hold when they need to not anger the Protestants (because in the 15 Protastant Jacobites were an essential minority of their supporters) while at the same time almost every civilian is probably a willing informant of George I?
 
The Old Pretender thought Malbrough was on his side and his 30,000 soldiers were more loyal to Marlborough than the Hannoverian regime. He was right about the latter but Malbroyugh was a Georgite not a Jacobite.

The only side Marlborough was ever really on was his own. He was very good at seeing which way the wind was blowing, making sure he was on the winning side, and yet still keeping fingers in enough pies that if that wind were to shift he'd still be in a good enough position with his new masters to maintain his position.

Funny given that the Whigs and William III screwed over some of his allies and mentors, but you can't accurse him of bring a traitor.

James II would disagree.
 
The only side Marlborough was ever really on was his own. He was very good at seeing which way the wind was blowing, making sure he was on the winning side, and yet still keeping fingers in enough pies that if that wind were to shift he'd still be in a good enough position with his new masters to maintain his position.

Hmmm... Marlborough according to the conspiracy was supposed to lure government troops to him by making an overt move (because most of his troops are more loyal to him than the actual government... complicated story. Not to say they had no national pride, but they thought their commander knew who was the right king). Then The Old pretender was supposed to give a commission to one of his supporters, and a march was supposed to be made on London. James Francis Edward Stuart ("James III") never got back his reply, but was sure that given Will and George's supporters screwed over Marlborough's allies (pawns?) was 100% sure the two of them were on the same page. After all, he had correspondence with Marlborough's household in up to 1712 (not Marlborough himself, but the servants supposedly were writing on the behalf of him). Then there was a communication blackout (conspiracies need to stay hidden) and when Anne kicked the bucket The Old Pretender sent his "OK, I just need to ready my supporters in Scotland, you know what to do" to Marlborough and thought they were on the same page.

The Earl of Mar raised the standard of war before The Old Pretender could organize his other conspirators. If he waited another 3 months before doing anything to alert the government (like... uprising), Mar could have tripled his numbers, get some wagons and horses, and "James III" would be on his way to Scotland to act as a symbol of their cause. Fortunately for Mar, the government was so unprepared that after the Battle of Sheriffmuir, there was nothing between him and London despite lots of Jacobites that could have oined not joining. Forutnatly for the government, as Neil Oliver said Mar knew how to parade, not fight wars. So he paraded around Scotland while

Now this is the story that pretty much went uncontested as late as Victorian times. Mar rough heard about the uprising in Scotland. He dispatched three small cavalry squads to look and asses the situation since he had not been given orders by George I to move out and he was unwilling to waste government money marching and feeding when he didn't even know where the rebels were or if his help was even needed. The squads split up, supposedly because if one group got defeated by the rebels, the other two might spot the rebels and flee south. When the scouts came back to report after Scheriffmuir, he realized the uprising was serious, but still didn't know there was a road open for the rebels to march into London (as the government forces were not only unprepared for an uprising, they actually denuded three of their garrisons on a critical road for the field army). Thinking other government forces were putting on delaying actions (because you're an idiot government if you haven't mobilized your army in November when London heard the news of the rebels 30 days earlier!), he marched to secure London at a leisurely pace. Since there was no way the rebels could advance fast with even a puny 3,000 men delaying force (which the Hanoverian British could no longer muster to put between Mar and London in the time it takes to march there thanks to the Scheriffmuir battle and them unable to mobilize other troops with any urgency), he marched slowly to avoid tiring his men and taking on unessary casualties (friendly fire goes up when everyone is hungry and sleep deprived) After getting north of London, he heard more news about actions between rebels and government forces. Marlborough then proceeded to split his guys into three groups and help with mop-up operations in December.

The complete lack of urgency in mobilization is either a perfect example of what not to do or parliament and cabinent (which was where the bottleneck was, not the army units themselves) was subconsciously not caring about a Catholic Scotish or a Protestant German on the throne.

In the 45, the Jacobites were faster and more organized, but had less of a chance because the government was not made of morons this time.

Marlborough said he was a Georgite (not his exact words, mine) and had sent a letter (HE did, not his servants in his name) to the Hannover to congratulate George on his ascension. He had made assumptions on the government actually doing something given how much lead time they had to react and his officers praised him for his decisions made with information he had (keep his men well rested and fed). Few people critized his assumptions, which were perfectly reasonable, and blamed the government for not communicating with Royal Army barracks fast enough (as they should!)

Three years later, he found correspondences between late members of his household and "James III" and denied any involvement in the plot, saying his servants had tricked the Old Pretender.

If what you claim is true, he once the Hanoverian-British lost London, he would twiddle his thumbs instead of storming to retake London. Are you sure about that?
 
Top