WI: Jacobite Coup/Restoration in 1714?

Yep, you're on to it.

Kings Guard reported to Gold Stick. Main army reported to Captain-General or, later, Commander in-Chief. Guards were whatever regiments the King decided to honour with the appointment. There were different rules about commissions, promotions etc, Guards were an elite.

Unallocated lands in the Colonies (ie whatever the King hadn't granted to someone) were Crown estate , the King could do what he wanted with them. Bear in mind though, that most of them would have Indian inhabitants , who might have their own ideas about matters.

The King also had a fairly sizable income from Droits of the Crown and Droits of Admiralty , and maybe from the 4 1/2% customs on the Caribbean Islands (I'm not sure whether that was the case as early as this - certainly was by Geo III's time.

But all army commissions, Guards or Line, were in the gift of the King. One of Car II's earliest laws was to make any Parliamentary interference in the Army illegal. Parliament got to say how many troops, how much they got paid, and, broadly, where they were used. Everything else was the king's authority.

EDIT: The whole question of resumption of land grants, confiscations etc depends very much on how much like a re-conquest the event is. If Parliament offer James back the throne without any fighting, just a "Here y'go Your Majesty, sorry about the 26 year mix up" then the new King can't actually do that much . Like Car II . But if the new King is opposed , and has to fight his way to the throne (either personally or by proxy), then it becomes more of a conquest , and he has a lot more flexibility. F'instance, if James is opposed by military force, his first thing will be to send summonses to all the landowners , and chief towns , demanding they turn out to support him, "or be deemed my enemy, recreant , and your lands, charters etc forfeit". Most won't of course, some will actually oppose him, most will just want to wait and see. But, then, if he wins, he can go back to those who didn't support him when he called upon them and remind them about that forfeiture bit. So he actually does better ifg there is opposition. And, of course, opposition gives him a better chance to kill off his enemies.

OK so the Guard Regiments answered to the Crown. Good to know. And the Colonial Crown lands could be used to provide additional income, providing they were usable and not controlled by Indians. And the Droits were sort of like various feudal dues that the Crown used to collect or am I wrong? And the army was also the King's privilege, though with major advise from Parliament. Reading threw our discussion, it seems the Crown was in a better financial situation then I previously thought. Sure the Crown didn't have absolute power over finances, like Portugal or France, but the Crown wasn't totally dependent on Parliament like in later generations. What about Tonnage and Poundage? Was that still granted to the Monarch or no? Cause the latest I can find it being voted was James II.

So it would depend on if the Coup is successful and everyone accepts it or if a few Whig grandees escape London or weren't there in the first place and try to raise a rebellion. If its the later James would be in a stronger position. He can seize estates, ruin the Whig's as a political Party and eliminate potential enemies. I doubt the Whigs would be very popular considering they're fighting to bring the British Isles under the control of a foreign monarch. Not a good goal for a Nation that was notoriously xenophobic.
 
Tonnage and poundage was part of the £800000. One of the Crown hereditary revenues. After the Revolution Parliament agreed that if the King surrendered all his hereditary revenues to the Exchequer, Parliament would give a fixed sum of £800,000 (which was what it was estimated the hereditary revenues came to then). That agreement needs to be renegotiated with each new King - its a sort of deal between the King and Parliament not a normal law. So James can simply say "No thanks". If he does, tonnage and poundage doesn't actually have to be granted (Parliament liked to claim ti did, but they were simply downright wrong in law) ; it was the King's hereditary right.

It was a fairly good deal for William, who had no idea how much the hereditary revenues were , or if he was being cheated. This way he got a fixed , guaranteed income. Problem is , that once Parliament voted money for the Civil List they started acting as if it was a sort of Welfare Benefit for the King.

All in all, taking the hereditary revenues, assuming some enhanced land revenues from forfeitures, Droits, Irish and Scottish revenues, based on figures I've seen, I'd assume that James III & VIII might have an income of between £1.5 million and £2 million in a good year (it would vary, a lot of it was dependent on trade conditions, harvest etc) . In some cases there would be collection costs to come out of that (but collections were a good source of patronage, and could be used to bind mens' loyalties)

EDIT: Droits, by the way means "rights". They were feudal rights, but not rights over landed estates. They comprised a whole bunch of miscellaneous stuff. Shipwrecks; seized contraband; prize of war ; loot; some tolls, port dues; ransoms; estrays; escheats. Lots more. Very variable, in a good year, in war, they could be over a million a year in the later 18C. In a bad year , maybe only 1 or 2 hundred thousand. Their value increased as the Colonial empire grew larger.
 
Last edited:
No idea. I don't think England (let alone Scotland or Ireland) had a colonial policy then. The colonies were either (a) Places that grew crops in demand in England that didn't grow locally - eg sugar island. Policy, grab any we can ; (b) places for malcontents to escape to or be exiled to . Policy, we have plenty of those, hopefully the Indians or Spanish or French kill everyone; (c) places that produced gold or silver, of which, alas Britain had none,. Policy, steal some from someone if possible.

James II & VII was very interested in colonial America, much more so than Chas II. But whether his son would inherit that interest, who knows.

We really have very little idea what this *James III & VIII would be like. OTL James Edward didn't get much chance to make his mark, and *James is going to be different anyway. I would think that if it suits your purpose to have him a "colonial nut" then you would be justified in making him thus.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I suppose that it is a silly thing to ask, but what of the Jacobite's religious and political policy? I know the Stuarts weren't really fond of Parliament, but if the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution proved, Parliament isn't going to go away anytime soon, and it would be ridiculously hard to marginalize.

Meanwhile, the issue is that after Anna, the Stuarts are Catholic playing against a country, (or three under Personal Union, should James seek to overturn the 1707 Acts of Union.) that is Predominantly Protestant. Unless James and his heirs could utilize a policy that would settle the religious affairs, what wouldn't stop the die-hard anti-Stuartists from launching a counter-coup?
 
No idea. I don't think England (let alone Scotland or Ireland) had a colonial policy then. The colonies were either (a) Places that grew crops in demand in England that didn't grow locally - eg sugar island. Policy, grab any we can ; (b) places for malcontents to escape to or be exiled to . Policy, we have plenty of those, hopefully the Indians or Spanish or French kill everyone; (c) places that produced gold or silver, of which, alas Britain had none,. Policy, steal some from someone if possible.

James II & VII was very interested in colonial America, much more so than Chas II. But whether his son would inherit that interest, who knows.

We really have very little idea what this *James III & VIII would be like. OTL James Edward didn't get much chance to make his mark, and *James is going to be different anyway. I would think that if it suits your purpose to have him a "colonial nut" then you would be justified in making him thus.

I probably should have been more clear. Britain and France went toe to toe in North America and India for much of the 18th century, which eventually ended in British victory. Here Britain and France are allied or at least have very warm relations. So how would British colonial policy change in regard to the French colonies? Would the French Colonial Empire survive in North America and India or would we see an eventual war between the two nations later down the line?

I suppose that it is a silly thing to ask, but what of the Jacobite's religious and political policy? I know the Stuarts weren't really fond of Parliament, but if the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution proved, Parliament isn't going to go away anytime soon, and it would be ridiculously hard to marginalize.

Meanwhile, the issue is that after Anna, the Stuarts are Catholic playing against a country, (or three under Personal Union, should James seek to overturn the 1707 Acts of Union.) that is Predominantly Protestant. Unless James and his heirs could utilize a policy that would settle the religious affairs, what wouldn't stop the die-hard anti-Stuartists from launching a counter-coup?

Well if you read this discussion and the linked in one at the beginning you can see what we're thinking. Remember James III would be restored by a coup, which would be legitimized later but a coup none the less. So at this point the major army and naval officers would be on the side of the Jacobites/Tories. However, the bill of Rights would be annulled as illegal so the balance of Power would once again be in favor of the Crown. With the military by and large siding with James III Parliament wouldn't do much against him. I imagine the relationship between James III and Parliament would be similar to Charles II's relationship with it. Difficult at times but not to the point of removing the Sovereign. Parliament would certainly be a powerful branch of government but not all powerful like it became. I imagine my version of James III would be a balance of Charles II and George III.

As for religious policy, I agree that it would need to be dealt with early on. My idea was to revive the Convocation of the Clergy, which was essentially a church parliament that would make major decisions. It was dissolved by the Whigs and restoring it would give James III a boast politically and religiously. It would, in my opinion, be similar to Saxony's Privy Council, which oversaw Saxony's Lutheran church after its Elector converted to Catholicism and became King of Poland. James III would remain the official Head of the Church, but have little authority over decisions. I think it would be the best idea to alleviate fears. As for the Act of Union, I think keeping it would be the best idea. It was a good act and dissolving it would cause unnecessary political problems. Its better to give Scotland more representation in Westminster. And to a Whig uprising, it would be a good thing in the long run. I mean the army was mainly loyal to the Crown and the Whigs would be fighting to bring the British Isles under foreign rule, not a good goal for a xenophobic nation. When the uprising is crushed, the Whigs will be in the same position as the OTL Tories. Politically powerless and unimportant. Plus the estates of the Whig grandees can be seized by the Crown and returned to the Crown estate, thus increasing the Crown's revenues. So an uprising wouldn't a bad thing at all.
 
Well , Ireland was predominately Catholic, by population at any rate.

The thing is that the majority of England was Tory . And the Church was mainly high Tory. And whilst the Tories disliked Popery, (and note there is a very real difference between Catholicism and Popery - the contemporary works almost always refer to Popery and Papists , whilst divines referred to Catholics) they also fervently believed in passive obedience and indefeasible hereditary right. The lawful King was God's anointed , His Regent on Earth. Yes, they did believe that, it wasn't just lip service.


Many of the Cavaliers (Sir Edmund Verney, that incomparably good man, slain at Edgehill bearing the Royal Standard is a well known example) actually agreed with Parliament, but, none the less, turned out to fight for the King. Because, he was the King.

And by and large, they hated protestant dissenters more than they did Catholics. It was that ill advised attempt to extend toleration to Dissenters that set the Seven Bishops a-petitioning and cost James his throne

So the question is a lot more complex than just Catholic versus Protestant.

The die hard Whigs might (may) well launch a counter coup. But launching and winning are different things. After the Martyrdom, no Tory will ever support Whigs in battle against the King. They might not be willing to fight for the King, until he looks certain of winning, but they won't fight against him.

There were also LOT of crypto-Catholics, who conformed to the Church of England, but would have been quite happy to swap that for the Church of Rome. So long as the Pope kept his nose out . After all there wasn't actually that much difference.

By no means all of the Jacobites , even those who went into exile, were Roman Catholics. After all, Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury was happy to crown King James (knowing he was a Roman Catholic, they amended the service accordingly); but he flat refused to crown William and Mary. Compton of London had to step in, and he wasn't at all happy about it either. And what Anglican will ever fail to respect the memory of the thousands of non-jurors?

Remember, every good Anglican vows: "I believe in the Holy Catholic an Apostolic Church ". James's Catholicism need not be insurmountable, if he is smart enough . If parson accepts it, and Squire accepts it, Hodge will accept it.
 
I probably should have been more clear. Britain and France went toe to toe in North America and India for much of the 18th century, which eventually ended in British victory. Here Britain and France are allied or at least have very warm relations. So how would British colonial policy change in regard to the French colonies? Would the French Colonial Empire survive in North America and India or would we see an eventual war between the two nations later down the line?

..


I don't think that America, or India were that big an issue for either France or Britain in 1714. Fifty years later, another matter. But by then , England and France may not be allies at all. Fifty years is a long time in diplomatic circles.

But the problem may not be a big one. In America, the colonies were quite different. The British colonies were settlers. They wanted farms. The French settlers were fur trappers . They wanted to range through the forests . I think that the British would have kept to the littoral , as OTL, and the French would have ranged down the Ohio and Mississippi, also as OTL. Better relations between the mother countries would help, not hinder

In India, the sub continent was big enough, until the 19C for both. The British had more of an issue with the Dutch in the East than with the French.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Well if you read this discussion and the linked in one at the beginning you can see what we're thinking. Remember James III would be restored by a coup, which would be legitimized later but a coup none the less. So at this point the major army and naval officers would be on the side of the Jacobites/Tories. However, the bill of Rights would be annulled as illegal so the balance of Power would once again be in favor of the Crown. With the military by and large siding with James III Parliament wouldn't do much against him. I imagine the relationship between James III and Parliament would be similar to Charles II's relationship with it. Difficult at times but not to the point of removing the Sovereign. Parliament would certainly be a powerful branch of government but not all powerful like it became. I imagine my version of James III would be a balance of Charles II and George III.

As for religious policy, I agree that it would need to be dealt with early on. My idea was to revive the Convocation of the Clergy, which was essentially a church parliament that would make major decisions. It was dissolved by the Whigs and restoring it would give James III a boast politically and religiously. It would, in my opinion, be similar to Saxony's Privy Council, which oversaw Saxony's Lutheran church after its Elector converted to Catholicism and became King of Poland. James III would remain the official Head of the Church, but have little authority over decisions. I think it would be the best idea to alleviate fears. As for the Act of Union, I think keeping it would be the best idea. It was a good act and dissolving it would cause unnecessary political problems. Its better to give Scotland more representation in Westminster. And to a Whig uprising, it would be a good thing in the long run. I mean the army was mainly loyal to the Crown and the Whigs would be fighting to bring the British Isles under foreign rule, not a good goal for a xenophobic nation. When the uprising is crushed, the Whigs will be in the same position as the OTL Tories. Politically powerless and unimportant. Plus the estates of the Whig grandees can be seized by the Crown and returned to the Crown estate, thus increasing the Crown's revenues. So an uprising wouldn't a bad thing at all.

I can imagine Great Britain being more like a Prussian-style Constitutional Monarchy rather than the Parliamentary style that we come to know and love...and are often times annoyed and facepalmed by.

My only issue about the religious policy and possible rebellion is that it will pretty much mean that it would give James the opprotunity to try and rule autocratically...again.
 
Different James, of course. IIIrd , not II&VIIth . I believe the context is that *James takes more after his uncle than his father (as is not uncommon in families) .
 
I can imagine Great Britain being more like a Prussian-style Constitutional Monarchy rather than the Parliamentary style that we come to know and love...and are often times annoyed and facepalmed by.

My only issue about the religious policy and possible rebellion is that it will pretty much mean that it would give James the opprotunity to try and rule autocratically...again.

Like I said, the most power the Crown could reasonably hold was the power Charles II wielded. Parliament isn't going away but its power can be reduced. But I can see a Prussian/German style Constitution. The idea of ministers answering to the Crown would definitely appeal to the Stuart Dynasty.

I doubt James would try to rule autocratically. Britain isn't France. The Nobility wouldn't accept an absolute Monarch.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Like I said, the most power the Crown could reasonably hold was the power Charles II wielded. Parliament isn't going away but its power can be reduced. But I can see a Prussian/German style Constitution. The idea of ministers answering to the Crown would definitely appeal to the Stuart Dynasty.

I doubt James would try to rule autocratically. Britain isn't France. The Nobility wouldn't accept an absolute Monarch.

Well I know that the nobles won't accept it...and that's what worries me. Still, a Prussian-style Great Britain would be appealing though, and a monarchy that doesn't have those silly anti-Catholic succession laws is a plus to me.
 
Well I know that the nobles won't accept it...and that's what worries me. .

To be sure they won't (well, the Whigs won't. Obviously the Jacobite peers, and most of the Tories will be happy, but the Whigs had a decided House of Lords majority in the last of Anne).

But, a cunning *James can use that to his advantage.

Let us consider what we may reasonably predict .

Firstly, *James restores the Convocation. Now we may be sure that almost the very first thing that *Convocation (Atterbury having replaced the Whig bishops with good High Church men) will do is demand a rigorous Occasional Conformity Bill. OTL the Whig HoL blocked the numerous attempts to secure that . The Tories finally manged to get an Act passed in 1710, but the HoL eviscerated it, and everyone accepted that it was ineffective. Now, Convocation will demand one that has teeth. The Commons will certainly agree: the Commons of Anne's last Parliament was extremely Tory; that of *James will be even more so.

And now, with the Bench of Bishops recast by Atterbury (remember how large a proportion of the House the Bishops were then ) ; the Jacobite peers restored; and many of the Whigs dead, exiled or imprisoned; we may expect that a really stiff Occasional Conformity Bill will pass. (BTW,as well as repealing some of the post-Revolution statutes, there is one of Chas. II's that *James must repeal , 30 Car II c2, which extended the Elizabethan exclusion of Catholics from Parliament to include the Lords. It was really an arrow against the D. of York which misfired, repealing it will not be a problem and will permit Catholics to sit in the HoL - but not the Commons)


Now, the *Occasional Conformity Act will be very popular with the Tories,and with the Church of England. It will be absolutely hated and opposed by the dissenters and Whigs. We may certainly expect riots, and my guess is that somewhere , one of the riots will escalate into open rebellion . No idea where , but probably the Midlands - Peterborough might be as good a guess as any , it was a hotbed of dissent.

Now, see what *James has done. The dissenters and Whigs are in rebellion. But, unlike 1645, this rebellion is King, Parliament and Church against rebels lacking any recognised authority. Parliament is fighting for *James, not against him. *James has the law, Parliament , and almost all the military expertise. The Whig nobles are going to go down big time.

*James can, I think, reach a modus operandi with the Protestant establishment. They accept his Romanism , so long as it is confined to his own family and household . The Church will have no problem with that (remember, the Church of England is Catholic - just not Roman) . The High Tory squires will not be hostile, so long as *James supports them and their church - after all most of them still had a hankering for the "old faith" - the English reformation was only 150 years old or so, and it takes a /lot/ more than that for an English squire to reconcile himself to an innovation. In return, *James agrees to support the Church of England, put down dissent (thus avoiding the mistake his father made) ; and preserve the squires' role in Parliament.

The Tory squire of the day put a lot of importance on his role as MP. But, it was not importance round any wish to contest matters with the King . The Squire regarded ruling the land as the King's job. Just so long as the King didn't go changing anything, and kept taxes low. What the Squire (probably the most conservative creature on earth) wanted out of his role in Parliament, was prestige in his county; an ability to secure patronage and positions for family and friends (nowadays we call it corruption, then they called it influence, and thought it highly proper) ; and the ability to assist his friends with private Bills (and they, in turn would scratch his back when he needed it ) . "Low taxes, and no meddling with the good old ways" was the cry of the squire. So long as *James respects that, Squire won't care if James holds to the old faith. Parson may fret, but he won't do any more than that so long as his Bishop keeps him line, and no-one tries to change the Prayer Book. Especially if the new King puts down the hated and accursed dissenters. And Hodge isn't going to argue with his betters, especially if they give him a Dissenting meeting house to pull down for his amusement.
 
Last edited:

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Suddenly, that makes a good degree of sense. *James would see his view of religious freedom passed, the Authoritarian Democracy era in England would come through, and the Whigs would be marginalized...most likely to oblivion.
 
Suddenly, that makes a good degree of sense. *James would see his view of religious freedom passed, the Authoritarian Democracy era in England would come through, and the Whigs would be marginalized...most likely to oblivion.

Maybe maybe not. Remember the Tories were out of politics for decades but returned to power under George III. So its certainly possible that a King or Queen later down the road might favor the Whigs.
 
Yes, pendulums always swing back again. But, I suspect that *James could drive the Whigs out into the wilderness for long enough that by the time they came back they wouldn't be Whigs any more.
 
Top