WI:James Francis Edward Stuart, King of England, Scotland and Ireland?

How plausible is this? (on a Scale of 1 (VERY plausible) to 10(ASB))

Upon hearing the news of the proposed Act of Succession (1701), James III conspires to retake the throne of England. He would be the next in line, if not for one thing, he was a Catholic. James III asks the Pope to excomunicate him (based on untrue charges) so he could become next in line for the throne of England. However, as soon as he became King of England, he would be reinstated a Catholic again, (or if he fell ill and was close death). When the Pope "excommunicates" James III, he flees France for England, where he asks to Join the Church of England. For the next 13 years, he is reconcilled with his family and affirmed next in line. When Sophia dies he is made King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Ironically enough, there is a Jacobite Uprising at the same time (to try to depose thier traitor) James III orders his soldiers into a series of blunders and allows the Jacobites many victories. As the Jacobites approach London, James III asks Parliment to repell the Act of Succession so the Jacboite cause will lose much support. Parliment complies and James sends agents to the Jacboite leadership (explaining he is secretly Catholic, and will pronounce it soon if they disband). Seeing the success of this, Parliment decides not to renistate the law later. Christmas of 1714 James III announces hes Catholic. He acts smarter than his Father, and requests French troops to help keep him in power, and begins packing Parliment with his supporters. Catholicism slowly returns to England....
 
I don't know how plausible placing the old pretender on the throne is, but the scenario presented seems distinctly implausible.
 
Yet another pure ASB scenario.

The act will NOT be repealed by Parliament, no one can lose an entire series of battles without it being suspected or proven outright, French troops will not be allowed on British soil nor was France in any position to do such a thing at the end of the war of the Spanish Succession...

How many times must it be stated that the Jacobites in Scotland were neither Catholic nor supportive of Catholicism?
 
Why doesn't James III just convert to Anglicanism? The proposed scenario seems very unwieldy and unnecessary. Nothing says the Stuarts have to be Catholics; his son Charles went to London incognito in 1750 and accepted the Anglican communion (although he later abjured it). If James III had openly accepted the Protestant religion and returned home, it's pretty certain he would be put in line behind Anne. The Tories would certainly support it.
 
Why doesn't James III just convert to Anglicanism? The proposed scenario seems very unwieldy and unnecessary. Nothing says the Stuarts have to be Catholics; his son Charles went to London incognito in 1750 and accepted the Anglican communion (although he later abjured it). If James III had openly accepted the Protestant religion and returned home, it's pretty certain he would be put in line behind Anne. The Tories would certainly support it.

Simple. Because previous Stuarts (and let's face it, we're talking the last two generations in living memory of all involved, not hundreds of years ago) had claimed to have converted to the Anglican faith only to do things ranging from privately converting back, to attempting to outright influence Parliament into revoking Anglicanism or even trying to get rid of Parliament altogether in order to convert the country. They no longer trusted the Stuarts to keep their word over their religion. To the British public, and particularly to Parliament and men of that class, the Stuarts were irrevocably Catholic and to believe they would ever convert would be to disregard common sense. For this reason, any attempt at any sort of Anglican Stuart dynasty would never be accepted by the public, whether it was all a cunning deceit (thus naturally validating their opinions) or an honest-to-God conversion.
 
In fact the Stuarts had earned a well deserved reputation for dishonesty prior to the English Civil War, only made worse by their negotiating efforts during that conflict.

By the early 18th Century there is no one left alive who doesn't consider promises by the House of Stuart to be suspect or openly false until proven otherwise.
 
Simple. Because previous Stuarts (and let's face it, we're talking the last two generations) had claimed to have converted to the Anglican faith only to do things ranging from privately converting back, to attempting to outright influence Parliament into revoking Anglicanism. They no longer trusted the Stuarts to keep their word over their religion. To the British public, and particularly to Parliament and men of that class, the Stuarts were irrevocably Catholic and to believe they would ever convert would be to disregard common sense. For this reason, any attempt at any sort of Anglican Stuart dynasty would never be accepted by the public, whether it was all a cunning deceit (thus naturally validating their opinions) or an honest-to-God conversion.

I don't know. The early Hannoverians were pretty well disliked, and the Tory Party (in the early period) was full of Jacobites and those who supported them over the Hannoverians. Sophia and her brood were a last resort. Obviously James II is never going to regain his throne, but it wouldn't be impossible for James III to do so. While the Stuarts were filled with cypto-Catholics, Charles II was not particularly bad; while he died a Catholic as well as James and the rest, he at least didn't muck things up the way his brother had. It was he who had Mary and Anne raised as Protestants and gave them Protestant husbands, too. A genuine conversion from James III doesn't seem impossible, religious convictions can easily change. The biggest issue is bringing it about. He's not going to suddenly decide to take communion with the Anglican Church whilst he's still living at Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
 
I don't know. The early Hannoverians were pretty well disliked, and the Tory Party (in the early period) was full of Jacobites and those who supported them over the Hannoverians. Sophia and her brood were a last resort. Obviously James II is never going to regain his throne, but it wouldn't be impossible for James III to do so. While the Stuarts were filled with cypto-Catholics, Charles II was not particularly bad; while he died a Catholic as well as James and the rest, he at least didn't muck things up the way his brother had. It was he who had Mary and Anne raised as Protestants and gave them Protestant husbands, too. A genuine conversion from James III doesn't seem impossible, religious convictions can easily change. The biggest issue is bringing it about. He's not going to suddenly decide to take communion with the Anglican Church whilst he's still living at Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

I'm not so sure. I think you underestimate the sense of betrayal the country felt at Charles' conversion. For many, it destroyed any goodwill his more considerate policies might have built up. I mean, after all, you don't declare an unprecedented law to prevent not just the previous King or his family but any Catholic, or anyone who has married a Catholic from taking the throne unless there is an incredible paranoia at the threat of Catholicism and the influence of Catholics. This was an act designed to prevent any risk of this sort of thing ever occurring ever again. I'm not even sure the Act of Succession actually allows Catholics to return to the succession if they convert back. I have half a feeling that being Catholic in your past is a permanent removal from the succession line.

For the record, per your OP by the way: the Succession to the Crown Act was 1707, the Act of Settlement was the act passed in 1701 (the Act of Settlement simply required anyone taking the throne to convert to Anglicanism, it wasn't the act which banned Catholics from the throne).
 
I'm not so sure. I think you underestimate the sense of betrayal the country felt at Charles' conversion. For many, it destroyed any goodwill his more considerate policies might have built up. I mean, after all, you don't declare an unprecedented law to prevent not just the previous King or his family but any Catholic, or anyone who has married a Catholic from taking the throne unless there is an incredible paranoia at the threat of Catholicism and the influence of Catholics. This was an act designed to prevent any risk of this sort of thing ever occurring ever again. I'm not even sure the Act of Succession actually allows Catholics to return to the succession if they convert back. I have half a feeling that being Catholic in your past is a permanent removal from the succession line.

For the record, per your OP by the way: the Succession to the Crown Act was 1707, the Act of Settlement was the act passed in 1701 (the Act of Settlement simply required anyone taking the throne to convert to Anglicanism, it wasn't the act which banned Catholics from the throne).

What betrayal? It was on his deathbed and there is still a lot of discussion of how conscious he was at the time or how committed he was. Even James II had a brief flush of popularity before he mucked things up. There was plenty of anti-Catholic hysteria and those Act of Succession stems from that. Following the reign of James II, why would the English want a Catholic near the throne? He sacked Protestants and replaced them with Catholics, built up a standing army, and fed into the propaganda that he intended to rule as an absolutist despot. There was a very real connection to the English people that Catholicism equaled Absolutist Despotism while Protestantism was connected to liberty.

The act bars anyone who was previously a Catholic, but considering it was passed in 1707, when we're discussing this period, liberties can be taken. It's not some longstanding law that wouldn't be violated. James III still held his titles until 1702 until they were attained. Obviously the earlier the POD, the better: the Jacobite court-in-exile was not just full of Papists, there were Protestant 'Legitimists' amongst them. If James III can be reconciled with Anne, it's likely he can succeed after her. He'd have the support of the Tories, who tended to believe in the hereditary rights of the Stuarts, versus the Whigs who believed Parliament had the right to control the succession. You make many valid points, but you're underestimating how important an orderly succession is to the English. Just as they wanted Elizabeth I to secure the succession, some rejoiced over James II's succession, because irregardless of his religion it had been an orderly transition of power.

The Hannoverians were very distant successors. If James III is reconciled and it's genuine, he's going to be supported over the Elector of Hannover. It's not much different than what Henri IV of France did. Why can't London be worth a conversion? Of course, James III may probably always be regarded with some suspicion given his roots, but it's much more likely than the scenario proposed by the OP. James III's line is only going to come into the throne if he is Protestant. It's not going to happen if he remains Catholic, and Catholicism certainly isn't going to be restored.
 
Top