Fair dos. But in your view from a story telling perspective what would be more interesting?No idea of the logistics, @Emperor Constantine might know more. Its just my 5c
Fair dos. But in your view from a story telling perspective what would be more interesting?No idea of the logistics, @Emperor Constantine might know more. Its just my 5c
Fair dos. But in your view from a story telling perspective what would be more interesting?
I think a "regency" board would be awkward. Those likely to sit on it would be the same people who deprived Jamie of his inheritance in the first place. However, it would make Jamie more alive to who needs to be watched etc. It'd probably also go over well with the public to have a transition phase, where Jamie succeeds but is still likely to be seen as a French puppet with a swarm of Jesuit priests; and while he IS involved in the running of his country, for the next few years, its Anglican politicians who are making the decisions. A sort of "damn the government, cheer the king", that by the time the regency is over, Jamie isn't so much of a bubble-boy, or politically naïve and more likely (IMO) to be like Charles II or III rather than James II or Charles I
Isn’t he already?If the House of Stewart endures after William of Orange, he may be be counted among the monarchs of that dynasty in England, given that his wife was a Stewart, and that his heir would be a Stewart.
Oh now that is interesting, would James essentially rule with advisors doing he bulk?I do think the easiest thing would be a non-regency a la Richard II or a "French style majority" at age thirteen, though I sure as hell wouldn't call it the later publicly if I was an English politician! I can also say that honestly, without English involvement the Spanish succession war would either not happen or be much smaller. Hell, if it still happens but without Britain, we could see France successfully steal the Imperial Crown from the Habsburgs and crown their Wittelsbach allies!
Oh now that is interesting, would James essentially rule with advisors doing he bulk?
Agreed. I wonder who’s form the ministers. Tories?I think that would be the easiest way to avoid ruffled feathers over a regency.
Seems to me Louis was pretty bellicose about everything after Carlos II died. It was as if he were determined to start the war and fight the world, including Britain. I'm in the cheap seats, but the view from here says it was more than Louis' talk regarding James II that made sure there was a war. IF I were the author of this TTL, I'd pencil in the war happening (starting, at least) pretty much OTL.
With that in mind, James III would be seen from a French POV as jumping ship and joining with an enemy combatant.
IF, as I propose, Britain (I guess it would be England at the time - this being pre unification of the 3 countries) is an enemy combatant, and James III has willingly joined them, how else could the French see it? Maybe they would try to work with him to end the war, or work with him after the war, but in the meantime, he's with the enemy.Would he be viewed that way though? He's not converted, and he is ruling as King in his own name
IF, as I propose, Britain (I guess it would be England at the time - this being pre unification of the 3 countries) is an enemy combatant, and James III has willingly joined them, how else could the French see it? Maybe they would try to work with him to end the war, or work with him after the war, but in the meantime, he's with the enemy.
also amongst the top reasons were France's aggressive moves toward the Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. Also, threatening a massive Bourbon shift of balance of power. And fears of economic disadvantage. A symbolic recognition of James III as rightful king, by itself, was not cause for war. It was icing on the cake. France could have avoided war, but it would have taken more than merely staying away from that recognition.
If James is part of the English recognized succession, or king, he has to advocate for English interests, and France was trammeling those interests left and right. Perhaps things could have been settled diplomatically, but OTL France made it clear that the only way to a resolution was through force of arms. I don't see France accepting lesser gains out of the goodness of their heart.
Agreed there, and tbf if when Louis does-if he’s the one who dies from smallpox instead of his grandson- then this could shake a lot of things up.@unprincipled peter, I agree but your giving a bit too much credit to James here. More likely the Stuarts are going to bind over backwards for the Sun King to keep a reliable foreign ally. After all, they've been deposed twice now; its not unreasonable to think that James III would want to keep a foreign army on retainer as security in case of emergencies. So until Louis XIV dies and le Grand Dauphin, le Petit Dauphin or Bretagne/Anjou (the last being OTL Louis XV) ascends the throne England is likely to kowtow to France. Although, if I remember correctly, Louis XIV and James II were able to negotiate a pretty favorable trade deal for North America, so maybe Louis throws James a bone here; preferential trade compared to say the Dutch or other Protestant powers?
I see it the other way: James has to kowtow to English interests. bowing to the French is the quickest way an early grave. The Stuarts owe English/William for the crown - they installed him, not Louis.@unprincipled peter, I agree but your giving a bit too much credit to James here. More likely the Stuarts are going to bind over backwards for the Sun King to keep a reliable foreign ally. After all, they've been deposed twice now; its not unreasonable to think that James III would want to keep a foreign army on retainer as security in case of emergencies. So until Louis XIV dies and le Grand Dauphin, le Petit Dauphin or Bretagne/Anjou (the last being OTL Louis XV) ascends the throne England is likely to kowtow to France. Although, if I remember correctly, Louis XIV and James II were able to negotiate a pretty favorable trade deal for North America, so maybe Louis throws James a bone here; preferential trade compared to say the Dutch or other Protestant powers?