Yet another idea for a Jacobite Restoration

Yes yes I know, yet another Jacobite thread from Constantine. However I recently purchesed two books by Edward Corp on the Jacobites and their courts in exile, titled A Court in Exile: the Stuarts in France and The Stuarts in Italy: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile respectively (great books and highly recommend them to anyone interested in the Jacobites) and they've rekindled my interest. Anyway, from what I read in the French Jacobites book, James III was highly educated for his task and was nearly restored, the only thing stopping it was his Catholicism. The book also goes into the various reasons of why he never converted, but it did get me thinking of two possible ways for a peaceful Jacobite restoration.

One involves something happening that completely discredits the Elector of Hanover in the minds of the British people, enough that the Whigs are unable to even consider upholding the Act of Succession for fear of a massive uprising. IDK how yet, maybe something to do with his ex-wife who was imprisoned? Perhaps she's executed by the Elector for something and it destroys his credibility. The other idea I had is to kill off both the Elector and Electoral Prince of Hanover, leaving as heir the child Frederick (future Prince of Wales). With the heir being a child in every sense of the word and likely to cause a long regency, I think that this could work to turn people away from the Hanovarian succession and back across the water to the Stuarts. Thoughts on one or both would be highly appreciated!
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Yes yes I know, yet another Jacobite thread from Constantine. However I recently purchesed two books by Edward Corp on the Jacobites and their courts in exile, titled A Court in Exile: the Stuarts in France and The Stuarts in Italy: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile respectively (great books and highly recommend them to anyone interested in the Jacobites) and they've rekindled my interest. Anyway, from what I read in the French Jacobites book, James III was highly educated for his task and was nearly restored, the only thing stopping it was his Catholicism. The book also goes into the various reasons of why he never converted, but it did get me thinking of two possible ways for a peaceful Jacobite restoration.

One involves something happening that completely discredits the Elector of Hanover in the minds of the British people, enough that the Whigs are unable to even consider upholding the Act of Succession for fear of a massive uprising. IDK how yet, maybe something to do with his ex-wife who was imprisoned? Perhaps she's executed by the Elector for something and it destroys his credibility. The other idea I had is to kill off both the Elector and Electoral Prince of Hanover, leaving as heir the child Frederick (future Prince of Wales). With the heir being a child in every sense of the word and likely to cause a long regency, I think that this could work to turn people away from the Hanovarian succession and back across the water to the Stuarts. Thoughts on one or both would be highly appreciated!

On both cases, while Frederick would be the most likely case of turning away from the Hanoverians, you still have the Palatinates to deal with...

Personally though, I'm still quite bitter with that damned Act of Succession, because Freedom of Religion should be a thing in England...but that's just a random bitter Catholic being bitter.
 
On both cases, while Frederick would be the most likely case of turning away from the Hanoverians, you still have the Palatinates to deal with...

Personally though, I'm still quite bitter with that damned Act of Succession, because Freedom of Religion should be a thing in England...but that's just a random bitter Catholic being bitter.

Consider me stupid but which Palatinates are you referring to? Also, that would no doubt cause yet another act of succession to be passed, which would no doubt cause considerable worry and anger among both the Tories and commoners, sense now the Whigs are bypassing "good God fearing protestants" for no other reason other then age. To me its more likely to blow up in their faces. Plus, depending on when this happens, the Tories could be the dominant party in Parliament, meaning no new act of succession.
 
If you want a Jacobite restoration I think the best bet is to have push back the Act of Succession and the Act of Union by having Prince William, Duke of Gloucester living beyond his OTL death date of 1700 until at least 1708/9. This is difficult as he seems to have been sickly but still, lets keep him alive. Now as long as he is alive everyone in Britain can be happy with a secure, British, Protestant succession so there is less need to push the Act of Union of 1707 to ensure Scotland follows the English lead and no Act of Settlement 1701. We also need to butterfly away the French supported invasion of 1708 which seriously damaged James's reputation in England and made him seem incompetent and a French puppet. So lets have the French cancel it due to other military commitments pissing off James "III". Then in 1709 William dies without having reproduced, Queen Anne is old, sick and clearly not going to have any more pregnancies so there is a desperate need for an heir and luckily the Tories under Robert Harley are in office and they are far more pro-Stuart than the Whigs. So as in OTL feelers are extended to the Jacobite Court by the Government, is London worth giving up Mass. James Stuart angry at the French for not supporting him and eager to regain his right agrees. An agreement is signed where he renounces his current claim to be James III, accepts an English peerage, probably as Duke of York, comes to England, converts to Anglicanism and is declared the heir to the Throne. The Whigs are angry, they'd much prefer the Hanoverians as being more convinced Protestant and also as Germans much more dependent on Parliament (and them) for support than the more highly regarded James but they're not in office. Queen Anne is happy to be relieved of her guilt about screwing over her nephew, the Tories are happy that the line of succession is being respected and obviously James is happy to have left exile. James quickly makes a solidly Protestant match (any convenient Swedish or Danish Princesses?) to reassure people that there won't be another Henrietta Maria and in due course Queen Anne dies and James ascends to the Throne.
 
If you want a Jacobite restoration I think the best bet is to have push back the Act of Succession and the Act of Union by having Prince William, Duke of Gloucester living beyond his OTL death date of 1700 until at least 1708/9. This is difficult as he seems to have been sickly but still, lets keep him alive. Now as long as he is alive everyone in Britain can be happy with a secure, British, Protestant succession so there is less need to push the Act of Union of 1707 to ensure Scotland follows the English lead and no Act of Settlement 1701. We also need to butterfly away the French supported invasion of 1708 which seriously damaged James's reputation in England and made him seem incompetent and a French puppet. So lets have the French cancel it due to other military commitments pissing off James "III". Then in 1709 William dies without having reproduced, Queen Anne is old, sick and clearly not going to have any more pregnancies so there is a desperate need for an heir and luckily the Tories under Robert Harley are in office and they are far more pro-Stuart than the Whigs. So as in OTL feelers are extended to the Jacobite Court by the Government, is London worth giving up Mass. James Stuart angry at the French for not supporting him and eager to regain his right agrees. An agreement is signed where he renounces his current claim to be James III, accepts an English peerage, probably as Duke of York, comes to England, converts to Anglicanism and is declared the heir to the Throne. The Whigs are angry, they'd much prefer the Hanoverians as being more convinced Protestant and also as Germans much more dependent on Parliament (and them) for support than the more highly regarded James but they're not in office. Queen Anne is happy to be relieved of her guilt about screwing over her nephew, the Tories are happy that the line of succession is being respected and obviously James is happy to have left exile. James quickly makes a solidly Protestant match (any convenient Swedish or Danish Princesses?) to reassure people that there won't be another Henrietta Maria and in due course Queen Anne dies and James ascends to the Throne.

Yeah not gonna happen. James III isn't going to convert. Period. What Louis XIV does or doesn't do isn't gonna affect James's beliefs. He was a devoted Catholic, though much closer to jansenism then the Jesuit version of Catholicism that his father followed. James III's reign would have most likely have seen early Catholic emancipation and a general religious tolerance. Either way he's not going to convert. However, the idea of the Duke of Gloucester (or I suppose Prince of Wales) living longer isn't bad, especially if he dies while the Tories control Parliament.

The best case I can think of religiously is to have laws passed to create a council of Bishops/revive and empower the Convocations of Canterbury and York to suppervise the Anglican Church, with final say of course resting with the Crown. Sort of like the Privy council was doing in Saxony (Saxony being Lutheran while its Monarch had converted to Catholicism to become King Augustus of Poland). James III scores points for reviving an ancient and august assembly, which was dominated by Tories, and lessens worries about his religion. There's still going to be people on both sides who dislike the religious policies, but that should keep the moderates and possibly commoners happy.

Finally, as for renouncing his claim as James III, again not gonna happen. That would pretty much go against everything he has been taught and would mean recognizing everything that Parliament has done sense 1689 as legitimate, including passing a bill of attainder against him (which coincidentally would need to be repealed). No there would have to be a lot of political tap dancing between Versailles, Saint-Germain and London to come up with a satisfactory solution for all parties, or at least equally pisses them off. Maybe some kind of legal fiction that recognizes James III and Anne as co-rulers? Kind of like how all documents after Charles II's restoration were dated as though he ascended in 1649 instead of 1660. Sure I doubt Anne would be that thrilled, but it would allow both sides to save face and legitimize the actions of the other.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Consider me stupid but which Palatinates are you referring to? Also, that would no doubt cause yet another act of succession to be passed, which would no doubt cause considerable worry and anger among both the Tories and commoners, sense now the Whigs are bypassing "good God fearing protestants" for no other reason other then age. To me its more likely to blow up in their faces. Plus, depending on when this happens, the Tories could be the dominant party in Parliament, meaning no new act of succession.

Though you have to consider this is the Whigs we're talking about. At this point, they'll use anyone that isn't James III at this point.
 
Though you have to consider this is the Whigs we're talking about. At this point, they'll use anyone that isn't James III at this point.

Yes that is true. However, if they don't control Parliament and Queen Anne is unwilling to try and pass a new act of Succession, then they're pretty much shit out of luck. At best they're marginalized for the time being or at worse there's gonna be a reverse of the '15, with the Whigs rising in favor of a Protestant King, getting beat down, and replaced with a 50 year Tory ascendency.
 
As we've been discussing the Boyne thread I think keeping the Stuarts on the throne at any point after 1688 is very difficult. James had destroyed their support in the Anglican Church, the Aristocracy, most of the English Gentry and they hadn't had the support of the plutocracy or urbanites since 1640. Jacobitism was confined to oppressed and marginalised groups like Catholics, backwoods Squires and Highland Clans and that's never a good recipe for victory.

So I think a fair amount of handwavium is necessary in any scenario especially as the gulf between St. Germain and Whitehall is pretty enormous by 1700. While both sides are going to have to make concessions the Jacobites are going to have to make most of them simply because Queen Anne is on the throne while they are in exile, thus they have a much weaker hand in any negotiations. If negotiations collapse like in the France in the aftermath of the fall of Napoleon III Parliament can and will go down another path, even if it means scouring Europe for any Protestant Prince no matter how distantly related. And while Harley and the Tories may not like the idea of ignoring the legitimate line of succession and crowning some German princeling they simply can't allow the post-1689 settlement to be abrogated. Public and elite opinion simply won't allow it.
 
One possibility. WI Queen Mary Beatrice had been captured as she was fleeing the country with the baby Prince of Wales?

At some point, I expect, William would have let the Queen go, but most probably he'll keep the child, have him educated as a Protestant, and at some point recognise him as heir to the throne. If he and Mary both die when they did OTL, there'll have to be a four year Regency after William's death in 1702, but if his encounter with "The little gentleman in black velvet" is butterflied away, he may live long enough for that not to arise.
 
As we've been discussing the Boyne thread I think keeping the Stuarts on the throne at any point after 1688 is very difficult. James had destroyed their support in the Anglican Church, the Aristocracy, most of the English Gentry and they hadn't had the support of the plutocracy or urbanites since 1640. Jacobitism was confined to oppressed and marginalised groups like Catholics, backwoods Squires and Highland Clans and that's never a good recipe for victory.

So I think a fair amount of handwavium is necessary in any scenario especially as the gulf between St. Germain and Whitehall is pretty enormous by 1700. While both sides are going to have to make concessions the Jacobites are going to have to make most of them simply because Queen Anne is on the throne while they are in exile, thus they have a much weaker hand in any negotiations. If negotiations collapse like in the France in the aftermath of the fall of Napoleon III Parliament can and will go down another path, even if it means scouring Europe for any Protestant Prince no matter how distantly related. And while Harley and the Tories may not like the idea of ignoring the legitimate line of succession and crowning some German princeling they simply can't allow the post-1689 settlement to be abrogated. Public and elite opinion simply won't allow it.

I think your really underestimating Jacobitism as a political force. For one they had large amounts of support from the High Church faction and nonjurors, who made up a pretty substantial number of the population, broad support from numerous Tories and even from the commoners (remember there were numerous riots across England in favor of James III during the first years of George I's reign). Yes James II had pretty much screwed over any and all support he had, but James III was pretty much a blank slate. There were a lot of people who wanted to get rid of the Catholic King, but felt that removing the Prince of Wales from the line of succession went to far.

In many ways Jacobite support across the British Isles increased over the years rather then decreased, especially during William III's reign and after the ascension of George I. One of the few times British xenophobia was a good thing. The Tories gambled on being able to gain the support of George I, but that failed and they ended up in the political wilderness for 50 plus years, so they obviously have no love for the Hanovarians.

Maybe some evidence of the Elector's dislike of the Tories and plans to dismiss them/put them on trial is discovered/intercepted, causing the Ministry to step up their negotiations with Saint-Germain? And as to yet another German princeling? Yeah I doubt it. The Tories didn't care for the Act of Succession from the beginning, so I can't really see them introducing yet another one. Finally, to the Revolutionary settlement, there's no evidence that James III wasn't going to accept it. The only part he refused to budge on was his religion. If some kind of legislative deal could be worked out, like the assembly I suggested earlier, then we'd probably see a Jacobite Restoration in 1714.
 
One possibility. WI Queen Mary Beatrice had been captured as she was fleeing the country with the baby Prince of Wales?

At some point, I expect, William would have let the Queen go, but most probably he'll keep the child, have him educated as a Protestant, and at some point recognise him as heir to the throne. If he and Mary both die when they did OTL, there'll have to be a four year Regency after William's death in 1702, but if his encounter with "The little gentleman in black velvet" is butterflied away, he may live long enough for that not to arise.

Well the problem with that idea is the presence of the Prince of Wales in England. This is before William and Mary ascended the throne, so if the heir apparent is still in England, the Tories are going to fight a lot harder for the ascension of the Prince as James III, with the Prince and Princess of Orange as Regents. If they were captured, I have the feeling that William would let them go later, like how James II was allowed to escape. The presence of the King & Queen and Prince of Wales in London would have undermined William III's position, so it was better for him to let them go to France, so as to streghten his own hand and weaken that of the Stuarts.
 
I have to disagree about the appeal of Jacobitism, yes there were London dining clubs and Tory Squires Toasting the King over the water but outside the Highlands and Recusant families like the Derwentwater's how many people actually rose up to fight for the Stuarts in the '15 and '45? At Preston the Jacobites had 3,000 men, half of whom were Scottish. Monmouth managed to raise 6,000 in the West Country alone. When William of Orange landed the majority of the peerage flocked to his side, except for those like the Earl of Devonshire who were already in leading armies in the North. Similarly the Non-Jurors were an issue but it wasn't a fundamental threat to the Crown, it was philosophical handwringing amongst the clergy and a few eccentrics like Samuel Johnson, not a revolutionary movement.
Obviously over the period 1689-1788 Jacobitism fluctuated in contrast to the popularity of the Government in London with notable peaks towards the end of Williams III's reign and in the early years of George I's. But it consistently lacked the ability get magnates and ordinary people to take up arms against the government while the pre-1688 Whig opposition to the Stuarts were if anything overeager to rise up.
 
I have to disagree about the appeal of Jacobitism, yes there were London dining clubs and Tory Squires Toasting the King over the water but outside the Highlands and Recusant families like the Derwentwater's how many people actually rose up to fight for the Stuarts in the '15 and '45? At Preston the Jacobites had 3,000 men, half of whom were Scottish. Monmouth managed to raise 6,000 in the West Country alone. When William of Orange landed the majority of the peerage flocked to his side, except for those like the Earl of Devonshire who were already in leading armies in the North. Similarly the Non-Jurors were an issue but it wasn't a fundamental threat to the Crown, it was philosophical handwringing amongst the clergy and a few eccentrics like Samuel Johnson, not a revolutionary movement.
Obviously over the period 1689-1788 Jacobitism fluctuated in contrast to the popularity of the Government in London with notable peaks towards the end of Williams III's reign and in the early years of George I's. But it consistently lacked the ability get magnates and ordinary people to take up arms against the government while the pre-1688 Whig opposition to the Stuarts were if anything overeager to rise up.

Well to play devils advocate (and as a Jacobite myself) the same could be said of the monarchy during the interregnum. Few Peers accompanied the Stuarts to the continent, and few rose against the Commonwealth/ Protectorate during the minor rebellions of that time. As for Monmonth, that was mainly to do with the region he landed in. Look at the rebellion of Agyll at the same time in Scotland. They barely raised 2,000. And during the '15 over 20,000 men came out in support of James III, not a mere 3,000. Preston was a minor battle really, and had much more casualties on the side of the Hanovarians then the Jacobites (300 vs. a few dozen).

However I do think that 1714/1715 was the best opportunity for a restoration. Either by the Tories peacefully restoring James III at Anne's death or the planned rising in England in 1715 isn't discovered and overthrows George I. But looking at history, the English people tend to be apathetic over the status of the monarch. Yes there were factions on both sides (Hanovarian and Jacobite) that would be outraged over any change to the holder of the Crown, but the vast majority would accept it easily. Again look at the interregnum. The Commonwealth/Protectorate was highly unpopular but there was no real uprisings, or attempt to support the exiled Charles II. However come 1660 they're thrilled to support the new King. I'm guessing it would be the same for James III.
 
Top