Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Jacobites take London Dec 1745

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Jacobites take London Dec 1745

    Thought I'd add this for something a bit different (too much alternate WWII for my liking) Not sure how much response I'll get but here goes...

    Charles Edward Stuart and his Jacobite Army have reached Derby on the 4th December 1745, only 125 miles from London. Suppose that CES had ignored Murray and decided to press on with the invasion. They were well ahead of Wade's army aproaching from Doncaster and supposing they had out-manoeuvred or defeated Cumberlands force at Lichfield/Coleshill and had somehow taken London. Any ideas as to what might have happened?

    Would the English population have risen up or would they have accepted the old pretender as King - during the Jacobites march south, local resistance had been poor. What would the French involvement have been? What would have been the ramifications in Europe and the wider world?

    My own views would be that the Stuarts would basically be looked upon as French puppets. The 7YW would have been very localised (if it had happened at all), possibly just Prussia vs Austria. The French would have kept Canada and their possessions in India and elsewhere. The Colonists in North America would also have declared their independence much sooner.

    Anyone got any other theories?
    www.13thfoot.co.uk

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      Unless Charles Edward Stuart suddenly became Protestant, he'd never get the support of the vast majority of the English. Bonnie would be deposed in short order.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #4
        The great moment of potential Jacobite success already came and went by that time, which was in wake of the unpopularity of the Union Act in 1713.
        "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
        --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
          Unless Charles Edward Stuart suddenly became Protestant, he'd never get the support of the vast majority of the English. Bonnie would be deposed in short order.
          IIRC, there was still a large amount of underground Catholics still living in England at the time.
          "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
            IIRC, there was still a large amount of underground Catholics still living in England at the time.
            Yes I believe there were.
            "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
            --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
              Yes I believe there were.
              I seem to remember that the Protestants weren't that much in the majority in England at that time and that a large number of Catholics continued to worship in secret.
              "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't know if they were still the majority by that time. I think you maybe referring to the 17th century.
                "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
                --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
                  I don't know if they were still the majority by that time. I think you maybe referring to the 17th century.
                  I know that Catholics weren't allowed to worship in a said "public church", so they tended to gather in barns and private homes, like they did during the Roman persecutions.
                  "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes I know about that, but IIRC by the 18th century the Anglican Church was more firmly established within the country.
                    "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
                    --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
                      The great moment of potential Jacobite success already came and went by that time, which was in wake of the unpopularity of the Union Act in 1713.
                      Hmm...that may well have worked if the Stuarts had wanted an independent Scotland, though it was the throne of England that the Stuarts wanted. I believe that the Jacobites in Scotland were only used as tools.

                      There was the 15' rising, which also failed dismally.

                      Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
                      Yes I know about that, but IIRC by the 18th century the Anglican Church was more firmly established within the country.
                      Agreed. There was not however, much resistance to CES on his march south, which leads me to believe that once installed on the throne, he would have stayed there. Don't forget that France, probably the greatest continental power of the time, would have been Britains ally.
                      www.13thfoot.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes but one reason why the Jacobites turned back was because of a lack of support was shown as well. I mean conquering England with a Scottish army isn't going to sit too well with the English, unless they're largely indifferent to the situation.

                        I think the Jacobites' best bet was to establish themselves in Scotland and hold their grounds. Conquering England was a huge risk, and obviously helped doomed the whole movement.
                        Last edited by Pilsudski; 06 Jul 10, 03:25.
                        "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
                        --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree, that would have seemed the best course of action. That however, went against all what the Stuarts were trying to achieve.

                          Another interesting point that a collegue of mine has raised, is how, had the Stuarts been restored on the British throne, would they have fared come the revolutionary politics of the 1780s and 1790s, particularly since we can probably assume a less rosy economic situation than in the real historical timeframe. There would certainly have been an element of unrest and instability, which could safely be assumed to delay Britain's industrial advancement.
                          A French-style revolution in Britain? King Charles III ending his days on the scafold a la Louis XVI? A Republic in Britain?
                          www.13thfoot.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                            I seem to remember that the Protestants weren't that much in the majority in England at that time and that a large number of Catholics continued to worship in secret.
                            By the time we are talking about there wasnt any need for them to worship in secret. Open government persecution was dieing out.

                            There was a grass roots mistrust of them in pretty much the same way that muslims are distrusted now. Lewes for instance used to burn an effigy of the Pope on bonfire night as well as the Guy and carried on doing so until the 20th century.

                            There were measures preventing them from becoming officers in the Army and Navy I dont think those restricitons were lifted until well into the 1800's

                            If I remember rightly they could and did have their own churches but had to pay a small fine for not worshipping in an Anglican church. Other protestant sects such as the Methodists and Non conformists had to pay as well.
                            "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                              I seem to remember that the Protestants weren't that much in the majority in England at that time and that a large number of Catholics continued to worship in secret.
                              Unfortunately for Bonnie Prince Charlie these 'secret' English Catholics failed to rally to his cause during the invasion of England, that's why he was forced to retreat back to Scotland, his army was too small (4,500) to take on the forces being raised against him.

                              ps: He wasn't even that popular with the Highland Clan's.
                              Out of an estimated total of 32,000 Highland warriors only around 9,000 rallied to his cause,

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X