Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Jacobites take London Dec 1745

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
    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,
    Yep. There were more Scots who fought against him than for him. Around 70% of Pulteney's Officers were Scots at the time of Culloden. The same probably goes for the majority of other Gov't regts present.
    www.13thfoot.co.uk

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ensign Elliott View Post
      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?
      That is an interesting question. Although why automatically assume the Stuarts would've fared worse during this period?


      Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
      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
      Yes, not untill Catholic Relief Act of 1829.
      "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
      --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

      Comment


      • #18
        Would the Stuarts be seen as any more foreign and unworthy of being on the throne of England/Scotland than the Hannovarians were, but a few years later?
        "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
          Would the Stuarts be seen as any more foreign and unworthy of being on the throne of England/Scotland than the Hannovarians were, but a few years later?
          I think differing religions and a dislike over a perceived French puppet would doom Charles Edward Stuart, while the German Kings were accepted precisely because they were Protestant (and opposed to the French as well, which never hurts).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
            That is an interesting question. Although why automatically assume the Stuarts would've fared worse during this period?

            Historically speaking and with the exception of Charles the Second. The Stuarts had a remarkable family talent for making the wrong decisions at exactly the right moment to cause themselves the maximum amount problems and a firm belief in the divine rights of kings which made it practically impossible for them to accept advice or change their minds.

            Given that they manage to conquer England then they would have been genuinely unpopular to a massive section of the population. If they had been capable of learning from the past then theres a chance that they might hammer out a compromise but neither James the 2nd or his son were compromising types. They would have had their own version of the bloody assizes. They would have antagonised the very people who's support they needed and IMO it would have ended with a second revolution with either the Duke of Orange coming over again or the rise of the second protectorate.
            "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
              Historically speaking and with the exception of Charles the Second. The Stuarts had a remarkable family talent for making the wrong decisions at exactly the right moment to cause themselves the maximum amount problems and a firm belief in the divine rights of kings which made it practically impossible for them to accept advice or change their minds.

              Given that they manage to conquer England then they would have been genuinely unpopular to a massive section of the population. If they had been capable of learning from the past then theres a chance that they might hammer out a compromise but neither James the 2nd or his son were compromising types. They would have had their own version of the bloody assizes. They would have antagonised the very people who's support they needed and IMO it would have ended with a second revolution with either the Duke of Orange coming over again or the rise of the second protectorate.
              It is interesting you bring up the desire for the Stuarts to want to establish an absolute monarchy like their French patrons (in accordance with the 'divine right to rule' ideology), because it would be a quality that in itself would probably doom any successes Bonnie Prince Charlie might have had on the battlefield. I mean when you look at the confrontation between Parliament and the Crown during the English Civil War and compare it to 1745, you have the English parliament in a stronger position than before and with more popular support.

              Even with the loss of London, Prince Stuart would be in a very precarious position; he would need large scale support from France to keep in power, which would only further his reliance on France and thus fuel the perception that he was indeed a French puppet. You would have very high levels of discord and rebellion within England, and to a lesser extent within Scotland and Ireland as well.

              The only positives I could see for the Bonnie Prince are that if he did manage to take London and hold onto it for any length of time (say a few months at the least), then he would probably see a surge in support amongst the traditional Jacobite stronghold of Scotland and Ireland, perhaps in exchange for more local autonomy and the like.

              The problem though is that England, the economic and industrial heart of the United Kingdom, would not back "King Charles III" and thus his opponents would be well armed and in very large numbers. I forsee the young Prince not lasting long, considering his military incompetence and dependence on outside aid.

              Indeed the only ones to truly gain from this would be France, who would see the UK in disaray for decades to come, with decades more of fears about further Jacobite rebellions. In fact one outcome might be that the UK will have an ingrained fear of rebellion and treat the American War of Independence as a true threat to their nation and fight tooth and nail to keep the colonies under the crown much harder than they did historically.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X