Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
What If.....
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by ceegar (U5411333) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
In 1745 Bonnie Prince Charlie and his supporters controlled most of Scotland, the decision was made to make all haste for London to claim the throne for Charles' father. This was done without consolidating power in Scotland and ultimately ended in defeat for the Jacobites.
My question is this, had Charles and his supporters remained in Scotland, consolidated their power and settled for claiming the Scottish throne what would have happened?
Ceegar -
Message 2
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
Eventually the Hannoverians would have sent a massive army up there to try and get rid of him. Also, remember quite a few Highlanders fought on the Govt side at Culloden, they could see what side thier bread was buttered on. So I think that you can't assume he would be loved by all the Scots.
-
Message 3
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
It is a good question. The English having had being caught totally unawares with the uprising were in effect run out of town. Furthermore, they had their hands full on the continent. Over-streched, My contention is that the English would be content to live and let live with the Scots.
-
Message 4
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
It is a good question. The English having had being caught totally unawares with the uprising were in effect run out of town. Furthermore, they had their hands full on the continent. Over-streched, My contention is that the English would be content to live and let live with the Scots. Β
But what about the pro-government Scots? They too were initially caught out, but were starting to organize against the Jacobites by the time England was invaded.
Scotland would have been plunged into a full scale civil war, and I doubt the British government could have been able to let Scotland leave the union in such a state. Even if a weak-willed king ceded Scottish independence, the very least would have been the return of pro-Hanoverian Scottish regiments from the British army who could have galvanized resistance to the Stuarts. Far more likely would be a massive backlash from the British Government aided by loyal Scots.
A serious attempt to set up an independent Scotland under a Stuart dynasty might have received more help from the French, but they could have struggled to supply large numbers of soldiers. -
Message 5
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
cloudyj
>> Far more likely would be a massive backlash from the British Government aided by loyal Scots. <<
Which was pretty much what happened, wasn't it? -
Message 6
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
Whitecamry,
Yes, pretty much so. I'd just imagine that the timeline would run slightly differently (probably longer and more bloody). BPC may have got more support if he'd been fighting for an independent Scotland. And a more serious challenge could have brought more support from the French. In my view, the French were sitting on the fence expecting the expedition to fail and so committed the bare minimum of resources in the hope that it would distract the British from fighting on mainland Europe. They only sent soldiers when it looked like the Jacobites were doing well, and even then it was limited, but if Scotland looked like a genuine backdoor to attack Britain, then I think they'd have made more of an effort. The Royal Navy wasn't as dominant in 1745 as it was 100 years later and a couple of regiments slipped in now and then could have kept the Stuart chances alive in Scotland for years.
However, I expect the outcome would have eventually been another Culloden. But the distraction could have been fatal for British amibitions in Europe and the colonies. -
Message 7
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
I doubt if it would have taken that much longer to dispose of Charlie even if he had remained in Scotland. It could have even finished sooner and with greater losses to the rebels with the deciding battle being fought somewhere in Lowland Scotland. The fleeing Highlanders would then have been hunted by the local population as well as the government troops. I doubt wether many in south west Scotland in particular wanted a return to the Killing Times.
-
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 20th September 2007
Slimdaddy101,
>> It is a good question. The English having had being caught totally unawares with the uprising were in effect run out of town. Furthermore, they had their hands full on the continent. Over-streched, My contention is that the English would be content to live and let live with the Scots. <<
No, not at all. The Hanovers claim to the English crown was through their claim to the Scottish crown - just like their cousins, the Stuarts.
Thing about being top-dog or queen-bee is, you have amazingly little tolerance for competition. -
Message 9
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Thursday, 20th September 2007
ceegar - by 1745, as now, the crowns of Scotland and England were united. They couldn't have been separated.
The point about the Jacobite rebellion was that they were seeking to take the throne, and the point about the Hanoverians was that they were seeking to keep it.
All or nothing on both sides really. -
Message 10
Posted by ceegar (U5411333) on Thursday, 20th September 2007
Whilst the crowns were joined Charles could still have claimed the throne of Scotland for his father as opposed to the combined title.
Would it not be possible for the Hanoverian government to accept the presence of a separate country to the North so not to disrupt their campaigns elsewhere?
Also at the time of Charles' arrival, he himself may not have been popular, but his campaign of 'no union' was. Would it not have been acceptable to have a peaceful neighbour in Scotland as opposed to a persistent thorn in the side right up until the death of Charles and his brother?
I do appreciate that this would only have been possible if the Stuarts had pledged not to make a claim to their other British titles or to aid the French in any prospective plans that they had for an invasion of the UK which, admittedly, would have been unlikely.
All in all I have to confess that a peaceful co-existence would appear extremely unlikely particularly when one would have to consider the conditions that would be placed upon any Scottish kingdom. I suspect that any co-existence would have had to come through a repelled Hanoverian invasion and an eventual truce leading to a more enduring peace.
The inevitable conclusion would be what cloudyj put forward, a simply more drawn out, possibly more bloody campaign ending in what would be the equivalent to a Culloden.
. -
Message 11
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Thursday, 20th September 2007
What about the pro government Scots?Β
What about them, indeed! If Charles Edward, The Prince Regent had gone on in England he would probably have succeeded in his designs. We know that their was a rising of the Welsh Jacobites under Sir Watkins Williams Wynn of Wynnstay. Their messenger got to Derby two days after the Jacobites retreated. Sir Charles Petrie, the historian who specialised in the Stuarts always claimed that the Jacobites and Tories in the West Country were ,'stirring,' Whilst in London, there was the well known run on the banks, the so-called Black Friday. It was always said that the civil administration of London was jacobite controlled. Again Petrie and others highlight the fact that the Elector was packing his bags and had actually had furniture put on board ships in the Thames. Look at the French help, it was growing and there were quite a number already in Scotland. More were promised and more were actually on the way. We have to remember that The Prince Regent had actually jumped the gun with the rising and there was very little organisation put in to the '45. Unlike the 1715 for instance. I don't think that the idea of a go it alone rising in Scotland was on the cards. The House of Stuart, believed in the Great Britain theory and let the fact be known. Finally, whilst support for King James was fading, what support was their for German Geordie and his dysfunctional family? Don't forget in 1749 there were plans for a Rising to start at Lichfield races and as late as 1770 Northumberland Miners were rioting in support ,(of a kind,) for King James. If Charles Edward had gone on and if he had brought foward his conversion to the Anglican Church (45 instead of 50) he would have walked home. -
Message 12
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Thursday, 20th September 2007
What about the pro government Scots?Β
What about them, indeed! If Charles Edward, The Prince Regent had gone on in England he would probably have succeeded in his designs. We know that there was a rising of the Welsh Jacobites under Sir Watkins Williams Wynn of Wynnstay. Their messenger got to Derby two days after the Jacobites retreated. Sir Charles Petrie, the historian who specialised in the Stuarts always claimed that the Jacobites and Tories in the West Country were ,'stirring,' Whilst in London, there was the well known run on the banks, the so-called Black Friday. It was always said that the civil administration of London was jacobite controlled. Again Petrie and others highlight the fact that the Elector was packing his bags and had actually had furniture put on board ships in the Thames. Look at the French help, it was growing and there were quite a number already in Scotland. More were promised and more were actually on the way. We have to remember that The Prince Regent had actually jumped the gun with the rising and there was very little organisation put in to the '45. Unlike the 1715 for instance. I don't think that the idea of a go it alone rising in Scotland was on the cards. The House of Stuart, believed in the Great Britain theory and let the fact be known. Finally, whilst support for King James was fading, what support was their for German Geordie and his dysfunctional family? Don't forget in 1749 there were plans for a Rising to start at Lichfield races and as late as 1770 Northumberland Miners were rioting in support ,(of a kind,) for King James. If Charles Edward had gone on and if he had brought foward his conversion to the Anglican Church (45 instead of 50) he would have walked home. -
Message 13
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 21st September 2007
...Charles Edward...would probably have succeeded in his designs.Β
I'm not convinced by this. My feeling is that he would have been caught by the Goverment army and beaten. The militia was gathered in London and they only needed to sit tight until Cumberland's army arrived and trapped the Jacobites. Remember Cumberland was at Lichfield when Charles was at Derby - only one day behind them. If George II kept his nerve (and he probably would from looking at his military record) and defended London for a single day then Charles would have been massively outnumbered and attacked from two sides.
We know that there was a rising of the Welsh Jacobites under Sir Watkins Williams Wynn of Wynnstay.Β
Personally, I don't. Could you give me some references please, since I've never come across this? The very limited information I found on the internet suggests that any rising never really got past planning stage. Obviosuly the internet is a bit duff as a source, so I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
Sir Charles Petrie, the historian who specialised in the Stuarts always claimed that the Jacobites and Tories in the West Country were ,'stirring,'Β
Maybe, but there's a big difference between stirring and stirred! Northwest England was a hotbed of Jacobism which was stirring prior to the arrival of the Jacobites, yet even with the Jacobite army present, between the border and Manchester only one man joined the cause. Manchester provided a mere 400 men who later claimed they were unemployed weavers and would have joined the Hanoverians if they'd been recruiting in the area. Though that claim was probably a lie in hope of saving themselves.
I don't think that the idea of a go it alone rising in Scotland was on the cards. The House of Stuart, believed in the Great Britain theory and let the fact be known.Β
Completely agree. Some of the Scottish Jacobites actually wanted Charles to go for an independent Scotland, but he wasn't interested in only part of the Kingdom.
Finally, whilst support for King James was fading, what support was their for German Geordie and his dysfunctional family?Β
Quite a bit actually. Or maybe none whatsoever. Generally Whigs were pro-Hanoverian and Tories were pro-Jacobite, but whether these were seriously in favour of fighting for either king rather than just a convenient badge of party identity is dubious. From the lack of support shown in the norhtwest, I suspect that being a Tory was far more important than being a Jacobite which was used to make a political (not military)statement that one was against the ruling party.
Don't forget in 1749 there were plans for a Rising to start at Lichfield races and as late as 1770 Northumberland Miners were rioting in support ,(of a kind,) for King James.Β
Again, plans and schemes and riots. But when push came to shove in 1745, many of England's staunchest Jacobites found plenty of excuses to stay at home despite having the opportunity to join up. -
Message 14
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 21st September 2007
ceegar,
>Would it not be possible for the Hanoverian government to accept the presence of a separate country to the North so not to disrupt their campaigns elsewhere?
Would you have done so if you were in KG2's shoes? -
Message 15
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 21st September 2007
Whilst the crowns were joined Charles could still have claimed the throne of Scotland for his father as opposed to the combined title.Β
Some of his supporters urged this, but Charles wasn't interested. The Stuarts had a love-hate relationship with Scotland. In their 400 year rule there, pretty much every other Stuart monarch had been at war with his/her own people. James VI pegged it down to London as soon as possible and didn't go back. He and his descendants looked on Scotland and England as places to raise armies if they needed to fight their subjects in the other kingdom.
Would it not be possible for the Hanoverian government to accept the presence of a separate country to the North so not to disrupt their campaigns elsewhere?Β
Even less likely in my view. Charles Stuart was in Scotland with French backing at the point when Britain was at war with France. His success would have depended on French support and such a close alliance couldn't be tolerated by a government in England.
Also at the time of Charles' arrival, he himself may not have been popular, but his campaign of 'no union' was. Β
Just to be clear, "no union" wasn't Charles' campaign, he was very, very much in favour of the Union (but with his dad as king).
Would it not have been acceptable to have a peaceful neighbour in Scotland as opposed to a persistent thorn in the side right up until the death of Charles and his brother?Β
But how would the Hanoverians guarantee a peaceful neighbour? Charles had a claim to the English throne. He was staunchly pro-French and beholden to them. I wouldn't bet on them in hindsight, so I really doubt the Hanoverians would then.
I suspect that any co-existence would have had to come through a repelled Hanoverian invasion and an eventual truce leading to a more enduring peace.Β
Agreed, the Hanoverians would have to be forced to give up their inheritance in Scotland. -
Message 16
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Saturday, 22nd September 2007
The information about the Welsh Jacobites is from "Eardley-Simpson, Derby and the Forty Five". pp214/5). Also it is mentioned in Petrie's book, "The jacobite Movement". pge 377. He would have been caught by the Government Army and beaten.Β LFD.
-
Message 17
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Saturday, 22nd September 2007
Cloudyj. Sorry, but the info I have given you regarding sources for the Welsh, while it is correct is not adequate .The sources I wished to present you with, I can't find . But, I will persist in looking and let you have them at some convenient time. I am sorry,but there it is. Even so, when we look at the various sources we find that as the campaign went on the unrest mounted. In Petrie's book we're told the French were stirring themselves because of the success and there was some talk of sending the Duke of York with further French support .It was the decision to turn back, that lost that initiative/ momentum. . For the English, there were memories of the 1715 campaign when the jacobites lost momentum and were defeated in Lancashire as their friends in Scotland were by an inferior force, through lack of momentum.
-
Message 18
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 24th September 2007
Thanks LFD, I'll look them out. Prompted by this thread I started to read "The '45" by Charles Duffy which has been sitting on my bookshelf for a couple of months - very readable so far. I looked up Sir Watkins Williams Wynn and according to Duffy, he was stuck in London because he knew he was being investigated by the authorities. Duffy also says it was possible that some sort of rising of his followers did take place but doesn't comment further.
-
Message 19
Posted by ceegar (U5411333) on Monday, 24th September 2007
WhiteCamry,
Sorry about the delayed response. I think I would have been willing to delay further advances abroad if it meant I had full control at home without any threat on my domestic position.
That is not to say that George would have seen things the same way, as already mentioned, he was packing his bags when the Jacobite army hit Derby. Had the Jacobites come to the table at this point instead of turning tale would there have been any possibility of a favourable outcome for them or would it just be a way of delaying the inevitable defeat and the final fall of the Stuarts?
Ceegar -
Message 20
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Monday, 24th September 2007
Had the jacobites come to the table at this pointΒ ?
If I understand you this was when the Prince regent arrived at Derby?
It is most unlikely that Charles Edward,or indeed his Father,King James would have entered in to any negotiations at that time! They were considered, surely, the side most like -
Message 21
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 25th September 2007
That is not to say that George would have seen things the same way, as already mentioned, he was packing his bags when the Jacobite army hit Derby.Β
Indeed. For King George II, Hanover was also home. Though government ministers might have seen teh defence of Hanover as less than crucial. One should also make a distinction between the royal household packing its bags and George II personally preparing to flee the country.
Had the Jacobites come to the table at this point instead of turning tale would there have been any possibility of a favourable outcome for them...?Β
I actually think that time played to the hands of the Hanoverians. It would have given Wade a chance to bring troops from York and for Cumberland to try and manouver the Jacobites into a very dangerous position (a difficult proposition given Murray's strategic nous). They still needed to fight somewhere and government forces were getting stronger whilst the Jacobites were cut off from their growing support in Scotland. It is possible that time would have led English Jacobites to rally to the cause, but there's little evidence that they were seriously inclined to do so and the few pro-Jacobite meetings were easily dispersed.
or would it just be a way of delaying the inevitable defeat and the final fall of the StuartsΒ
Yes. Even if the Jacobites had won (and I'm not convinced), then I'm certain that their fall was inevitable. Stuart kings had a great knack of losing the trust of their subjects and sooner or later there would have been another civil war which would have ousted them. Possibly the American revolution would have spread from the colonies, or the French revolution could have induced them to rise.
Whatever you think of the Hanoverians, they realised parliament was boss unlike most Stuarts. -
Message 22
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 25th September 2007
Whatever you think of the Hanoverians they realised parliament was boss.Β
I agree with you on that score, but I would rather say that Hanover knew where power lay, not in Paliament, but in the Whig Junta, the Georges kept them happy and quiet. . However, James the Third also gave ample signs of his wish to preserve a 'parliamentary democracy' and there is no reason to misdoubt his sincerity. We have to realise that the support for James ran all the way through British society. There was a convincingly large Anglican, Non Juring Church. This lasted till the end of the 18th, Cent and the last jacobite, 'Martyr, who was murdered by the Government about 1752 was a member of this. Most of the Jacobite officers executed by the whigs came from this section. The Tory squires had been kept out of power for twenty years.At the time of the 45, many of the leaders of jacobite Society had been clapped up.There were though riots in many places, Ormskirk was just one of them. maybe not important in itself, but they were symptons of native unrest. The French failed to come through, may be there were good reasons,time foreknowledge,or the lack of it They were waiting for French aid I suppose and that is the real failure of the 45. The lack of foreign support. Don't forget it all mounts up. Wade was an old man and was stopped by inclement weather on the East Coast.
Regarding George of Hanover?
No one who reads the contemporary chronicles and letters of the Guelph family of Hanover, can ever claim they were popular with the British public.When the Whigs were recruiting for the Guards at the time of the 45 Rising, they were offering Β£5.00 per recruit! Further , they were having trouble getting recruits! Dr,Johnson's manservant, 20yrs later retired on a pension not much bigger than that. There were serious desertions from the few regiments who came in to contact with the Jacobites. many of these ,'deserters,were shot on being captured by the whigs. But even toward the end of the english period there were individuals joining.
You are correct on your idea of time being with Hanover. Once Charles had turned around, he was in retreat and as I said earlier, the North of England had experience of this sort of thing in 1715, when they threw away a more than promising start. -
Message 23
Posted by Wellwhynot (U10031503) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
There were more Scots fighting for King George than there were fighting for Charles Stuart, few people realise this. The fear of papism was still felt by many, no Catholic could legally sit on the throne of England, remember what happened to James Stuart, Charles' father? He was replaced by William and Mary of Orange.
A nice what if?, but Charles Stuart would never have lasted long if he had taken power. -
Message 24
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
<quoteNo Catholics could legally sit on the throne.</quote>
But there was a Catholic on the throne George 2nd. whilst in my opinion he was a Lutheran he was technically,(so I'm informed,)an Anglican, therefore a Catholic. Charles (the prince regent,) was at that time a Roman Catholic, who converted to Anglicanism in England in 1750. But most commentators make the point that religion didn't have any great interest to him, unlike his father King James 3rd. Had he had enough sense to convert in 1744/45, it is possible that Charles could have won.
Two points you made, 1. "fear of ,"catholicism," (sic,) and the very interesting one about whether Charles as either Prince Regent or king Charles the Third, could have held the throne? These are the basic ones.
LFD
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.