What If He Had won?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Let's see... it goes something like this...

Speed loaded barge as you wait for the tide,
Faster! the Germans pray;
Tearing their hair and trying to hide,
"Mein Gott let us get avay!"

Anne's rightful heir rides into the Town
And cheering rends the air;
On that noble head sits his rightful Crown,
Above his face so fair.

Speed loaded barge as you glide down the Thames,
Faster! the Germans cry;
Wringing their hands and singing their hymns,
All plans now gone awry!

Etc.

(Of course with apologies to Sir Harold Bolton, Bt., and Miss Annie Wilson (Lady MacLeod), who wrote and published "The Skye Boat Song" in 1884.)

Had the Stuarts succeeded in 1746, in all likelihood Charles would have succeeded his father (James III) in 1766, having married a Protestant princess, and produced an heir-- failing that his younger brother would have done the same and succeeded as Henry IX in 1788, and the line would probably have continued down to the present day, the Duke of Bavaria included.

All of this is, of course, idle speculation. What happened is exactly what happened, and the world is probably no better (or worse) as a result of it.

[Downix]

Some things that would have changed is that I would not exist. I had relatives that fought as a Jacobite that fled to the Americas, one of which married a native american. But it is a facinating thought, and would have changed the world.

[macwilkin]

I thought the author raised a very interesting point about the Battle of Fontenoy and the French not needing to invade Scotland and support Charlie. A lack of major French support kept many of the Chiefs from going "out" for the Young Pretender.

It's ironic to think that Fontenoy, which many remember today for the "Wild Geese" and their rout of "Stinking Billy" Cumberland may have sealed the downfall of their Scottish Jacobite cousins.

Fontenoy was also the first battle honour of the Royal Highland Regiment, The Black Watch. Even Cumberland had to grudgingly admit their bravery and fighting abilities.

Ironically, Peter Watkins' Culloden is in my Netflix queue at the moment. It is paired on the DVD with his "what-if" docuemtary The War Game, which is about as chillings as other movies of its genre (The Day After, Threads, On the Beach).


Regards,

Todd

[McMathTX]

Some things that would have changed is that I would not exist. I had relatives that fought as a Jacobite that fled to the Americas, one of which married a native american. But it is a facinating thought, and would have changed the world.

Like Downix, I too would not exist! Unless of course, the correct Irish, Ulster-
Scots, Choctaw, and English girls all happened to be wandering Scotland at the correct time and place. I guess all would have turned out OK for me in that case. But then, my little Swiss Miss that I'm married to would have to come over for a visit as well! Nah, I think I'll leave history as is.

Dean

[McClef]

Had the Stuarts succeeded in 1746, in all likelihood Charles would have succeeded his father (James III) in 1766, having married a Protestant princess, and produced an heir-- failing that his younger brother would have done the same and succeeded as Henry IX in 1788, and the line would probably have continued down to the present day, the Duke of Bavaria included.

All of this is, of course, idle speculation. What happened is exactly what happened, and the world is probably no better (or worse) as a result of it.

Agreed, idle speculation.

His brother, as a Catholic priest, could not have married, however, and shall we say, was "not one for the ladies" in any case...

The source of Protestant princesses was also largely limited to Germany and Scandinavia and the Germans might not have been happy with the idea of marrying either a Catholic or a regime that had thrown a German dynasty out.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

His brother, as a Catholic priest, could not have married, however, and shall we say, was "not one for the ladies" in any case...

Henry Bendict was ordained priest and enthroned as a cardinal in 1747, a year after the failure of the last Jacobite rising. It is a matter of record that he maintained at least two mistresses during his lifetime (a common practice at the time), although it is not recorded if they bore him any children.

The source of Protestant princesses was also largely limited to Germany and Scandinavia and the Germans might not have been happy with the idea of marrying either a Catholic or a regime that had thrown a German dynasty out.

If the Stewarts had succeeded, finding suitable protestant princesses for Charles and Henry would not have proved too difficult a task. A dynastic marriage to a nominally "protestant" heir to the British throne would have overcome any feeling of sympathy for the ex-king of Britain, who was still the King of Hanover.

However, given how the '45 rising turned out, it is not surprising that neither Charles nor Henry pursued an active claim to the British crown.

I think he should have taken the offer of the Crown of the United States...

[Pleater]

Despite there not being a miltary force between Derby and London capable of repeling the invasion, the Prince and his commanders were informed that there was, and more troops were marching to join them with all speed, by a man who seems to have been part spy, part civil servant - and entirely untrustworthy.

The commanders, already uneasy about their situation so far from home, refused to venture further into England and turned back...

It is easy to envisage some reason for the lie not to be given - the horse going lame, the man waylaid, a welcoming wayside inn, his loyalties being other than they were or swayed by some bribe or promised reward for the truth - but it didn't happen.

Perhaps if the Scots had decided to continue South there would have been further civil servants to make further attempts to make them turn back, maybe assassins to take out the Prince or some of the Commanders.

Force of arms is not the only resource of a government at war, and I suspect that even if Kings and nobles were about to flee, the grey men still stalked the corridors of power and sent out their minions to ensure history would be theirs to write.

Anne the Pleater

[David Dubh]

Their has been much speculation on this from various sources. Some suggest that the War of Independance would not have happened as the main reason for it was raising taxes to fight the french! The Stuarts beleived in the absolute power of the Monarchy this is what caused the English? civil war. It is perhaps possible that in time this would have lead to a complete revolution like the french and we would have a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy. If Charlie had allowed Lord George to lead the men at Culloden the masacre and subsequent clearences probably wouldn't have happened. The world would be a poorer place though some of the great explorers merchants and thinkers were Scots, would they have still had the vision and freedom to do this. Finally I don't think that the brittish empire would have existed as it did less reason for the Scots to join the Brittish Army, as the Highlanders were always given the toughest tasks (genocide perhaps). Ah what we would do to wear our beloved KILT.. No I think history happens for reasons that are beyond us. Think things turned out OK. Highlanders are now the stuff of romantic legend and mystery.

[Mael Coluim]

Despite there not being a miltary force between Derby and London capable of repeling the invasion, the Prince and his commanders were informed that there was, and more troops were marching to join them with all speed, by a man who seems to have been part spy, part civil servant - and entirely untrustworthy.

The commanders, already uneasy about their situation so far from home, refused to venture further into England and turned back...

Anne the Pleater

I'm glad Anne, you made this point, as I read the thread I was thinking of this. A while back our PBS TV station showed the BBC series Battlefield Britian. There was an episode about the '45 and the historians on the show said the road was clear all the way to London. I don't remember the name of the individual who lied to the Prince convincing the Jacobites an English army was enroute to meet them, but I thought he was a Highlander of some repute with the cause.

[Mael Coluim]

I believe the Prince was not so much interested in freeing Scotland of the English usurpers, but on acquiring the crown of Great Britian.