Order of the Crown of Stuart

[Ruanaidh]

Would there be a United States of America? Probably not. France would have likely been allied with a Stuart-ruled Britain, or at least not antagonistic toward it, and thus not supportive of the rebellious colonies.

And without a George III and Lord North the colonies might not have been inclined to be rebellious.

[macwilkin]

And without a George III and Lord North the colonies might not have been inclined to be rebellious.

Not as simple as that, though. The colonists were not innocent in the events leading up the Revolution, especially when it came for paying for the French & Indian War and the British regulars that defeated New France.

One estimate I have read says that British subjects in GB were paying twice the amount of taxes American colonials were.

Not to mention all of the Americans engaged in illicit trade with the Dutch & French (in the case of the latter, even before the war ended).

George III really had nothing to do with the seperation, apart from declaring the US in rebellion after the first shots had been fired. Parliament bears more of the responsibility, but even MPs such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt spoke on behalf of the American view.

As I tell my classes, the Revolution is not "Star Wars", it was our first Civil War.

Todd

[Bugbear]

Ya, Todd, I remember some of the things from my college courses on the "Revolution," as well as, the founding fathers; those raskles. They were truely human.

[Downix]

Not as simple as that, though. The colonists were not innocent in the events leading up the Revolution, especially when it came for paying for the French & Indian War and the British regulars that defeated New France.

One estimate I have read says that British subjects in GB were paying twice the amount of taxes American colonials were.

Not to mention all of the Americans engaged in illicit trade with the Dutch & French (in the case of the latter, even before the war ended).

George III really had nothing to do with the seperation, apart from declaring the US in rebellion after the first shots had been fired. Parliament bears more of the responsibility, but even MPs such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt spoke on behalf of the American view.

As I tell my classes, the Revolution is not "Star Wars", it was our first Civil War.

Todd

Indeed, the most often times misunderstood bit about the colonial taxation was not the amount of taxes at all. The majority of colonials agreed that the amount was very reasonable. It was that they were taxes with no say in government. "No Taxation without Representation" is the slogan, not "No Taxes."

[macwilkin]

Indeed, the most often times misunderstood bit about the colonial taxation was not the amount of taxes at all. The majority of colonials agreed that the amount was very reasonable. It was that they were taxes with no say in government. "No Taxation without Representation" is the slogan, not "No Taxes."

Indeed, but that's only half the story. Most of the disagreement centers around the issue of the sovereignty of Parliament vs. the colonial assemblies; for almost a century before 1763, the British had allowed the colonies to manage their own affairs via "salutary neglect", save issues of commerce & trade (The Navigation Acts) and defence. It was only at the end of the Seven Year's War that the British Crown began to consolidate power in the Empire, which caused the major issue of parliamentary vs. colonial sovereignty.

Ironically, most people tend to forget that not all North American colonies rebelled -- the Americans did try to recruit Quebec and Nova Scotia, and were rejected. The British West Indies also remained loyal.

T.

[Bigkahuna]

John, this is an interesting group of folks who, by and large, are interested in the history of the Royal Stuart Family and all of there descendants. It has been around for ages, and the membership is comprised of some highly erudite (and entertaining, if not eccentric) people. It is not an order of chivalry, but rather more like a club for people who are interested in "what might have happened" had the Stuarts remained on the throne of the United Kingdoms.

Thank you all for your entries. Had I not known better, I might have thought you were describing US, substituting kilts for the "what might have happened". Thank you once again. John Walker

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Wow, I wonder just how many people beyond us even know the difference between those two things. (de facto and de jure) Its not something that comes up that often.

The Jacobites, of course, refuse to recognize the validity of the Act of Settlement and base their thesis on the principles of "de jure et sanguines".

My personal take on all of this is:
PRACTICE SAFE GOVERNMENT, USE A KINGDOM

[Chas]

The Jacobites, of course, refuse to recognize the validity of the Act of Settlement and base their thesis on the principles of "de jure et sanguines".

My personal take on all of this is:
PRACTICE SAFE GOVERNMENT, USE A KINGDOM

That is one of funniest things I have read in a long time - and so true.

Regards

Chas

[Bugbear]

Machiavelli of Rathdown.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[McClef]

Well clearly the US isn't practicing safe government then MOR.

But no matter how valid "de jure et sanguines" might be the Revolutions of 1688 and 1776 and 1789 only go to show that where the people cannot be persuaded to accept a monarch or one from a certain royal house, then it's pretty much a romantic dream.

And the French support for the Colonists can be seen as "one in the eye" for the loss of French Canada, an act of revenge out of pique, rather than wholehearted support for the idea of independence and republicanism.

And the "Taxation without representation" slogans on DC car plates shows that the issue isn't settled yet!