New Reality Seeds

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Try this idea in 1639, during the First Bishops War, several angry soldiers shot through King Charles tent to protest the fact they weren't being paid. In a world where someone accidentally killed Charles history would be radically different. Charles II would come to the throne as a child. The unstable politics would likely lead to great swashbuckling.

A realistic twist is that the Stuart line could lose the throne decades early. If this leads to the House of Hanover coming in early or some other history could vary wildly.

Actually, killing Charles I early will all but guarantee that the House of Hanover never comes to the throne. The first suggestion that bars Catholics (and non-conformers) from public office (including the kingship) is the Corporation Act of 1661, which was later replaced with the Test Acts. Without the requirement that the monarch be in the Anglican communion (which bars Catholics and those Protestants unwilling to turn Anglican), George I and his mother do not come to the throne as there are fifty persons who are closer to the succession than they are (but all were barred as Catholics) (q.v. Wikipedia biography of George I).

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Actually, killing Charles I early will all but guarantee that the House of Hanover never comes to the throne. The first suggestion that bars Catholics (and non-conformers) from public office (including the kingship) is the Corporation Act of 1661, which was later replaced with the Test Acts. Without the requirement that the monarch be in the Anglican communion (which bars Catholics and those Protestants unwilling to turn Anglican), George I and his mother do not come to the throne as there are fifty persons who are closer to the succession than they are (but all were barred as Catholics) (q.v. Wikipedia biography of George I).

You assume that an early death for Charles I dooms the Protestant cause. That could be an outcome. another outcome, and more likely, is that the Puritan Faction simply takes over and Charles II is raised as their protégé, he'd rebel later, but that might not matter. Also, remember that both Charles II and James II become Catholic to gain allies when they were exiled. If they are never exiled, they might remain Protestant.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

You assume that an early death for Charles I dooms the Protestant cause. That could be an outcome. another outcome, and more likely, is that the Puritan Faction simply takes over and Charles II is raised as their protégé, he'd rebel later, but that might not matter. Also, remember that both Charles II and James II become Catholic to gain allies when they were exiled. If they are never exiled, they might remain Protestant.

An unfair aspersion on James who only secretly converted after his return, although he probably wouldn't have had he not been exposed during his exile. But it's beside the point. The Stuart dynasty still doesn't fall at the right time to be replaced by the Hanovers.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

You assume that an early death for Charles I dooms the Protestant cause. That could be an outcome. another outcome, and more likely, is that the Puritan Faction simply takes over and Charles II is raised as their protégé, he'd rebel later, but that might not matter. Also, remember that both Charles II and James II become Catholic to gain allies when they were exiled. If they are never exiled, they might remain Protestant.

I don’t assume any such thing. I do assume that with no English Civil War, a number of knock-on effects don’t occur, or don’t occur in timely fashion. There are actually a fair number of effects and the Protestants not getting it together in a timely way to enact the Corporation Act and the Test Acts are probably the least of them, though as David Johnston2 observes:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

An unfair aspersion on James who only secretly converted after his return, although he probably wouldn't have had he not been exposed during his exile. But it's beside the point. The Stuart dynasty still doesn't fall at the right time to be replaced by the Hanovers.

and his last sentence was exactly my original point.

Among the greater knock-on effects now that I give the matter a little more consideration: no New Model Army, no Commonwealth period and no reaction to the Puritans having been in charge during that period. It may have an effect on post-1640 settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. My remark about the Protestants not getting their act together is a bit misleading. Absent a time of Puritan supremacy, Dissenters and Non-Conformists are probably persecuted by the Church of England (Anglican Church) in the south and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian Church) in the north, neither church being particularly noted, at the time, for their tolerance.

Without Charles II going into exile, there is no “Restoration Period” and Charles II has no sentiment that he will not “go travelling again,” which helped make his reign that of the “Merry Monarch”. England and Scotland may not view the regicide of Louis XVI with the same frisson of horror/never again that they did historically as part of that horror was the inspired by folk memories of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, which did not turn out well.

Absent a Corporation Act/Test Act, there is no Glorious Revolution and James VII and II is succeeded by his son, James VIII and III (historically, James, the Old Pretender [to the Throne]). Since he does not lead the Rising of ’02 to put himself back on the throne, his sister, Anne, is not Queen and there is no Act of Union that year merging the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain. That also means that there is no impetus to extend the Union to Ireland in 1801, but absent William III and Mary II, another of his sisters, there is no Battle of the Boyne and no Orange Lodge to exacerbate matters in Ireland, so things there go on much as they had before, i.e. occasional rebellions that are somewhat localized but there is a sullen peace on the surface most of the time.

James VIII and III is succeeded by his son, Charles III [historically, Charles, the Young Pretender, aka ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’]. If you get to the point where Charles III is on the throne, you can kiss the chance of the House of Hanover becoming a British dynasty good-bye. There is no Rising of ’45, no proscription which obliged large numbers of Scots to emigrate abroad, notably to Canada and the Thirteen Colonies. There is no romance about Flora MacDonald and no Skye Boat Song.

It gets more difficult to say what might befall thereafter but with no George III, there is the possibility that ‘mad' James Wolfe does not get promoted and preferred to lead expeditions in America because he has not garnered the Royal favour evidenced by the remark, “Mad is he? Then, by God, I wish he’d bite some of my other generals!” Without Wolfe, Louisburg and Quebec do not fall in the Seven Years’ War. There is no Proclamation Line of 1763, preventing western settlement and no Quebec Act of 1774, the first and primary of the Intolerable Acts that precipitate the American Revolution. Additionally, the American Revolution is forestalled because they are still dependent on British arms to keep them safe from the French colonies in the New World. Possibly, the French will beat the British/Americans to a treaty of alliance with the Cherokee in Kentucky by weeks, rather than being a few weeks too late, as happened historically. After that possible futures get murky.

One additional possibility is that in this alternate reality The Battle of Monongahela [Braddock Expedition] turns into a bloodbath rather than a disaster. The loss of George Washington, William Crawford, Charles Scott, Daniel Boone, Daniel Morgan, Thomas Gage, Charles Lee, and Horatio Gates would have a very definite, if indeterminate, effect on later American [and Canadian] history. For example, de Contrecœur or de Beaujeu, the overall and field commanders, respectively, might have been the general appointed to defend Quebec during the Seven Years’ War, instead of Montcalm, with likely a rather different outcome.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

An unfair aspersion on James who only secretly converted after his return, although he probably wouldn't have had he not been exposed during his exile. But it's beside the point. The Stuart dynasty still doesn't fall at the right time to be replaced by the Hanovers.

I had read that James II conversion happened during his exile. I'm no fan of James, but I did not desire to slander the man. Still, the House of Hanover were Protestant heirs to the English throne. That is what got them the nod. I don't see any version of 17th or 18th century England tolerating a Catholic dynasty for very long.

If you think the Stuarts disprove that, remember, Charles II kept his faith a secret, James II ruled three years and got bounced. James I, Mary II, and Anne, were all Protestant.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I don’t assume any such thing. I do assume that with no English Civil War, a number of knock-on effects don’t occur, or don’t occur in timely fashion. There are actually a fair number of effects and the Protestants not getting it together in a timely way to enact the Corporation Act and the Test Acts are probably the least of them.
Among the greater knock-on effects now that I give the matter a little more consideration: no New Model Army, no Commonwealth period and no reaction to the Puritans having been in charge during that period. It may have an effect on post-1640 settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. My remark about the Protestants not getting their act together is a bit misleading. Absent a time of Puritan supremacy, Dissenters and Non-Conformists are probably persecuted by the Church of England (Anglican Church) in the south and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian Church) in the north, neither church being particularly noted, at the time, for their tolerance.

Without Charles II going into exile, there is no “Restoration Period” and Charles II has no sentiment that he will not “go travelling again,” which helped make his reign that of the “Merry Monarch”. England and Scotland may not view the regicide of Louis XVI with the same frisson of horror/never again that they did historically as part of that horror was the inspired by folk memories of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, which did not turn out well.

Absent a Corporation Act/Test Act, there is no Glorious Revolution and James VII and II is succeeded by his son, James VIII and III (historically, James, the Old Pretender [to the Throne]). Since he does not lead the Rising of ’02 to put himself back on the throne, his sister, Anne, is not Queen and there is no Act of Union that year merging the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain. That also means that there is no impetus to extend the Union to Ireland in 1801, but absent William III and Mary II, another of his sisters, there is no Battle of the Boyne and no Orange Lodge to exacerbate matters in Ireland, so things there go on much as they had before, i.e. occasional rebellions that are somewhat localized but there is a sullen peace on the surface most of the time.

James VIII and III is succeeded by his son, Charles III [historically, Charles, the Young Pretender, aka ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’]. If you get to the point where Charles III is on the throne, you can kiss the chance of the House of Hanover becoming a British dynasty good-bye. There is no Rising of ’45, no proscription which obliged large numbers of Scots to emigrate abroad, notably to Canada and the Thirteen Colonies. There is no romance about Flora MacDonald and no Skye Boat Song.

It gets more difficult to say what might befall thereafter but with no George III, there is the possibility that ‘mad' James Wolfe does not get promoted and preferred to lead expeditions in America because he has not garnered the Royal favour evidenced by the remark, “Mad is he? Then, by God, I wish he’d bite some of my other generals!” Without Wolfe, Louisburg and Quebec do not fall in the Seven Years’ War. There is no Proclamation Line of 1763, preventing western settlement and no Quebec Act of 1774, the first and primary of the Intolerable Acts that precipitate the American Revolution. Additionally, the American Revolution is forestalled because they are still dependent on British arms to keep them safe from the French colonies in the New World. Possibly, the French will beat the British/Americans to a treaty of alliance with the Cherokee in Kentucky by weeks, rather than being a few weeks too late, as happened historically. After that possible futures get murky.

One additional possibility is that in this alternate reality The Battle of Monongahela [Braddock Expedition] turns into a bloodbath rather than a disaster. The loss of George Washington, William Crawford, Charles Scott, Daniel Boone, Daniel Morgan, Thomas Gage, Charles Lee, and Horatio Gates would have a very definite, if indeterminate, effect on later American [and Canadian] history. For example, de Contrecœur or de Beaujeu, the overall and field commanders, respectively, might have been the general appointed to defend Quebec during the Seven Years’ War, instead of Montcalm, with likely a rather different outcome.

A lively alternate history, but by the First Bishops War, Charles had already stirred up his kingdom. A nine year old Charles II would have been unable to rule without Parliament, which was already asking for basic changes. So the House of Stuart was still in deep trouble.

Charles I's queen Henrietta Maria was hostile to Parliament and to the idea of anything but absolute monarchy. She would have certainly raised her children to seek to end Parliament and mixed government as soon as possible. That would have been a slow fuse threatening to set off a revolutionary explosion. And she would have been far from alone in trying to move Charles and James against Parliament.

No, the Stuarts didn't know what the Tudors knew. England wasn't a kingdom, it was always a commonwealth. Elizabeth in her state papers always described England as Res Publica Anglica the Republic of England. The Tudors were proud to be the monarchs of a republic, the Stuarts couldn't abide the idea.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

I had read that James II conversion happened during his exile. I'm no fan of James, but I did not desire to slander the man. Still, the House of Hanover were Protestant heirs to the English throne. That is what got them the nod. I don't see any version of 17th or 18th century England tolerating a Catholic dynasty for very long.

If you think the Stuarts disprove that, remember, Charles II kept his faith a secret, James II ruled three years and got bounced. James I, Mary II, and Anne, were all Protestant.

And

A lively alternate history,

Well, history isn't a dead subject. ;)

but by the First Bishops War, Charles had already stirred up his kingdom. A nine year old Charles II would have been unable to rule without Parliament, which was already asking for basic changes. So the House of Stuart was still in deep trouble. Charles I's queen Henrietta Maria was hostile to Parliament and to the idea of anything but absolute monarchy. She would have certainly raised her children to seek to end Parliament and mixed government as soon as possible. That would have been a slow fuse threatening to set off a revolutionary explosion. And she would have been far from alone in trying to move Charles and James against Parliament.

No, the Stuarts didn't know what the Tudors knew. England wasn't a kingdom, it was always a commonwealth. Elizabeth in her state papers always described England as Res Publica Anglica the Republic of England. The Tudors were proud to be the monarchs of a republic, the Stuarts couldn't abide the idea.

The death of Charles I in the First Bishops’ War forestalls both the Second Bishops’ War and the English Civil War. Henrietta Maria may have been Catholic, a believer in absolute monarchy and hostile to Parliament, but it scarcely matters. Both England and Scotland had made use of a Council of Regents previously, for just that sort of emergency. No doubt Queen Henrietta Maria would have been a member of the council but the purpose of the council would be to dilute her influence. Given that Scotland was able to enforce the raising of James VI and I as Protestant on his mother, Mary, who was a reigning queen and not a consort, it doesn’t seem that a mere consort is going to get a better bargain.

Neither Charles I, Charles II nor James II were actually known to be Catholic during their reigns, though rumors certainly circulated. (Okay, we do know that Charles II converted on his deathbed but he had no legitimate heirs, and his deathbed conversion wouldn’t have an effect on his illegitimate heirs). Like his father and brother, James II was married to a Catholic queen but had secretly converted. The primary “knowledge” of James II's conversion came from Titus Oates’ perjury. The big push came from the birth of James II’s son, James, who automatically put Mary II and Anne out of the immediate succession. It’s not at all clear that James, the Old Pretender was anything but Protestant at birth, but the thought that he might be raised Catholic was enough to produce a plot, within twenty days of his birth, to put his sister, Mary II, and her husband, William III, on the throne. A plot that came to fruition six months later.

Maybe the Stuarts were on the way out from England, but if James II had decided there was nothing to lose in accepting the offer of aid from his cousin, Louis XIV, he might have held onto Scotland. In which event, the United Kingdom of Great Britain might still be forestalled.

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Maybe the Stuarts were on the way out from England, but if James II had decided there was nothing to lose in accepting the offer of aid from his cousin, Louis XIV, he might have held onto Scotland. In which event, the United Kingdom of Great Britain might still be forestalled.

So when the Darien scheme bankrupts Scotland what does that do to France. Do they try to bail out Scotland or cut them loose?

[fchase8]

If the Charles I died in the First Bishops War, it seems like the tilt of British history would depend on Charles II.

If he is dominated by Protestant councilors, this might just speed up what was to happen: a tolerant(-ish) Protestant Britain dominated by Parliament, not the monarchy. Without a Commonwealth, the American colonies might never head towards independence & republicanism.

This sounds like a canon Brittannia, where a Protestant rebellion put a Protestant James of Monmouth on the throne (I think). Moderate policies and parliaments ruled, the American colonies never split, and it's now a Centrum-controlled parallel.

If Charles I and his heirs instead eventually throw in with Catholic forces, such as France, history could go the other direction and The Sun King's France is more dominant. The American colonies could become the home of Puritans fleeing Catholic England.

This sounds like Aeolus, where the Glorious Revolution failed and Louis XIV was dominant. 'The American Commonwealth' seceded and was very Protestant.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by dcarson

So when the Darien scheme bankrupts Scotland what does that do to France. Do they try to bail out Scotland or cut them loose?

The Darien scheme occurred in the years 1698-1700, so it starts a bit more than nine and a half years after the Glorious Revolution put Mary II and William III on the throne. That makes it a moot question. If James VII holds onto Scotland, there may be no Darien scheme, or it may have less money put into it or they may decide to plant a West Indies colony somewhere other than Panama. Maybe Louis XIV does bail Scotland out. Losing roughly a quarter of Scotland’s liquid assets certainly hurt but it didn’t bankrupt the country.

Maybe, given backing by Louis XIV and the example of the Edict of Nantes, James VII manages to make his Declaration of Indulgence (essentially making religious toleration the law of the land) stick.

As another effect for my “lively’ alternate history, no exile and restoration for Charles II also means no gratitude for the aid in regaining his throne to the nobles who became the Lords-Proprietor of the Carolinas in North America. So there’s another alteration.

Maryland is still probably named for Henrietta Marie but if James II continued to hold the throne past 1688, maybe his queen, Mary of Modena, would become the colony’s patron, either ensuring that Catholicism is never outlawed or supporting religious toleration in the colony.