Glorious Revolution

[The Parkus Empire]

How would things have been different if the Jacobite restoration succeeded? With French help, say.

My opinion: many British Protestants would have come to America and this would have pushed our independence sooner. Our country would have become more religious in government and ultra anti Catholic, perhaps a Puritan republic.

In Britain, the Irish would have become equal in rights and would exert a much greater say on British policy. The king's heir would been certainly Catholic even if he had no issue, as his government would ensure the line of succession became Papist.

The French Revolution would have triggered a British intervention, preventing the end of Louis XVI's reign

Britain would push heavily for Catholic conversion in India, leading a very different religious makeup for the country.

[Chan Island]

The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."

As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.

I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.

[The Parkus Empire]

The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."

As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.

I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.

The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here. Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.

James II went on a sacking rampage, that's what caused the Glorious Revolution to begin with, so I think a lot would change.

Scotland had a lot of Presbyterians but also plenty of Jacobites

[Kubra]

Literally no one was in a position to put down the french revolution by the time of conscription.

[Chan Island]

Literally no one was in a position to put down the french revolution by the time of conscription.

If memory serves, the entirety of Europe was caught off-guard by the revolution. A Catholic king of England would likely have been caught off guard and been unable to stop it just like everyone else.

The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."

As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.

I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.

The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here. Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.

James II went on a sacking rampage, that's what caused the Glorious Revolution to begin with, so I think a lot would change.

Scotland had a lot of Presbyterians but also plenty of Jacobites

As I said above.

A smart monarch would probably not have gone on a sacking rampage. I don't disagree that a lot would change, I was merely arguing that in the field of international relations it wouldn't change that much.

I'd forgotten about the Jacobites. Scotland would doubtlessly have been very interesting in this scenario.

[Ostroeuropa]

It would have stalled the inevitable for at most one generation. It's less about religion and more about financial interests. The catholics kept pushing absolute monarchism so naturally moneyed persons and lords tended to protestantism except in nations where catholicism benefited them more (Feudal societies rather than mercantile and industrializing ones). Oh sure you've got a scattering of true believers, but the bulk? Interests.

A British monarch can't justify a standing army to defend the realm, and that naturally puts them at odds with the moneyed persons in the realm when they wish to raise taxes, and that leads to parliament and eventual conflict between parliament and king over sovereignty.

The stuff about protestantism causing better economics isn't luck, it's because people with an active interest in economics formed the elite of the protestant reformation and they decided which protestantisms got adopted, whereas feudalists and people interested in feudalism and stasis were catholics.

How do you propose the king turn to their most developed and wealthy areas (The reason they won the war, by the way, but I concede you asked for foreign involvement to tip the scale) and tell them their opinions no longer matter?

Any catholic monarch of the UK was going to have to come to terms that their delusions of the right of kings and absolutism were completely infeasible even if their subjects hadn't rebelled over it. It is simply not how a realm functions.

[Kubra]

Literally no one was in a position to put down the french revolution by the time of conscription.

If memory serves, the entirety of Europe was caught off-guard by the revolution. A Catholic king of England would likely have been caught off guard and been unable to stop it just like everyone else.

More or less. The monarchies had to liberalise and reform in some of the ways as the french in order to actually fight the french, and even then it took the expedition to Russia to put them properly on the offensive.
It was quite a problem for the early proponents of this liberalisation, who found themselves deeply unpopular after the final exile of napoleon.

[Kubra]

It would have stalled the inevitable for at most one generation. It's less about religion and more about financial interests. The catholics kept pushing absolute monarchism so naturally moneyed persons and lords tended to protestantism except in nations where catholicism benefited them more (Feudal societies rather than mercantile and industrializing ones). Oh sure you've got a scattering of true believers, but the bulk? Interests.

A British monarch can't justify a standing army to defend the realm, and that naturally puts them at odds with the moneyed persons in the realm when they wish to raise taxes, and that leads to parliament and eventual conflict between parliament and king over sovereignty.

The stuff about protestantism causing better economics isn't luck, it's because people with an active interest in economics formed the elite of the protestant reformation and they decided which protestantisms got adopted, whereas feudalists and people interested in feudalism and stasis were catholics.

lol and their hatred of the british army also explained their love of the navy: the latter, in a sense, paid for itself.

[Ostroeuropa]

It would have stalled the inevitable for at most one generation. It's less about religion and more about financial interests. The catholics kept pushing absolute monarchism so naturally moneyed persons and lords tended to protestantism except in nations where catholicism benefited them more (Feudal societies rather than mercantile and industrializing ones). Oh sure you've got a scattering of true believers, but the bulk? Interests.

A British monarch can't justify a standing army to defend the realm, and that naturally puts them at odds with the moneyed persons in the realm when they wish to raise taxes, and that leads to parliament and eventual conflict between parliament and king over sovereignty.

The stuff about protestantism causing better economics isn't luck, it's because people with an active interest in economics formed the elite of the protestant reformation and they decided which protestantisms got adopted, whereas feudalists and people interested in feudalism and stasis were catholics.

lol and their hatred of the british army also explained their love of the navy: the latter, in a sense, paid for itself.

In a sense, yes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."

As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.

I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.

The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here.

>Insert perfidious Albion here
A favor is no guarantee of a return.

Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.

Probably because the only thing worse than France is an even more hostile, Republican version of France.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

"Hey, guys, what if one thing went differently and then all my political fantasies somehow panned out because of that?"

[Tybra]

It would likely severely affected tea as a cultural icon, with whatever consequence that may have, but beyond that little else.

The 18th century wasn't so much the century of the rise of Britain as it was the century of French containment. The the war of Spanish succession would've come regardless which pitted Britain and France against each other. Economic and political interest far outweighed any potential benefits the restoration of James could've gotten.

Tea wasn't initially particularly popular amongst the British people at the start of the 18th century. That's because the East India Company heavily taxed the tea trade. The Swedish East India Company mainly focuses on importing tea from China which was massively smuggled into the UK. This smuggling ,and trade contacts with Scotland in particular, were facilitated by Scottish Jacobites who fled to Gothenburg, the HQ of the Swedish East India Company. The people caught the taste of tea and smuggling eventually became rampant to such an extent that the East India Company was forced to lower the tea tariffs, which lead to a soaring demand of English tea and it becoming the icon it is.

Tea could've also gotten smuggled in from the Dutch, but Batavian tea was known for its god awful quality. The English might've preferred coffee instead, like the Germans.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Hey, guys, what if one thing went differently and then all my political fantasies somehow panned out because of that?"

My political fantasy would be reformation kings and nobles going Orthodox, but that's before James II

[Sovaal]

>Puritan Republic

Ew.

I mean I guess it’s possible. As for the intervention of the British in the Grench Rvoultuon, last I checked two monarchs being Catholic never really seemed to mean much.

[The Parkus Empire]

>Puritan Republic

Ew.

I mean I guess it’s possible. As for the intervention of the British in the Grench Rvoultuon, last I checked two monarchs being Catholic never really seemed to mean much.

It was enough for Louis XIV to offer to restore James II. As I pointed out, George III, a Protestant king, was absolutely horrified by the French Revolution, and people like Edmund Burke strongly advocated for intervention. I think a very Catholic monarch would not be pleased by an extremely anti Catholic, anti monarch, "world revolution" on his doorstep

[The Parkus Empire]

The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here.

>Insert perfidious Albion here
A favor is no guarantee of a return.

Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.

Probably because the only thing worse than France is an even more hostile, Republican version of France.

The Jacobites loved France. James II wanted very close ties with them.

[Farnhamia]

How would things have been different if the Jacobite restoration succeeded? With French help, say.

My opinion: many British Protestants would have come to America and this would have pushed our independence sooner. Our country would have become more religious in government and ultra anti Catholic, perhaps a Puritan republic.

In Britain, the Irish would have become equal in rights and would exert a much greater say on British policy. The king's heir would been certainly Catholic even if he had no issue, as his government would ensure the line of succession became Papist.

The French Revolution would have triggered a British intervention, preventing the end of Louis XVI's reign

Britain would push heavily for Catholic conversion in India, leading a very different religious makeup for the country.

It was probably too late to make Britain a Catholic monarchy in 1688. In 1588, however ...

[Salus Maior]

The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."

As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.

I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.

The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here. Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.

James II went on a sacking rampage, that's what caused the Glorious Revolution to begin with, so I think a lot would change.

Scotland had a lot of Presbyterians but also plenty of Jacobites

I imagine that a Catholic King would recruit the Catholic Highlanders to help settle things in Scotland.

[The South Falls]

I'd most likely think that with more British settlers, there would be a faster revolution, but more overcrowding and a lack of services.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'd most likely think that with more British settlers, there would be a faster revolution, but more overcrowding and a lack of services.

Overcrowding America would take a long time. Every soldier who served in the revolution was given 100 acres.

[Dogmeat]

Britain would push heavily for Catholic conversion in India, leading a very different religious makeup for the country.

It's really more the Sepoy Mutiny that made the British give up on conversion, rather than a lack of interest in proselytization.

[Sovaal]

I'd most likely think that with more British settlers, there would be a faster revolution, but more overcrowding and a lack of services.

Pfft, with an entire continent ripe for the taking from those pesky savages? Manifest destiny.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

>TFW someone wishes for a more Puritan government and I can't help but remind them about the Puritan batshit crazy streak of ''witch trials'' in Salem, Massachusetts. Because things were definitely super duper better with religious zealots in power. Yes, Goody Woodland, yes and a good morrow to thee. :^)

[The Parkus Empire]

>TFW someone wishes for a more Puritan government and I can't help but remind them about the Puritan batshit crazy streak of ''witch trials'' in Salem, Massachusetts. Because things were definitely super duper better with religious zealots in power. Yes, Goody Woodland, yes and a good morrow to thee. :^)

>thinking someone whose Church is known for ICONS EVERYWHERE, is a Roundhead

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

>TFW someone wishes for a more Puritan government and I can't help but remind them about the Puritan batshit crazy streak of ''witch trials'' in Salem, Massachusetts. Because things were definitely super duper better with religious zealots in power. Yes, Goody Woodland, yes and a good morrow to thee. :^)

>thinking someone whose Church is known for ICONS EVERYWHERE, is a Roundhead

I'm very sure heads, in this case, aren't round, but empty. :^)