If they had been content to conquer Scotland instead of marching further south?
2006-11-29 21:23:59 · 7 answers · asked by MBK 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No.
The Protestants in Scotland, who were Calvinist, were even more virulently opposed to a Catholic King than those in England, where the Church of England was more eclectic.
George I could not have tolerated a Stuart King in Scotland as this would have drawn attention to his somewhat tenuous claims to the English throne. If James had not marched South, he would have had to attack Scotland. This might not have been easy for George I but he would have won.
The 1745 rebellion by Charles Stuart was actually largely a domestic Scottish affair. Most of Cumberland's troops at the decisive Battle of Culloden in 1746 were lowland Scots or from protestant Clans. The English dimension was correspondingly irrelevant to the outcome.
2006-11-30 00:34:31 · answer #1 · answered by Philosophical Fred 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was clearly a fear that this might be the case, which is one of the reasons that we shall be celebrating the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union next year. But remember that there was as much dislike for the Catholic Stuarts in Scotland as there was in England. The Protestant/Catholic problems were probably more pronounced in Scotland than they were in England. Remember how the Protestants had disliked Mary, Queen of Scots.
Had either of the pretenders succeeded in winning the throne of Scotland, I doubt they would have lasted long. They were backed by England's great enemy of the time, France, and I'm sure, therefore, the English would have taken urgent steps to remove them.
Incidentally, the Scottish parliament has just agree to revamp totally the museum etc at Culloden and remove the bias towards the Jacobites, having regard to the fact that many Scots supported the English against Charles Stuart
2006-11-29 22:34:46 · answer #2 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why, or in this revolution you're planning are you intending to abolish resources rights on the idea of someone's family contributors call or relationships? in view that they personal resources of their personal perfect, beside those that are element of the Royal resources, they stay there. I going to imagine you're speaking about the Royal resources - it really is the resources the Monarch has owned from previously 1066 and all that, so i'm assuming you're confiscating those, eg Windsor, and Buckingham Palace? It became the Royal resources that provided the earnings by which the King ruled the rustic, then got here Parliament and taxation, and Parliament gave the King further money as prices rose. finally Parliament took over the operating of the rustic and King's earnings went any opposite direction. immediately the Royal Estates nevertheless make contributions to the exchequer, some £2 hundred million pounds, which makes the £8 million the Queen receives decrease back truly paltry. it really is like you inheriting your father and mother abode and the authorities taking the two hundred pounds a week employ you get out of your tenant, and providing you with £8 decrease back. If we were stupid adequate to pick President Gordan Brown or another failed 2d price baby-kisser as head of State, with 0 status on the international degree ... eg are you able to call the President of Germany? or eire as an get mutually? with out googling? then this new workplace of authorities would fee a techniques better than the £8 million civil record. Queen or Politicians - which do you imagine the British human beings believe?
2016-11-29 23:21:36 · answer #3 · answered by rieck 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No chance
As stated in many of the answers, nobody who has looked into the history can see this as a Scotland/England fight.
Charles Edward Stuart is probably more popular now through songs by the likes of Rabbie Burns & the Corries than he ever was with most Scots at the time.
2006-12-02 09:57:35 · answer #4 · answered by Jules 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jacobite supporters were widespread throughout the UK, it's only modern day thinking that has labelled it as a Scottish phenomenon.
I doubt that that tactic would have won out. Eventually the British crown would have turned it attentions back to regaining control of Scotland and the more disciplined, better armed redcoats would have been sent in to take control back.
2006-11-29 21:38:16 · answer #5 · answered by Darth Emiras 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
WOULD THE FRENCH HAVE BACK THEM? ALAS,AGAIN THE TIDE TURNS. CHARLES LIVED ON IN THE HEARTS OF SCOTS.
2006-11-29 22:24:32 · answer #6 · answered by MICHAEL K 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They obviously didn't think it was worth the trouble
2006-11-29 21:25:50 · answer #7 · answered by big pup in a small bath 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋