WI Jacobites win the Battle of Sheriffmuir?

[ae597]

POD - Mar is a better soldier.

13th, November 1715

On this day John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar led the Jacobite rebels to a
glorious victory at the Battle of Sheriffmuir fought near Dunblane in
Scotland.

Both the Scots and the English hated King George, the foreign monarch
who sat on the English throne but who spoke no English. But only the
Jacobites sought a restoration of the Stuart kings to the thrones of
England and Scotland.

Article continues at
http://www.todayinah.co.uk/index.php?story=39765-V

[Rich Rostrom]

ae597 wrote:
> POD - Mar is a better soldier.
>
> 13th, November 1715
>
> On this day John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar led the Jacobite rebels to a
> glorious victory at the Battle of Sheriffmuir fought near Dunblane in
> Scotland.
>
> Both the Scots and the English hated King George, the foreign monarch
> who sat on the English throne but who spoke no English.

Rubbish. George assumed the British throne by
the choice of the British parliament in the Act of
Settlement. George was a nebbish, who was
content to enjoy the throne without imposing his
will in any significant way. This was welcomed
by the British political elite, which was thus able
to rule the country without royal interference.

He'd done nothing to alienate the average Englishman,
who didn't care at all. Nor the average Scot - there
hadn't been a "native" king of Scotland since James II.

I don't say there was any great enthusiasm for
George, but there was plenty of hostility to the
Catholic Stuarts, and there was no other "legitimate"
heir.

[Jamie McDonell]

On Nov 8, 10:40 am, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
> ae597 wrote:
> > POD - Mar is a better soldier.
>
> > 13th, November 1715
>
> > On this day John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar led the Jacobite rebels to a
> > glorious victory at the Battle of Sheriffmuir fought near Dunblane in
> > Scotland.

All Mar had to be was competent to win at Sheriffmuir. To win an
unbroken line of battles from Sheriffmuir to London, he'd have to be
much better than George Murray, or even the Alasdair mac Colla/James
Graham combination. So, Mar wins at Sheriffmuir and loses the next
battle or the one after that, or any battle out of retreating distance
to the Highlands and it's all over, almost immediately. If he loses
within retreating distance of the Highlands, it just takes longer to
root him out.

> > Both the Scots and the English hated King George, the foreign monarch
> > who sat on the English throne but who spoke no English.
>
> Rubbish. George assumed the British throne by
> the choice of the British parliament in the Act of
> Settlement. George was a nebbish, who was
> content to enjoy the throne without imposing his
> will in any significant way. This was welcomed
> by the British political elite, which was thus able
> to rule the country without royal interference.
>
> He'd done nothing to alienate the average Englishman,
> who didn't care at all. Nor the average Scot - there
> hadn't been a "native" king of Scotland since James II.

I would have said since James VI, but yes.

[Rich Rostrom]

Charles I & I was born in Scotland

Charles II & II, and James II & VII had at least visited
Scotland. James even played golf for Scotland in a
match against two Englishmen in 1682.

William III was a foreigner, of course. Anne was essentially
English, and not a King, of course. (Did she ever even
visit Scotland? Not AFAICT.)

[David Tenner]

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in
news:62281f50-07d1-4fca...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com :

> William III was a foreigner, of course. Anne was essentially
> English, and not a King, of course. (Did she ever even
> visit Scotland? Not AFAICT.)
>

Not as Queen. But as a sixteen-year-old girl she did join her father, then
still Duke of York, in Scotland in 1681.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nWcQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA861

"It was her last journey outside England."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Anne

--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:21:23 -0800 (PST), Jamie McDonell
<seu...@rogers.com> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 10:40 am, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> ae597 wrote:
>> > POD - Mar is a better soldier.
>>
>> > 13th, November 1715
>>
>> > On this day John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar led the Jacobite rebels to a
>> > glorious victory at the Battle of Sheriffmuir fought near Dunblane in
>> > Scotland.
>
>All Mar had to be was competent to win at Sheriffmuir. To win an
>unbroken line of battles from Sheriffmuir to London, he'd have to be
>much better than George Murray, or even the Alasdair mac Colla/James
>Graham combination. So, Mar wins at Sheriffmuir and loses the next
>battle or the one after that, or any battle out of retreating distance
>to the Highlands and it's all over, almost immediately. If he loses
>within retreating distance of the Highlands, it just takes longer to
>root him out.

To me the interesting WI would have been WI Charles Stuart is captured
alive sometime during 1714-15 and what you describe is likely the best
way to do this POD.

Sure there would be a pretender to the Jacobite claim but if the
claimant was not Bonnie Prince Charlie himself a lot of the wind goes
out of the Jacobite cause particularly if Stuart is in British hands
(as opposed to dead)

[Rich Rostrom]

The Horny Goat wrote:
>
> To me the interesting WI would have been WI Charles Stuart

> is captured alive sometime during 1714-15...

That would be a _very_ interesting WI,
as Charles Stuart was not born until 1720.

The Jacobite claimant in 1715 was James
Stuart, the "Old Pretender".

He landed in Scotland _after_ Sheriffmuir,
but found so little support that he left
quickly.

If he had been captured, that would have
been the end of the Jacobite cause, as
there were no other living descendants
of James II.

[The Horny Goat]

Oops - I must have been having a really bad day .... of course I know
the difference between the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender!

Your last paragraph pretty much sums up my point.

[Richard Gadsden]

In article
<1510e709-9810-43a8...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com> on Sun,
13 Nov 2011 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), rrostrom.2...@rcn.com (Rich

Rostrom) wrote:

> The Horny Goat wrote:
> >
> > To me the interesting WI would have been WI Charles Stuart
> > is captured alive sometime during 1714-15...

[Presuming he actually means /James/ Stuart, the Old Pretender]

> He landed in Scotland _after_ Sheriffmuir,
> but found so little support that he left
> quickly.
>
> If he had been captured, that would have
> been the end of the Jacobite cause, as
> there were no other living descendants
> of James II.

But there were Catholic descendants of Charles I, by Princess Henrietta
(James II's sister) who had a better claim than George I.

The heir general of the Stuarts after James II and the Old Pretender is
Anne Marie of Orleans, wife of Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, one of the
unsuccessful claimants in the War of the Spanish Succession, and at this
time King of Sicily (though he would be forced to exchange that for
Sardinia in 1720 OTL).

There are also Catholic descendants of the Winter Queen - Sophia (George
I's mother) was the 12th of her 13 children. The senior claimants are
either the Raugraves, if regarded as legitimate (not likely), or
Elizabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Lorraine, and the mother of the Regent of
France.

--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) wrote:

>> He landed in Scotland _after_ Sheriffmuir,
>> but found so little support that he left
>> quickly.
>>
>> If he had been captured, that would have
>> been the end of the Jacobite cause, as
>> there were no other living descendants
>> of James II.
>
>But there were Catholic descendants of Charles I, by Princess Henrietta
>(James II's sister) who had a better claim than George I.
>
>The heir general of the Stuarts after James II and the Old Pretender is
>Anne Marie of Orleans, wife of Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, one of the
>unsuccessful claimants in the War of the Spanish Succession, and at this
>time King of Sicily (though he would be forced to exchange that for
>Sardinia in 1720 OTL).
>
>There are also Catholic descendants of the Winter Queen - Sophia (George
>I's mother) was the 12th of her 13 children. The senior claimants are
>either the Raugraves, if regarded as legitimate (not likely), or
>Elizabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Lorraine, and the mother of the Regent of
>France.

Very true but in the early 18th century an armed uprising in support
of a female pretender would not have been seriously contemplated.

[CJ Buyers]

On Nov 14, 5:43 am, rich...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) wrote:
> In article
> <1510e709-9810-43a8-b3a0-b6a870105...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com> on Sun,
> 13 Nov 2011 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com (Rich

Of course the much more interesting question is what exactly it would
have taken for them to "win"?

According to Reid, the Jacobites had 7,097 troops againsts the
government's mere 3,160. Others estimate the highlanders at vastly
higher numbers, up to 13,000.

[William Black]

On 14/11/11 01:46, CJ Buyers wrote:
>
> Of course the much more interesting question is what exactly it would
> have taken for them to "win"?

After they've won the inevitable two battles in Scotland there are a
couple more battles to fight.

(There are usually two battles in Scotland because at the first one the
English/Hanoverians/Dutch/Covenanters/whatever are saying "Who are those
big red haired blokes in skirts with the guns and the swords and stuff?
Surely even that lot up in the hills wouldn't try that." just before
they get chopped up by a selection of interesting antiques bought just
after the last sound thrashing of the clans...)

One almost certainly in the Midlands and then one before London.

Charles I turned back from the London one (Findsbury Fields) and Charles
II failed utterly at the Midlands one (Worcester)

James II, the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender never made any
serious military expeditions out of Scotland.

What's interesting is that James II ran away because he had a
nose-bleed. If he'd fought he might have won, especially as he seems to
have had the navy on his side...

Mind you, Stuarts of the male line... When did they ever win anything
except the 'looking really cool on a horse' competition?

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[Tim]

True, the Stuarts always looked good, but they abused heavily the
right of being stupid

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.talk.royalty The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
: On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),

Why less so than the ultimately successful one in the 12th century?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.talk.royalty CJ Buyers <susu...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

: On Nov 14, 5:43?am, rich...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) wrote:
:> In article
:> <1510e709-9810-43a8-b3a0-b6a870105...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com> on Sun,
:> 13 Nov 2011 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com (Rich
:>
:> Rostrom) wrote:
:> > The Horny Goat wrote:
:>
:> > > To me the interesting WI would have been WI Charles Stuart
:> > > is captured alive sometime during 1714-15...
:>
:> [Presuming he actually means /James/ Stuart, the Old Pretender]
:>
:> > He landed in Scotland _after_ Sheriffmuir,
:> > but found so little support that he left
:> > quickly.
:>
:> > If he had been captured, that would have
:> > been the end of the Jacobite cause, as
:> > there were no other living descendants
:> > of James II.
:>
:> But there were Catholic descendants of Charles I, by Princess Henrietta
:> (James II's sister) who had a better claim than George I.
:>
:> The heir general of the Stuarts after James II and the Old Pretender is
:> Anne Marie of Orleans, wife of Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, one of the
:> unsuccessful claimants in the War of the Spanish Succession, and at this
:> time King of Sicily (though he would be forced to exchange that for
:> Sardinia in 1720 OTL).
:>
:> There are also Catholic descendants of the Winter Queen - Sophia (George

:> I's mother) was the 12th of her 13 children. ?The senior claimants are

:> either the Raugraves, if regarded as legitimate (not likely), or
:> Elizabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Lorraine, and the mother of the Regent of
:> France.
:>
:> --
:> Richard Gadsden
:> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
:> your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
:
: Of course the much more interesting question is what exactly it would
: have taken for them to "win"?
:
: According to Reid, the Jacobites had 7,097 troops againsts the
: government's mere 3,160. Others estimate the highlanders at vastly
: higher numbers, up to 13,000.

Would the Duke of Mar have remained in command of the army?

(I'm curious as to what TLs might have resulted in a Jacobite Scotland
and Hanoverian England).

[Turenne]

On Nov 14, 5:08 am, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:

>
> Would the Duke of Mar have remained in command of the army?
>

Since when do we recognise Jacobite title on ATR?

RL

[William Black]

If you're talking about 'Bobbing John', anyone else would have been
preferable.

But that's the point isn't it.

If the Old Pretender had appointed someone competent to run his army
they might have had a chance, but he didn't...

Of course a couple of years later he got a large Hanoverian pension and
he was also mixed up in the ruination of Bishop Atturbury, who was more
or less the Jacobite Prime Minister, so perhaps he wasn't so
incompetent after all...

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.talk.royalty Turenne <rick.l...@virgin.net> wrote:

In the what-if timeline this thread exists to propose,
how would that title not have been retained?