| June 10 |  |
Editor says, what if General Leslie's Scottish Covenanting Army had been crushed by Royalist forces at Duns Law (instead of disengaging to sign the Treaty of Berwick)? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1688, on this day James Francis Edward Stuart (the future monarch King James III) was born to the reigning king and his Roman Catholic second wife, Mary of Modena.
Birth of King James III
By Ed, Jeff Provine & Jared MyersThe continuing primacy of Stuart authority had been firmly established during the Bishops' War of 1639. To nip that rebellion in the bud, his grandfather Charles I had marched the English Army to the Northern Border and mercilessly crushed a larger force of Scottish Covenanters. The most significant aspects of his stoicism was an ommission; he had not troubled himself to seek the permission of both Houses of the Parliament.
But by the time he ascended the throne in 1701, the power struggle had moved on, and James III realised that the time for absolutism had well and truly passed. A bold visionary, he would drive a radical process of modernisation, devolving power not just to the Imperial Parliament, but also to the assemblies of the American Colonies. And in so doing, he would build a glorious future, protecting his grandfather's colourful legacy by ensuring that the flavour of British Society remained forever embued with the unique Scottish flamboyance of the House of Stuart.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: King James III, Stuart, Jacobite, General Leslie, Duns Law. Editor says, in authoring this article we explore a central idea proposed by Niall Ferguson in "A Virtual History, 1646-1996". We have also repurpose content from Wikipedia. The central concept is that backing down during the First Bishop's War was fatal for the House of Stuart.
~ But doesn't this mean no Bonnie Prince Charlie and his 1745 Highland revolt...which did so much to launch the modern war of national liberation?
~ An Act of Union probably wouldn't happen under a Stuart king, and American independence would have most likely been a peaceful (albeit belated) transition of power.
~ Wouldn't they still have found some excuse to get rid of James II? A lot of the Glorious Revolution happened because James II was so inept.
~ Seems the key to good rule is to bend to parliaments at times and crush bishops at others.
~ Maybe the best way to "get rid of" James II would be to have him get a bad cold, developing into influenza one winter. Things happen. As to American independence, in a more benevolent British society, could we see an independence a la Canada's Federation?
comments powered by Disqus
Related posts from the same era that you may also like
 "Operation Valkyrie" succeeds and the Red Army have to face the Wehrmacht alone. |  "Ramses IX" turns the tables on Amun Priesthood |  "Diocletian" chosen as Roman Emperor. |
 "Aaron Burr" arrested for treason |  "Alexander Stephens" Elected CSA President |  "Geta" survives a violent struggle with disloyal members of Praetorian Guar |
 "Willie Lincoln" lives in Notorious Hellions, all |  Apple Buys Be Inc. "Part 2" |  Author of "Profiles in Courage" dies on-board PT-109 |
 A terminal illness forces Nelson Mandela to accept PW Botha's "secret offer". |  A "charismatic young lawyer" calls the British Government to account. |  A nightmare vision of the future is predicted in "The Death of Orwell". |
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
