First-Time Poster with Question

[Lisa83]

I am an American of Scottish ancestry and I am fascinated by this wild, beautiful country of my "birth." I've read many of your threads here and I am very impressed by the depth of knowledge many of you have. Maybe one of you have the answer to my question.

I know these are big "ifs" but work with me, okay? If James II had won the Battle of Boyne and the Act of Settlement had not passed, who would rule Great Britain today? Would the crown have gone to the Hanoverians eventually after Bonnie Prince Charlie?

Thanking you in advance for your help.

[ANDY-J]

Lisa83,
There is a whole branch of historical study which deals with "counterfactual history" ie-historical what ifs.I have read some literature which deals with the question of what would have happened had the Stewart dynasty remained in power.Firstly even had James won the battle of the Boyne he would not necessarily have gone on to win the war.When William of Orange first set foot in England James had a golden opportunity to secure his rule or at the very least abdicate and attempt to have his son crowned as James III however in typical Stewart fashion he squandered his chance.He had a large standing army at his disposal which would certainly have guaranteed him victory but first he would have had to convince the nobility to support him-which would have been likely,given that the alternative would have been to drag the kingdom into another bloody civil war.James however dithered and did nothing when positive action could have saved him.To remain in power James would have had to have made concessions over religious tolerance and if he had done so then perhaps the outcome would in any case have been similar to the political settlement which occured after the glorious revolution with a bill of rights etc. however given that James was stubborn he would not have compromised willingly.He would have been unwilling to drop his claim to rule by divine right but this would have been necessary for his survival.As James was a Francophile he would have wished to avoid war with France and therefore Britain would have had to compete against a powerful enemy in her quest to build an empire instead of one which was weakened by war.Perhaps the Stewarts would have been more tolerant than the Hanoverians towards religious dissent.Possibly they would also have shown greater tolerance towards the American colonies and thus the American revolution may never have occured.It is interesting to speculate on what may have happened however it is certain that had the Stewarts remained on the throne we would now in all likelihood be living in a very different world.

[Lisa83]

Thank you, Andy, for your reply. I was really wanting an actual person as my answer, but your reply showed me that that would be almost impossible to figure out. Too many variables.

I did a search under "counterfactual history," a term I'd never heard before, on Google, and I found this guy's site. It makes good reading, but he has a pretty wild imagination!

http://jtt1066.tripod.com/althistory/Stuart-1.html