Affect of a Stuart survival on the American Revolution?

[johnreiter]

What if the Glorious Revolution failed, and James II ruled until his death in 1701. He is succeeded by his son (OTL James the Old Pretender) who reigns until 1766.

What affect would the survival of the Stuart dynasty of England have on the American Revolutionary War?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

How does he handle the unpopularity of the dominion of New England? A new governor or return to individual colonies?

Having the dominion with a pre existing more centralised administration allows the colonies to bargain collectively with london more effectively, but it also allows them to launch independence bids collectively

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

What affect would the survival of the Stuart dynasty of England have on the American Revolutionary War?

short answer? There would be no American Revolutionary War. At least, not the one from OTL.

That's not to say it's going to be all rainbows and unicorns, but the ARW of OTL was caused by a multitude of factors. Many of those factors were- directly or indirectly- caused by parliament rather than the king. In OTL, from 1714-1760 you had parliament running stuff in the colonies, with a king that either didn't understand the colonies or didn't particularly care. TTL, there's no way that parliament acquires even close to the amount of power it had OTL- I've noted before the irony of the accusations of Stuart absolutist rule being made by an absolutist parliament- because you've got a native born king, who understands the politics of the realm, and who is far less likely to leave things in the hands of the ministers/parliament. When George III tried to claw back power for the crown in the 1760s it caused problems with parliament who treated him as though they were the masters and he the servant. The implementation of the Stamp Act was such a stressful period that it caused George III to have the first attack of his later "madness".

In short, the OTL problems in the 13 colonies would in all likelihood not exist. It would be a different set of problems- and somehow, I doubt it would be ones of representation. OTL that issue was rejected by parliament. To James II and James III, it would be a godsend. It would be a useful way of diluting the British parliament to make it- not so much less effective, but rather less powerful- the same way that it was the conservatives and Légitimists in France who were about expanding the voting franchise, giving women the right to vote and so on. Not necessarily because they agreed with the idea (although the comte de Chambord spoke in favour of both OTL. One speech of his about votes for women was attended by a young Emmeline Pankhurst), but because it was a good way of undercutting the support for the liberals.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

There is no AWR as we know it, unless you are a believer in second-order counterfactuals. The failure of the GR butterflies the entire history of the empire, domestic and colonial as well as the military/diplomatic history of European powers and their empires. Some type of American Independence or Imperial Confederation will very probably evolve but under different circumstances and a different time frame. Unless, however, James III governs like a Whig and makes the same choices as the Whiggish rulers and Ministries did from 1701 - 1766 (your second order counterfactual).

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

How does he handle the unpopularity of the dominion of New England? A new governor or return to individual colonies?

Or James II could back Andros- after all, the man was Anglican and the rebels were Puritans, not difficult for James to see it as a replay of his father vs parliament- and grant him the authority to crush the rebellion in April 1689. Andros was already unpopular with the New Englanders, wasn't as though he'd lose any popularity by acting decisively. After all, they delayed the news of the Glorious Revolution from him in order to whip up the most support possible. Not to mention that Andros' opponents had the tacit support of William and Mary. James' promise to Mather and co - that their concerns would be addressed - in November 1688 isn't equal to him promising to remove Andros. And it's hard to believe that James would approve of them calling the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Company Charter "illegal".

 

[Fabius Maximus]

In short, the OTL problems in the 13 colonies would in all likelihood not exist. It would be a different set of problems- and somehow, I doubt it would be ones of representation. OTL that issue was rejected by parliament. To James II and James III, it would be a godsend. It would be a useful way of diluting the British parliament to make it- not so much less effective, but rather less powerful- the same way that it was the conservatives and Légitimists in France who were about expanding the voting franchise, giving women the right to vote and so on. Not necessarily because they agreed with the idea (although the comte de Chambord spoke in favour of both OTL. One speech of his about votes for women was attended by a young Emmeline Pankhurst), but because it was a good way of undercutting the support for the liberals.

If the King still had real power, I could see the British Empire evolving into a federation of self-governing colonies with a common foreign and defence policy overseen by the King. The King could then be impartial between the different legislatures in a way that the British Parliament couldn't.

 

[unprincipled peter]

If the King still had real power, I could see the British Empire evolving into a federation of self-governing colonies with a common foreign and defence policy overseen by the King. The King could then be impartial between the different legislatures in a way that the British Parliament couldn't.

My eyesight is rather hazy as to whether I see it happening or not, but it would make for an interesting scenario. More an evolution of empire, rather than the more cataclysm of OTL. Not all roses, of course, but could lead to a smoother transition.