Honestly, both of you know so much more about the 45 that I would not argue with your expertise.
But you know more about the Hanovers and the 18th century in general. :) Also, keep in mind that my knowledge is 20 years old and doesn't extend to many primary sources, and if there's one thing salon has taught me, it's that any belief I hold will eventually be overturned by new evidence, if I just wait long enough.
I mean, if Elizaveta and Catherine in Russia lock up not just poor Ivan and Anna Leopoldovna for life but also all of Ivan's siblings and EC's brother instead of just, well, killing them, in Russia, where the supreme rulers have way more leaveway than in the rest of Europe...
Ah, but that wasn't a double standard! Elizaveta famously decided not to have a single person executed in her entire reign! And both she and Catherine had a standing order to have Ivan killed on the spot if there was an escape attempt, which is how he died (almost immediately after Catherine's coup). Elizaveta was also said to have cradled the one-year-old during the coup, saying, "Poor, innocent baby." Which is also completely different from BPC and his army.
Also, in the event of a BPC capture, who would make the decision to execute him? Cumberland? G2? Would there be a trial?
I would be interested to know what Cumberland's standing orders were during the hunt for the Prince. If you really wanted to kill him, it wouldn't be that hard to say that he didn't survive the attempt to capture him, so sorry, too bad.
If he had been captured alive, I was always assuming Parliament would have claimed jurisdiction and he would have been put on trial for treason. I mean, if they could execute Charles I!
BPC's followers count as rebels from a Hannovarian pov, but does BPC, who hasn't been born in Britain and thus isn't really a subject of King George (or is he, again, from a Hannoverian pov - of course he's not from a Stuart one)?
Yeah, this is an interesting legal question. Hmm. I just checked Blackstone, and this is possibly relevant:
Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another.
Oh, wait, this is even better:
It was enacted by statute 13 and 14 W. III. c. 3 that the pretended prince of Wales, who was then thirteen years of age, and had assumed the title of James III. should be attainted of high treason...And by statue 17 Geo. II. c. 39, it is enacted, that if any of the sons of the pretender shall land or attempt to land in this kingdom, or be found in Great Britain, or Ireland, or any of the dominions belonging to the same, he shall be judged attainted of high treason, and suffer the pains thereof.
Yeah, this is consistent with the impression I'd always had that BPC would have been charged with high treason. Would they have gone with the full death penalty in practice? I can't say for sure, but this law was passed in 1743 in direct response to BPC's arrival in France, and the relevant passage reads:
he...shall, by virtue of this act, stand, and be adjudged attainted of high treason, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall suffer and forfeit as persons attainted of high treason by the laws of the land ought to suffer and forfeit.
If anyone is interested in knowing who took what side in the parliamentary debate (which was mostly about the clause to attaint anyone of high treason who even corresponded with any of the Stuart pretenders), there are 200 pages of speeches in Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England: 1743-1747 on Google. :) Chesterfield is against. What's interesting is he doesn't seem to think there's the slightest danger of a real invasion. But he also argues that even if there's a real danger, essentially, "We can't let the terrorists tyrants win by passing laws that would make us as bad as them."
Also, if he's a live prisoner, could he be made to officially resign from any claims the Stuarts have to the throne?
Yes, just like Philip V was made to resign from any claims he had to the French throne. ;) IOW, if I were a Hanover, I wouldn't feel very safe.
Okay, see, this post is what I mean when I say that if we start talking about the Jacobites, I will get sucked back in. :'D
Jacobites and treason
But you know more about the Hanovers and the 18th century in general. :) Also, keep in mind that my knowledge is 20 years old and doesn't extend to many primary sources, and if there's one thing salon has taught me, it's that any belief I hold will eventually be overturned by new evidence, if I just wait long enough.
I mean, if Elizaveta and Catherine in Russia lock up not just poor Ivan and Anna Leopoldovna for life but also all of Ivan's siblings and EC's brother instead of just, well, killing them, in Russia, where the supreme rulers have way more leaveway than in the rest of Europe...
Ah, but that wasn't a double standard! Elizaveta famously decided not to have a single person executed in her entire reign! And both she and Catherine had a standing order to have Ivan killed on the spot if there was an escape attempt, which is how he died (almost immediately after Catherine's coup). Elizaveta was also said to have cradled the one-year-old during the coup, saying, "Poor, innocent baby." Which is also completely different from BPC and his army.
Also, in the event of a BPC capture, who would make the decision to execute him? Cumberland? G2? Would there be a trial?
I would be interested to know what Cumberland's standing orders were during the hunt for the Prince. If you really wanted to kill him, it wouldn't be that hard to say that he didn't survive the attempt to capture him, so sorry, too bad.
If he had been captured alive, I was always assuming Parliament would have claimed jurisdiction and he would have been put on trial for treason. I mean, if they could execute Charles I!
BPC's followers count as rebels from a Hannovarian pov, but does BPC, who hasn't been born in Britain and thus isn't really a subject of King George (or is he, again, from a Hannoverian pov - of course he's not from a Stuart one)?
Yeah, this is an interesting legal question. Hmm. I just checked Blackstone, and this is possibly relevant:
Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another.
Oh, wait, this is even better:
It was enacted by statute 13 and 14 W. III. c. 3 that the pretended prince of Wales, who was then thirteen years of age, and had assumed the title of James III. should be attainted of high treason...And by statue 17 Geo. II. c. 39, it is enacted, that if any of the sons of the pretender shall land or attempt to land in this kingdom, or be found in Great Britain, or Ireland, or any of the dominions belonging to the same, he shall be judged attainted of high treason, and suffer the pains thereof.
Yeah, this is consistent with the impression I'd always had that BPC would have been charged with high treason. Would they have gone with the full death penalty in practice? I can't say for sure, but this law was passed in 1743 in direct response to BPC's arrival in France, and the relevant passage reads:
he...shall, by virtue of this act, stand, and be adjudged attainted of high treason, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall suffer and forfeit as persons attainted of high treason by the laws of the land ought to suffer and forfeit.
If anyone is interested in knowing who took what side in the parliamentary debate (which was mostly about the clause to attaint anyone of high treason who even corresponded with any of the Stuart pretenders), there are 200 pages of speeches in Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England: 1743-1747 on Google. :) Chesterfield is against. What's interesting is he doesn't seem to think there's the slightest danger of a real invasion. But he also argues that even if there's a real danger, essentially, "We can't let the
terroriststyrants win by passing laws that would make us as bad as them."Also, if he's a live prisoner, could he be made to officially resign from any claims the Stuarts have to the throne?
Yes, just like Philip V was made to resign from any claims he had to the French throne. ;) IOW, if I were a Hanover, I wouldn't feel very safe.
Okay, see, this post is what I mean when I say that if we start talking about the Jacobites, I will get sucked back in. :'D