I'm finding myself questioning what I've taken for granted as conventional history and it's cutting a huge swathe through everything.

It is odd that people should be so fixated as to ecclesiastical polity: papal, patriarchal, episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, etc. 'Christendom' is so fragmented according to customs like this, so what's good about it, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach inclusive of all governance, including 'religious' communities for unwed men and women? Think of all the marital problems these days and imagine if sexually dysfunctional individuals could focus their lives to more upright purposes than dissolution, even if they are not right for marriage because of their impure disorders ruining every part of public and private life. By my positive thinking on Christianity, this is more about a way of life than theology. Christianity as lived and practised wasn't much removed from Pagan life, even if Christian theology is largely a mishmash of diverse religious traditions and beliefs from all Roman provinces.

One notion that must be disabused, is the conflation of Christian confessionalism with ethnicity. Some time ago, there was no binary conception of Teutonic Protestant and Roman Catholic (see Benedict XVI). Even now, there are rising rates of Hispanic Protestants, no doubt, with some historical basis in the Navarrese embrace of the Reformation, even if Savonarola didn't make too many Italian followers abandon the Papacy, aside from poaching the Waldensians. It's odd to look through Protestant eyes at Catholicism as 1,500 years of falsehood, for a supposedly true belief to arise afterward and yet derivative of the very same, somehow purified in a vacuum. There is considerable wiggle room for natural liturgical diversity in historical precedent despite Tridentine and Prayer Book demands for ritual conformity since; mutual acceptance of which would likely inoculate any inclinations to schism and heresy.

Originally, I was a Jacobite and went by this nom de plume upon a name change request whilst here @ Skadi in 2005. Later on, I was having trouble upholding this in the face of considerable Whig propaganda, that 'Progress' was inevitable and for the better--only it meant a lot of machinations to happen that way and too often at the cost of my Marian (both Tudor and Stuart queens of the name) ancestors on the other side of the Reformation back in the Tudor period. For instance, when Whig historians minimised Jacobitism in England, I have to wonder... If Northumberland and Westmorland could rise for Mary Stuart, who wasn't English but a Valois supporter and only one half of the inheritance from Margaret Tudor other than English-born Darnley, I don't see why any English wouldn't support her truest heir being the Duke of York and therefore, validate those sacrificial ancestral losses before the Dudley faction and their priest-hunters.

A singular curiosity in Mary of Modena, is that she was from the same house as the Elector of Hanover, which means James III and George I each had a parent from the same succeeding family other than the preceding Stuart origin linking them. Even curiouser is that Catesby and Fawkes planned to put the future Winter Queen of Bohemia on the throne in 1605 instead of Henry Frederick or Charles I--hers indeed was the lineage that triumphed in the long run anyway. This ended up in the favour of both the Orangists and the Vatican after all, when remembering that the Guelphs were famously partisans of St Peter called by d'Este long before known for anything else. There's no real purpose to supporting the line of Orleans down through Savoy, Lorraine, back to Wittelsbach and next onto Liechtenstein. If Papists could Plot with Gunpowder against the son of the queen they gave their lives for, did we really need the Stuarts after all?

It's true that 1776 and 1783 weren't far off from the political demise of the true Stuarts. The Pope only supported the Prince of Wales becoming James III, as Bonnie Prince Charlie converted to the non-juring Scottish/American Episcopal Church in 1750 and the Cardinal-Duke of York wasn't going to become another Prior of Crato. It seems that Episcopalian allegiance in America was to the Stuarts and not the Electors save those who came later to Georgia until exiled to New Brunswick, never fitting in with the traditional Anglo-Catholic church and state establishment as 'Anglo-Protestants' were always in the minority from the onset of this dispute despite their historical revisionism. The American break was very convenient when 1763 gave Canada to the Hanoverians and 1766 removed Papal support for Jacobitism, especially when seeing Washington as a non-juring Anglican--true blue Tory.

The two grandsons of James II were the same generation of George II, so there was a considerable generational disconnect in the Tory and Whig establishments when the latter's heir Frederick fathered George III. Interesting that the War of 1812 was shortly after the last legitimate Stuart passed, but that everybody got along thereafter and Catholic Emancipation followed. It's such an irony how Tory and Whig should be switched, but that's what happens when those in power rewrite history to suit them. What is true, moreover, is how tied the present Commonwealth is to the 1707 British Union, rather than the previous Union of the Crowns that was responsible for building America up out of Tudor foundations. The mixed nature of American traditions largely has to do with the unsettled nature of governance then current during the Stuart period, before a recognisable framework was to be duplicated everywhere in a monolithic Hanoverian image.

Basically, America abandoned allegiance when the Stuarts were a spent force and the Papacy lost interest in them, which goes against everything we've been taught about what motivated the whole affair.