If your premise is that James did nothing wrong and the only reason he was overthrown was other people's evil, I think it's going to be difficult to discuss how things might have gone differently.
Good luck with your writing.
I am not an expert on the period, but I know there have been comments by others that the Stuarts were not wholly unpopular. James running - whatever his reasons and whether or not I agree with them - did not really make the most of what support he might potentially have found.
That would sure...
I am legitimately curious how the religious matters would have gone here. Even assuming Catholic kings were accepted, my limited understanding is that there's going to be a lot of friction on that point with a POD anywhere near James VII/II.
If that was the purpose, I must say that it failed.
Especially since "I'm going to happily ignore that the role of Mary's father and uncle in her marriage because this is about trying to promote the Jacobite cause more than two centuries after it stopped being relevant to anything." has its...
There's a lot of question marks to if James would have spared the Irish centuries of misery, for one thing.
I think it would be genuinely interesting to see a thread on if James did, in fact, continue to rule - but threads like "What if William decided to act like Darth Vader? Wouldn't that be...
Is that bit on the role of the Irish in government any different than anything earlier, as in making a stronger point of it? Just thinking that it even just being there at all feels like James wanted to make a point of it, but I'm not familiar enough with Stuart policies to compare him to other...
There's also the question why the Georgians would want this union, for that matter. Even apart from wildly varying succession laws, there's not a lot of motivation for anyone to push for this here.
The reason I'm not sure is that someone could argue that Edward IV dying without an adult heir doesn't seem that invincible, but it sure counts as the dynasty being kicked off the high seat within five years of the founder's (given that Edward's father was never king) death. I think that makes...
The House of York's end seems like it ought to count as at least worth mentioning, although I'm not sure what "within five years or less" refers to here - five years or less of what?
This one raises a question as far as what could have been and what was not a possibility: What stops the bourgeoise from seeing the King as a better ally than the nobility? Their goals and interests? The King's? Just no one seeing there as a point to that?
The other thing is that no one knows if this is going to be worth the effort and expense in advance. Not to say that means they don't do anything, but it's a factor that will influence what the Romans see this plant as.
What Nivek said, pretty much. If it's just some random thing that people grow purely because the rich have the money to waste, it's rather unlikely that they're going to make extensive use of it - especially in any fashion that would lead to experiments leading to vulcanization.