Explanation: The primary objectives of the planned 1744 French invasion were to destabilize the British government, potentially restore the Jacobite claimant, and force Britain's withdrawal from the War of the Austrian Succession, thereby weakening its continental alliances. While French colonial ambitions were part of the broader conflict, they were not the primary intent of this specific invasion plan.

Explanation: While France formally declared war on Britain in January 1744, this declaration formalized an existing state of de facto conflict stemming from the War of the Austrian Succession. The planned invasion was a strategic objective within this larger conflict, not solely triggered by the declaration itself.

Explanation: A primary political objective of the planned invasion was the restoration of the Stuart claimant, James Edward Stuart, to the British throne. Success would have rendered Britain a client state, subservient to French foreign policy and withdrawn from its alliances against France.

Explanation: France anticipated that Jacobite sympathizers within Britain would provide crucial assistance, such as facilitating landings or causing defections. However, the text acknowledges that these expectations were sometimes overly optimistic, as the active support base had diminished or changed allegiances.

Explanation: Conversely, the French government viewed invading Britain as a strategic necessity precisely because Britain was actively supporting its continental allies through financial subsidies and military engagement. Disrupting this support was key to weakening France's adversaries in the War of the Austrian Succession.

Explanation: The objective of the French invasion was precisely the opposite: to overthrow the Hanoverian monarch and reinstate the Stuart claimant, James Edward Stuart, thereby altering Britain's political alignment.

Explanation: A key strategic aim of the French invasion was to cripple Britain's ability to support its continental allies, particularly Austria, in the War of the Austrian Succession. Forcing Britain out of the war would dismantle crucial alliances arrayed against France.

Explanation: The planned French invasion of Great Britain in 1744 occurred within the broader geopolitical framework of the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748). This conflict involved major European powers vying for influence and territory, and the invasion was intended as a significant strategic maneuver by France to weaken its primary adversary, Great Britain, within this larger struggle.

Explanation: A primary political objective of the planned invasion was the restoration of the Stuart claimant, James Edward Stuart, to the British throne. Success would have fundamentally altered Britain's political landscape and its role in European affairs.

Explanation: The installation of James Edward Stuart was intended to fundamentally alter Britain's foreign policy. The objective was to withdraw Britain from the War of the Austrian Succession, terminate its alliances with continental powers like Austria, and align the nation with France, thereby transforming it into a client state.

Explanation: Britain's financial subsidies were instrumental in sustaining its alliances with continental powers such as Austria and the Dutch Republic. France viewed the invasion of Britain as a means to sever these alliances, thereby weakening the coalition opposing it in the War of the Austrian Succession.

Explanation: France anticipated that Jacobite sympathizers within Britain would provide crucial assistance, such as facilitating landings or causing defections within the British military ranks. This internal support was seen as vital for the success of the invasion.

Explanation: The designation of Britain as a 'client state' implies that, following a successful invasion and the installation of a new monarch, Britain would become politically subordinate to France. Its foreign policy and strategic decisions would likely be dictated by French interests.

Explanation: While hostilities were already underway, France's formal declaration of war on Britain in January 1744 served to legitimize and facilitate its strategic objectives, including the planned invasion, within the context of the War of the Austrian Succession.

Explanation: The installation of James Edward Stuart was intended to fundamentally alter Britain's foreign policy. The objective was to withdraw Britain from the War of the Austrian Succession, terminate its alliances with continental powers like Austria, and align the nation with France, thereby transforming it into a client state.

Explanation: Marshal Maurice de Saxe, a distinguished military commander, was appointed to lead the French land forces assembled for the invasion. The command of the naval squadron responsible for clearing the English Channel was entrusted to Jacques Aymar de Roquefeuil.

Explanation: The Duc de Choiseul was a key figure and proponent behind the later French invasion plans, particularly the one conceived for 1759. For the 1744 invasion, other figures like the Comte de Maurepas played more central roles in its conception and planning.

Explanation: Joseph Pellerin, as First Commissioner under the Minister of the Marine, was responsible for the practical preparations, including the construction and provisioning of troop ships. The command of the French land forces was assigned to Marshal Maurice de Saxe.

Explanation: Marshal Maurice de Saxe, a highly experienced and respected military commander, was entrusted with the leadership of the French land forces assembled at Dunkirk for the invasion operation.

Explanation: Vice-Admiral Jacques Aymar de Roquefeuil commanded the French naval squadron dispatched from Brest. Its critical mission was to ensure the English Channel was clear of the main British fleet, thereby facilitating the crossing of the invasion transports.

Explanation: Joseph Pellerin, serving under the Minister of the Marine, was tasked with the crucial logistical responsibilities for the invasion. This included overseeing the construction and provisioning of the numerous flat-bottomed troop ships required for the operation.

Explanation: A critical component of the French naval strategy was the expectation that Admiral Norris's main British fleet would be occupied elsewhere or absent from the Channel, thereby creating a window of opportunity for the invasion transports to cross safely.

Explanation: Rocquefeuil's squadron encountered Admiral Norris's fleet near Dungeness but, mistakenly believing the British fleet was docked, hastily retreated. Admiral Norris pursued, but a severe storm intervened, preventing a decisive engagement and protecting the French squadron from complete destruction.

Explanation: The severe storm that devastated the French invasion fleet had a comparatively minor impact on the British naval forces. Admiral Norris's fleet had prudently sought refuge in nearby harbors, thereby avoiding the brunt of the tempest and sustaining only minimal damage.

Explanation: Rocquefeuil's squadron, tasked with clearing the English Channel, sailed from the French port of Brest, not Dunkirk. Dunkirk was primarily associated with the assembly of the invasion transports.

Explanation: The main French invasion fleet, primarily composed of troop transports, encountered a severe storm during its crossing. This tempest resulted in the sinking of twelve vessels and severe damage to others, forcing the remnants to retreat to Dunkirk.

Explanation: While the storm inflicted severe damage upon the French fleet and transports, the British ships, including Admiral Norris's fleet, were able to seek shelter in nearby harbors. This strategic positioning allowed them to escape the worst effects of the storm and sustain only minimal damage.

Explanation: Rocquefeuil's squadron encountered Admiral Norris's fleet near Dungeness but mistakenly believed the larger British fleet was docked in Portsmouth. This misapprehension led to their hasty retreat when they sighted Norris's ships at sea.

Explanation: The transport ships that did not sink during the storm were severely damaged. Consequently, they were compelled to abandon the invasion attempt and return to the port of Dunkirk.

Explanation: The transport ships that survived the storm were significantly damaged, rendering them unfit for continuing the invasion voyage. They were compelled to return to the port of Dunkirk, effectively ending the invasion attempt.

Explanation: Following Rocquefeuil's retreat from Admiral Norris's fleet, a severe storm arose. This tempest prevented the British from pursuing and potentially destroying the battered French squadron, inadvertently offering it some protection.

Explanation: The strategic plan for the French invasion designated Maldon, Essex, as the intended landing site for the invasion force, not Dover.

Explanation: The primary intended landing site for the 1744 invasion was Maldon, Essex, in England, not Scotland. While the restoration of the Stuarts was a goal, and Scotland was a Jacobite stronghold, the invasion plan focused on England.

Explanation: The strategic plan for the French invasion designated Maldon, Essex, as the intended landing site for the invasion force.

Explanation: The French land force assembled at Dunkirk under Marshal Saxe for the planned invasion was estimated to comprise between 6,000 and 15,000 regular soldiers.

Explanation: The extensive fortifications at Dunkirk were a significant concern for British authorities, who viewed the port as a potential strategic base from which France could launch naval operations, including invasion fleets, against Great Britain.

Explanation: British intelligence operations, particularly those gathering information from Rome and Paris, played a significant role. This intelligence allowed the British government to anticipate the invasion and deploy troops preemptively to southeastern England.

Explanation: While the Dutch Republic had pledged to send 6,000 troops to support Britain's defense, these reinforcements did not arrive until March 22, 1744. This arrival occurred after the immediate threat of the French invasion had already dissipated due to the fleet's failure.

Explanation: Historically, Britain maintained a cautious approach to large standing armies. This aversion meant that the number of regular troops readily available for home defense was often limited, potentially increasing vulnerability to a large-scale invasion.

Explanation: British intelligence operations provided crucial information regarding the French invasion preparations. This intelligence enabled the British government to implement preemptive defensive measures, including the strategic deployment of troops to vulnerable areas.

Explanation: In anticipation of the French invasion, Great Britain concentrated its defensive forces. Approximately 7,000 of the 10,000 active troops were stationed in and around London and the vulnerable southeastern region of England.

Explanation: While the Dutch Republic had pledged to send 6,000 troops to support Britain's defense, these reinforcements did not arrive until March 22, 1744. This arrival occurred after the immediate threat of the French invasion had already dissipated due to the fleet's failure.

Explanation: George Wade, a prominent British military figure, was designated to command the British forces responsible for resisting the potential French invasion, highlighting the defensive preparations undertaken by Great Britain.

Explanation: After the planned invasion of Britain was abandoned, Marshal Saxe's troops were redirected to Flanders to engage in conventional land warfare as part of the ongoing War of the Austrian Succession, rather than reinforcing the navy.

Explanation: The French invasion attempt of 1744 failed to land troops on British soil. The invasion fleet was largely destroyed or scattered by a severe storm, and the covering naval squadron was unable to secure safe passage.

Explanation: Following the cancellation of the invasion plans due to the adverse conditions, Marshal Saxe's land forces were redeployed to Flanders. There, they participated in conventional land operations as part of the broader War of the Austrian Succession.

Explanation: The failure of the 1744 invasion did contribute to the planning of subsequent invasion attempts, notably in 1759. However, the 1759 attempt, like the 1744 one, ultimately proved unsuccessful.

Explanation: While France did provide support for the 1745 Jacobite rising, the force that landed in Scotland was relatively small, and it did not land simultaneously with the main French invasion plans of 1744. Larger French invasion plans were considered in conjunction with the 1745 rising but were ultimately too late or unsuccessful.

Explanation: The 1759 plan, conceived by Duc de Choiseul, differed significantly from the 1744 strategy. Choiseul advocated for a rapid strike using troops moved from Le Havre without direct fleet protection, rather than a large-scale amphibious assault coordinated with a major naval battle, learning from the complexities of the earlier attempt.

Explanation: The Battle of Culloden decisively ended the 1745 Jacobite rising. While France continued to consider invasion plans in subsequent years (e.g., 1759), it did not immediately plan another large-scale invasion in 1746 specifically in response to Culloden.

Explanation: The Battle of Culloden in 1746 marked the decisive defeat of the Jacobite rising of 1745. This outcome eliminated the primary internal support base that France had hoped to leverage for its invasion efforts, effectively ending the feasibility of such plans for the remainder of the War of the Austrian Succession.

Explanation: The 1759 invasion plan, championed by Duc de Choiseul, diverged significantly from the 1744 strategy. Choiseul advocated for a rapid strike using troops moved from Le Havre without direct fleet protection, rather than a large-scale amphibious assault coordinated with a major naval battle, learning from the complexities of the earlier attempt.

Explanation: Dunkirk was reconsidered and ultimately rejected as a staging point for the 1759 invasion. The difficulties and disastrous outcomes associated with the 1744 attempt, which originated from Dunkirk, likely influenced this decision, leading planners to favor alternative ports like Le Havre for subsequent operations.

Explanation: The text explicitly mentions planned French invasions of Britain in 1744, 1759, 1779, and 1804. The year 1715 is not referenced in this context within the provided material.

Explanation: The significant failure of the 1744 invasion provided critical lessons that directly informed the planning of subsequent French invasion attempts, most notably the 1759 operation. These later plans incorporated revised strategies based on the shortcomings identified in the earlier effort.