1660: The end of the Stuarts

I was reading about the Restoration of the Stuarts and I've found an interesting fact: the same year that the monarchy was restored (1660) two of the sibblings of Charles II died from smallpox after going back to England - princess Mary and Henry, Duke of Gloucester. So, WI both Charles and James were as unlucky as their sibblings and had also got smallpox and died after arriving in England? How would the death of the Stuarts affect English politics? Also, considering that the legal heir would be the 10 years old William of Orange, would he be recognized as king?
 
Well if you're just going to kill Charles II and James, Duke of York then William Prince of Orange would become King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Or if you kill him of then you have Henrietta Anne Stuart and her children. But let's say you manage to get rid of them all you have Charles II's illegitimate children James Scott who in OTL led the Monmouth Rebellion. Or any other of James I's children such as Elizabeth of Bohemia, who's child Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine would become King after her etc.

But let's say all these people were killed then... I'm guessing another rebellion would occur by Parliament again leading to a 2nd Civil War. Though this time with no real person to follow (if you have gotten rid of these people or have them uninterested in the throne,) the Royalists would probably lose the war and we may see a Republican England again.
 
Choosing William III as king of England could be very interesting. At this point he wasn't stadholder of any province of the Netherlands. I suspect he still has a conection with the Netherlands, even if he would live in England since he was 10. Maybe with the help of England he manages to convince the Dutch to appoint him as stadholder. The second and third Anglo-Dutch war would be butterflied away at least in the original form (I most certainly don't see William allying himself with France), but they could be replaced by an Anglo-Dutch war that appoints William as stadholder of the remaining provinces, maybe even as king of the Netherlands.
 
Well if you're just going to kill Charles II and James, Duke of York then William Prince of Orange would become King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Or if you kill him of then you have Henrietta Anne Stuart and her children. But let's say you manage to get rid of them all you have Charles II's illegitimate children James Scott who in OTL led the Monmouth Rebellion. Or any other of James I's children such as Elizabeth of Bohemia, who's child Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine would become King after her etc.


My idea is just those who went back to England in 1660, so just Charles II and James, maybe Henrietta too. Of course, the 10 years old William of Orange would be the legal heir, but would in this case the Dutch States recognize him as stadtholder (considering the Dutch had just fought a war against England a few years ago)? Or would he be accepted in England? The death of the Stuarts in a so short time could give to some the idea that "the monarchy is cursed".
 
Choosing William III as king of England could be very interesting. At this point he wasn't stadholder of any province of the Netherlands. I suspect he still has a conection with the Netherlands, even if he would live in England since he was 10. Maybe with the help of England he manages to convince the Dutch to appoint him as stadholder. The second and third Anglo-Dutch war would be butterflied away at least in the original form (I most certainly don't see William allying himself with France), but they could be replaced by an Anglo-Dutch war that appoints William as stadholder of the remaining provinces, maybe even as king of the Netherlands.

Interesting. Could then we have an Anglo-Dutch War that is also a "Dutch Civil War", between Royalists/Orangists and Republicans?
 
Interesting. Could then we have an Anglo-Dutch War that is also a "Dutch Civil War", between Royalists/Orangists and Republicans?
It seems like a very good possibility. There always were Orangist vs Merchant/regent tensions in the Dutch republic. Certainly outside of Holland those merchants weren't realy populair (as they only cared about money and their own province of Holland), so a Dutch civil war is certainly possible, assuming the English are willing to support their king.
 
My idea is just those who went back to England in 1660, so just Charles II and James, maybe Henrietta too. Of course, the 10 years old William of Orange would be the legal heir, but would in this case the Dutch States recognize him as stadtholder (considering the Dutch had just fought a war against England a few years ago)? Or would he be accepted in England? The death of the Stuarts in a so short time could give to some the idea that "the monarchy is cursed".

Of course if he does become King of England the smaller issue is who will he marry? Mary II wouldn't be born 'cos you've killed of James II.

Also another thing, would there be a Monmouth rebellion? I mean he was only a year older than William and so obviously probably wouldn't be able to muster an army until William had support (if he ever did,) anyway.
 

Thande

Donor
The chaos would be incredible...it's possible we could see a republic again if its backers of the Good Old Cause could sufficiently divorce themselves from Cromwell's legacy, but I doubt it. More likely that William would become titular monarch and a powerful figure (maybe George Monck, or a noble who was a front for him?) would be regent holding real power.

Two important consequences of the latter scenario:

1) An even more dramatic shift of power from monarch to Parliament than the Glorious Revolution in OTL; in fact rather than swerving from Republic to Absolutism to Parliamentary monarchy over 30 years, the country makes a more easy progression from Republic to Parliamentary monarchy.

2) With no other Stuart claimants and no Glorious Revolution, there is no reason to persecute Catholics - in fact after their treatment under the Republic and the reaction against it, treatment of Catholics will probably be almost as fair as under Charles and James. Thus this England, Scotland and Ireland will be more pluralistic, which is good new for the Irish and northern Scots but perhaps less so for the fortunes of English / "British" general culture and supremacy in the long run, given the drivers for the conflicts of the 18th century in OTL.
 
The chaos would be incredible...it's possible we could see a republic again if its backers of the Good Old Cause could sufficiently divorce themselves from Cromwell's legacy, but I doubt it. More likely that William would become titular monarch and a powerful figure (maybe George Monck, or a noble who was a front for him?) would be regent holding real power.

Two important consequences of the latter scenario:

1) An even more dramatic shift of power from monarch to Parliament than the Glorious Revolution in OTL; in fact rather than swerving from Republic to Absolutism to Parliamentary monarchy over 30 years, the country makes a more easy progression from Republic to Parliamentary monarchy.

2) With no other Stuart claimants and no Glorious Revolution, there is no reason to persecute Catholics - in fact after their treatment under the Republic and the reaction against it, treatment of Catholics will probably be almost as fair as under Charles and James. Thus this England, Scotland and Ireland will be more pluralistic, which is good new for the Irish and northern Scots but perhaps less so for the fortunes of English / "British" general culture and supremacy in the long run, given the drivers for the conflicts of the 18th century in OTL.

But couldn't this happen the other way? Without the "Popist" Stuarts to be opposed by the Parliament, couldn't the defender of the Protestants William III (who is the legal king, not an invited monarch) to rule with Absolutism if he wanted, and more people wouldn't care about it?
 
Top