A different death in 1660

One thing that has always interested me about the House of Stuart, apart from their stubborn devotion to Catholicism, as well as most of their rulers beliefs in the divine right of Kings, in the french model, is their fate following the restoration of 1660.

Now, it was a joyous time, Charles II was a good ruler, but he had no legitimate children, and his Catholic brother James succeeded him onto the throne in 1685,bringing about the Glorious Revolution, and if I can be quite frank the dismal Parliamentary system we have today here in the UK.

Now, Charles and James had a younger brother named Henry, who was created DUke of Gloucester and Earl of Cambridge upon the restoration, but he died later on that year from small pox.

What I am wondering is, what would've happened if instead of the small pox claiming him, it either claims Charles or James, leaving Henry alive as the heir apparent for a time.
 
One thing that has always interested me about the House of Stuart, apart from their stubborn devotion to Catholicism, as well as most of their rulers beliefs in the divine right of Kings, in the french model, is their fate following the restoration of 1660.

Now, it was a joyous time, Charles II was a good ruler, but he had no legitimate children, and his Catholic brother James succeeded him onto the throne in 1685,bringing about the Glorious Revolution, and if I can be quite frank the dismal Parliamentary system we have today here in the UK.

Now, Charles and James had a younger brother named Henry, who was created DUke of Gloucester and Earl of Cambridge upon the restoration, but he died later on that year from small pox.

What I am wondering is, what would've happened if instead of the small pox claiming him, it either claims Charles or James, leaving Henry alive as the heir apparent for a time.

Killing off James would be the best option, as having Charles II, dying would mean a revolution/civil war in 1660 rather then 1685. Being more of a constitutional monarch would save the house of Stuart and maybe keep the house of Hanover away from Britain for good?

I would suggest marrying Henry to an English noble woman, similar to James:
- Lady Margaret Manners, a daughter of John Manners, 8th Earl of Rutland.
- Arabella Churchill, daughter of Sir Winston Churchill, sister of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. IOTL she was the mistress of James II.
- Anne Scott, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, a wealthy Scottish Peeress, daughter of Francis Scott, 2nd Earl of Buccleuch and IOTL married James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of Charles II
 
Killing off James would be the best option, as having Charles II, dying would mean a revolution/civil war in 1660 rather then 1685. Being more of a constitutional monarch would save the house of Stuart and maybe keep the house of Hanover away from Britain for good?

I would suggest marrying Henry to an English noble woman, similar to James:
- Lady Margaret Manners, a daughter of John Manners, 8th Earl of Rutland.
- Arabella Churchill, daughter of Sir Winston Churchill, sister of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. IOTL she was the mistress of James II.
- Anne Scott, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, a wealthy Scottish Peeress, daughter of Francis Scott, 2nd Earl of Buccleuch and IOTL married James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of Charles II

Interesting, what makes you say that there would be a revolution/civil war in 1660 if Charles II died? James II was still protestant at this point in time.

And okay interesting, so lets say that Henry marries Margaret Manners, he's got an English match, he's firmly Protestant, and he is now Charles' heir apparent, what butterflies might come from this?
 
Interesting, what makes you say that there would be a revolution/civil war in 1660 if Charles II died? James II was still protestant at this point in time.

And okay interesting, so lets say that Henry marries Margaret Manners, he's got an English match, he's firmly Protestant, and he is now Charles' heir apparent, what butterflies might come from this?

James was raised by his parents to believe in Catholicism and that being king gave him the absolute power by God, while Henry was to young, when he was captured by the parliament.

Butterflies:
- No link to the Dutch Republic.
- No rebellions, as I could imagine, King Henry IX, would diplomatically deal with his nephew.
- No Queen Mary or Queen Anne.
- The House of Hanover will be kept from the throne for another few generations, if they come to the throne at all.
 
James was raised by his parents to believe in Catholicism and that being king gave him the absolute power by God, while Henry was to young, when he was captured by the parliament.

Butterflies:
- No link to the Dutch Republic.
- No rebellions, as I could imagine, King Henry IX, would diplomatically deal with his nephew.
- No Queen Mary or Queen Anne.
- The House of Hanover will be kept from the throne for another few generations, if they come to the throne at all.

Interesting, I presume Henry would command armies during his brother's time on the throne?

Furthermore, could his ascension prevent the rise of the Whigs completely?

Also how does this sound for his children:

King Henry IX b 1640 d 1710

Wife Queen Margaret b 1643 d 1708

Children:

Henrietta b 1661

Mary b 1663

Charles III b 1666

Henry, Duke of York b 1668

James, Duke of Gloucester b 1672

Robert, Duke of Kent b 1677
 
Civil War would be because Jamesused a cudgel in the same situations where Charles used a rapier.

As to Henry marrying an Englishwoman - not gonna happen this side of blue hell. Henry will most likely end up marrying some foreign "most likely" Protestant princess (Anna Sophie of Denmark, OTL Electress of Saxony; or France can scrape up their Swedish ally's first available princess, namely Christine of Baden, OTL Margravine of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Duchess of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (who AFAIK only had no kids due to her first hubby dying shortly after they got "acquainted" and being close to menopause when she married her second)).
 
Civil War would be because Jamesused a cudgel in the same situations where Charles used a rapier.

As to Henry marrying an Englishwoman - not gonna happen this side of blue hell. Henry will most likely end up marrying some foreign "most likely" Protestant princess (Anna Sophie of Denmark, OTL Electress of Saxony; or France can scrape up their Swedish ally's first available princess, namely Christine of Baden, OTL Margravine of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Duchess of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (who AFAIK only had no kids due to her first hubby dying shortly after they got "acquainted" and being close to menopause when she married her second)).

Okay interesting, so lets say Henry marries Anna Sophie of Denmark, what consequences could this bring?
 
Top