AHC: Give England an Army!

According to Peter Wilson's The Thirty Years' War the number of mercenaries recruited in England (mostly East Anglia) during the 30 years war was equal to the number of conscripts from Sweden and Finland during the whole conflict.

Now my question is this, what could happen to make the English want or need a fairly large army by the late 1600s? If Scotland isn't in Union? What if a Hannoverian analogue occurs quicker than OTL forcing England to get involved in continental affairs?

I'm doing research here so any links are helpful
 
The "earlier Hannoverians" might be the repeat of Bourbon tragedy of 1711-1715 with Stuarts in 1661 (Charles II and Duke of York dying along with Duke of Gloucester and Princess Mary in smallpox outbreak), and Elisabeth Stuart, the "Winter Queen" becoming Queen Elisabeth II for a short while, and then Charles-Louis of Palatinate becomes Charles III.
 
Well what you basically need is an outside threat or war that would convince Parliament to get over their fear of a standing army and vote more money to the King for an army. I'm actually looking into this myself for my own TL. Or perhaps a major rebellion. Look at King James II and the Monmouth Rebellion. The Rebellion enabled the King to nearly double the size of the Army, even though it freaked out Parliament and helped lead to his overthrow. Though in my opinion, I think that freak out was more due to a Catholic King having a large army rather than a larger army in general. With a Protestant King Parliament would still be a little freaked but not as much as they would be with a Catholic.

Another possible reason could be one of the Dutch wars. OTL there was talk of expanding the army during the Second Anglo-Dutch war but it was ultimately abandoned. So that could work as well.
 
The "earlier Hannoverians" might be the repeat of Bourbon tragedy of 1711-1715 with Stuarts in 1661 (Charles II and Duke of York dying along with Duke of Gloucester and Princess Mary in smallpox outbreak), and Elisabeth Stuart, the "Winter Queen" becoming Queen Elisabeth II for a short while, and then Charles-Louis of Palatinate becomes Charles III.

Actually the youngest Stuart, Henriette-Anne Duchesse d'Orleans, would then become Queen. I think she was still in France at this point so IDK how you kill her off.
 
Actually the youngest Stuart, Henriette-Anne Duchesse d'Orleans, would then become Queen. I think she was still in France at this point so IDK how you kill her off.

There is absolutely no way that la Duchesse d'Orleans is going to get on the throne, Parliament would have a fit.

Though looking into things, I think Henriette-Anne was pregnant with the future Marie Louise at the time, and was very deeply affected by the loss of her son in 1666 which led to the next child being stillborn. So perhaps having this happen and the stress of the political ramifications (particularly if the deaths are spread over a couple of months in 1661) could push her to a miscarriage, followed either by death from that, or from a combination of depression and stress.
 
There is absolutely no way that la Duchesse d'Orleans is going to get on the throne, Parliament would have a fit.

Though looking into things, I think Henriette-Anne was pregnant with the future Marie Louise at the time, and was very deeply affected by the loss of her son in 1666 which led to the next child being stillborn. So perhaps having this happen and the stress of the political ramifications (particularly if the deaths are spread over a couple of months in 1661) could push her to a miscarriage, followed either by death from that, or from a combination of depression and stress.

Parliament had no control whatsoever over the Succession before the Glorious Revolution and act of Settlement, so they wouldn't really have a choice. Also, it depends on when she comes to the throne. If its in late 1660 or early 1661 it would be before her marriage to the Duc d'Orleans, so her betrothal could easily be broken in favor of a better one who could act as Consort. If its after, then that could be a problem.
 
Parliament had no control whatsoever over the Succession before the Glorious Revolution and act of Settlement, so they wouldn't really have a choice. Also, it depends on when she comes to the throne. If its in late 1660 or early 1661 it would be before her marriage to the Duc d'Orleans, so her betrothal could easily be broken in favor of a better one who could act as Consort. If its after, then that could be a problem.

Au contraire. In 1660, England is just coming out of its Commonwealth phase. The country's decision-makers may be jaded by Cromwell's personal rule by military might, but they were still somewhat jumped up on the ideas that the King was now beholden to Parliament, which is exactly why the Glorious Revolution happened in 1688. If it were to come about that Charles and his nearest heirs had recently died and were no longer available to take the throne, or they died within a year of the restoration, I'd say Parliament would be more than happy to leap into action tout suite to change the laws slightly to ensure that a candidate they were happy with took the throne, if the actual "true heir" was to be a strong Catholic from a rival country. They wouldn't be having any of that.
 
Au contraire. In 1660, England is just coming out of its Commonwealth phase. The country's decision-makers may be jaded by Cromwell's personal rule by military might, but they were still somewhat jumped up on the ideas that the King was now beholden to Parliament, which is exactly why the Glorious Revolution happened in 1688. If it were to come about that Charles and his nearest heirs had recently died and were no longer available to take the throne, or they died within a year of the restoration, I'd say Parliament would be more than happy to leap into action tout suite to change the laws slightly to ensure that a candidate they were happy with took the throne, if the actual "true heir" was to be a strong Catholic from a rival country. They wouldn't be having any of that.

I beg to differ. If Parliament wanted to limit the power of the Crown they could have imposed conditions on Charles II at his restoration. But they didn't. Its telling to the mood of the country that Parliament either wouldn't or couldn't place any limits of the Royal Prerogatives. And disinheriting the legitimate heiress to the throne could cause a new round of uprisings or worse, a civil war, in a country who's sick of wars and revolutions, would be a quick way to infuriate the mob against them. Plus the next heirs after her would be Elizabeth of Bohemia and her son, the Elector Charles Ludwig. So overturning the legitimate line of succession would end with England immersed in German affairs via the Palatinate. It would be easier to let Henrietta become Queen and marry her to Prince Rupert, who OTL tried to marry her. That way it unites two branches of claims and gives her a Protestant husband. That's the best scenario.
 
I beg to differ. If Parliament wanted to limit the power of the Crown they could have imposed conditions on Charles II at his restoration. But they didn't. Its telling to the mood of the country that Parliament either wouldn't or couldn't place any limits of the Royal Prerogatives. And disinheriting the legitimate heiress to the throne could cause a new round of uprisings or worse, a civil war, in a country who's sick of wars and revolutions, would be a quick way to infuriate the mob against them. Plus the next heirs after her would be Elizabeth of Bohemia and her son, the Elector Charles Ludwig. So overturning the legitimate line of succession would end with England immersed in German affairs via the Palatinate. It would be easier to let Henrietta become Queen and marry her to Prince Rupert, who OTL tried to marry her. That way it unites two branches of claims and gives her a Protestant husband. That's the best scenario.

I'm not talking about restricting the King's authority, I'm just referring to passing a law which stated that a Catholic couldn't take the throne. The Act of Settlement 1701, but 40 years early, basically. However, I was also operating under the illusion that Henrietta was already married to the Duke of Orleans, which you refuted shortly before I began typing and which I never got around to amending my post to refer to, so that does change the situation somewhat.
 
I'm not talking about restricting the King's authority, I'm just referring to passing a law which stated that a Catholic couldn't take the throne. The Act of Settlement 1701, but 40 years early, basically. However, I was also operating under the illusion that Henrietta was already married to the Duke of Orleans, which you refuted shortly before I began typing and which I never got around to amending my post to refer to, so that does change the situation somewhat.

Yeah if Henriette's not married then they'll be no real reason to oppose him. After all a Catholic King is more threatening than a Catholic Queen. Its sexist but seemingly true for back then. If she's single then Henriette can marry a Protestant and make some sort of promise to raise her kids Protestant. If she's married, to the King of France's brother no less, then that will create a much bigger problem. At that point we would see a situation similar to the Jacobite movement, except the heirs to the English throne would be French Princes and Princesses. At that point Elizabeth of Bohemia could be made Elizabeth II, assuming she accepts the throne. If not it would go to Charles Ludwig. Or perhaps the throne would be offered to Prince Rupert.
 
Top