charles, duke of Cambridge (born 1660) survives

Hmm, I think he'd look for what he believes is his divine right, though of course memories of the exile could convince him otherwise
It is possible another "Glorious Revolution" could occur, and like with his daughter and son-in law with so many powerful individuals switching sides, they could force him out as he did anyway and his son be named King.
 
It is possible another "Glorious Revolution could occur, and like with his daughter and son-in law with so many powerful individuals switching sides, they could force him out as he did anyway and his son beamed King.

Hmm this is true, though hopefully without the Bill of Rights and decline of monarchial power that camer with it
 
Hmm this is true, though hopefully without the Bill of Rights and decline of monarchial power that camer with it
I think it would come as well, after all, John Locke was defending the right of Parliament to remove the legitimate king and replace him because he broke the "Social Contract." Fact or not.
 
I think it would come as well, after all, John Locke was defending the right of Parliament to remove the legitimate king and replace him because he broke the "Social Contract." Fact or not.

This is very true, one of the reasons I'm hesitant for there to be a Parliamentary led Glorious Revolution, Charles doing something on his own initiative has the capability to maintain the status quo minus James
 
This is very true, one of the reasons I'm hesitant for there to be a Parliamentary led Glorious Revolution, Charles doing something on his own initiative has the capability to maintain the status quo minus James
The trick is how or where do you find the "legitimacy" in all this. Son or no son, it would be an act of treason. Even the most loyal who switched sides, "The Duke of Marlborough" for example, might not switch sides if it were not for using Parliament as their excuse to ease their conscience.
 
The trick is how or where do you find the "legitimacy" in all this. Son or no son, it would be an act of treason. Even the most loyal who switched sides, "The Duke of Marlborough" for example, might not switch sides if it were not for using Parliament as their excuse to ease their conscience.

Hmm this is very true, if James were to try and pervert the succession, some might consider that justifiable.

Of course, if James goes off the deep end with his Catholicism, they could plead with Charles to do something, as the restoration settlement recognised the Church of England, not rome as England's church. And Charles being the heir to that legacy could want to defend it.
 
Hmm this is very true, if James were to try and pervert the succession, some might consider that justifiable.

Of course, if James goes off the deep end with his Catholicism, they could plead with Charles to do something, as the restoration settlement recognised the Church of England, not rome as England's church. And Charles being the heir to that legacy could want to defend it.
Unfortunately for your scenario, that is exactly what happened in the eyes of the Parliament which led to the "Glorious Revolution". James II did go off in their eyes, "the deep end" with his Catholicism and they offered the throne to the next legitimate heir. (Real Time line Mary was first in line after James II son (Old Pretender) and her husband William of Orange who was actually third in line after Mary and Anne. (In your time line you are referring to Charles the Duke of Cambridge.),
 
Unfortunately for your scenario, that is exactly what happened in the eyes of the Parliament which led to the "Glorious Revolution". James II did go off in their eyes, "the deep end" with his Catholicism and they offered the throne to the next legitimate heir. (Real Time line Mary was first in line after James II son (Old Pretender) and her husband William of Orange who was actually third in line after Mary and Anne. (In your time line you are referring to Charles the Duke of Cambridge.),

This is true.

I do think that if Charles and his family were around and healthy and anglican, then someone somewhere would likely be planning to bump James off, to pave the way for Charles III. Minus the Glorious Revolution.
 
This is true.

I do think that if Charles and his family were around and healthy and anglican, then someone somewhere would likely be planning to bump James off, to pave the way for Charles III. Minus the Glorious Revolution.
You might be right. Let's see how this all pans out.
 
You might be right. Let's see how this all pans out.

Aye, this is true. Hmm, I do wonder if this exact scenario would play out with other sons of James II and Anne Hyde also.

Charles would be 25 when his father ascends the throne, and 28 in 1688, he'd have his own power base I think, or his own supporters at least, I definitely think there'd be people plotting to see him on the throne without civil war. And I can see James being slightly paranoid about that.

Would James II consider remarrying if he has say three sons surviving from his marriage with Anne?
 
Aye, this is true. Hmm, I do wonder if this exact scenario would play out with other sons of James II and Anne Hyde also.

Charles would be 25 when his father ascends the throne, and 28 in 1688, he'd have his own power base I think, or his own supporters at least, I definitely think there'd be people plotting to see him on the throne without civil war. And I can see James being slightly paranoid about that.

Would James II consider remarrying if he has say three sons surviving from his marriage with Anne?
I doubt it. And even if he did, any son from that marriage would fall in line of succession behind the sons from his first marriage.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. And even if he did, any son from that marriage would fall in one of succession behind the sons from his first marriage.

I suppose he'd only remarry to provide a Mother for his children, if Anne still dies of cancer.

So, I suppose then he'd rule without a Queen, or with a Queen, but if he goes Catholic he'd not necessairily need someone there to push him into the extremes of otl
 
I suppose he'd only remarry to provide a Mother for his children, if Anne still dies of cancer.

So, I suppose then he'd rule without a Queen, or with a Queen, but if he goes Catholic he'd not necessairily need someone there to push him into the extremes of otl
Or he'd re-marry for purposes of an alliance. But if he had living sons, including two daughters, there would be no purpose for a dynastic marriage to produce more heirs.
 
Or he'd re-marry for purposes of an alliance. But if he had living sons, including two daughters, there would be no purpose for a dynastic marriage to produce more heirs.

This is true, which makes me wonder, who would he marry? Mary of Modena is out, as she only married him to continue a Catholic dynasty.

Still hovering over the marriage for Charlie: Marie Louise, a Portuguese girl, or Sophia Charlotte or Marie Amalie of Brandenburg
 
This is true, which makes me wonder, who would he marry? Mary of Modena is out, as she only married him to continue a Catholic dynasty.

Still hovering over the marriage for Charlie: Marie Louise, a Portuguese girl, or Sophia Charlotte or Marie Amalie of Brandenburg
At the time of his succession, an alliance to thwart the interests of who? France he was in a seesaw relationship with his cousin, Louis XIV who harbored him during his exile, but they have rivalry in the now new world and India. Austria? Do they have any real issues with England? Netherlands? Isn't that why his daughter was married off to his nephew William? Any marriage other than the one he had with Mary of Modena in real time would be considered a threat to one of those countries. I think any remarriage is like you said, for the purpose of giving a mother to his now motherless children.
 
At the time of his succession, an alliance to thwart the interests of who? France he was in a seesaw relationship with his cousin, Louis XIV who harbored him during his exile, Austria? Do they have any real issues with Britain? Netherlands? Isn't that why his daughter was married off to his nephew William? Any marriage other than the one he had with Mary of Modena in real time would be considered a threat to one of those countries. I think any remarriage is like you said, for the purpose of giving a mother to his now motherless children.

This is very true, and of course Mary's not mgoing to marry him as she doesn't have the chance of giving birth to a Catholic heir. So, one thinks he'd go for a Catholic bridge, whose from the minor ends? Unless one wants Anne Hyde to survive. James II could marry Elizabeth Charlotte, who was Philippe Duke of Orleans second wife otl
 
So what do people think. Should James and Anne remain married, with Anne becoming queen in 1685, or should Anne still die and James marry elsewhere?
 
Given that James stole Anne Hyde from Henry Jermyn, it would be a little amusing should James then end up marrying Judith Poley whom Jermyn ended up marrying IOTL.

IOTL, Jermyn and Judith failed to have any children so Jermyn failing to marry or dying earlier and a widowed Judith marrying James wouldn't interfere with the timeline significantly outside of the monarchy.

Plus, Jermyn was Catholic so it's possible that Judith was (I can't find a reference) so she's going to tick that box on James' checklist.
 
Top