Charles II and the Duke of York die during the Great Fire of London

WI both the king Charles II and his brother James had died during the Great Fire of London, while they were directing the fire-fighting efforts?

James had, at that time, four living children, but IOTL only Mary and Anne survived. Could his sons have lived now, under different circunstances? And assuming that they still die as IOTL, and Mary becomes the heir, who would be the regent? Would she still be married to William III?

Also, England was in the middle of the Second Anglo-Dutch War. Would it lead to an earlier peace?
 
Before the purists step in and scream "of course there's a possibility that the princes' lives will be different and they would survive"...

Lessee...1666..The fire is worse and reaches Whitehall...

Long minority and regency, no matter where we go on this...

List of Monarchs (assuming everybody dies on schedule)
Charles II: 1660-September 4, 1666
James II: September 4, 1666-September 5, 1666 (Oh lets be nice and say he dies a day later of complications.)
James III: September 5, 1666 - June 20, 1667
Mary II: June 20, 1667- (with regency going to about 1680 or so, although maybe joint rulership is invested in William earlier)

I'd say you get the marriage at about the same time as OTL, given Mary's age.

I don't think the war would end any faster but you might get a better set of treaties without Charles II's bad-faith negotiations. The Treaty of Breda was signed at about this time in OTL, so it might be done a bit earlier. I doubt the Franco-Dutch alliance would hold much longer than OTL but I can't see the third Anglo-Dutch war coming off in this TL, without Charles II signing the Treaty of Dover. Would Loius XIV still invade if there was an Anglo-Dutch alliance from about 1668 or so?

The marriage may be proposed at that time or maybe a bit later (around the time the *Triple Alliance was negotiated)...maybe by anti-Orangists to get him out of the Netherlands altogether. Although if Louis does invade, then I can see the trajectory of events making William the Stadholder ITTL by the time the marriage is celebrated.

William is still third in line so the dynastic reasons for the marriage still stand, and they might come to the fore a bit earlier. The stuarts have taken som pretty had dynastic kncoks her, so the drive for heirs would be pretty strong. In OTL, it was Charles II who was against the marriage to William III, while Parliament favoured it over a French match, for all of the obvious reasons.



Just some thoughts...

David
 
Would Loius XIV still invade if there was an Anglo-Dutch alliance from about 1668 or so?

I think that Louis XIV would still go with his war, no matter if the English were Dutch allies or not. France was the greatest military power of that age, and Louis would not consider England a main threat to French power.

The marriage may be proposed at that time or maybe a bit later (around the time the *Triple Alliance was negotiated)...maybe by anti-Orangists to get him out of the Netherlands altogether. Although if Louis does invade, then I can see the trajectory of events making William the Stadholder ITTL by the time the marriage is celebrated.

William is still third in line so the dynastic reasons for the marriage still stand, and they might come to the fore a bit earlier. The stuarts have taken som pretty had dynastic kncoks her, so the drive for heirs would be pretty strong. In OTL, it was Charles II who was against the marriage to William III, while Parliament favoured it over a French match, for all of the obvious reasons.

So the young Queen Mary II is still married ITTL to William (without a Glorious Revolution, would he be also king or just the consort?). With the same marriage, they might have no children, as IOTL. Then Anne takes the throne again. I'm not sure if her impossibility of having surviving children ITTL had to do with her gens of her husband's. With a different marriage, could she have an heir?
And, assuming Anne can't have children as IOTL, would the descendents of Henrietta Anne still be excluded from the succession? Of course, the Parliament wouldn't like the idea of a Catholic king/queen, but without the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement (all them butterflied by now) there would be any legal precedent avoiding this to happen?
 
Plague or a smallpox outbreak would probably be good.

I was thinking about the politics of all of the a bit...and have more questions than answers at this point.

No Glorious Revolution seems clear enough with twenty five years of butterflies to swarm...

The Monarchy is probably on a sound enough footing, with memories of the Republic and the settlements that Charles II brokered in the first few years of his reign. Does this mean that England is doomed to absolutism?

You're going to have a fairly long period of Parliamentary supremacy during the regency (maybe as long as fifteen years) followed by the first Queen regnant since 1603. In OTL, Mary was one of the drivers for a joint crown with William, so she may have similar leanings here.

These would seem to be fertile ground for a swing in the balance of Crown and Parliament

  • How will the Tory/Whig (Country/Court) thing play out here in tha absence of James II as a polarising figure?
  • Will you have the financial revolutions of the OTL 1690s earlier if William is present in England from the early 1680s?
  • How absolutist was William in the Netherlands?
  • Given the very contingent natures of both of their deaths, William and mary could be around for a long time, maybe into the 1720s. How will that effect the wars of Louis XIV?
  • Could you see the early devlopment of a Prime Minister figure?
  • How will the crown (William) deal with the analogues of the Virginia rebellion and King Philips war?
  • Is an earlier, more active policy of removing French footholds in the America's possible?
Too many bloody questions,

David
 
The Monarchy is probably on a sound enough footing, with memories of the Republic and the settlements that Charles II brokered in the first few years of his reign. Does this mean that England is doomed to absolutism?

Not sure. After so many years of the Parliament taking the government, if William tries to be an absolute ruler probably there would exist some people trying to remember him that he was "only" a foreign husband of the a queen uninterested in politics. I don't know how likely is it, but surely would be funny the Parliament revolting against the "absolutist" William III.

However, I'm still not sure if William would be made Mary's husband. Probably the Parliament would not want to entangle England with the continental disputes. They might prefer the second son of some German prince, or anyone who wouldn't cause problems with France or other great potence.

What would be the role of Anne Hyde in this situation? Could she be declared regent of the children? Or even their aunt Henrietta, married to the Duke of Orleans, could have any role? It would be funny if Louis XIV had sent his brother and sister-in-law to England, in order to "take care" of the children...:D
 
Top