DBWI: William and Mary had no children

as we all know Queen Marry II and King William III had 3 children (1 boy and 2 girls) their line started the Personal Union between the Holland and the UBK (United Britannic Kingdoms) so what if they hadn't had any children? or what if King William IV died before his mother and father thus leaving the Britannic thrones to a woman (his sister Princess Anne, queen-consort of Denmark and Norway) thus braking the Personal Union?
 
It's curious whether France would be better off under this scenario. On the one hand, Britain would be weaker. On the other, they'd have better relations with Austria.

This is probably a France-wank.
 
France likely would be stronger, perhaps it could even achieve the hedgemony over Europe that the Habsburgs reestablished after the War of Spanish Succession, rather then being basically carved up first by Holland-Britain and then by the Habsburgs. If Holland-Britain and France hadn't constantly been at eachother's throats, it might not have been as easy, or even possible for Maria-Theresa I of Spain, and Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor to have basically reorganized Europe to their liking. We probably never would see the restoration of Burgundy or German Unification.

I do have one question though, if W & M hadn't had children isn't there the possbility that a similar scenario would happen after Anne, just with Britain and Hannover, rather then Hannover being absorbed by Germany?
 
I wouldn't call the Hapsburg power "hegemony"- the German states in the north (if sans Hannover) still opposed them.

As for Anne, I don't really think so. Where did you get that idea from?

OOC: That only happened because Anne's direct heir was Catholic.
 
I wouldn't call the Hapsburg power "hegemony"- the German states in the north (if sans Hannover) still opposed them.

As for Anne, I don't really think so. Where did you get that idea from?

OOC: That only happened because Anne's direct heir was Catholic.
A Habsburg sat/sits on the Spanish, German/HRE, Burgundian, Neapolitan, Hungarian, and Byzantine Throne (oh yea I'm butterflying it out that far), and the Papal States, Poland, and Saxony were little more then Puppets, I call that a hegemony. Really only Brandenburg-Prussia and and a handful of minor German States were able to oppose Imperial Authority, backed by the Austrian Military.

As for Anne, she was the only Protestant Stuart other then Mary, and I can't imagine the English would want to risk another Catholic on the Throne, so I assumed it would pass to the descendents of the Sophia of Hannover
 
OOC: Wank-war...

But the trouble was that they couldn't keep them all at the same time-
and they were opposed by the Franco-Anglo/Dutch-Swedish-Denmark/Norwiegian-Russian-Ottoman-Milanese-Venetian-Savoyard-German states-Morroco alliance. The loss of the Austrian Netherlands was probably inevitable, and keeping both Bavaria and Swabia in line impossible.

When you think about it, the Hapsburgs getting where they were is rather ASB. Even with the Anglo/Dutch in civil war, how the hell did they win the Great Ottoman War? They were up against the French and Ottoman Empire, and managed to reach Constantinople?

And why the hell didn't Empress Elizabeth grab it when she had the chance? Russia wasn't in civil war, the British were practically begging her to do it, and the country wasn't weak or anything.

Anyway, the British had already accepted Anne on the throne. Why not Mary?
 
Top