Descendants of James I

Williams children were automatically denizens, being born to the King and Queen of England. After all, if the King himself is not a denizen, who is ? Certainly those born after 1688, somewhat doubtful if before , mainly because there had never been a precedent.

This was different for Sophie of course, she had no English connection after Elizabeth of Bohemia, hence the need for a Naturalisation Act.

Certainly be the recognised canons of descent, a lawful child of William and Mary , being Protestant , was an indubitable heir to the throne (assuming we exclude the children of Mary of Modena. That's a whole other argument) . A lawful child by Mary , fathered by someone other than William (not possible as history worked out, of course) , ditto. Absent any child of Mary or Ann, then a lawful Protestant child by William by any other mother would be heir , by right of Williams claim through his own mother, Charles II's sister (also Mary. Very confusing) .
 
I've also wondered if Elizabeth of Bohemia had become queen of England--it would have been easy to do if OTL's Charles I had died before becoming king, which I asked about in my Second Elizabeth thread (insert shameless plug here).
 
@ Jedediah, I agree with your reasoning, and the Stuarts had set a bad precedent when they ignored the Seymours' claims to the throne when Queen Elizabeth I died. When Queen Anne died several Jacobites in council wanted to proclaim James III as king, why couldn't the same happen when William dies.

Possible scenario:
William's son - William George - is acting as regent in the Netherlands for his father. He hears of his father's death. Waits for a wind to take him over the Channel.
Couple of English ministers get together shortly before William dies, decide they would rather have Anne as queen than William George. Declare Anne as queen in a fashion similar to Lady Jane Grey, but unlike her, Anne has the support of the people due to the fact she is English, secondly English and Dutch interests abroad are frictive (there were problems with that during the whole reign of William III), and are viewed as "Dutch" versus "English/Scots/Irish" rather than "Anglo-Dutch" versus the enemy, and thirdly, because one of Anne's biggest friends is Milord Churchill, who with his brother, controls the British army and navy.
William George arrives in London, but is uninterested in a civil war, therefore, parliament agrees to pay him a large annuity if he'll just turn around and go back to eating cheese. He's a ghost of the warrior his father was - not unheard of for warrior kings to be have less than warrior offspring (Edward II, William II, Henry VI). So, he and Anne reach an agreement a so-called Pacte de Famille, that should Anne's descendents die out, his descendants take precedence over the issue of James III.

Or, a la Johan Friso of Nassau-Dietz, William George is drowned at sea on his way to being crowned, leaving a wife and (insert number here) children. England doesnt want a regency (since they're generally unstable in English history (Edward II, Henry V, Edward V, Edward VI) so they turn to the matronly Anne as rightful successor, while the Dutch republic enters a second stadtholderless period. The dowager Princess of Orange agrees to waive her son's rights to the English throne in exchange for a sizeable pension from Anne. But, his rights are still there just subservient to Anne's line, but still superior to the Jacobite.
A little rough but it was just how I thought of it playing out.
 
The man (or woman) on the spot has great advantages in any contested succession. Ann was popular . And English. Her problem would be that she would fall between two camps - neither Jacobite, nor Whig. OTOH, that could be an advantage too. Like at the death of Edw VI , the political situation was so muddled and mixed up , that almost nothing was impossible. It all depended on personalities, bribes, wind, goodness knows what else.

One of the main advantages Will III had, which made England willing to tolerate him, was that he was _ competent_. That counted for much. A hypothetical son might not be so . Which might make a difference. It would also make a _big_ difference whether the hypothetical prince was of age of not. "Woe to the land whose prince is a child " . If *William George was a child he would (being an orphan) likely be seized by the Dutch (almost a sort of family tradition in the house of Orange). That would severely limit his attractiveness to the English. Mary was only 32 when she died of small pox in 1694, quite young enough to bear a child. If she died in childbirth instead, the child would be only six years old in 1700 ?

Having William III die a little earlier, before 1701, (say 1700) and the outbreak of war, but after the Peace of Rhyswick, would help too. England would not see the same need for friendly relations with the Dutch in time of peace.

EDIT : Legally speaking, William George's rights could never be superior to those of James II and VII, or his lawful successors. Nor could Anne's. The reigns of William, Mary , and Anne (not to speak of all the Georges until George IV) were a matter of might, not right.

EDITY EDITY-EDIT: Depending on what you wanted to do , there is another option. After Mary's death William III remarries (doesn't much matter who). That child (*William George) has a good (very good) claim to the throne as the great-grandson of Charles I (through William's mother). Assuming that we pass silently over James (father and son. ). But *William George is behind Anne in the succession list.

So when William III dies, Anne will succeed as OTL. But when Anne dies, it's another matter. The next, non-Papist heir is *William George. Sophie of Hanover is only descended from James I . A descendant of Charles I trumps her. And the young man would be at least in his late teens. Possibly Stadtholder (not for sure, that though) .

Pity Monmouth didn't escape after Sedgemoor. That could make for interesting times also. A bastard, to be sure (unless someone can come up with those mysterious casket letters). But bastardy has been overlooked before now. Monmouth himself might be too old by 1714 , but a son or grandson ?
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, how would a survival of Philippe-Charles, Duc de Valois, only son of Monsieur and Minette, the beloved sister of Charles II of England, affect both the French and the English courts? Would Monsieur still marry Liselotte? Or would Louis XIV view Valois as security enough for the succession (if he’s healthy)?

And Valois’ survival would be interesting to Europe, since both his uncles were strong players on the political scene. He would’ve been around marriageable age shortly before Charles II died, and there had been plans to marry Mary of York (Mary II) to the French Dauphin. Maybe Mary weds Valois (though unlikely) and Liselotte marries William III like she wanted, or she could end as duchess-consort of Courland as was also proposed.

also as far as Mary II dying in childbed is concerned - it would be then in 1679-1681 since there is no mention of her being with child after '81. Likewise, it is disputed by historians if the pregnancy mentioned in '79 is the same as the miscarriage she reportedly had in '80. So given the time, she mightve had a problematic miscarriage/stillbirth rendering her infertile - just a thought
 
Last edited:
I think that Mary marrying the Duc de Valois is as unlikely as her marrying the Dauphin. As long as James II can't father a surviving son, the spectre of the fires of the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic bogeyman is likely to loom large.

That said, Mary was also married by Charles II, not James. Charles pushed William III forward because he was Protestant. Calvinist (which to the Anglican church must've seemed like the wrong type of Protestant) but Protestant nonetheless. James was the one advocating the Dauphin/French prince.

And also, that would lead to a triple headache for Louis XIV. His one grandson possible king of France, another possible king of England, and they would definitely not want a third to be king of Spain in that case.

Also, by following this course, Anne would end up as the leader of the Glorious Revolution (if it still takes place). And considering that Anne was rather superstitious (she attributed her inability to produce an heir to their betrayal of their father), I doubt very much she'll be inviting William over for a friendly invasion any time soon.

Most likely, Parliament will insist that James III when he's born (if he lives), is raised Anglican. A deal with the church is unlikely, since that was rejected OTL by both James II and III. Or by bringing in an earlier Act of Settlement, declare the succession legitimate in the line of Anne's body. And the POD would be early enough that Gloucester or more of her children survive to adulthood and produce issue of their own.
 
Another interesting question would certainly be what of the poor Elizabeth Stuart (Charles I's daughter)?

The girl was tossed on the waves of marital plans like a cork in a storm. First Marie de Medici wanted her to marry Willem II of Oranje (Charles I supported this idea, since he did not think the house of Nassau merited the eldest daughter of a king, and he planned to marry Mary to Baltasar Carlos of Spain). When Frederik Hendrik of Oranje pushed for Mary instead, Elizabeth was quietly forgotten.

In 1646 she was promised in a proposed marriage to Lord Herbert (later 1st Duke of Beaufort). Surely Henriette Marie would've objected to this? Given how negatively she viewed James II's marriage to Anne Hyde.

Might there be a better match for Elizabeth out there?
 
Another interesting question would certainly be what of the poor Elizabeth Stuart (Charles I's daughter)?

The girl was tossed on the waves of marital plans like a cork in a storm. First Marie de Medici wanted her to marry Willem II of Oranje (Charles I supported this idea, since he did not think the house of Nassau merited the eldest daughter of a king, and he planned to marry Mary to Baltasar Carlos of Spain). When Frederik Hendrik of Oranje pushed for Mary instead, Elizabeth was quietly forgotten.

In 1646 she was promised in a proposed marriage to Lord Herbert (later 1st Duke of Beaufort). Surely Henriette Marie would've objected to this? Given how negatively she viewed James II's marriage to Anne Hyde.

Might there be a better match for Elizabeth out there?

I think it depends. If Elizabeth can make a marriage that will help the Royalist cause, then she'll marry in exile. If not, the like the rest of the Stuarts, she'll wait until the Restoration. Elizabeth would be about 25 at that point, a bit old, but not to bad. So maybe a German, Italian or Portuguese match.
 
Might Eliza marry one of the proposed marriages for her younger sister Minette? i.e. the duke of Savoy, the grand duke of Tuscany or even the HRE Leopold I?
 
If the situation will be like OTL shortly before her death, she'll be strongly against any marriage with major Catholic ruler, especially with known Waldense-killer like Duke of Savoy. She was a distinctly low-church Protestant.
 
If the situation will be like OTL shortly before her death, she'll be strongly against any marriage with major Catholic ruler, especially with known Waldense-killer like Duke of Savoy. She was a distinctly low-church Protestant.

So she would be like her brother, Henry, then? Since while in exile their mother broke her head trying to get him to convert to Catholicism.
 
So she would be like her brother, Henry, then? Since while in exile their mother broke her head trying to get him to convert to Catholicism.

Probably. Maybe Elizabeth could marry a German or Scandinavian ruler. IDK who was single, but a marriage for a daughter and sister of a King would have to be of sufficient rank. So a relative of the Kings of Denmark and Sweden, or perhaps a Prince Elector or an Electoral heir.
 
Probably. Maybe Elizabeth could marry a German or Scandinavian ruler. IDK who was single, but a marriage for a daughter and sister of a King would have to be of sufficient rank. So a relative of the Kings of Denmark and Sweden, or perhaps a Prince Elector or an Electoral heir.

What about OTL George I's father? She's a touch young to catch any of her Palatine cousins - though maybe Rupert at a pinch. Also not sure how safe Carl X of Sweden would feel about this though she is a year older than his OTL wife. denmark has no prince available, same for Holland.

Although, that might turn into a statistical headache for London - being that involved in Scandinavian politics. Likewise Saxony's elector and electoral prince are too old and too young. Brandenburg is out because he's already married and Bavaria's Catholic.
 
Last edited:
I had a TL project (actually, I have, on Russian board), where I had surviving Princess Elisabeth marry Maurice, Rupert's younger brother who did not die in shipwreck in TTL (about 10 years difference between them).
 
Here's a POD I thought of: what if James II dies either shortly before or shortly after the birth of his son James Edward Francis? Let's just say that the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay is still born on June 10th, and James II dies a few days thereafter - could be from an accident he had earlier in the year, could be from smallpox, could even be from poisoning, could be from anything, all in all, he's dead. So, Britain (correction, England, Scotland and Ireland) has an infant heir with a Catholic mother, but with princess Mary as first in line and heiress presumptive to her half-brother. Now, I don't know how that exactly worked at the time, but if Parliament could get princess Mary as first in line to become regent, rather than Mary of Modena, we could have a protestant government in Britain (with mostly the same course as OTL, as William III is likely to try to influence his wife) and a King that can be raised as a Protestant, without the Glorious Revolution. However, he is still the same person he was IOTL, so who knows what he might eventually turn out to be when he's old enough to assume the reins of power himself...
 
Here's a POD I thought of: what if James II dies either shortly before or shortly after the birth of his son James Edward Francis? Let's just say that the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay is still born on June 10th, and James II dies a few days thereafter - could be from an accident he had earlier in the year, could be from smallpox, could even be from poisoning, could be from anything, all in all, he's dead. So, Britain (correction, England, Scotland and Ireland) has an infant heir with a Catholic mother, but with princess Mary as first in line and heiress presumptive to her half-brother. Now, I don't know how that exactly worked at the time, but if Parliament could get princess Mary as first in line to become regent, rather than Mary of Modena, we could have a protestant government in Britain (with mostly the same course as OTL, as William III is likely to try to influence his wife) and a King that can be raised as a Protestant, without the Glorious Revolution. However, he is still the same person he was IOTL, so who knows what he might eventually turn out to be when he's old enough to assume the reins of power himself...
That's an intriguing suggestion.
 
Having the regent for a child king be that child's heir apparent would have been deprecated. Folk still remembered Richard III.

It might have stood a better chance if the child was posthumous . James dies before the birth. No one would know if the child would be male or female. If it turned out to be a girl, then Mary would succeed. So a greater likelihood of her making good a claim to regency.

By the strict tenet of the law, in such a case, Mary would succeed on James's death but be required to give up the throne if the child were a boy. That was how it worked for lesser fees. But in the case of the crown Parliament i almost certainly going to want to amend that .
 
Probably. Maybe Elizabeth could marry a German or Scandinavian ruler. IDK who was single, but a marriage for a daughter and sister of a King would have to be of sufficient rank. So a relative of the Kings of Denmark and Sweden, or perhaps a Prince Elector or an Electoral heir.

What about Charles I and Marie de Medicis' original plan? Marry Eliza to William II and Mary (who never fit in/liked the Dutch court much can marry elsewhere.
 
Actually that POD - James II early death leaving an infant heir male - is a really interesting one - though I think a lot are going to favour the half sister living in England as regent over the half sister who is married to a foreign ruler and absent from the realm.

Actually despite the Richard III example (and there is no evidence that he was left control of the boy king and the government - he merely took control) - almost all Britain's regency acts since the early 19th century - have either left the regency to the child's mother or to the next adult heir of line - so the choice will be down to Parliament and I think they would opt for Anne in preference to the Queen Dowager or her absent half sister Mary. Guaranteeing an Anglican upbringing for the new King of course. The issue will be who is granted guardianship of the King where the Royal family will have a fight - should he be placed under the control of his Italian Catholic mother or his English Anglican half sister.
 
Top