Glorious Revolution with a female Old Pretender

Much of the popular literature postulates that birth of James Francis Edward (the Old Pretender) was a major factor in touching off the Glorious Revolution. However, popular literature also shows that William and his faction in England were plotting the revolution well before the birth of James.

Does this indicate the invasion was going to happen whether the child was a boy or a girl? William wanted an invitation before attempting to usurp power. That invite didn't happen til after the birth. The male heir made it easy to take the plunge.

What if the offspring was a girl? Does the invitation still happen? I'm thinking yes, as opposition to King James was fierce. But what if it doesn't (the Immortal Seven chicken out) or is delayed by months/years? Does William launch his invasion anyhow? The support is still there, just minus the letter.

Does another female heir sap some of the support for the invasion? Enough to make things really messy, or reverse the outcome?
 
Much of the popular literature postulates that birth of James Francis Edward (the Old Pretender) was a major factor in touching off the Glorious Revolution. However, popular literature also shows that William and his faction in England were plotting the revolution well before the birth of James.

Does this indicate the invasion was going to happen whether the child was a boy or a girl? William wanted an invitation before attempting to usurp power. That invite didn't happen til after the birth. The male heir made it easy to take the plunge.

What if the offspring was a girl? Does the invitation still happen? I'm thinking yes, as opposition to King James was fierce. But what if it doesn't (the Immortal Seven chicken out) or is delayed by months/years? Does William launch his invasion anyhow? The support is still there, just minus the letter.

Does another female heir sap some of the support for the invasion? Enough to make things really messy, or reverse the outcome?
Without a male baby, Mary and Anne are James' first and second heirs, ensuring a Protestant succession. The birth of his Catholic son James threatened on-going Catholic succession, which was enough to get the Glorious Revolution moving.

If James' new child is a girl ("Catherine")...

The crisis is postponed. However, if Mary and Anne have no children as OTL, "Catherine" would succeed to the throne circa 1715. And she would be a Catholic, probably married to a Catholic with Catholic children by that time.

Or maybe not. OTL, James died in 1701, aged 68. The crowns would pass to Anne. (OTL William reigned until 1703, but absent the GR he would not get in, Mary having died in 1694.) "Catherine" would be a child of 13. Anne was a vehement Protestant. OTL she credited the story that baby James was a spurious "warming-pan baby". There might be similar rumors about "Catherine". But as a girl she would be less of a threat, and it would be much less plausible that a girl was faked, as it would not aid the Catholic cause. So there might be no such rumors, and Anne would accept Catherine as her sister. However, once James II is gone, Anne would try to Protestantize her. If that failed (say if James had sent her abroad), Anne and Parliament might pass a Succession Act excluding her from the crown.
 
Hmm, no pan baby and GR could really change things up.
There's less fear of Catholic reinstatement so it forestalls some anticatholic policy.
William's rule depends on his wife so probably parliament sticks to their guns at only co-rule. Which means Anne gets in sooner and George might be allowed co-rule. Probably to stick it to William who might kick off another Anglo Dutch War over it. He'll certainly remarry to provide an heir which would have interesting repercussions depending on Catherine, her faith, and betrothal.
 
Again, though, the GR was in motion BEFORE the birth. A usurping faction was getting mighty impatient to get James II off the throne. A male birth didn't get the ball rolling. Just made it easy to make the leap into action.
 
Top