Interesting English POD: the future James II is killed in battle in 1665

Thande

Donor
From Wikipedia (Battle of Lowestoft)

The Dutch flagship Eendracht duelled Royal Charles. James was nearly killed by a Dutch chain-shot decapitating several of his courtiers, among them a certain Lord Falmouth who was not very high thought of, prompting the "poet of state affairs" (probably Andrew Marvell using the name of John Denham) to later declare: "His shatterd' head the fearless duke disdains, and gave the last first proof that he had brains".

So what if the Duke of York dies a war hero and never stands to inherit the throne?

Both his daughters are alive (albeit only a few years old at this point) so presumably Mary will succeed Charles II at a young age with a regent. Either way, we avoid the problem of Catholic inheritance and the ensuing Glorious Revolution.

What happens in this England (and Scotland, and Ireland)?
 
Hmmm... IOTL Chuck married Mary off to William as a way to balance the crazy Catholicism of her father - is it possible that, without him, she'll get married to someone less crazily Protestant than Will?

...And... Monmouth? :eek:
 

Thande

Donor
Hmmm... IOTL Chuck married Mary off to William as a way to balance the crazy Catholicism of her father - is it possible that, without him, she'll get married to someone less crazily Protestant than Will?

...And... Monmouth? :eek:

Good point bringing up Monmouth. He might end up as Mary's regent.
 
Both his daughters are alive (albeit only a few years old at this point) so presumably Mary will succeed Charles II at a young age with a regent. Either way, we avoid the problem of Catholic inheritance and the ensuing Glorious Revolution.

Well, Mary would not succeed Charles at a young age. She was born in 1662, and Charles died only in 1685, so she would be 23-years-old when she becomes Mary II of England and Scotland (unles butterflies kill Charles early, of course).

I think her husband would still surely be Protestant, but as Charles II was influenced by Louis XIV probably would be the son of some ruler allied to France or at least pro-French. Also, I can't see Charles making a union that would entangle England into continental affairs, as was the marriage of Mary and William of Orange, the ruler of a country. So the king would probably try to find to his niece a husband that would be the second or third son of a Protestant state with no issues against France. Which Protestant nobles could fit the role?
 
Ironically, to me the best candidate is OTL Anne's husband, Prince George of Denmark, later Duke of Cumberland.
 
I find this idea of James, Duke of York, dying in battle intriguing namely because he would be remembered fondly as fighting for his country and in the future better than his brother who didn't produce an heir but a lot of bastards.

However as to whom his daughters would marry several things already have made do some research into the subject.

The OTL marriages of Mary II/William III and Anne/George resulted in 20 pregnancies between them with only one child, William of Glouster, surviving past infancy. So would switching marriage partners to Mary II/George and Anne/William III do anything?

I'm not an expert in genetics, fertility, and etc after thinking about it, I've come up with a few things to consider:

1) Being first cousins and thus genetically close might have resulted in miscarriages for Mary II & William III. I know other first cousin marriages (or other close relationship marriages i.e. the Habsburgs) were 'fruitful' however just because others were doesn't mean that this marriage would be necessarily like those. The Habsburg genes might have been better to result in successful pregnancies between two relatives than those of Stuart descendants.

2) The marriage of Anne and George resulted in 17 pregnancies but in only six live births of which only the aforementioned William lived past infancy. Of the 11 'unsuccessful' pregnancies, 7 resulted in stillbirths. Most of the living children were sickly and William suffered from hydrocephalus (it was a miracle he lived as long as he did). While considering the medical knowledge and other factors of living in the late 17 century, I think Anne and George might have been able conceive and bring to term but maybe surviving might have been a problem. That problem happens today with couples even with our medical knowledge. (I have friends who unfortunately have this problem)

3) One cannot discount that while they were sisters that Mary and Anne could have been exact opposites in some genetic factors when it came to pregnancies. However the fact that Mary did conceive 3 times rules out infertility. Switching partners might have proven to be better genetic matches.

If Mary II and Prince George (Jorgen) of Denmark had been married in a timeline in which the future James II dies in 1665 then while no one can be certain, I think it would have started the House of Oldenburg in British history. While Charles II might have made the match with the insistance of Louis XIV, the fact that George was a strict Protestant (Lutheran) and was adverse to becoming King of Poland when Louis XIV threw his name into the hat because he didn't want to convert would have been satisfying to the Anglicans. Being the third son in the Danish Royal Family would have avoid continential affairs because of the deaths that would have to happen to result in he or his descendants succeeding to the Crown.

Would a match between Anne and William III of Orange resulted in the continuation of the House of Orange? Possibility, they would have been first cousins like Mary & William, but considering how many pregnancies she had with George it might be that Anne & William would have issue.

So how would this all come about? I think in between 1677 (the year she married William in OTL) and 1680 (when she turns 18), Charles II starts looking for a husband for HH The Lady Mary (of York) who would be acceptable to the English and Scots as Prince Consort since she will likely succeed him as Queen. Being friendly with Louis XIV and somewhat under this thumb, Charles II knows that a Catholic as Prince Consort and/or Regent to any underage successor to Mary wouldn't be tolerated but any Protestant his friend Louis XIV wouldn't have a problem might be nice. Louis XIV suggests Prince Jorgen (George) of Denmark who had been his candidate for the Throne of Poland in 1674 BUT had been adverse to the idea of converting to Catholicism (a Kingdom wasn't worth a Mass in his case). While Charles can't stand George after meeting him, the English and Scottish nobility while liking Charles' nephew William III of Orange (who is somewhat campaigning for the throne) have no problem with the strict Lutheran Danish prince even though it is unofficially known that Louis XIV prefers him.

The marriage doesn't happen until after Mary turns 18 (or when her majority is, I've read that for females it was 16 or 18 during this time) in 1680 because of George being 9 years older, Charles II doesn't want her husband to control her during any 'Regency'. However if she had successed while under 18 but so close to her majority she could have proclaimed her majority with no challenge. In any case I'll say the marriage was in the summer of 1680 with the newly minted HRH Duke of Cumberland marrying HH The Lady Mary (of York).

Probably to satisfy his nephew and appease some of the ultra-Protestants in England and Scotland, Charles marries HH The Lady Anne to HRH William III of Orange in 1663. William III from a political standpoint not happy marrying the 2nd-in-line to the throne, is given a concession: If Mary dies without issue or her line fails the line of succession would be 1-William and Anne reigning jointly, 2-William (if Anne has died), 3-Any children of Anne and William, even though via their mother they would technically be ahead of their father (this prevents William from being the political joke of Europe for being just a reigning Prince while his son or daughter is a King or Queen), and 4-Any legitimate children of William if he remarries.

However much William might secretly pray for his sister-in-law/cousin not to conceive (ironically Louis XIV might publicly pray that she does), I think Mary & George have surviving issue thus resulting in England-Scotland/Great Britain being ruled by the House of Oldenburg. What does this do in reality?

1) The German practice of His/Her Royal Highness replaces the English practice of His/Her Highness almost 30 years before George I brings it with him from Hanover IOTL. (While he is not an enviable man, Prince George would want his children to have an equal title to their cousins in Denmark and Holland)

2) The names of James and Charles continue to be acceptable names for English-Scottish princes with the addition of George, Frederick, and Christian to the already established names used for princes.

3) No Glorious Revolution, which bring up the following questions:

1) What of the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights of 1689, which to name a few things resulted in barring Catholics from the throne and transfering some powers from the Sovereign to Parliament?

2) Will England and Scotland merge sooner, later, or around the same time as OTL without the question of if Scotland would let the exiled Jacobins rule them when Anne dies?

3) What are the effects of not having an English-Scottish/British ruler with territory on the continent from 1689 to the 1830s do for the political and ecomonic fortunes of England-Scotland/Great Britain as well the European geopolitical structure?

While there might be other questions those to me are the most important.

I'm going to continuing working this is interesting. I know there are somethings I didn't touch upon concerning the health of those involved(the theory that Anne passed haemolytic disease to her children resulting in low survival rate, or the theory that the weaken health of his children was the result of Prince George suffering from syphillis, or that after her last miscarriage Mary II was taken ill that apparently made her upable to conceive), but I didn't because there was no really substantial evidence to go on that I've found at this time. Also what of other Protestant princes? (No Swedes, some otherwise eligible German princes had been given duchies by their fathers) OR what if Charles II had looked for an English or Scottish Protestant noble to marry his neices to? (Though probably more of a political hornet's nest than finding a suitable foreign Protestant prince)

Opinions? Criticism?

I'm interested to hear

P.S.- Because I brought up being first cousins might have influenced Mary & William's unability to produce issue IOTL that might relate to any possibility of Anne & William producing any issue ITTL, I forgot to mention that in OTL Anne & George were second cousins once removed and I must acknowledge that even though they were related further apart it might have had an influence on the health of their children considering I have Mary & George marrying ITTL.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Interesting analysis, sir.

Particularly as it opens the door to an Anglo-Danish Union (albeit via a slightly different route) similar to that scene in Tony Jones' Gurkani Alam TL.
 
Thank you.

While a door to Union with Denmark is open, considering how many children Prince George's brother and nephew had in OTL, its a remote possibility. Also I'll admit that after reading Pursuit of Glory by Tom Blanning, I'm interested in looking at how Great Britain and Europe develops without the former holding territory on the later...but that's my little bias going into this discussion.
 
Thank you.

While a door to Union with Denmark is open, considering how many children Prince George's brother and nephew had in OTL, its a remote possibility.

I agree. George's issue would need a lot of luck to become the heirs of both England and Denmark.
 
What I am wondering, would this England with Mary as queen, but without Willem as king be as anti-France as OTL England was? Or would they still see the Netherlands as an important competitor to be beaten and France as a useful ally as under Charles II? Also would this marriage ensure a Danish ally in the wars England will fight.

Also for the Dutch situation continuing the main Orange Nassau line would be interesting. If Willem III has children there probably will be no second stadholderless age which could leas to some interesting changes.
 
Pompejus,

I'm not certain about Mary as ruler quiet yet, I'm still studying or thinking about that.

As for alliances (though I haven't quiet figured out Mary as sole ruler), I believe Mary wouldn't fight against her brother-in-law & sister which she would be doing if she continued the French alliance or saw the Dutch as competitors. Basically the marriage of Anne & Willem III by Charles II would change the pro-French, anti-Dutch foreign policy of England though not suddenly to a pro-Dutch, anti-French in the role of military warfare against Louis XIV and France.

As for a Danish alliance, it probably happen under specific circumstances for each nation. Like England and the Netherlands under this new arrangement, Prince George won't accept going to war against his family.

This is just preliminary answers. I'm still doing research, especially now that with no deposed James II for France to threaten to put back on the English throne what reason would England/Great Britain fight on the continent. And overall there are the implications of no Glorious Revolution and its consequences, which might have an affect on all of this.
 

Thande

Donor
What I am wondering, would this England with Mary as queen, but without Willem as king be as anti-France as OTL England was?

Probably not. Late Stuart England was somewhat aligned with France, that was one of the reasons why James II was so disliked in OTL.
 
Probably not. Late Stuart England was somewhat aligned with France, that was one of the reasons why James II was so disliked in OTL.

That is what I thought. I wonder if without England the French can be stopped. Surely the Dutch will try, with the help of anyone willing to help them, but I am not certain if that will be enough. A French southern Netherlands doesn't seem unlikely even if the English just ignore France. France creating an vasalstate or even annexing all of the Netherlands (why would they stop at the Rhine) seems even possible.
 
Whither Hanover?

All of this brings up the longer term question of Hanover and the effects of having the Electors with undivided attention on Germany, assuming that the career of Ernst August goes as OTL and his elder brothers still only have daughters. Ernst pulled together all of the Brunswick-Lunenberg lands (the only Brunswick lands not in his hands, as far as I can see, are the Wolfenbuttel lands). So, where does Hanover go from here?
  • Dynastic unions? With whom...maybe tied into war time gains.
  • Consolodation of existing lands?
  • It's probably too early for mediatisation of church lands but is there any chance of extending influence West over Munster? Or maye over Hamburg?
  • Outright agression: Anti-Swedish policies would probably net them Bremen (as OTL). Anti-Danish might gain them control of Oldenburg and maybe even Holstein.
Would a more francophile England with an Oldenburg King divert its attention more to the Baltic and head-butting with the Swedes and the Russians (assuming a *Peter the Great western focus by the end of the century)? Would an Oldenburg England accept Danish control of both sides of the Oresund?

I wonder about a more francophile England, though. Maybe up to the death of Charles II, but then many of the balance-of-powers issues and colonial factors that pushed England and France into competition OTL seem to kick in as far as I can see. There may not be English involvement in a *Nine Years War but I think any chance of a Franco-Spanish Union would serve to end any Anglo-French amity (unless the French did something off-the wall , like handing over Quebec in exchange for English support).

I also wonder about England's financial stability without William III. I have it in my head that most of the reforms that laid the ground for the 18th century expansion of britain were set in motion by him to pay for the Nine Year's War. Haven't done any real reading on this: how much was William and how much was already in place?

My thoughts, for what they're worth,

David
 

Thande

Donor
All of this brings up the longer term question of Hanover and the effects of having the Electors with undivided attention on Germany, assuming that the career of Ernst August goes as OTL and his elder brothers still only have daughters. Ernst pulled together all of the Brunswick-Lunenberg lands (the only Brunswick lands not in his hands, as far as I can see, are the Wolfenbuttel lands). So, where does Hanover go from here?
  • Dynastic unions? With whom...maybe tied into war time gains.
  • Consolodation of existing lands?
  • It's probably too early for mediatisation of church lands but is there any chance of extending influence West over Munster? Or maye over Hamburg?
  • Outright agression: Anti-Swedish policies would probably net them Bremen (as OTL). Anti-Danish might gain them control of Oldenburg and maybe even Holstein.

  • That's an important point to raise. On the one hand Hanover will lack the financial support base Britain provides, but on the other as you say the Electors can give their full attention to the Continent and not worry about the British Government's reluctance to be drawn into European wars. I've seen some people argue that Hanover in this situation could have been a serious rival to Prussia in terms of becoming dominant Protestant German state.
 
That's an important point to raise. On the one hand Hanover will lack the financial support base Britain provides, but on the other as you say the Electors can give their full attention to the Continent and not worry about the British Government's reluctance to be drawn into European wars. I've seen some people argue that Hanover in this situation could have been a serious rival to Prussia in terms of becoming dominant Protestant German state.

Not having Susano's in-depth knowledge, I'd generally agree with that take on things. I would expect Hanover to perform as well as Prussia, if not better. it's ruling house seems to have been capable governors and not horrible generals. They sit on a important trade route and can expand to control a couple others and, all in all, the Bourbons seem to be much better neighbours to have than the Romanovs or the Wittelsbach Palatinate-Zweibrücken-Kleeburg monarchs of Sweden.

ATL, they might even do better out of NOT being tied to England. I can see England willingly building them up as a Protestant bulwark (sending lots of money, if not troops) against French expansion. French successes in the Low Countries could well see alliances between the Dutch and the Hanoverians (assuming France stops with the Hapsburg Netherlands)...perhaps they could even end up as Princes of Orange and Stadholders if the marriage of Anne and William produces only daughters.

David
 

Thande

Donor
Not having Susano's in-depth knowledge, I'd generally agree with that take on things. I would expect Hanover to perform as well as Prussia, if not better. it's ruling house seems to have been capable governors and not horrible generals. They sit on a important trade route and can expand to control a couple others and, all in all, the Bourbons seem to be much better neighbours to have than the Romanovs or the Wittelsbach Palatinate-Zweibrücken-Kleeburg monarchs of Sweden.
Well we'll see what Susano has to say about this, as you say...

ATL, they might even do better out of NOT being tied to England.
I don't want to keep on about this, but I just want to keep terminology straight here: Hanover was never tied to "England", it was tied to Great Britain and then to the United Kingdom.

Of course confusion arises because in TTL there probably won't be an Act of Union creating Great Britain and it will stay as a personal union between England and Scotland (and Ireland).
 
I don't want to keep on about this, but I just want to keep terminology straight here: Hanover was never tied to "England", it was tied to Great Britain and then to the United Kingdom.

My apologies...I'm usually more precise than that, especially as I spent so many years studying the constitutional relations of Ireland and England. I'll just plead lack of sleep due to baby.

David
 
That is what I thought. I wonder if without England the French can be stopped. Surely the Dutch will try, with the help of anyone willing to help them, but I am not certain if that will be enough. A French southern Netherlands doesn't seem unlikely even if the English just ignore France. France creating an vasalstate or even annexing all of the Netherlands (why would they stop at the Rhine) seems even possible.

Entirely possible to my mind, though I think any Anglo-French alliance won't last more than a generation or two. The two countries are just too much natural enemies to cooperate. The interesting thing about the Netherlands to me, though, is that over the several campaigns of various states to grab parts of the Netherlands, England often got involved and generally took (or was offered) certain parts of the Netherlands as their part of the deal. In the Commonwealth period, England was given Dunkirk and another city by the Spanish I believe after a war against the French (or vice versa). In Charles II's lifetime he signed a deal with France which would have led to a French conquest of the Spanish Netherlands, and granted England ownership of the mouth of the Scheldt, the islands of Zeeland around it, and Antwerp I think. Clearly England had an interest in gaining economic control over the Netherlands and the French and Spanish were both willing to let them do it. I'm very interested in a TL where England takes and keeps those economic enclaves.

As for the Hanover thing - I'm not so sure. Maybe at a base level Hanover could be a match for Prussia but Prussia had too many things going for it for me to really believe that they could be held in check by Hanover. They had a very good military reformer King who gave them a strong military tradition and organisation. They had territories on the Rhine which gave them a very good grip on trade in Western Germany, one which I'm not convinced Hanover can surpass. They also have a much bigger home territory, and a larger population. Then again, just my opinion. I'd also be interested to see what Susano says.
 
Top