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

Thande

Donor
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
Good excuse ;)

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.
I don't think we should over-emphasise that; the classical Anglo-French rivalry we tend to think of nowadays ultimately stems from ideological separations between Bourbon absolutism and the constitutional monarchy erected in England/Britain by the Glorious Revolution. Now TTL will have no Glorious Revolution by definition. While England's monarchs will be less absolutist than France's thanks to the lessons of the Civil War, I don't see the potential for real ideological conflict there.

However, there is also the issue of colonial conflicts, which was ultimately the motor driving the Second Hundred Years' War (or rather Britain's participation therein, France would still have fought in Europe either way). Let's break these down:

America: England had already got New Sweden/Delaware from the Swedes and had taken New Amsterdam/New York from the Dutch in a surprise attack the year before. However in OTL New Amsterdam briefly went back to the Dutch due to following conflicts and it's possible that it might go back permanently in TTL. My point is that the English presence in the Americas could be reduced relative to OTL which would decrease the chance of clashes with New France in the Ohio Country and Nova Scotia. There is also the issue of the West Indies, but that was around just as much in the 17th century and England and France managed to avoid major conflicts then.

India: Bombay, Madras and Hughli were already British, but the acquisition of other key Indian possessions such as Calcutta and Vizagapatam lay in the future and might be avoided by TTL. My point is that in TTL you could have a situation where the English and French East India Companies are aligned together against another coloniser such as the Danes, the Portuguese or the Dutch, thus conflicts arising there are not necessary inevitable.

So while it's likely that England and France will still come to blows, I wouldn't say it's inevitable.
 

Susano

Banned
You people are really giving me way too much credit. Hal fo what I say is wiki anyways :p ;)

Especially about the Welf lands I really dont know that much. The only ones coming close to dynastically splitting and rejoining are the Nassaus and Wittelsbach-Palatinates, its complicated...

Lets see... 1665. Its still possible that per butterflies the whole Welf unfication thing can go off, if George William of Celle has a son instead of a daughter (IOTL born in 1666, so OTOH, could be conceived already) or has a son later. But if we assume that, as its just one year before, nothing at all changes we have a Hannover under Geoge Louis (IOTL George I of GB), as IOTL. But, well, everything after that depends heavily on butterflies, of course. Personally Id say Hannover is in a worse position than Prussia to rise, or even than Saxony or Bavaria - but then, the latter two suffered udner incompetent rulers, so thats a factor with which things can be compensated, yes.

There are few ways for Hannover to expand, too. To make it short: Bremen and Verden from Sweden as per OTL, yes, Oldenburg from Denmark, maybe - but beyond that the bishoprics are protected by the Empire, and the Rhenish Ducheis have absolutely no conenction to the Welfs. Whats possibly is that Hannover alleis with France, which ITTL will be stronger due to having no opponent in England. But theres no particular reason why Hannover should do so instead of Bavaria, Saxony, or Brandenburg-Prussia.

I think, seeing where Hannover ended up eventually, 1815, that was already... not bad for them. I think they are, able adminsitrators an dmilitaires or not, simply in a gepolitcially (if you will) too bad position to become a major power.
 
Just a doubt I was thinking about: assuming that Mary marries George of Denmark and Anne marries William of Orange, but they have ITTL the same problems they had IOTL with giving birth healthy children, and so they die childless, how would be their succession? I mean, without the experience of the reign of James II, and without a Glorious Revolution and an Act of Succession, could the Parliament consider accept the succession of Anne (assuming Mary and Anne die almost at the same years they died IOTL) going to the line that had precedence over Sophia of Hannover? They were the descendents of Henrietta Anne Stuart, youngest daughter of Charles I, who was the first wife of Philip of Orleans, brother of Louis XIV of France. By 1714 the heir would be Anne Marie d'Orléans, the wife of the Duke of Savoy. Of course, they would be Catholics, but with no example of a Catholic James II could the Parliament at least consider the idea (maybe offering to Anne the crown in exchange for her conversion)?
 
An interesting question to be sure. You're correct that the Duchess of Savoy is the next claimant, but remember that her husband is the man responsible for the persecutions and massacre of the Vaudois Protestants, and that she herself is only two generations removed from the French Kings. I can see her being reluctant to convert to take the crown, and I can see Parliament being rightfully fearful of her husband's Catholicism being brought over to England. It could well be a James II all over again. Under these circumstances I think there's every chance of Electress Sophia's line ending up with the throne after all.
 
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.

You got it the other way around for both. In 1657 the Commonwealth took the French side in the Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659) and obtained Dunkirk, which Charles II sold to France in 1662. In 1670 England and France signed the secret Treaty of Dover, by which Charles II promised to aid Louis XIV in the coming Dutch War (1672-1678) in exchange for the island of Walcheren in Zeeland and Sluis and Cadzand in Dutch Flanders.
 
Top