James, Duke of York, dead in May 1682.

I found this while doing some reading...

From Wikipedia...

At around 05:30 on 6 May 1682, Gloucester struck a sandbank off
Yarmouth, Isle of Wight. In a strong Easterly gale the ship was pounded against the sand until the rudder broke off and the ship was holed. The Duke of York and John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough) were rescued in the ship's boat.

So what if James wasn't rescued?

How does this change the development of England. There's not going to be a Glorious Revolution, at any rate.

There's a clear succession of his niece, Mary, but Would she be a queen regnant or would she insist on William being make King? Mary is still young enough but there has to be some suspicion that there are no children and that there might not be any children.

Anne's not Married yet, though. Would Charles still go for the Danish match with George? Is there any chance the would set their sights higher with George's nephew, the future Frederick IV? I don't think so, given that he's only 11 or so but....

Even if we leave things as OTL Anne's two eldest daughters died of smallpox. What if one or both of them survived?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

David
 
Mary is definitely Queen Regnant. William might have to settle for King Consort. He won't have the Glorious Revolution to push for equal status over those above him in the succession.
Anne's marriage I could see changing since she's next in line. However the Danes are both protestant and French allies so it's still the most useful marriage for Charles II.
 
There's a clear succession of his niece, Mary, but Would she be a queen regnant or would she insist on William being make King? Mary is still young enough but there has to be some suspicion that there are no children and that there might not be any children.
He may be crowned as King Consort (like Philip of Spain was; and given Mary's childlessness he would be regarded as Protestant version thereof - a foreign consort dragging England into expensive foreign wars; though a bit less foreign given his mother was a Stuart).
Regarding George, he was a compromise and useful candidate. So this match likely stays. Given Mary is childless, British/Danish personal union right after British/Dutch one is not a good thing.
 
I agree with the OTL status quo, given that there didn't seem to be a expectation that York would sire a son, so the OTL reasoning stays the same.

What else could change in domestic politics post 1685, if we assume Charles II dies on schedules. Clearly no promotion of Catholics but could we also see a lesser swing to anti-Catholicism in England over time? Not toleration but no Penal laws either?
 
For what little it's worth Mary of Modena is pregnant at this time- Charlotte Maria was born on 16th August and died a few months later. So, there'd be a brief period of uncertainty where they're waiting to see if the kid is a boy before Mary gets confirmed as heir.

If you say James being dead means a different birth for Mary of Modena, and alters the course of Charlotte's brief life, you could have her survive infancy and then there's another princess kicking around. Though she died of ''convulsions'' IOTL, so YMMV.

I agree with the OTL status quo, given that there didn't seem to be a expectation that York would sire a son, so the OTL reasoning stays the same.

What else could change in domestic politics post 1685, if we assume Charles II dies on schedules. Clearly no promotion of Catholics but could we also see a lesser swing to anti-Catholicism in England over time? Not toleration but no Penal laws either?

Throne going straight to a Protestant means Monmouth doesn't rebel and keeps his head (and possibly avoids exile?). He'd be a significant political figure. Did he get along alright with Mary and William?
 
Throne going straight to a Protestant means Monmouth doesn't rebel and keeps his head (and possibly avoids exile?). He'd be a significant political figure. Did he get along alright with Mary and William?
William at the very least granted Monmouth the asylum in 1679, not sure about Mary's position. Given where he was at the time he'll be returning along with the new Queen.
 
William at the very least granted Monmouth the asylum in 1679, not sure about Mary's position. Given where he was at the time he'll be returning along with the new Queen.

Hadn't he also served under William in some military capacity, for whatever that's worth?
 
Throne going straight to a Protestant means Monmouth doesn't rebel and keeps his head (and possibly avoids exile?). He'd be a significant political figure. Did he get along alright with Mary and William?

Mary liked Jamie well enough growing up IIRC. In fact, she seems to have had a bit of a crush on him, before becoming attracted to girls. So I could see it being an interesting dynamic with Queen Mary II being deferrent to her foreign husband in foreign affairs (and king consort) but perhaps following her friend Monmouth's advice (esp. since he's been in the country while she's been out) when it comes to internal policy.
 
In fact Monmouth may play in Mary's reign the same role John Churchill played in Anne's (if we presume that John TTL died along with James when the boat was turned over by the wind or whatever, he may be a direct susbstitute as far as military campaigns abroad go).
 
I suppose the next question becomes how the changed circumstances (no James VII/II or Jacobitism; William on the throne of England from 1685 though perhaps only as consort etc.) effect diplomacy and things regarding France/Franco-Dutch hostilities/the Nine Years War and the like?

A diversionary question- what becomes of James' bastard sons? IOTL I think they ended up as Catholics kicking around the continent, but they're still pretty young at the POD (12 and 9 respectively) so... Obviously if Churchill has gone down too they've lost both a father and an uncle.
 
Top