James Francis Edward Stuart never born.

what would the effect of James Francis Edward Stuart never having been born be on British history? would the Glorious Revolution still happen? or not? if not what does James II reign for 10 more years look like? and who takes the Crown when his daughters are gone? and what becomes of William III of Orange?
 
Many Protestants who opposed James II reluctantly accepted him as king as long as he had no heir, and would be succeeded by a Protestant. But the birth of his son, James Francis Edward on 10 June 1688 and the prospect of a Roman Catholic dynasty was a major catalyst in the events which resulted in the Glorious Revolution. So if he had not been born the Glorious Revolution would probably not have happened.

Without the Glorious Revolution there would be no Jacobite campaign in Ireland to recover the British throne, therefore no Battle of the Boyne, no Orangemen and no Orange parades.

When James II died on 16 September 1701 he would be succeeded by his daughter Anne.
 
When James II died on 16 September 1701 he would be succeeded by his daughter Anne.

But what happens after Anne? Without the Glorious Revolution, would the Catholic daughter of Henrietta Stuart be recognized as heir, making Anne Marie D'Orleans the queen?

Perhaps some Protestants would convince William of Orange to remarry after Mary's death, in order to secure a Protestant heir to England. That would be interesting, since it would avoid the reign of William III, but his Dutch son or daughter would become king after Anne's death, and without a Glorious Revolution.
 
I think you are right James couldn't escape some difficulties even with an assured Protestant succession and it wasn't that assured -
To the population at large and certainly the political elite Mary of MOdena was still young enough to bear him a son eventually so even if no PRince of Wales in 88 lets say another stillbirth or a boy who dies within days - there's another crisis when Mary becomes pregnant in 92 and given her age the birth of the Princess Louise wouldn't necessarily be considered the last pregnancy by the time the protestant childless heiress presumptive Princess Mary of Orange dies in 94
And even then the succession looks difficult
The Princess Anne of Denmark has only one surviving son William Duke of Gloucester who dies in 1700 and who was sickly from birth
Then its the presumably catholic Princess Louise who becomes heiress presumptive on Anne's presumed accession as Queen in 1701. Even if James survives to death Anne's accession will prompt Parliamentary demands that the 9 year old Louise is seperated from her mother and brought up as an Anglican. What happens if Mary of Modena flees abroad with her last surviving child - a fresh exclusion crisis??
All very messy.
 
I think you are right James couldn't escape some difficulties even with an assured Protestant succession and it wasn't that assured -
To the population at large and certainly the political elite Mary of MOdena was still young enough to bear him a son eventually so even if no PRince of Wales in 88 lets say another stillbirth or a boy who dies within days - there's another crisis when Mary becomes pregnant in 92 and given her age the birth of the Princess Louise wouldn't necessarily be considered the last pregnancy by the time the protestant childless heiress presumptive Princess Mary of Orange dies in 94
And even then the succession looks difficult
The Princess Anne of Denmark has only one surviving son William Duke of Gloucester who dies in 1700 and who was sickly from birth
Then its the presumably catholic Princess Louise who becomes heiress presumptive on Anne's presumed accession as Queen in 1701. Even if James survives to death Anne's accession will prompt Parliamentary demands that the 9 year old Louise is seperated from her mother and brought up as an Anglican. What happens if Mary of Modena flees abroad with her last surviving child - a fresh exclusion crisis??
All very messy.

the Princess Mary died of smallpox, with a POD in 1688 it's unlikely she'll get it in TTL in 1694, the Princess Mary and Stadtholder William III were childless after 17 years of marriage..... so it's some what unlikely they'd ever have any, maybe in TTL Mary would out live Anne (who was very sickly)
 
The group of six nobles and one bishop (the Immortal Seven) who sent a letter to William of Orange asking him to invade England and restore the Protestant religion, did so after the birth of James Francis Edward on 10 June 1688. The letter reached William on 30 June 1688.

Besides the support of Roman Catholics, James II had the support of Protestant dissenters because of the Declaration of Indulgence [ http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16870404.htm ] issued in April 1687. This Declaration suspended the penal laws for not worshipping with the Church of England, allowed freedom of worship for non Anglicans, and suspended the requirement to take religious oaths before advancement to civil or military office. James issued a revised Declaration in April 1688.

In the summer of 1687, during a speaking tour to gain support for his policy of religious toleration, he said in a speech in Chester:
Suppose...there should be a law made that black men should be imprisoned, it would be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarrel with other men for being of different [religious] opinion as for being of different complexions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England#Reign .

Those Anglicans (the Nonjurors) who believed that James II was the Lord's anointed and could not be deposed also supported his right to remain king.

James could have saved his throne by forging a coalition of Nonjuror Anglicans, Dissenters and Roman Catholics on a platform of maintaining the legitimate succession and religious toleration; and if he had moderated his despotic policies. In fact, while not being a liberal ahead of his time, he could have appealed not only to advanced opinion with his policy of religious toleration, but also to many of his subjects. His argument would be on the lines that his kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland have suffered much from religious conflict and strife, now is the time to let each man be free to worship according to his conscience.

Part of his new "moderate" policy would be to issue writs for elections to a new House of Commons.

The idea that James II was a religious bigot and political tyrant is no longer tenable. He has been described as being either naive, perhaps even stupid, or an enlightened despot ahead of his time.

If James had kept his throne and Anne succeeds him on his death in 1701, then on her death in 1714, Princess Anne Marie d'Orleans, the Queen of Sardinia (1669-1728) would be the first in line of succession, assuming that Princess Louise dies of smallpox in 1712 as in OTL. Anne Marie was the daughter of Henrietta-Anne, the daughter of Charles I.

in May 1686 James II created the Dominion of New England. Initially this comprised the colonies of Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire (which then included what is now Vermont). Connecticut and Rhode Island were added in September 1686, and the Provinces of New York, East Jersey and West Jersey in May 1688. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England . The Dominion was abolished in 1689.

If the Stuart succession had continued, the Domionion of New England might not have been abolished.
 
If James had kept his throne and Anne succeeds him on his death in 1701, then on her death in 1714, Princess Anne Marie d'Orleans, the Queen of Sardinia (1669-1728) would be the first in line of succession, assuming that Princess Louise dies of smallpox in 1712 as in OTL. Anne Marie was the daughter of Henrietta-Anne, the daughter of Charles I.

BUTTERFLIES!!!!!!!!!!! if Mary doesn't become Queen is 1688 she most likely won't die of Smallpox in 1694, and if James Francis Edward Stuart isn't born in 1688 his sister Louise surely wouldn't be born in 1692
 
fair enough that if Mary doesn't succeed in 88 she might not die of smallpox but if Mary of Modena doesn't produce a boy in 88 why would
that prevent the birth of Louise or any other children she was a reletavely young woman still.
 
fair enough that if Mary doesn't succeed in 88 she might not die of smallpox but if Mary of Modena doesn't produce a boy in 88 why would
that prevent the birth of Louise or any other children she was a reletavely young woman still.

maybe Mary would have a girl in 1694 and name her Louise but it wouldn't be anything like the Louise of OTL, and wouldn't die in 1712 of smallpox. though i'd say the best way to stop Mary and James II from having a Catholic son, is to kill Mary in childbirth (or smallpox, the family had bad luck with that)
 
Agreement for once - smallpox and the later stuarts a marriage made in hell!!!
Though James II was perhaps the most unlucky of monarchs in the survival of children stakes and therefore its not unlikely that the Queen was delivered of a child that died within days of its birth or was stillborn in 88.
If we're trying to avoid a glorious revolution and a catholic stuart heir in the 80'a and 90's then it is best to have Mary of Modena survive but continue to fail to produce a living male heir. Had she died in 88 then James will look to remarry yet another Catholic princess and the whole fear of a male catholic heir reasserts itself once again.
 
Agreement for once - smallpox and the later stuarts a marriage made in hell!!!
Though James II was perhaps the most unlucky of monarchs in the survival of children stakes and therefore its not unlikely that the Queen was delivered of a child that died within days of its birth or was stillborn in 88.
If we're trying to avoid a glorious revolution and a catholic stuart heir in the 80'a and 90's then it is best to have Mary of Modena survive but continue to fail to produce a living male heir. Had she died in 88 then James will look to remarry yet another Catholic princess and the whole fear of a male catholic heir reasserts itself once again.

given that 4 of Mary's first 5 babies died of "convulsions" (the other of Smallpox) it isn't unlikely that what ever was wrong with those babies could go on killing other male heirs
 
Wouldn't it just be easier and more harmonious to have Parliament not be composed intolerant, paranoid pricks? :confused:

Oh, wait...it's Parliament. :D
 
Indeed but that judgement is the judgement of a 21st century mind. To most of Parliament and a wider Anglican community catholicism was associated with absolutism and terror. And in terms of absolutism it was at the time an accurate world view. James was unfortunate in his political timing given the revocation of Nantes but he failed to understand or appreciate the by then ingrained distrust of catholicism. Also he failed to address the one political truth that since the reformation had been a principal arguement against the Caholic church that how could a head of state, a prince, be subject of an earthly power (the Papacy).
 
Top