James II and Mary of Modena's older children

So, this is sort of following on from an earlier thread of mine. James II and Mary of Modena had a few children, many of whom died young.

My question is this, assuming that the stillborn child they had in 1683, survived and was born a boy, I'm presuming there'd be some nervousness in the country due to Charles not having any issue, and both James and Mary being Catholics. Assuming that this boy is then followed by another boy born in 1684, that's two sons for the Yorks, and more tension. James ascends the throne in 1685, and continues as he did otl.

Would a Glorious Revolution happen with James having two sons, or would there be an attempt to replace James with his eldest son born in 1683? Or would the entire York family have to flee into exile? If it's the latter, what do you think would change if the boy born in 1683, is as pragmatic as his uncle Charles II, and converts to Anglicanism at the earliest possible opportunity?

Which scenario is more likely? James being replaced by his son born in 1683, or the Yorks completely being exiled?
 
Jamie likely goes the same way as Edward II while his kids are given suitable Anglican tutors/preceptors

Oh interesting, so he's bumped off, in 1688, and perhaps Anne serves as regent for her half brother? Would they look to make a Protestant marriage for the lad? I imagine he'd be named Charles or James, given the naming pattern of the York boys.
 
Oh interesting, so he's bumped off, in 1688, and perhaps Anne serves as regent for her half brother? Would they look to make a Protestant marriage for the lad? I imagine he'd be named Charles or James, given the naming pattern of the York boys.

Actually meant that he's deposed, maybe sent to the Low Countries (but definitely out of England) rather than bumped off. And Anne COULD be regent, but England's tradition was a Regency Council not a single regent (although there usually was someone like Edward Seymour or John of Gaunt who'd be a sort of Lord Protector). I've said it before, Mary of Modena being regent (on a council) might not be all bad. She's Catholic, true, but not slavishly so, since one of her first suggestions in 1701 was that James III become king but a board of advisors (including the archbishops of Canterbury and York) run the CoE. And that no Catholic prelate could be appointed to an existing Protestant see, so if the Low Church Bishop of London* dies, we can't push the queen's chaplain Father Giambattista Spinelli* into the diocese, but rather we had to take someone who was already an ordained Anglican priest.

*fictitious exemplars
 
Actually meant that he's deposed, maybe sent to the Low Countries (but definitely out of England) rather than bumped off. And Anne COULD be regent, but England's tradition was a Regency Council not a single regent (although there usually was someone like Edward Seymour or John of Gaunt who'd be a sort of Lord Protector). I've said it before, Mary of Modena being regent (on a council) might not be all bad. She's Catholic, true, but not slavishly so, since one of her first suggestions in 1701 was that James III become king but a board of advisors (including the archbishops of Canterbury and York) run the CoE. And that no Catholic prelate could be appointed to an existing Protestant see, so if the Low Church Bishop of London* dies, we can't push the queen's chaplain Father Giambattista Spinelli* into the diocese, but rather we had to take someone who was already an ordained Anglican priest.

*fictitious exemplars

Oh interesting, hmm, would there be an uprising in James's favour in this case, or would Jacobites and HIgh Church tories rally around his son? And James living his life in exile in Versailles would be hilarious.
 
Oh interesting, hmm, would there be an uprising in James's favour in this case, or would Jacobites and HIgh Church tories rally around his son? And James living his life in exile in Versailles would be hilarious.

Probably not. Most Jacobites had more of an issue with the fact that the "lawful" succession was disregarded. So there'll be a period where England/Scotland has two kings (1688-1701), but whether it'll be anything like OTL is unlikely. In fact, it might just be the English parliament that takes exception to Jamie and packs him off north to Scotland (as Charles II did in 1681), lets him rule there while his son's regency rules in England. It's not like Jamie is this awe-inspiring figure (like his son, Berwick, or grandson, Charles III), that could successfully rally the clans and lead a '45-type rising/invasion of England.
 
Probably not. Most Jacobites had more of an issue with the fact that the "lawful" succession was disregarded. So there'll be a period where England/Scotland has two kings (1688-1701), but whether it'll be anything like OTL is unlikely. In fact, it might just be the English parliament that takes exception to Jamie and packs him off north to Scotland (as Charles II did in 1681), lets him rule there while his son's regency rules in England. It's not like Jamie is this awe-inspiring figure (like his son, Berwick, or grandson, Charles III), that could successfully rally the clans and lead a '45-type rising/invasion of England.

This is very true, so the three kingdoms would have two Kings, which would make things incredibly interesting. I suppose his son is going to have some incredibly complex feelings about this
 
So, a possible scenario is:

1688, James is forced to abdicate and is replaced by his son-most likely named Charles, maybe Henry after the Duke of Gloucester?- James is sent north to remain King over Scotland, which he does so until his death, perhaps taking his wife and their other children with them. His eldest son is proclaimed King of England, and a regency council is set up, with Princess Anne at its head, but with other ministers, such as Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, Sunderland etc on board as well.
 
Actually meant that he's deposed, maybe sent to the Low Countries (but definitely out of England) rather than bumped off. And Anne COULD be regent, but England's tradition was a Regency Council not a single regent (although there usually was someone like Edward Seymour or John of Gaunt who'd be a sort of Lord Protector). I've said it before, Mary of Modena being regent (on a council) might not be all bad. She's Catholic, true, but not slavishly so, since one of her first suggestions in 1701 was that James III become king but a board of advisors (including the archbishops of Canterbury and York) run the CoE. And that no Catholic prelate could be appointed to an existing Protestant see, so if the Low Church Bishop of London* dies, we can't push the queen's chaplain Father Giambattista Spinelli* into the diocese, but rather we had to take someone who was already an ordained Anglican priest.

*fictitious exemplars

Everything I've read on Mary has her as Catholic as Queen Mary I. Her suggestion was most likely made to hold on to the throne for her son by separating once again the Church and the Crown (and probably seen as prelude to returning to Rome by CoE).
 
Everything I've read on Mary has her as Catholic as Queen Mary I. Her suggestion was most likely made to hold on to the throne for her son by separating once again the Church and the Crown (and probably seen as prelude to returning to Rome by CoE).
Hmm so Mary likely heads to wherever her husband ends up? Assuming I’m not knocking off james aha.
 
Everything I've read on Mary has her as Catholic as Queen Mary I. Her suggestion was most likely made to hold on to the throne for her son by separating once again the Church and the Crown (and probably seen as prelude to returning to Rome by CoE).

Perhaps. I don't say she'll be a Protestant, but she was far more religiously flexible than James II was. Besides one of her daughters that died in infancy that she insisted on (and Charles II granted) a Catholic baptism/burial, she didn't really meddle religiously and try to make converts like, say, Henriette Marie had done. The most telling thing was that she partook in the coronation responsories while James sat stonily silent. And she had a Jansenist priest as a confessor when she got to France (although she later replaced him - I'm not sure if James, Louis or Mme de Maintenon was the reason). Two things I'm not sure she would've done were she an ultraCatholic.

I'm not sure that her plan with the separation of Church and Crown was to restore England to Rome (although it could've been), but more along the lines of what was happening in the Palatinate and Saxony, where the electors were suddenly of a different religion to the people they ruled.

The main thing to get right if one wanted ger to serve on the regency was to separate her from James. She loved him (to the polite amusement of the French court) and when the events of 1688 happened she didn't care a fig for her son who she said could be sent to France in someone else's care, it was her husband she refused to leave.
 
Perhaps. I don't say she'll be a Protestant, but she was far more religiously flexible than James II was. Besides one of her daughters that died in infancy that she insisted on (and Charles II granted) a Catholic baptism/burial, she didn't really meddle religiously and try to make converts like, say, Henriette Marie had done. The most telling thing was that she partook in the coronation responsories while James sat stonily silent. And she had a Jansenist priest as a confessor when she got to France (although she later replaced him - I'm not sure if James, Louis or Mme de Maintenon was the reason). Two things I'm not sure she would've done were she an ultraCatholic.

I'm not sure that her plan with the separation of Church and Crown was to restore England to Rome (although it could've been), but more along the lines of what was happening in the Palatinate and Saxony, where the electors were suddenly of a different religion to the people they ruled.

The main thing to get right if one wanted ger to serve on the regency was to separate her from James. She loved him (to the polite amusement of the French court) and when the events of 1688 happened she didn't care a fig for her son who she said could be sent to France in someone else's care, it was her husband she refused to leave.
That’s a fascinating thing isn’t it, why she stuck by her husband and abandoned her son for all intents and purposes.

Would the Scots accept James as their sole king if he’s deposed by the English
 
Any kid of James and Mary born when Charles II was still King will be baptized and educated as Anglican like Mary and Anne.
 
Well at least he will be baptized as Anglican... I had not read well the date, so I thinked was one of the previous eight pregnancies of Mary of Modena not the ninth and tenth (James was the eleventh, Louisa the twelfth)
 
Well at least he will be baptized as Anglican... I had not read well the date, so I thinked was one of the previous eight pregnancies of Mary of Modena not the ninth and tenth (James was the eleventh, Louisa the twelfth)
Ah no worries. So, he'd be baptised Anglican, though would James II attempt to have him Catholicised
 
Ah no worries. So, he'd be baptised Anglican, though would James II attempt to have him Catholicised

James was nothing if not dogmatic, so he'd probably try. Although I could see someone demanding an assurance that they STAY Anglican. Even the French court found James too rigidly Catholic for their tastes. "There goes a good man, he exchanged three kingdoms for a mass" or "the more one talks to him, the more one realizes why he is here" being just two of the comments made by the French about him.
 
James was nothing if not dogmatic, so he'd probably try. Although I could see someone demanding an assurance that they STAY Anglican. Even the French court found James too rigidly Catholic for their tastes. "There goes a good man, he exchanged three kingdoms for a mass" or "the more one talks to him, the more one realizes why he is here" being just two of the comments made by the French about him.

Hmm this is very true, could his wife act as a moderator on him?
 
Top