James II dies in 1688 after James III war born

In 1688, James II was overthrown by the Glorious Revolution after the birth of his son James, for fears of an enduring Catholic dynasty.

POD:

Mary of Modena died giving birth birth to James III. James II soon after went hunting to get over his grief, but during the hunt he had an accident which he fell off his horse and broke his neck.

James III is quickly proclaimed king with a Protestant as regent. James III would be raised as a devout Anglican.

What next?
 
quickly proclaimed king, at the age of only 5 days old.

What next?

It depends on who is picked as regent. Would Mary, 26 and Anne, 23, try and look after their young brother.

Here are some ideas for later events.​

---

King James III (1688-1766)​
The life of King James III, is a sad one, his mother, Mary of Modena, died while giving birth to him, and five days later, his father, King James II, who was out hunting near Eltham Palace, to cheer his grief, fell off his horse and broke his neck, he was carried, back to the palace, but was pronounced dead.​
Prince James, who had not even been created Prince of Wales yet, was quickly proclaimed king, at the age of only 5 days old.​
ntii_szc_998408_large.jpg
The young king was seen as a symbol of the youth of the nation, with the Acts of Union, being passed in 1690. Under these Acts, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, both of which had previously been separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch, were joined into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain".​
The painting above depicts the king, in a roman-style outfit, which was meant to represent his strong will.​
On 28 November 1704, at the age of 16, King Charles III married, 17 year old, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, his second cousin, who was a descendant of the Stuarts through her maternal grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of James VI and I.​

His reign of 76 years, 6 months and 15 days, makes him, the longest serving British monarch to date.
 
James III, raised as a protestan could be good king. But only if either he gived up Stuarts Pro-absolute tendencies or Royalists/Jacobites become a dominant force during his reign. Oherwise, another revolution is just delayed.
 
James III, raised as a protestan could be good king. But only if either he gived up Stuarts Pro-absolute tendencies or Royalists/Jacobites become a dominant force during his reign. Oherwise, another revolution is just delayed.

Being regent under Protestant Parliamentaries, he is most likely not be as Pro-Absolute as his forefathers. Also with Mary and Anne as guardians, i cant see him running off the rails, especially withs stories of Charles I and Cromwell.
 
This timeline has no Glorious Revolution. No Bill of Rights.

Which meant that the king still has his crownlands, and does not depend of the civil list from Parliament, for income.

Parliament voted James II a lifetime income in 1685. The same would be true for James III as well. Simply put, he would be financially independent from Parliament.

He would speak English, and his regent presumably so, so the Cabinet system that developed because the King can't speak English won't develop (see George I). The monarchy would not only appoint his ministers, but develop policy as well.

As long as he respected the Church of England, and does not interfere locally with the affairs of the aristocracy, he can rule as absolutely on a NATIONAL level as he wanted. After all, the real reason for the deposition of James II is not his absolutist ways, but his being a Catholic.

To recap, the strongest support for absolute Monarchy in England are the Anglican Tories. When they and Charles II united, Charles II was able to crush the Whigs and any opposition to his rule.

But when James II began to impose pro Catholic policies, it alienated the very base of his support.

In this timeline, the Anglicans who supported Charles II would be immensely relieved that they won't have to choose between king and religion. They could do both. And they will support James III provided he supported their religion.
 
This timeline has no Glorious Revolution. No Bill of Rights.

Which meant that the king still has his crownlands, and does not depend of the civil list from Parliament, for income.

Parliament voted James II a lifetime income in 1685. The same would be true for James III as well. Simply put, he would be financially independent from Parliament.

He would speak English, and his regent presumably so, so the Cabinet system that developed because the King can't speak English won't develop (see George I). The monarchy would not only appoint his ministers, but develop policy as well.

As long as he respected the Church of England, and does not interfere locally with the affairs of the aristocracy, he can rule as absolutely on a NATIONAL level as he wanted. After all, the real reason for the deposition of James II is not his absolutist ways, but his being a Catholic.

To recap, the strongest support for absolute Monarchy in England are the Anglican Tories. When they and Charles II united, Charles II was able to crush the Whigs and any opposition to his rule.

But when James II began to impose pro Catholic policies, it alienated the very base of his support.

In this timeline, the Anglicans who supported Charles II would be immensely relieved that they won't have to choose between king and religion. They could do both. And they will support James III provided he supported their religion.

Basically this. Although, to be honest the bill of rights really did little to the powers of the Crown. It was only after Mary II died that Parliament began to really limit the Sovereign's power. (ie the law regulating budgets and the law that forced an election every three years).

Really killing off either James II or William in 1688 would be the best things possible for Royal power. No one important questioned the legitimacy of the baby Prince of Wales and once his father dies the aristocrats who had problems with his father will have no real reason to back William of Orange. The only real question would be over the regency.

James II would no doubt want Mary Beatrice as Regent, but no one would accept a Catholic in such a position. So I'd guess de-facto rule would pass to either the Denmarks (an English version of the Duc and Duchesse de Bourbon and Charles VIII) or to one of either Charles II or James II's illegitimate sons. The Prince and Princess of Orange would be out as William is a foreign ruler and Mary is his consort. With James's death much of their English support would collapse.

If James plays his cards right England/Great Britain (not sure if an act of union would still happen) could become a successful semi-absolute monarchy. Although chances are he'd still marry a Catholic. Despite the unpopularity of such decision every Stuart King had a Catholic wife (Anne of Denmark was known to have secretly converted) and would not lower themselves to marrying into the German houses. So the only real potential Protestant would be Princess Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden.
 
James II would no doubt want Mary Beatrice as Regent, but no one would accept a Catholic in such a position. So I'd guess de-facto rule would pass to either the Denmarks (an English version of the Duc and Duchesse de Bourbon and Charles VIII) or to one of either Charles II or James II's illegitimate sons. The Prince and Princess of Orange would be out as William is a foreign ruler and Mary is his consort. With James's death much of their English support would collapse.
James II is dead and unable to choose consort, if it was an illness he could plan, but dying in a hunting accident, he would have died with out leaving any wishes.
As for regent, the sisters Mary and Anne, could advise their brother and his regents.
Regarding the regents, what about these ideas:
  • Could Issac Newton be nominated as regent?
  • Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft would be seen as a nominee as Regent, due to being the next head of the Church of England, although James II has had in imprisoned in thte tower for his anti-catholic remarks.
  • Robert Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland, had a reputation as a ruthless advocate of absolute monarchy.
  • Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron of Wharton
  • Henry Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Newcastle

At the age of 16, King Charles III married, 17 year old, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, his second cousin, who was a descendant of the Stuarts through her maternal grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of James VI and I.

If James plays his cards right England/Great Britain (not sure if an act of union would still happen) could become a successful semi-absolute monarchy. Although chances are he'd still marry a Catholic. Despite the unpopularity of such decision every Stuart King had a Catholic wife (Anne of Denmark was known to have secretly converted) and would not lower themselves to marrying into the German houses. So the only real potential Protestant would be Princess Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden.
But at 16, he would be married to who every they wanted to bring to the country to visit the king ... joys of being under a regent.

Sophia Dorothea of Hanover would strenghten the Stuart gene pool, being a descendent of the Stuarts herself and is a devout protestant, no fear of her turning Catholic like all the other scaninavian girls.

Princess Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden, was seen as unattractive, not intelligent and was easily brought to tears, the only ever good thing ever stated about her was her good posture, her sister Hedvig Sophia of Sweden, would have been better if she wasnt 7 years older then the King, and married when he was 10.
 
If James plays his cards right England/Great Britain (not sure if an act of union would still happen) could become a successful semi-absolute monarchy. Although chances are he'd still marry a Catholic. Despite the unpopularity of such decision every Stuart King had a Catholic wife (Anne of Denmark was known to have secretly converted) and would not lower themselves to marrying into the German houses. So the only real potential Protestant would be Princess Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden.

James can take a page out of the Habsburgs' book and marry one of Mary's or Anne's theoretical daughters.
 
Top