James II of England does not convert to Catholicism.

Mary would be 21 by the time Pedro got widowed, and he did not consider the remarriage immediately, instead hoping for a bridegroom for his daughter Isabel Luisa.
So... it is weird situation. It would depend on conditions of the Third Anglo Dutch War ending, and I am not sure what exact differences Duke of York being in command from the very start would bring. In fact, I am more and more convinced that Mary gets married as OTL, as the result of Charlie's fence sitting in 1675-1678 OTL.
 
Mary would be 21 by the time Pedro got widowed, and he did not consider the remarriage immediately, instead hoping for a bridegroom for his daughter Isabel Luisa.
So... it is weird situation. It would depend on conditions of the Third Anglo Dutch War ending, and I am not sure what exact differences Duke of York being in command from the very start would bring. In fact, I am more and more convinced that Mary gets married as OTL, as the result of Charlie's fence sitting in 1675-1678 OTL.
Hmm this is true, could anne then marry Pedro instead?
 
Might still have been some problems with him, but not as bad. The problem was that he refused to follow through with certain promises and expected the nobility to support him just because they were royalists. As for things about people being bigoted... yes, though some of them were fearing for their lives as the King of France withdrew the Edict of Nantes and Protestents were slaughtered en masse. And there was the memory of Mary Tudor. Plus the pigheadedness of Charles I. Also can probably call back tot he tyranny of Henry VIII as he moved back and forth on the religious policies and executed both Catholics and Protestants in the same week. One for treason, the other heresy. Probably won't be an invasion by William of Orange here.
 
Might still have been some problems with him, but not as bad. The problem was that he refused to follow through with certain promises and expected the nobility to support him just because they were royalists. As for things about people being bigoted... yes, though some of them were fearing for their lives as the King of France withdrew the Edict of Nantes and Protestents were slaughtered en masse. And there was the memory of Mary Tudor. Plus the pigheadedness of Charles I. Also can probably call back tot he tyranny of Henry VIII as he moved back and forth on the religious policies and executed both Catholics and Protestants in the same week. One for treason, the other heresy. Probably won't be an invasion by William of Orange here.
True though he was surprisingly open minded compared to others of the time. Firthermore as their king it is my belief they should e supported him aha
 
Also if England wins the third Anglo Dutch war does this bring more benefit to them?
In fact, the pre-war situation is such, that "winning" = losing less greatly. There is a clause that would bite England in the ass:
Meanwhile, the developments in the land war had also become very unfavourable to Charles. The ultimate goal of the French, and their deeper rationale for this war, was to conquer the Spanish Netherlands. Such a conquest would be very detrimental to the English strategic position: should the province of Holland capitulate to them also, the French would control the entire continental coast opposite England, as they would later achieve in the 19th-century Napoleonic Wars.[36] For this reason Charles had in the Treaty of Dover explicitly reserved his rights to come to the aid of the Spanish Netherlands should his interests demand so; Louis had to delay the execution of his plans in this region until the Dutch affair was finished. Now that a deadlock had been reached, Louis' patience was severely tried. Eventually the temptation to take possession of the Southern Netherlands while they were so vulnerable became too great. He gradually turned his attention to this area, first by the capture of Maastricht in July 1673, in which Monmouth's brigade played an honourable rôle. Though this could be justified as improving the supply situation of the northern French army, its potential as a starting point for a Flemish campaign was not lost on the Spanish.

On 30 August, the Republic, the Empire, Spain and Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine (who wanted his duchy back from Louis) concluded the Quadruple Alliance, and William made sure peace negotiations held with France in Cologne failed.[37] In November Bonn was taken by the alliance forces commanded by William; this forced the French army to abandon almost all occupied Dutch territory,[38] with the exception of Grave and Maastricht. A final French victory over the Dutch at this point appeared most implausible; the war was changed into one about the dominion of Flanders and on this issue, the natural interests of England were opposed to those of France. The changed international situation was an important consideration for Parliament's decision to withhold funding, but internal events were even more decisive.
Once Louis' greed pushes him into Flanders, England withdraws from the war, no ifs and buts here.
The treaty stipulated that New York (formerly New Netherland) would henceforth be an English possession and that Suriname, captured by the Dutch in 1667, would remain their colony, confirming the status quo of 1667. An "indemnity" of two million guilders was paid by the Dutch. Despite the peace, Monmouth's brigade would not be withdrawn from the French army and it would be allowed to recruit in Britain until the end of the Franco-Dutch War.[42]
Some variations of this are expected. Though the context of entry in the war TTL may be slightly different, due to Cambridge/Orleans betrothal thing, and so the fallout is different. The Test Act may still be passed, in fact, though it would change nothing in regards to James, who is not openly Catholic TTL. But hiding the Treaty of Dover true content will be the task of the day.
 
Last edited:
True though he was surprisingly open minded compared to others of the time. Firthermore as their king it is my belief they should e supported him aha
He had the highest judges in the land locked up because they said that not only was he supposed to hold up his coronatoin oaths, but that he was more responsible than any other. More or less. England is one of those cases where the country didn't need to change their faith because the monarch did, like in the Holy Roman Empire. Speaking of which, the English didn't want anything to do with the religious wars of France and the Germanies. Widespread destructoin torment, all so that some bigwigs could decide who got an empty title or who got to plunder which churches and peasants.
 
In fact, the pre-war situation is such, that "winning" = losing less greatly. There is a clause that would bite England in the ass:

Once Louis' greed pushes him into Flanders, England withdraws from the war, no ifs and buts here.

Some variations of this are expected. Though the context of entry in the war TTL may be slightly different, due to Cambridge/Orleans betrothal thing, and so the fallout is different. The Test Act may still be passed, in fact, though it would change nothing in regards to James, who is not openly Catholic TTL. But hiding the Treaty of Dover true content will be the task of the day.

Hmm interesting, in regards to the Anglo Dutch war could the English actually win say the second anglo dutch war? If so would that influence or change the outcome of the hird if indeed there was a third? And I agree the context of the third will be different with Cambridge alive and his betrothal to his cousin of Orleans.

On a sub note, should Louis XIV have legitimate daughters, or shall that be left?
 
He had the highest judges in the land locked up because they said that not only was he supposed to hold up his coronatoin oaths, but that he was more responsible than any other. More or less. England is one of those cases where the country didn't need to change their faith because the monarch did, like in the Holy Roman Empire. Speaking of which, the English didn't want anything to do with the religious wars of France and the Germanies. Widespread destructoin torment, all so that some bigwigs could decide who got an empty title or who got to plunder which churches and peasants.

True, though he did also push for religious toleration and for equality through his Declaration of Liberty and Indulgence.

As regards the English, they wanted involvement in the war, but Parliament wasn't willing to stump up the funds for them to be actually achieve anything of note. A pirate raid against the Spanish fleet notwithstanding.
 
I say we abstain from making too much changes - Cambridge&Kendal survival and maybe Empress Margaret Terersa living to deliver her last child (maybe death in childbirth)? Too much and this would be just changing stuff for sake of changing stuff.
The Second War was debated here - as part of the research, and even then we had resorted to some odd circumstances like killing off de Ruiter away. Later on (this summer) I got on collector spree regarding the Rupert of the Rhine biographies, and found out that his performance as a naval commander was greatly impaired in 1665-1667 by a bruise of old head wound resulting in inflammation of the head with risk of meningitis, with two head trepannings needed. One of those surgeries was performed immediately before the infamous Raid on Medway, so he was unable to properly participate in defence organization, by virtue of being bedridden.
1665:
An additional reason for the collapse of the expedition was the severe illness of Rupert. The old wound in the head, which he had received through Gassion's treachery, had never properly healed, and now an accidental injury to it had very serious results. The Duke of York, much concerned by the accident, immediately sent a surgeon to {306} the fleet, and wrote with friendly solicitude to his cousin: "As soon as Will Legge showed me your letter of the accident in your head, I immediately sent Choqueux to you, in so much haste as I had not time to write by him. But now, I conjure you, if you have any kindness for me, have a care of your health, and do not neglect yourself. I am very glad to hear your ship sails so well. I was yesterday to see the new ship at Woolwich launched, and I think, when you see her, (which I hope you will do very quickly, under Sir John Lawson,) you will say she is the finest ship that has yet been built."[12]

The surgeon operated upon the Prince, who wrote November 6, to the King: "I could not go from shipp to shipp to hasten the work, since Choqueux will not let me stir, to which I consented the rather, since he promises to have me quite well and whoele in a few days."[13] But the promise was not made good, and a very dangerous illness ensued. "Prince Rupert, by a chance, has bruised his head, and cannot get cured," says one of the Hatton correspondents in December. "He is gone up to London to endeavour it there... He is mightily worn away, and in their opinion that are about him is not long-lived. He would fain go to Guinea, and is endeavouring to be despatched there; he believes the warmth of that clime would do him good."[14] Life, apparently, still held attractions for Rupert. According to Pepys, he was "much chagrined" at the idea of dying, but recovered his spirits wonderfully when assured of convalescence. "Since we told him that we believe he would overcome his disease, he is as merry, and swears, and laughs, and curses, and do all the things of a man in health as ever he did in his life."[15]

The illness lasted a long time; but though he was {307} exceedingly weak, Rupert did not fail to take his part in the first Dutch war. The formal declaration of war was made in February 1665, to the great joy of the English nation, whose commercial heart had been stirred by colonial jealousies. "What matters this or that reason?" cried the honest Duke of Albemarle (General Monk). "What we want is more of the trade which the Dutch now have!"
1667:
In January 1667 he was again very ill. The old wound in his head broke out afresh, and his life was despaired of; but in February he consented to an operation, which gave him some relief and enabled him to sleep. A second operation brought him fairly to convalescence, and after this he "diverted himself in his workhouse," where, amongst other curious things, he made instruments with which the surgeons were able to dress his wound quickly and easily.[54] Owing partly to this illness and partly to the King's poverty and home policy, the fleet was neglected throughout the whole year—only two small squadrons were fitted out; and in May, the Dutch took an ample revenge by entering the Medway, and burning the country near Felixstowe.
Of course, this head wound of a single, though talented, commander, is relatively small factor in English performance, but among the big factors debated in the old thread I gave the link to above, this is the easiest one to change. No hitting His Royal Highness' royal head against the wall by accident can go a long way.
 
Very true re the changes. Cambridge and Kendal survive, Theresa delivers a son and that's golden. The situation itself going into the 1670s will be quite different I think anyway
 
Would Monmouth still rebel in this scenario or remain the faithful general?
I am reading some stuff that may be helpful in this scenario. TTL the Country Party would have no need to pull a Protestant candidate for the throne out of...well, somewhere, so Monmouth may never get in the circles that gave him the delusions of grandeur in the first place. TTL he's still the peer just a peg below legit Royal family members, but nothing more.

The Country Party moderates (Prince Rupert as example of one, I'm reading the books about him by Sir Frank Kitson, first-class reading on the period, BTW) believed that the English fate is a "seesaw", balanced between the Imperial/Spanish and French interests. TTL the marriage policy for York's children reflects this.
 
I am reading some stuff that may be helpful in this scenario. TTL the Country Party would have no need to pull a Protestant candidate for the throne out of...well, somewhere, so Monmouth may never get in the circles that gave him the delusions of grandeur in the first place. TTL he's still the peer just a peg below legit Royal family members, but nothing more.

The Country Party moderates (Prince Rupert as example of one, I'm reading the books about him by Sir Frank Kitson, first-class reading on the period, BTW) believed that the English fate is a "seesaw", balanced between the Imperial/Spanish and French interests. TTL the marriage policy for York's children reflects this.
Hmm interesting. No Monmouth rebellion, and more French leaning marriages ar first
 
We've planned ONE French leaning marriage (Duke of Cambridge + Mlle d'Orleans), though with assumption there would eventually be (half-English) French Queen.
Kendal gets a Protestant bride (OTL Queen in Prussia); Mary would likely marry as OTL, while for Anne it is either George of Hannover (but less pressure for the match if his sister is the Duchess of Kendal) or marries to the Portugal.

However, regarding the Mary's match, there is a caveat. Learning that her marriage with William of Orange will take place, Louis was furious and cancelled the subsidy promiced to Charles II under the Treaty of Dover, viewing English separate peace with the Dutch as a treason, and thus in 1677-1678 England nearly switched sides turning into French enemy. There the pissing off Louis may be more moderate, as Mary is no heiress presumptive, but the negotiations of match between Cambridge and his Orleans cousin may be complicated to some degree.
 
So something like this for James and Claudia:

Henrietta (b. 1674)

Catherine (b. 1677: d. 1677)

Charles, Duke of Gloucester (b. 1680)

Stillborn daughter (b and d 1682)
I think that Claudia once she is a Queen, may attempt to betroth Gloucester to one of younger daughters of Eleonora of Neuburg and Leopold. Of course, there's a third son, but in OTL there were difficulties in finding suitable grooms for the brood of Archduchesses (only one Eleonora's daughter eventually married in OTL), and if anything, the brood is going to be even larger TTL with Eleonora and Leopold marrying earlier.
 
I think that Claudia once she is a Queen, may attempt to betroth Gloucester to one of younger daughters of Eleonora of Neuburg and Leopold. Of course, there's a third son, but in OTL there were difficulties in finding suitable grooms for the brood of Archduchesses (only one Eleonora's daughter eventually married in OTL), and if anything, the brood is going to be even larger TTL with Eleonora and Leopold marrying earlier.
Indeed very valid points regarding the marriages for the duke of Cambridge and his family. I do think seeing Charles II do some maniuveting during this period would be fascinating
 
Top