James II restored to the English throne instead of Charles II?

Charles II of England, the merry monarch, had a reasonably successful reign after the English monarchy was restored in 1660. His brother and successor, Catholic James II, on the other hand reigned for only three years before being kicked off the throne in favor of his Protestant relatives William & Mary.

So what if Charles II had died during Interregnum and James II succeeded to the throne in 1660? How long does James II last? Can he keep his crown ITTL or will there just be an earlier *Glorious Revolution to depose him?
 
Charles II of England, the merry monarch, had a reasonably successful reign after the English monarchy was restored in 1660. His brother and successor, Catholic James II, on the other hand reigned for only three years before being kicked off the throne in favor of his Protestant relatives William & Mary.

So what if Charles II had died during Interregnum and James II succeeded to the throne in 1660? How long does James II last? Can he keep his crown ITTL or will there just be an earlier *Glorious Revolution to depose him?

It's not at all obvious to me that he WOULD come back. Even given how 'unBritish' and unpopular as the Commonwealth was by the end, getting people to rally round James would still be difficult.

IMO.

Glorious Revolution or equivalent might happen in place of a (male) Stuart Restoration.
 
Why would James be any harder to get people to rally around than Charles in 1660?

Because Charles was charming and clever, and made a series of promises that everything was going to be all right, and there wasn't going to be any bloody nasty royalist vengeance. (He was of course, lying through his teeth, but even then he managed to produce enough distractions that people didn't dwell overmuch on things like people getting disinterred and posthumously executed.) James, a more inflexible, less charismatic personality, may choke on that, resulting in "Let's keep the Commonwealth going--we're sure we can figure this out if we keep at it."
 
Because Charles was charming and clever, and made a series of promises that everything was going to be all right, and there wasn't going to be any bloody nasty royalist vengeance. (He was of course, lying through his teeth, but even then he managed to produce enough distractions that people didn't dwell overmuch on things like people getting disinterred and posthumously executed.) James, a more inflexible, less charismatic personality, may choke on that, resulting in "Let's keep the Commonwealth going--we're sure we can figure this out if we keep at it."

If things proceed like IOTL I doubt the people would be too keen to keep the Commonwealth around. Inviting a protestant over to serve as a figurehead monarch might be more palatable. But do people even know that James II is catholic at this point? And if the great and good do try to install someone instead of James, does he attempt reclaim his throne anyway? Would he have any support as the "legitimate" monarch?
 
As far as I'm aware, James *wasn't* Catholic at that point. He was Catholic-curious, probably, but he didn't take communion in the Catholic Church until 1668 or 1669, and that he was Catholic didn't become public until he resigned as Lord High Admiral over his failure to take the oath required by the Test Act in 1673.

If there were suspicions that he was Catholic, the next candidate would be his younger brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester, although he died a few months later OTL. After that the Princess Royal, and her son the Prince of Orange (i.e., William III), then Charles I's youngest daughter Minette, still unmarried, then Charles I's sister Elizabeth of Bohemia, then her son the Elector Palatine.

I don't think any of James's siblings would accept the throne so long as he was alive,* but, IIRC, the Elector Palatine had definitely been *very interested* in the idea of taking his uncle's throne as a parliamentary candidate during the Civil War.

*Henry, very famously, was told by his father immediately before his execution that he should never let Parliament crown him king, because his older brother was the true king. I can't imagine he'd ignore that.
 
And a bit further downstream, there's William Seymour (Marquis of Hertford before the Civil War, "Mr. Seymour" during the Commonwealth, and IOTL Duke of Suffolk after the Restoration), who at this point was the recognized heir of the Brandon/Grey branch of the Royal Family. Politically, he'd be a pretty good compromise candidate: he had opposed Charles I's policies politically during the 1620s, parted ways with the radicals during the Long Parliament, fought on the Royalist side during the Civil War, and then remained in England and kept his nose clean as a private citizen during the Commonwealth/Protectorate.

His big problems as an heir were:

  1. There are by this point rather a lot of people with better claims than his, as jlk7e discussed: James, Henry, the Princess Royal and her descendants, Minette, and the Winter Queen and her descendants.
  2. His claim comes from the Tudors, not the Stuarts, so he has no legal claim whatsoever on the Scottish throne.
  3. He's an old man at the time of the Restoration (almost 72, and IOTL would die by the end of the year), and his immediate heir was his six-year old grandson.
Put it all together, and he's a pretty unlikely heir, but it could happen if James was considered unacceptable and none of his siblings would consent to be crowned before him. Particularly if you juggle times of death a bit relative to OTL, so William's heir is his younger son John (OTL a member of the House of Commons in the 1661 Parliament) rather than his underage grandson.
 
As far as I'm aware, James *wasn't* Catholic at that point. He was Catholic-curious, probably, but he didn't take communion in the Catholic Church until 1668 or 1669

Does this mean that he might be accepted back as a nominal protestant but with restraints on his powers that Charles II never had to ascent to?
 
Top