James III of England and Ireland and VIII of Scotland

James, Duke of Cambridge, son of James II and Anne Hyde born on 12 July 1663 was the seen by all as the future king. But he fell ill in april of 1667 and died on June 20th the same year of small pox. Samuel Pepys gave an eyewitness account of the Duke's health and on 9th June stated that the price was recovering and his death on 20th June was a shock to all.

So instead of James dying, he makes a recovery. As with his sisters, he is raised as a protestant under the orders of Charles II. When Charles dies in 1685, the young duke is 22. What happens then?
 
James, Duke of Cambridge, son of James II and Anne Hyde born on 12 July 1663 was the seen by all as the future king. But he fell ill in april of 1667 and died on June 20th the same year of small pox. Samuel Pepys gave an eyewitness account of the Duke's health and on 9th June stated that the price was recovering and his death on 20th June was a shock to all.

So instead of James dying, he makes a recovery. As with his sisters, he is raised as a protestant under the orders of Charles II. When Charles dies in 1685, the young duke is 22. What happens then?

His father becomes King of England, Scotland and Ireland and he becomes Prince of Wales. What else WOULD happen? Because Protestant nephew or no Charles II won't let his brother be cut out of the succession by Parliament. It would be a threat to the power of the Monarchy. Hell with a Protestant son we could see James II rule until death.
 
With a son (even a Protestant one) it is less likely that James II & VII would feel a need to remarry. No warming pan baby, perhaps no Glorious Revolution (though there was more than one thread in that warp) , a very different War of Spanish Succession.

So much may hang on a single life.

Charles would never agree to his brother's exclusion. Not just out of filial affection, but because he knew that the exclusion demands were a lever to try to secure an elective or nominative monarchy.
 
In any case, with a secure protestant heir (who may already be married himself by the time he becomes Prince of Wales), the exclusion Controversy might not even come up. People are going to be much more willing to tolerate a Catholic King for a while if they know that his son and heir is a protestant.
 
In any case, with a secure protestant heir (who may already be married himself by the time he becomes Prince of Wales), the exclusion Controversy might not even come up. People are going to be much more willing to tolerate a Catholic King for a while if they know that his son and heir is a protestant.

Exactly. Though I wonder just how Protestant he would actually be. His father's catholic, his potential step-mother's catholic, his aunt's catholic and his uncle is very sympathetic to Catholics. Even if he doesn't end up converting I feel that ATL's James III would be very liberal religiously.

Any ideas for a bride? Perhaps an d'Orleans cousin?
 
My bad. I meant where do we now see England, Soctland and Ireland progress? The Stuarts had good ties with France, so is there a chance that France may become a hegemon. Also the Bank of England was started under the reign of William and Mary. The Bank was one of the main reasons for development of the British as the most powerful nation of the world. James may not do the same.
 
With a son (even a Protestant one) it is less likely that James II & VII would feel a need to remarry. No warming pan baby, perhaps no Glorious Revolution (though there was more than one thread in that warp) , a very different War of Spanish Succession.

So much may hang on a single life.

Charles would never agree to his brother's exclusion. Not just out of filial affection, but because he knew that the exclusion demands were a lever to try to secure an elective or nominative monarchy.

I dunno, the Duke of York was already drifting towards Catholicism. Anne Hyde converted shortly after the Restoration, actually. James was the one who followed suit nine years later, although he continued to attend Anglican services into the mid-1670s. There was a reason why Charles II insisted his daughters Mary and Anne were raised as Protestants. He'd insist the same for his son.

Assuming James II still converts, though, it does have a plus side. Having a Protestant heir means the Glorious Revolution is pretty much out of the picture. An eldest son cannot be displaced by any other, so the Protestant party in England would merely view James II's reign as a bizarre interragnum, rather than something to be feared. This would be doubly true if James III is an active supporter of the pre-cursor to the Whigs. Having his son as a Protestant might still greatly aid James' image as he would probably be much less radical in his thinking given that the Protestant succession is ensured. He would probably still remarry though, even if James III lives. One male child isn't enough; with Charles II and Catherine of Braganza having no issue, having both an heir and a spare is quite important, especially in the age where children often died young.

One plus might be earlier religious tolerance. If James II reigns and doesn't mess things up too badly, his son might be keen in mimicking his uncle by issuing his own Royal Declaration of Indulgence, probably by abolishing the Test Acts and suspending other penal laws directed against recusants, thereby granting both Catholics and non-Conformists religious liberty. If his father's reign isn't too bad, Parliament would be much more willing to accept such an act, although during Charles II's reign, it was the Cavalier Parliament who came down against him, so you never know.

James III though, will definitely have a Catholic princess in the cards as a potential bride, even if raised Protestant. Both Mary and Anne eventually married Protestants, but Mary herself was briefly considered as a potential match for Le Grand Dauphin (what a mess that would be... gives me an idea for a WI of my own, actually!) by her uncle, so I could see Charles thinking that way for his nephew; if Mary and Anne both marry their OTL husbands, then the Duke of York would be quite adamant he marry a Catholic princess, such as Anna Luisa de' Medici, or any Italian or German state. A Protestant match is quite possible too, though, it merely depends. But with a Protestant heir I think the populace of Britain will be much more content assuming he himself is not influenced by his father in any direction that sways him towards Catholicism.
 
James would definitely still convert; he'd been heading that way at least since before the restoration, when a Protestant bishop asked him to examine a defense of the C of E's decision to split from Rome. (James thought it a surprisingly weak case)

All these suggestions that having a Protestant heir would make it all sweetness and light for James, his son and religious toleration strike me as wishful thinking. Cambridge's attachment to Anglicanism is probably going to be considered suspect at least by the more conspiracy-minded, Titus Oates types by virtue of him having such strong personal association with Catholics. I'm not sure whether he would be viewed as a potential saviour by an exclusionist movement or as tainted.

This is all very speculative as a lot depends on what sort of person Cambridge is, really. James is going to try to get him to convert, just as people tried to get James to abandon Catholicism, and as James tried to get his daughters to convert. If Cambridge goes the way of his father once he's old enough, then you're simply going to have Jacobitism with a different cast.

I still suspect you would get a crisis point, as James II made such a hash out of ruling historically it was more or less inevitable. Again, what Cambridge does, and what how his religious affiliation develops, would decide which way events go. Either way, religious toleration a la James is a dead letter; James' failure would taint it and a truly Protestant Cambridge would be well aware that it was a poisoned chalice.
 
James would definitely still convert; he'd been heading that way at least since before the restoration, when a Protestant bishop asked him to examine a defense of the C of E's decision to split from Rome. (James thought it a surprisingly weak case)

All these suggestions that having a Protestant heir would make it all sweetness and light for James, his son and religious toleration strike me as wishful thinking. Cambridge's attachment to Anglicanism is probably going to be considered suspect at least by the more conspiracy-minded, Titus Oates types by virtue of him having such strong personal association with Catholics. I'm not sure whether he would be viewed as a potential saviour by an exclusionist movement or as tainted.

This is all very speculative as a lot depends on what sort of person Cambridge is, really. James is going to try to get him to convert, just as people tried to get James to abandon Catholicism, and as James tried to get his daughters to convert. If Cambridge goes the way of his father once he's old enough, then you're simply going to have Jacobitism with a different cast.

I still suspect you would get a crisis point, as James II made such a hash out of ruling historically it was more or less inevitable. Again, what Cambridge does, and what how his religious affiliation develops, would decide which way events go. Either way, religious toleration a la James is a dead letter; James' failure would taint it and a truly Protestant Cambridge would be well aware that it was a poisoned chalice.


First off, I didn't know about the Bishop and James part, very interesting. And truly England DID have a weak case. They broke away because the King wasn't getting his way. It was more of a temper tantrum then a Religious revolution.

Not necessarily. No one really important cares about the conspiracy theorists. Charles II famously thought Titus Oates was s nutjub trying to start up a rebellion. But as long as Cambridge is fairly sincere in his Anglicanism I think that James II would indeed have an easier reign. As for a strong association with Catholics, well many did. It wasn't like Catholic's were banned from Court. Hell we don't even know if an exclusion crisis would still take place, or if it does, if it will be as strong a movement or as big of deal as OTL. It's certainly possible that with a Protestant son (or two perhaps one of her sons living could lead to more of Anne's male children surviving) Parliament is less freaked out about James Catholicism. They still wouldn't like it but it wouldn't be as scary with a male Protestant heir that couldn't be displaced by anyone else, unlike Mary.

Why would he go the way of his father? Mary and Anne were James's daughters and neither of them converted or even sent the message of possible conversion. So assuming in that regard he's like his sisters he would be fine.

As for a crisis point, what would be it here? OTL's point was the birth of James Francis Edward, Prince of Wales, so what could set them off if James has a Protestant heir? Hell if Cambridge is in favor of the Declaration of Indulgence we could see Catholic emancipation a few centuries earlier. Truly a lot depends on Cambridge's personality.
 
Why would he go the way of his father? Mary and Anne were James's daughters and neither of them converted or even sent the message of possible conversion. So assuming in that regard he's like his sisters he would be fine.

Why assume he would be like his sisters? Each individual personality is different - you see that plain enough in the contrast between Charles and James. There's no assurance either way of what an adult Cambridge would be like.

As for a crisis point, what would be it here? OTL's point was the birth of James Francis Edward, Prince of Wales, so what could set them off if James has a Protestant heir?

The Glorious Revolution being triggered by the birth of the Old Pretender is folklore history I'm afraid. In reality, William had already begun preparations for the invasion by the time of the birth, and indeed had already been courting the opposition party within the country for most of James' reign. By 1688 James had thoroughly alienated much of public opinion, and the ground was well-laid for a challenge on the part of William. The birth was pretty much incidental to the proceedings, all it ensured politically was the long-term future of Jacobitism.

If James governs anything remotely like he did in OTL, and I don't see any reason to suppose he wouldn't, his reign is going to become just as insecure and unstable as it did IOTL. Of course, if Cambridge is around and convincingly Protestant, you're probably not going to see William and Mary, but deposition of James in favour of his son is perfectly possible. Needless to say, if that happens, it's decidedly unlikely that Cambridge is going to re-embark on a second round of the religious tolerance policies of his father.
 
Last edited:
What you see if the Glorious Revolution is delayed is more of James II's program put into effect. Stripped of the religious overtones, this is a program of modernization that is more Francophile - strong monarch, in both an administrative and a religious sense, coupled with a larger peace-time standing army and less of an encouragement of finance and trade. This would look different than what happened because under William, the latter Stuarts, and then the Hanovarians, you have the same centralizing tendancies, but under the control of parlement, with more encouragment of trade and finance, and more investment in a fleet.

So moving towards a British Versailles, though probably to nowhere near the same extent as France, and a weaker parlement, as opposed to what happened. Probably some cultural implications, if you have a royal court that is the dominant social and cultural mover, instead of a diversity of different magnates and financiers patronizing different artists.
 
Top