Louis XIV has more legitimate children.

If Anne Elisabeth survives, I can see her as the compromise Bourbon candidate for the Spanish throne since it would avoid the potential problem of TTL's Duke of Anjou taking the Spanish as Felipe V and then being the only male direct line Bourbon left if the smallpox epidemic hit the French court as OTL.
 
If Anne Elisabeth survives, I can see her as the compromise Bourbon candidate for the Spanish throne since it would avoid the potential problem of TTL's Duke of Anjou taking the Spanish as Felipe V and then being the only male direct line Bourbon left if the smallpox epidemic hit the French court as OTL.

That is very true.
 
The match is arranged during Charles II' reign, circa 1680, and there may be NO Mary of Modena TTL when France does not have to rely on "proxy princesses". The weird thing is two Catholic matches for daughters - unless James III marries his SONS Protestant, imitating James I in reverse.

And this is also true, I might need to change that aha.
 
James III and VIII.jpg
 
More a case of Charles II dying off early due to his extravagant lifestyle, and James II dying due to a civil war.

I think more interesting (and more tolerant environment with Catholic marriages) would be killing off OTL James II somewhere in mid-1670ies during Third Anglo-Dutch War, since with surviving teenage son he'll be allowed to take personal command. One freak cannonball shot is what it takes.
Then James reigns as James II/VII. And his father the Duke of York is remembered as a hero who died valiantly fighting the Dutch and not the idiot who screwed up anything there is to screw.
 
I think more interesting (and more tolerant environment with Catholic marriages) would be killing off OTL James II somewhere in mid-1670ies during Third Anglo-Dutch War, since with surviving teenage son he'll be allowed to take personal command. One freak cannonball shot is what it takes.
Then James reigns as James II/VII. And his father the Duke of York is remembered as a hero who died valiantly fighting the Dutch and not the idiot who screwed up anything there is to screw.
Aha fair. Was a clash between parliament and crown inevitable during this period do you think?
 
A question I have is, were the days of kings actively taking the field during war
Long gone?
Well, the last British king actively taking the field was in 1740, so...
And the Duke of York (speaking of case above) was two feet away from certain death at Lowestoft (spelling?) in 1665. Maybe if he is allowed to take active command, having surviving son and all this, the next naval battle he is not that lucky.
And as for collision course - somewhat yes (there was a fear that kings, becoming financially independent from Parliament, would create absolutist rule Continent-style), but there are always compromises.
 
Well, the last British king actively taking the field was in 1740, so...
And the Duke of York (speaking of case above) was two feet away from certain death at Lowestoft (spelling?) in 1665. Maybe if he is allowed to take active command, having surviving son and all this, the next naval battle he is not that lucky.
And as for collision course - somewhat yes (there was a fear that kings, becoming financially independent from Parliament, would create absolutist rule Continent-style), but there are always compromises.

Alright quality, thanks for the info. I'm just trying to decide, is a civil war more or less likely in a reign of a son of James Duke of York, or a son of Charles II
 
Top