Mary II dies before 1688: effects on the Glorious Revolution?

Just a thought: if Mary II had died before the birth of the male heir of James II and Mary of Modena, how would it change the revolution against the king? Would the lack of his wife make it harder to William of Orange be declared king? Could he just surpass Anne's claim, or there would be more opposition to this arrangement?
 
Just a thought: if Mary II had died before the birth of the male heir of James II and Mary of Modena, how would it change the revolution against the king? Would the lack of his wife make it harder to William of Orange be declared king? Could he just surpass Anne's claim, or there would be more opposition to this arrangement?

If the butterflies don't prevent the birth of the Old Pretender then it's likely that they'd do a similar revolution, except they'd place Anne and not King Billy on the throne.
 
If the butterflies don't prevent the birth of the Old Pretender then it's likely that they'd do a similar revolution, except they'd place Anne and not King Billy on the throne.

But would "Billy" even want to have all that trouble of invading England and fighting the Royalists/Jacobites if he knows that he won't be king?
 
But would "Billy" even want to have all that trouble of invading England and fighting the Royalists/Jacobites if he knows that he won't be king?

Nope. Parliament won't like a Catholic King either. Or rather, they'd tolerate James II if he doesn't push his religious freedom reforms like what he did in OTL.
 
Once James had fled there was no choice but to make William King. James had disbanded his army so only the Dutch army was available to keep order.

Anne would be spitting rivets over being displaced in the succession, but would have no choice. William would accept nothing less than the kingship, and if he went home with his army, Britain would be left in chaos and James very likley restored.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't William right behind Anne(and any children she may have) in the line of succession at the time?

Yes. He was the son of Mary, Princess Royal and eldest daughter of Charles I, so next in line after James II and offspring.

The unusual circumstances of 1688/9 led to him getting precedence over Anne, though any children he had by a cecond marriage would have come after her and her children.
 
Few problems i can think of:
No Mary and No Prince of Wales:
The Queen's pregnancy and the birth of a Prince of Wales was a prompt to those who had opposed James' move to religious toleration and what was seen by many as an increasing attempt to rule arbitrarily without Parliament and to the creation of a standing army.
Williams' actions were largely prompted by his fear that James was moving to a pro-French policy which was a direct threat to the Dutch.
Without Mary any action he takes will appear to be warlike rather than a defence of Anglo Scots values and religion. He is still immediately behind Anne and any children she might have in the succession and is going to be unwilling to act and put his chances of succeeding at risk.
Anne was personally extremely reluctant to move against her father and the biggest prompt to her poor relationship with him was the birth of her half brother.
The more moderate Parliamentarians might have been willing in these circumstances to wait to see a) how far James was prepared to go and b) willing to suffer in the sure knowledge of a Protestant heir (her two surviving daughters died in 1687 and her son William was born in 1689.
You probably put off revolution for a few years at best but abandon for several years any Act of Settlement or Succession and an Act of Union with Scotland.
Assuming the birth of a Prince of Wales -
Then again most of Parliament is going to be increasingly worried, Anne is certainly going to be the focus of any attempt to unseat the King (who has always excluded her from affairs of state) - William was in close communication with many parliamentarians and may be persuaded (due to his father in law's closer ties with France) to support any attempt to remove James.
Assuming it then follows OTL the convention may find more common ground and might move quicker than it did in our period - Anne is proclaimed Regent (for the abandoned throne of her father) - a Bill of Succession confirms her as heiress presumptive, followed by her children and then by William of Orange and any issue he might yet have and excludes her Catholic half brother. As in OTL there is signicant concern over the succession following the death of her only surviving son in 1700 - that probably results in the Act of Settlement and the Act of Union.
In OTL the convention that met - didn't unanimously agree to offer William and Mary the Crown in particular the Lords voted to offer them only a regency - it took a lot of debate and arguements before they were offered the joint throne.
 
In OTL the convention that met - didn't unanimously agree to offer William and Mary the Crown in particular the Lords voted to offer them only a regency - it took a lot of debate and arguements before they were offered the joint throne.


And a threat from William that if he didn't get the kingship he would pack his bags and return to Holland.

He may have been bluffing, but they didn't dare risk it.
 
Top