N/A

there'd still be Jacobites, and a lot of them. James didn't get the thrown because he was the only heir around, (there were Mary & Anne & Scott) it was because after the civil war the King wanted to show Parliament that they didn't pick the kings the crown went to the next in line wether they liked it or not.
maybe if James was scared for being killed if he were king, and stepped aside for Henry
 
Assuming the same chain of events as OTL, Henry's survival might not make much difference until about 1701, when the last of Anne's children dies, and then the butterflies really start to go. Assuming he actually has children, there's probably no need for an Act of Succession and I doubt an Act of Union would be all that interesting to the English in this scenario.

I really doubt if there would be much of a Jacobite threat with a legitimate, protestant Stuart to turn to in the 1710s. If Henry, or his descendents are at all forceful, you'll probably see a stronger monarchical executive and a delayed development of a Prime Minister. Maybe more factionalism and instability in Parliament.

Of course, all this is dependent on what type of Stuart the heir in the 1710s is...there's a huge range of personalities to choose from. If he's a savvy "Charles II" type, things could go very well but if he's a politically tone-deaf "James II" or "Charles II", then they could go very badly indeed.
 
I'm not really sure what you mean when you ask if Charles would be that stubborn. It's not really like he had a choice. England wasn't an appointive monarchy.

James was next in line for the throne after the childless Charles. OTL, he ascended the throne with a massive amount of political goodwill and proceded to throw it away over the next few years.

Mary, with William attached, is the next protestant heir so when/if James does his runner, they get the throne as OTL. If Mary, William of Orange and William, Duke of [not Gloucester] all die on time, leaving the childless Anne as Queen and Henry of Gloucester as the heir apparent and King in 1714 or so.

Of course, with sixty years between the POD and the accession, there is room for a lot of butterflies in this scenario. Personally, I like the idea of an uber-loyal Henry facing down William of Orange and rallying support for his nephew, James III/VIII in 1688...with him as regent and no Glorious Revolution.
 
Assuming things go as OTL. I still see William of Orange landing in an attempt to force James II's hand and get England into the coming war with France. He really needed the support. One huge question is whether Henry of Gloucester likes William of Orange or not. I see a few possibilities here:

1) Henry supports the invasion, crosses to William like the princess Anne and wants no part of a catholic monarchy, in whichcase, it all goes roughly as OTL, perhaps with Henry IX in 1714.

2) Henry is cool to William's plans, forms the core of a Stuart camp and manages to gain control of the Prince of Wales and goes for himself as regent and maybe King eventually.

3) Henry is cool to William's plans, doesn't get the Prince of Wales and then rallies England against the invader. One runaway king, one defeated coup d'etat and you have Henry IX in 1688.

4) Henry detests William, is a fervant Stuart loyalist and gives his brother the backbone required to face down William.

Any of these could be fun.
 
Top