PC: James II is excluded from the succession

Historically there was a period of time when the House of Commons not only discussed excluding James II from succession to the throne but actually passed a bill doing just that three times. However, each time Charles II made it known that he did not want his brother excluded and the House of Lords failed the bill, the closest they ever got was ~30 lords voting for exclusion and ~60 lords voting against exclusion. Yet Charles II told the French ambassador, that Charles would have excluded his brother had the Parliament guaranteed all royal prerogatives and given him a lot of money. So I ask you is this account from the French ambassador reliable and is it realistic for the House of Commons to actually grant Charles these concessions? Additionally, if James II was excluded would his daughter Mary become the heir or would it be more likely for Monmouth to be legitimized and made heir?
 
The supporters of exclusion were a mixture - but certainly in the earliest stages there was a significant level of support for Monmouth being named successor - though many hoped the crisis would push Charles II to divorce his wife and remarry and produce a legitimate child. Mary of York was by this time married to William of Orange - so she might have been named as an alternative - but the support was with Monmouth (largely because Mary of Modena kept conceiving and the chances of finally producing a living son was not unlikely) - Charles himself was loathe to go against the natural order of things though Parliament was not above buying his approval - in the end funds from Louis XIV enabled him to dismiss Parliament settling the matter.
 
Probably Monmouth. You saw how OTL Anne excluded all those Catholics? Their descendants regardless of religion were too.

Modern interpretation of the Act (until the recent changes) - was that becoming or marrying a Roman Catholic excluded only the individual and any issue raised in the Roman Catholic faith - so Prince Michael of Kent was excluded on his marriage but his children being Anglican were considered to be in the succession (Michael of Kent was restored to his place after the succession act of 2011 which removed the marriage restriction).

The argument being that at the point an individual became heir presumptive or apparent - a judgement would be made on their eligibility under the terms of the act - 1) Is that individual the senior heir general of Sophia of Hannover, 2) are they in communion with the Church of England, 3) Are they Roman Catholic 4) Are they married to a Roman Catholic.

The original framers of the act did not probably foresee a situation where a person marrying a Roman Catholic would not raise their children in that faith - so the original intent was probably to exclude the line from that individual for all time.


The Act of Settlement - That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incabale to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance And that the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such Person or Persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead
 
So you all think that Monmouth would probably have enough support to end up as heir?

What would a Monmouth reign look like?
 
I think it highly likely that significant restrictions would have been imposed on him by Parliament - further limiting the authority of the crown - as part of any deal or settlement.
His wife was a very wealthy woman so he would not have been hard up to run a court but he would be entirely reliant on those peers and commons who had supported the exclusion of his uncle from the throne.
But you would also have a secure succession Monmouth and his wife having had a large family of which two sons survived in 1685 (and given Anne's last pregnancy was in 83 there might have been more)
However given that James' exclusion would be challenged i suspect a rising on behalf of James or his daughters soon after Monmouth's accession - with no James Stuart on the throne after Charles II's death - then domestic support for his son (assuming he is still born) might be stronger than in OTL - though religion will of course remain a problem for the exiled Duke of York and his family - in these circumstances you also probably have no breach between James and his daughter's in the short term.
 
Top