Queen Anne dies before her coronation: what would William III do?

Just an idea I had: if the future Queen Anne had died before her coronation (let's say she has a complication during her last pregnancy in 1698 and dies during childbirth) would William III remarry in order to secure the succession? And who could be his choice? Or he didn't have any intention of remarrying at all, and Sophia of Hanover becomes Queen?

Of course, there are other interesting consequences here. Probably his accident with the mole is butterflied, so we also would have a longer reign for William. How would it affect British politics and the War of the Spanish Succession?
 
It all depends on if this happens before or after the death of her son, the Duke of Gloucester, which led to the Act of Succession in the first place. For that, it also matters on if the Duke dies young at all. If the Duke lives, he becomes the next King; make him have better health, perhaps. William III was 52 at the time of his death, and he could maybe live for a decade longer if his health kept up; this would mean a Duke of Gloucester ascending to the throne at a fairly young age, in good health, making for an energetic and charismatic monarch that would preside over his cabinet and garner public support.

If not, then the line probably devolves to Electress Sophia. Who was old as fuck by the time William died OTL and definitely was by the time Anne died OTL. So if William lives longer, but still perishes sometime in the mid-1710's, then we'll have Sophia probably either dead already or ruling for only a couple years before the Hanoverian line rules anyway.
Unless, of course, they broach the idea of taking the Stuarts back, under the stipulation that they rule with parliament or not at all, and revert back to the Anglican Church. While I doubt James II doing so, as he very blatantly (and stubbornly) put principles above real power, I wonder if James III would consider changing confessions under the prospect of being peacefully accepted back to the line of succession.
 
It all depends on if this happens before or after the death of her son, the Duke of Gloucester, which led to the Act of Succession in the first place. For that, it also matters on if the Duke dies young at all. If the Duke lives, he becomes the next King; make him have better health, perhaps. William III was 52 at the time of his death, and he could maybe live for a decade longer if his health kept up; this would mean a Duke of Gloucester ascending to the throne at a fairly young age, in good health, making for an energetic and charismatic monarch that would preside over his cabinet and garner public support.

I completely forgot about Gloucester.:(
But didn't he suffer from some kind of debilitating disease? IIRC he had a malformation in his brain that contributed to his death.
 
I think the "Sophia Solution" would be most likely.

Of course, if Anne died in the period between becoming queen and her coronation then William III would be powerless ... and dead.
 
I think the "Sophia Solution" would be most likely.

Of course, if Anne died in the period between becoming queen and her coronation then William III would be powerless ... and dead.

That's why I suggested her death before William's one. If she dies in 1698, and her son still dies in 1700, would William remarry, now that he knows his issue would have the higher claim to the throne?
 
Interesting scenario but there are a couple of problems with this. Yes the Duke of Gloucester still being alive would allow for him to be heir. However, even his death would have resulted in the "Sophia" solution as William III reigned through his wife Mary II with the stipulation that in the event of her death, William III would still reign and would but be succeeded by the "Protestant" Stuarts and or their line. William III's possible remarriage and offspring would only result in their succession of his Dutch crown, not that of England.
 
Interesting scenario but there are a couple of problems with this. Yes the Duke of Gloucester still being alive would allow for him to be heir. However, even his death would have resulted in the "Sophia" solution as William III reigned through his wife Mary II with the stipulation that in the event of her death, William III would still reign and would but be succeeded by the "Protestant" Stuarts and or their line. William III's possible remarriage and offspring would only result in their succession of his Dutch crown, not that of England.

Sure, but in the Bills of Rights of 1689 it was written that the succession would go through William and Mary's descendants, the to Anne and her descedants, and then to the issue of William III by a later marriage. His possible children were never excluded from the throne.
 
If that is true then I stand corrected.

Not if. It is.

From the text of the Bill of Rights:

"Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly."
 
Interesting scenario but there are a couple of problems with this. Yes the Duke of Gloucester still being alive would allow for him to be heir. However, even his death would have resulted in the "Sophia" solution as William III reigned through his wife Mary II with the stipulation that in the event of her death, William III would still reign and would but be succeeded by the "Protestant" Stuarts and or their line. William III's possible remarriage and offspring would only result in their succession of his Dutch crown, not that of England.

Don't forget that William III was also a Stuart. His mother was Mary Stuart, sister of Charles II and James II. He had his own claim to the English throne.
 
from what i read, he was directly behind his wife in the line of succession.

So thats a pretty good claim
 
from what i read, he was directly behind his wife in the line of succession.

So thats a pretty good claim

He was, but his offspring by a second marriage were behind Queen Anne and hers, should she leave any.

Incidentally, there's another way you can keep the House of Orange on the British throne. Had Willem II of Orange survived the smallpox which (OTL) killed him in 1650, he and Mary would almost certainly have gone on to have more children. So in all probability a younger brother of William III would have become king in 1714.
 
Top