Queen Mary II survives the pox

When King Billy fell victim to "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat" [1] in July 1702, his wife Mary took over the responsibilities of governing the kingdom for good - a role she had actually filled since 1690, with dwindling success and support, both from parliament and the English population. Besides a strict adherence to Protestant morals unheard of since the days of Cromwell, she had estranged almost all of her subjects by inexplicable personnel decision - leaving England without capable leaders at the outbreak of the War of Spanish Succession.

After continuous military failures on the continent, Queen Mary II decided to leave her late husband's Grand Alliance and withdrew England from the war in 1702, spending the countries military resources to quell various rebellions and leaving the door open for the landing of James II's son James Francis in Torbay with no opposition from the Royal Navy but almost full support from the Tories. James was not willing to renounce his Catholic faith, but granted the largest possible religious freedom for England, Scotland and Ireland. Queen Mary II was forced to resign, establishing James III as the next Catholic Stuart monarch on the English throne, facing not only the coming Protestant uprisings but the united Bourbon France and Spain.

[1] In 1694, Mary II made a miraculous recovery from smallpox.

Another thread from another site, am I the only one who finds this remarkably unbelievable? I mean they had "deposed" two monarchs already (her grandpa and dad), why would they not depose Mary as well? Also, what was Anne doing while they were all so remarkably unhappy with Mary? I would think they replace her with Anne before Jamie the Rover gets his ass on the throne
 
Well, the question is rather who would succeed Anne? Her children were all dead by this point - and both she and Mary are pushing forty (ergo not impossible for them to have kids, but most likely a regency would be required). Though, with a POD as early as 1694, it doesn't seem entirely impossible that the duke of Gloucester would survive - which this post has conveniently circumvented by not mentioning whether it occurs or not.

Though, my question is, what rebellions/discontent are there against Mary? AFAIK she was a relatively well-beloved ruler. Any unpopularity is most likely to have rubbed off while William was alive, not really after (I think). But Marlborough for instance (who might only remain Baron Churchill of Eyemouth) might stay in the Tower/refused posts due to his connections to the court at St-Germain, though not entirely, since there were several aristocratic families that kept a foot in both boots.
 
If Mary survives William, she will reign 'solo'. That's well enough.

But withdrawing from the WoSS would not estrange all her subjects. Some perhaps, but perhaps only a minority.

And the people who would support non involvement in Continental wars,the Tories, are the ones who OTL supported James. This scenario would require the Whigs to throw in their lot with James, which is silly.

I think the significant phrase in the excerpt is 'Mary .. resigned'. As we all know, it is not possible for a sovereign to 'resign'. Indicates to me an author with very little understanding whereof he treats.
 
If Mary survives William, she will reign 'solo'. That's well enough.

But withdrawing from the WoSS would not estrange all her subjects. Some perhaps, but perhaps only a minority.

And the people who would support non involvement in Continental wars,the Tories, are the ones who OTL supported James. This scenario would require the Whigs to throw in their lot with James, which is silly.

I also remember reading that the English were actually against the WoSS, believing that the Sun King would only hold influence in Madrid as long as he lived. It was Dutch Billy who wanted war since he was scared that if LXIV got a son/grandson on the throne in Madrid, there was nothing to stop him using a combined Franco-Spanish force to restore James II/III.

Also, William's popularity might stay at about the same level if Mary survives, given the fact it took a sharp nose-dive after she died. Even when he converted to Anglicanism it didn't gain him a whole lot of supporters in England, and it alienated much of the support in the Netherlands - hence the Second Stadtholderless Period.
 
Agree with the posters above. I'm not sure where this attack of incompetence on Mary's part is supposed to come from; at any rate, I've never heard anything to suggest that she was particularly dim or incapable of governing. And whilst James III could theoretically have become King, that would almost certainly have required him to abandon Catholicism. Finally, even if he did manage to take the crown whilst still in communion with Rome, Bourbon France was generally supportive of the Jacobites, so Louis would be more likely to give James aid against the Protestant uprisings than to represent a threat James has to face.
 
Another thread from another site, am I the only one who finds this remarkably unbelievable? I mean they had "deposed" two monarchs already (her grandpa and dad), why would they not depose Mary as well? Also, what was Anne doing while they were all so remarkably unhappy with Mary? I would think they replace her with Anne before Jamie the Rover gets his ass on the throne

Yeah I have to agree that whomever created that TL has very little knowledge of both the situation in Britain and Europe during that era and of the historical personages he/she is using. For one it assumes that William III still dies on schedule, which is in itself up in the air. Billy died of an accident, so he could reasonably live a few more years. But assuming he still dies around that time (maybe of smallpox himself or of an asthma attack) then that leaves Mary II as the only monarch.

Now first Mary was fairly healthy, and had little health problems from what I can tell, so she'll probably live longer then Anne (who's health was weakened by all the miscarriages and stillbirths). Second from what I can tell from Mary's solo reign while William was on the continent, she was a decisive and skilled woman, again much more then Anne. Now this could be a good thing, allowing the Crown to remain powerful, or could be disastrous, with Mary intervening to much in politics. Third, Mary will be the one who will have to deal with both the succession crisis and the Spanish War. If William dies before the Spanish war begins then Mary might just sit it out, as it really doesn't threaten Britain directly. But if William dies afterwards, then I feel that Britain will stay in there, if only for Mary to honor her husband's obligations. But the real question will be what Mary will do about her brother and the Jacobites.

Now from what I've read in Ungrateful Daughters (fabulous book that deals with Mary II and Anne and their roles in the Glorious revolution and their subsequent reigns) it seems that Anne more or less tricked Mary into believing that James wasn't their brother but a warming pan baby but considering later plans and plots I think Mary quickly realized that Anne lied to her. Also I can't see Mary signing or allowing her husband to sign the bill of attainder against the Prince of Wales (as James III legally remained in England) in 1702, so that in itself would have a significant change as James remains a legitimate member of the Royal family who, one could argue anyway, was held hostage by France rather then fled there. Now assuming that William Duke of Gloucester still dies on schedule (not necessarily gonna happen but considering William's ill-health I doubt he would have lived that long, though maybe long enough to father a child) then the Hanovarians are the heirs after Anne. I'm unsure of Mary's feelings towards them, but I can guess she would prefer her brother as heir. But religion remains the stumbling block. James HAS to convert to gain Mary's support, as he was an incredibly devout Anglican and I can't see her supporting a Catholic successor.

I think that pretty much covers all of the potential things for Mary's longer reign.
 
Anne was a scaredy-cat, younger daughter, who'd always been in the shade as far as beauty is concerned. Mary was the 5'8 auburn haired Venus by comparison and was the more confident of the two as to striking out on her own, as opposed to Anne who was in a way dominated by Mrs. Freeman. Hell, I for one can't see Mary II crying on the steps of St Paul's after William's death, and her groom of the stole/bff yells at her in front of the entire group "Not here!" Or even Sarah's domineering/high handed attitude when Anne wanted to stay with George's corpse. It was Sarah who gave the order for the court to pack up and move, not Anne. I believe Mary would've been equally griefstricken, but I don't think she would've allowed a courtier to tell her what to do. I mean, there's no Sarah Jennyngs-Churchill type character recorded for Mary (Mary actually hated the amount of influence Sarah had over Anne, it was the cause of their last fight).

I forgot about Mary's rumored teenage "affair" with Frances Apsley, later Lady Bathurst. But I'd like to dismiss that as teenage/preteen infatuation. After she became Princess of Orange I've never heard of another lady being allowed the sort of influence Sarah had over "poor Morley" [Anne]. Mary didn't like the Churchills for precisely that reason - the amount of influence they had on Anne. So I could see John Churchill being refused posts in the army, or maybe even staying in the Tower after the so-called Flower Pot plot.
 
Last edited:
Top