Short term and long term consequences of continued Stuart dynasty post 1688

Query, what would be the short term and long term consequences if the house of Stuart had remained on the throne of Britain? This is either through there being no glorious revolution, through Charles II having a son, James II having a son with his first wife, a defeated glorious revolution.

Thinking social, political and economic effects.

Options one and two probably strengthen crown authority, and remove act of settlement, bill of rights non existent.

Option three, absolute monarchy?
 
I do think the balance would remain with the crown, but the financial angle could see a split for Charles II having a son and for James having a son by Anne Hyde
 
wow, unfortunately the answer depends on which one of your options you go with

The survival of the Stuarts in and of themselves might have a couple of effects
1. obviously no continental connection to or need to defend Hannoveer
2. a slight retardation of parliamentary sovereignty

But beyond this, the options are vast

As a note, James II did have sons with Anne Hyde, two of whom lived to be 3. Its not having children that is the issue here, but having them survive
 
wow, unfortunately the answer depends on which one of your options you go with

The survival of the Stuarts in and of themselves might have a couple of effects
1. obviously no continental connection to or need to defend Hannoveer
2. a slight retardation of parliamentary sovereignty

But beyond this, the options are vast

As a note, James II did have sons with Anne Hyde, two of whom lived to be 3. Its not having children that is the issue here, but having them survive

So, if the boys did survive, into adulthood, or that the pregnancy in 1669 was a surviving boy who lived into adulthood, one imagines the kid grows up Protestant, which might sidestep his father's catholicism and enable people to wait for a change?
 
I imagine that either the conspirators of otl in a scenario where James II has a son before 1688, and during the reign of Charles II would look to replace James with his son, either under a regency or under self rule, if James goes under the route he did otl.
 
Under Charles II and a continuation of his line, I imagine things would be more stable, more concrete advantage for the crown compared to Parliament, assuming his son is as good as he was at playing them.
 
Let’s say Charles had triplets in 1663 as he had his wife believe during an illness. It would make for a very interesting TL. I do agree everything would be more stable. Maybe Charles, James, Anne for names?
 
Let’s say Charles had triplets in 1663 as he had his wife believe during an illness. It would make for a very interesting TL. I do agree everything would be more stable. Maybe Charles, James, Anne for names?
Would Catherine survive that? I like it tho
 
Would Catherine survive that? I like it tho
I don’t think so. Giving birth to a child in 1663 was a traumatic and dangerous experience let alone three at the same time. I’m positive she would’ve died or be very sickly for the rest of her life and probably die earlier. But would there be an issue with the succession, as I’m sure twins would have an issue on who succeedes to the throne.
 
I don’t think so. Giving birth to a child in 1663 was a traumatic and dangerous experience let alone three at the same time. I’m positive she would’ve died or be very sickly for the rest of her life and probably die earlier. But would there be an issue with the succession, as I’m sure twins would have an issue on who succeedes to the throne.

Hmm would it depend on the issue of who witnesses the birth, and which babe gets the named first? Could we see a British version of the man in the Iron Mask?
 
So, if the boys did survive, into adulthood, or that the pregnancy in 1669 was a surviving boy who lived into adulthood, one imagines the kid grows up Protestant, which might sidestep his father's catholicism and enable people to wait for a change?

All depend of the period if the son is born after 1670/1680, James II would surely educate his son as a catholic, because James became more and more catholic and anti-protestant before he didn't have enough power and was less religious, so he would be forced to educate his son as a protestant and he would accept this.

After even if he's son is educated as protestant, people would still have need to wait few year after the death of James II to see a more protestant policy, the time that the heir affirms his power and that the pro-catholic party start to lose a part of his power.
 
All depend of the period if the son is born after 1670/1680, James II would surely educate his son as a catholic, because James became more and more catholic and anti-protestant before he didn't have enough power and was less religious, so he would be forced to educate his son as a protestant and he would accept this.

After even if he's son is educated as protestant, people would still have need to wait few year after the death of James II to see a more protestant policy, the time that the heir affirms his power and that the pro-catholic party start to lose a part of his power.

This is true, I imagine going for either a 1669 birth for James and Anne Hyde, or a 1674 birth for James and Mary of Modena would be the most interesting
 
This is true, I imagine going for either a 1669 birth for James and Anne Hyde, or a 1674 birth for James and Mary of Modena would be the most interesting

Yeah the son that he would have with Anne Hyde would surely be educated as a protestant. it would be the same for the son of Mary of Modena however in this case when James II will take the throne he will surelhy try to change education, to make him a catholic.

Interesting, less to no chance of an American Revolution?

I would say the same chance for different reason, the colonies would be less neglected, but these colonies would also be more centralized, making them more powerfull and a resentment between the colonies and James II will remain in the memories, so if the next king don't screw up nothing bad would happen but in the opposite case a revolution could still happened.
 
Yeah the son that he would have with Anne Hyde would surely be educated as a protestant. it would be the same for the son of Mary of Modena however in this case when James II will take the throne he will surelhy try to change education, to make him a catholic.



I would say the same chance for different reason, the colonies would be less neglected, but these colonies would also be more centralized, making them more powerfull and a resentment between the colonies and James II will remain in the memories, so if the next king don't screw up nothing bad would happen but in the opposite case a revolution could still happened.

Agreed re the 1674 one, which could of course prompt fears amongst the aristocracy, about whether the lad could be swayed from Catholicism or not.

And interesting, if James II and his successors keep things relatively stable, that should balance things out, of course the bigger the colonies get, the bigger the problem
 
Top