What if Henry Stuart (Charles I's third son) lives and replaces James II?

Thande

Donor
A WI is practically suggested by the article in The Infallible Wikipedia:
He was created Duke of Gloucester and Earl of Cambridge by Charles II (in 1660), but died suddenly of smallpox not long afterwards, much to his brother's distress. Decades later, during the exclusion crisis, Henry was looked back on as a kind of 'lost leader'; as what might have been a legitimate, warlike, Protestant alternative to the equally unpalatable choices of the Dukes of York (later James II) and Monmouth (James Scott).

So we have a Protestant Stuart, not a royal bastard like Monmouth, who was a respected soldier in the European wars of religion. Let's say he doesn't catch smallpox and he lives. When Charles II pops his clogs, it's a choice between him and James, who may be the older brother but is a Catholic and takes orders from the court of France. No contest.

Of course, this is still quite significant, because it would mean Parliament was working its will to alter the line of succession, and James would probably still run away and try to raise pro-Catholic Jacobite rebellions in Scotland and Ireland, etc...but it means there's no need for a Glorious Revolution and no foreign Protestants on the throne. What happens?
 
Well, with no Glorious Revolution and presumably no accompanying Bill of Rights, there'd probably be a significant effect on English* constitutional affairs. There'd likely be no party parliamentary system for a good while longer than OTL. This is assuming, of course, that should Henry take the throne he won't then be a puppet of Parliament. Also, with no enfranchisement of the vote, even the small increase provided by the Bill of Rights, England is far more likely to become subject to revolutionary ideals.

*No Britain at this point, before anyone kicks off. I have no idea about Scottish politics (then or now, as it happens), hence why I haven't mentioned the subject.
 
It's odd how in the case of the Glorious Revolution, the revolution actually made things MORE stable rather than less so. :)

Agree with Ed Costello's post.

In the long run, England might actually be more distant from European affairs overall (so that's why you picked the POD, Thande).. With Henry on the throne there isn't going to be the sort of personal relationships between Catholic monarchs that built up (and repeatedly tore down) English foreign policy.
 
I don't see Henry being able to replace James BEFORE James becomes king - IIRC he was not seen as a definite threat at first, and had he had a son from his first marriage to Anne Hyde its likely that all the troubles of the later part of his reign would have been avoided (since most of those stemmed from his remarriage and the fear that he would gain a male heir through it)...

But I don't really know, its just an impression and its a couple of years since I last read on this anyway

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top