OTL Queen Mary II of England and her Prince Consort William III had no surviving children, meaning the house of Orange-Nassau remained solely a Dutch house. But what if they had produced a living heir? We'll say they name him James after her father and have him 1679, about two years into their marriage. How would this de facto (as the Netherlands weren't a kingdom yet) Personal Union between England Scotland and the Netherlands evolve? Would the Dutch adopt a King sooner, while Britain democratizes further? how would other naval powers react to such a merger?
What If William III and Mary Had A Living Son?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
the time was kinda arbitrary to make sure he was an adult when they died. plus I don't think a kid born in Amsterdam is going to really affect James II and London. if anything it could accelerate it since he has a perfectly good nephew by protestant parents, meaning there's less risk of someone like James's son Charles trying to take back the crown
First of all the name would not be James. He would get a Dutch name, or more correctly a name from the house of Orange Nassau. Most likely Willem (william in English), although I could see Frederick-Hendrik, Maurits, Lodewijk, but James is unlikely.
Secondly, it would not be a true personal union. As you said the Netherlands was not a kingdom and a stadholder was not a king. William III wasn't even stadholder of all of the Netherlands. He was only stadholder of a couple of provinces (including the most important one Holland, which made William III one of the most powerful men in the Dutch Republic). There was a seperate stadholder of the northern provinces. Also before Willem became stadholder there was a stadholderless period and after him there was another one. Which means that even if William and Mary have a son, that would not automatically mean he would become stadholder.
hat said I do believe that if William III had a son, he probably would succeed his father as stadholder, but can't see it as a permanent arrangement. William's son (lets call him Willem IV, probably would still have a connection to the Netherlands since he grew up there, he probably speaks Dutch and no doubt his parents instructed him how to handle the Netherlands (which by the way is hard, you rely have to know what to do as stadholder if you don't want to be reduced to a simple figurehead). William IV's son though probably won't care about the Netherlands, since England is far more imporatant. At that point I see the "personal union" end. I suspect some provinces would simply prefer the northern stadholder over the king of England, or maybe the brother of the king. Although it is possible that some provinces choose to go the for the king of England while others decide to go for someone else. For example Friedland, Groningen, Drenthe and Overijssel will go for the northern stadholder. Holand, Zeeland and Utrecht decide they prefer the brother of the king of England, while Gelderland, always the most pro-Orange province decides they will keep the king of England as stadholder.
VVD0D95
Banned
Im
Not so sure, James May we’ll be able to play on the fact that his daughters heir is a foreigner. Abd are the English really going to want that over a native son who if they remove his father could be made king under a regency. Plus Anne is less likely to support attempts to remove her father if mary has a son
Well, what would be heavily affected by Henry Frederick‘s existence are Anne’s action and she was a pretty big player in the starting of the Glorious Revolution. Anything you can think about her role, she was without doubt the one to start the “warming pan baby“ story about her newborn half-brother.
If Mary and William had a son what I see as the most likely scenario is James II dying (either by assassination, accident, poisoned or mysterious illness) shortly his son’s birth with the baby Prince of Wales becoming King James III under the regency of his half-sister Anne. Less likely but still possible James II will be either deposed/imprisoned or forced to abdicate, but still followed on the throne by his son with Anne as regent
That is ASB. Mary was without doubt already unable to have children at that point. You need a POD in 1677/8 for consenting to Mary and William to become parents (either preventing Mary from becoming pregnant shortly after the wedding or consenting to her to carry at term that baby) as the miscarriage who ended her first pregnancy made her unable to have children (maybe she had a second miscarriage few months after the first and a third few months after the second and a fourth a year later but they were likely all very early in the pregnancy and we have no trace of pregnancy or sign of something similar after 1680)
This didn’t stop a German Electorate, who didn’t speak English from succeeding the throne. This son of Mary and William who is likely to be named William after his father and grandfather rather than maternal grandfather, will have been taught English as well as Dutch from a young age.
William IV (b. 1679 r. 1694 [1] d. 1739 [2]) m. Louise Dorothea of Prussia (b. 1680 d. 17??)
[1] I can image William abdicating the throne with his wife dead acting as regent for his 15 year old son.
[2] I’ve placed his age at death around 60, taking into account James II living to 67 while William III died at 51. Hopefully seeing his mum’s ill health due to weight will keep her son healthy.
[3] Louise is daughter and only living child of Frederick I of Prussia(1657–1713) and his first wife Elizabeth Henrietta of Hesse-Kassel (1661–1683). Does she still suffer from poor health and die in 1705 during childbirth?
Other potential brides:
- Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, the only daughter of George Louis of Hanover.
- Hedvig Sophia of Sweden (princess of a powerful country, however brings an adding successional crisis to the mix.)
- Lady Elizabeth Cavendish (1670–1741) Daughter of the first Duke of Devonshire who was one of the Immortal Seven.
What about a joint rule allowing his son to see the way of ruling. Years of Two Williams?
That I could see, if it gives him more legitimacy. Just like he officialy co-ruled with his wife.
I was under the impression that Mary caught smallpox which caused her to die youngish (she was healthier than the gout-ridden and alcoholic Anne) . Either way, William is likely to not abdicate in favour of his son, although he might spend more time in Holland after his wife dies (he became seriously disillusioned/unpopular with the English after Mary died IIRC). That the boy would be a teenager means W3 will still guide his son's steps, but probably "less" hands-on.
Why a Prussian match? There was talk of a French remarriage for W3 (to Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans) and nobody except W3 had any problem with that idea AIUI
Just realised I mixed up the sisters. So hopefully he will be as healthy as his mother and not follow his aunts health.
A co-monarchy with his son sounds better than a full abdication and at 15 he won’t be seen as too young.
Prussian were allies of the Dutch, with Frederick William inviting Huguenot refugees to settle in Brandenburg and replacing his French alliance for one with the Dutch, who now joined the anti-French League of Augsburg.
This is why I went against a French match, plus the fact that a catholic wife may be seen as a new avenue for the future heirs to be catholic as well stated in the Succession Act of 1701.
In her bio it says “Élisabeth's mother initially wanted her daughter to marry King William III of England, who was the widower of Queen Mary II of England, but, due to William being a Protestant, the marriage did not materialise.”
Although Elizabeth’s ancestry including Elizabeth Stuart helps the cause.
There is a mix between dynastic effects and diplomatic effects. Asmentioned by others The tittle Stad Holder is an elected one not an hereditary one ( at this time) , and each Province need to elct one on its own.
Dynasticly the post of @Jonathan sound plausible. I do nit sea much difference with OTL, at least not until the Diplomatic Revolution.
Diplomatic it would lead to a much better outcome for the Dutch Republic of the War of the Spanish Succession. In OTL the British betrayed their allies, and at the end the Dutch Republic was betrayed by all its allies leaving only a small portion of the initial war goal.
If a better peace treaty for the Dutch came out of the War of the Spanish succession it might not declined that much in the 2nd half of the 18th century, were it defacto become a pupet state of Austria. A British house of Orange Nassau could led to some much desired state reforms in the Republic, whihc did not materialised in OTL.
On the other hand aa British house of Orange Nassau could also led to a larger infulence of the British over the Republic.
An other option is that the Dutch Republic is releaved ot the Orange Nassau brance for ever, only left with the Orange Diets branch who were stadholder in Groningen and Frisia.
Teritorial this means the British royals will have teritorial possesions on the continent like Lingen and Moers and several palaces around the Hague. In OTL it was all occupied or granted to Prussia whihc had also some hereditiary claim on it.
Dynasticly the post of @Jonathan sound plausible. I do nit sea much difference with OTL, at least not until the Diplomatic Revolution.
Diplomatic it would lead to a much better outcome for the Dutch Republic of the War of the Spanish Succession. In OTL the British betrayed their allies, and at the end the Dutch Republic was betrayed by all its allies leaving only a small portion of the initial war goal.
If a better peace treaty for the Dutch came out of the War of the Spanish succession it might not declined that much in the 2nd half of the 18th century, were it defacto become a pupet state of Austria. A British house of Orange Nassau could led to some much desired state reforms in the Republic, whihc did not materialised in OTL.
On the other hand aa British house of Orange Nassau could also led to a larger infulence of the British over the Republic.
An other option is that the Dutch Republic is releaved ot the Orange Nassau brance for ever, only left with the Orange Diets branch who were stadholder in Groningen and Frisia.
Teritorial this means the British royals will have teritorial possesions on the continent like Lingen and Moers and several palaces around the Hague. In OTL it was all occupied or granted to Prussia whihc had also some hereditiary claim on it.
The stadholdership was not hereditary, but it wasn't truely elective either. I don't think it was at anytime possible Johan de Witt, or whoever, could at anyone point in time become stadholder. If such a thing was possible, it would have happened. The stadholdership was linked to the house of Orange. But that does not mean that the heir of the house of Orange would automatically become the next stadholder.
The Huguenot refugees in England were what caused the panic against James II to start with IIRC, carrying their tales of the dragonnades in France at the time of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Not only that, but England will be the deciding factor in the match, not the Netherlands. Prussia in 1700 has very little to offer England.
Pretty sure the Succession Act or the Act of Settlement will not look exactly the same as they did OTL. William III met with Sophie of the Palatinate, her son (George I), her daughter (Sophie Charlotte, queen of Prussia) and Sophie Charlotte's son, Friedrich Wilhelm I, three times to discuss the succession prior to passing that 1701 act. Sophie had demured at the first meeting and made the suggestion that William III adopt James Francis Edward Stuart. William extended that offer twice IIRC, once just after Mary II died and once just before James II died. Highly unlikely that he would've done so if he had any intention of allowing the 1701 Act to pass at the time.
When he met Sophie, Sophie Charlotte and her son the second time at Het Loo (before the second offer of adoption), he again spoke to them at length about it. Sophie recommended that perhaps JFES had learned from his exile (like Charles II had), but James II refused to allow the adoption. Out of frustration, William told the electress of Hannover that if she wouldn't accept, he would name Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia heir to all three states (the Netherlands, England and Prussia). Gottfried von Leibniz (Sophie's librarian) records the panic that this caused at the Hannoverian court. Not only that, but the Countess of Wilhelmsburg (George I's mother-in-law) was negotiating with William III to recognize George I as (eventual) heir, since she hoped thereby to better the situation of her daughter (then imprisoned at Ahlden).
So, with a son and no offer to the Electress of Hannover, no refused adoption yada-yada I don't see William III's TTL Succession Act looking anything like the OTL one.
I understand it differently. If William was so Protestant that he wouldn't marry Mademoiselle de Chartres, why did he not marry anyone else either? There certainly wasn't a shortage of other Protestant princesses around. But instead, when Mary II died, William not only refused to remarry but he gave his mistress, Elizabeth Villiers, her congé as well. Now, obviously the duchesse d'Orléans writes of a menage à trois between William III-Keppel and Bentinck. But she writes the same of Anne-Sarah Churchill and Elizabeth Percy/Abigail Masham, and calls the late Mary as nothing more than a coquette and alleges lesbianism between Mary and a lady at the Dutch court so I think we can dismiss it as scurrilous gossip and the ravings of a mother pissed off at the loss of a splendid match for her daughter.
If this was the case then a marriage between William IV and Fredrich Wilhelm’s half sister shouldn’t be a problem.
As the father is from the Netherlands he would be best placed to suggest a bride to his son.
The act was prompted by the failure of King William III & II and Queen Mary II, as well as of Mary's sister Queen Anne, to produce any surviving children. So with a surviving son of Mary the act will be completely different. However the Bill of Rights excluded Catholics from the throne, which ruled out James II and his descendants.
From what I have read, W3 was heart broken by his wife’s death and wanted to live the rest of his life in mourning similar to Victoria. The rumour of him being homosexuality I believe were just that, rumours made up by the Jacobites as it was the easiest slander that could be thrown around.
Jacobites used them, but the rumours about William's homosexuality existed from the late 1670s, early 1680s already.
The Bill of Rights excluded anyone not willing to abjure Catholicism, and Victor Amadeus II pissed W3 off by touting his children as potential heirs to England should James II remain steadfast. It was only with the 1701 that more than fifty places in the succession were skipped to pass the crown to the electress of Hannover.
Theoretically, yes. If W3 was only king-consort to Mary II. But as king of England himself (I honestly don't see him changing his threat of OTL that if they didn't crown him co-monarch with Mary, he'd turn around and take his army back to Holland and leave the English to deal with James II), W3 would have to consider it. Which is more useful, to see his son be stadtholder of the Netherlands (which, as pointed out, was neither hereditary nor elective; and the Dutch had massive issues with monarchical power) or to see his son stay king of England. Sooner or later, he's goign to have to pick a side
marktaha
Banned
James ' son called James not Charles. Surely Mary's son would have been her heir with little historical difference.