no doubt made worse that his death was perfectly preventable. The "paramedics" on scene bled him to cure his fever, and when the attending doctor arrived, heard that they'd bled him, responded "well then you have killed him". And refused to be involved in any further ministrations.
What PoD would be needed so that British parliament weren’t so prejudiced against James VII & II’s Catholicism?
- Thread starter Charles III Stuart
- Start date
Didn’t William have hydrocephalus problems? That probably would have killed him sooner rather than later had he survived whatever was his cause of death- IIRC it seems disputed what it was.
The Glorious Revolution enhanced the authority of Parliament. The eventual Hanoverian acquiescence to becoming fully constitutional monarchs requires the breaking of old ways. A Stuart Britain is surely a languishing one. Preventing its replacement prioritizes the continued power of the Church and nobility.
The future of Stuart Britain, I suspect, would be continued periphery to geopolitical power. The NA colonies either fall to France or take a more OTL Canadian path towards eventual independence. I don't know enough to speak to the effects on imperial expansion in the East.
The future of Stuart Britain, I suspect, would be continued periphery to geopolitical power. The NA colonies either fall to France or take a more OTL Canadian path towards eventual independence. I don't know enough to speak to the effects on imperial expansion in the East.
Obviously there was still anti-Catholicism, but no Catholics were executed after the 1680s, the legal restrictions on Catholicism were lifted beginning in 1778, and after the French Revolution several French religious houses found refuge in England. George III supporting full Catholic Emancipation might lead to some riots, but not to the King's overthrow and execution.
but I'm not suggesting that George III
suffer the same fate as a Charles I or a Louis XVI, I know that by now those times and thoughts in Great Britain were seen as something shocking and subversive ( particularly after the outbreak of the French Revolution ) in fact in his private letters, the feeling of profound struggle that haunted him in those days, between doing the right thing ( because he was well aware that Catholic emancipation was the only way to avoid revolts in Ireland ) and betraying his oath ( deeply felt ) to defend the English Protestant Church at the coronation
AFAIK the hydrocephaly didn't cause the fever that led to his death which IIRC has been blamed on typhoid, meningitis and something else in what I've read
Another scenario that could partly alleviate the pressures to which the Irish were subjected under the English Protestant government ( regardless of whichever dynasty is on the throne ) is perhaps that Charles II lives longer, so as to avoid the reign of James ( for as he the Stuart less Pro - French was ever, he had excellent ideas for the future ) and to ensure that the latter's heir is also raised as a Protestant, at least externally, so as to allay the fears of the English subjects and the machinations of parliamentarians ( although I can hardly see avoiding absurd moments like Titus Oates and his idiotic stories ), because if we want to avoid the terrible abuses that the Irish have historically suffered, we must go back to Elizabeth I, where from 1546 to 1604 the Ireland was placed under severe martial law and related military occupation ( particularly during her government, in the years from 1569 to 1594 ) real and own acts of ethnic cleansing, which according to some estimates affected 1/10 of the population at the time ( which is estimated at between 800 thousand and 1 million inhabitants )
Last edited:
1. Henry VIII doesn`t start the English Reformation
* Scotland stays Catholic
2. Edward dies a day before his father leaving a younger Mary to have a child
* Scotland stays Catholic
3. Charles I wins the Civil War
4. James VI & I :
- Leaves Charles a fiscally solvent England
- Introduces episcopalianism to the Scottish Church during Elizabeths reign
* The English Civil War probably doesn`t happen
or maybe that means toleration happens under Charles II?
* Scotland stays Catholic
2. Edward dies a day before his father leaving a younger Mary to have a child
* Scotland stays Catholic
3. Charles I wins the Civil War
4. James VI & I :
- Leaves Charles a fiscally solvent England
- Introduces episcopalianism to the Scottish Church during Elizabeths reign
* The English Civil War probably doesn`t happen
wouldn`t that make the problem worse in the long run ?
or maybe that means toleration happens under Charles II?
Last edited:
I don't think that's a good thing. The idea that electoral democracy is the only proper way to run a country isn't one I agree with, and keeping in mind that I'm Irish, we fare far better under the "absolutist" Stuarts than we did under the "democratic" Hanoverians. If it's necessary to sacrifice electoral democracy (which isn't a government system I am enamored with, anyway) in order to prevent the Protestant Ascendancy and the horrible "response" to the Famine that led to a quarter of us dying horrible deaths, I wouldn't even hesitate to do so.
And the so-called "democracy" of Parliament was even less democratic than Apartheid South Africa was in terms of the percentage of the population that actually got to vote.
The text I bolded - I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, anyway.
It's also a future in which many more British artists and composers get royal patronage instead of having the artistic fields dominated by Continental imports for generations.
Elizabeth I was bad, but William of Orange was worse.
I don't think we'll agree on much. The spread and fracturing of Protestantism led to religious pluralism. The Church ascendant means the continued suppression of free thought-a world where apostasy is still criminal. It's a world where women don't control their own bodies. If that's the world you dream of - no democracy, no freedom of conscience, no choices save for those with hereditary power - well, personally, I'm glad Chuck lost.
Last edited:
Either Mary Hyde not dying in 1671 and being crowned as Queen Consort to James upon his accession or James, Duke of Cambridge not dying in 1667 and continuing to be raised a Protestant like his sisters until his father's accession when he becomes the Protestant Prince of Wales.
One POD means James II can't marry anyone else thus meaning either a Protestant Mary or Anne succeed him and the other is an established Protestant Prince of Wales that can marry some Protestant and have Protestant descendants.
Parliament might not like that James II is a Catholic, but if he can't produce Catholic heirs or the first 3-5 individuals in line to inherit are Protestant especially if #1 is a male then they'll endure his existence.
One POD means James II can't marry anyone else thus meaning either a Protestant Mary or Anne succeed him and the other is an established Protestant Prince of Wales that can marry some Protestant and have Protestant descendants.
Parliament might not like that James II is a Catholic, but if he can't produce Catholic heirs or the first 3-5 individuals in line to inherit are Protestant especially if #1 is a male then they'll endure his existence.
With respect, you obviously don't know about James II's policies. James' whole objective was to abolish the Act of Uniformity, which compelled people to worship in the Established Church. It was his enemies who wanted to keep England as a religiously-intolerant theocracy. Going by your stated preferences, the Jacobites were the good guys.
Narrow religious freedom at royal whim is no freedom at all. In the long term, the Revolution helped break the back of the monarchy and churches in general.
It's not obvious to me that this is any worse than religious freedom at judicial whim, which is what we've got now.
That strikes me as not lining up with the real world. Constitutional democracies with strong, independent judiciaries have a far better track record on religious freedom than do any autocrats.
in reality Mary became "Bloody" only because after her reign Elizabeth, a staunch Protestant , you follow her to the throne and it was convenient for him to define Mary that way ( who like her ( Elizabeth ) relatives was equally Bloody ( because even Edward and especially Henry were not joking ) it was under her LONG reign that England obtained a Protestant majority, if this is united with the Invincible Armada, now you have the perfect mix to use anti-Catholicism as official state-approved propaganda )
Last edited:
Yeah why is it only the Catholic Tudor who is called Bloody when it applies equally to all of them
Most historical empires were run autocratically and permitted their subjects freedom of religion.