Who would make a better constitutional monarch?

Which house makes a better Constitutional monarc?

  • Charles, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1677 ) Stuart

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • James Francis Edward Stuart (b.1688) Stuart

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • William Duke of Gloucester (b.1689) Oldenburg

    Votes: 13 72.2%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Currently trying to decide what my next timeline should be on, and I've hit a snag.

Trying to decide whether I want the House of Stuart or the House of Oldenburg as the monarch for Britain as it evolves into a constitutonal monarch.

The scenarios: James II dies from an injury taken whilst out riding in 1688, his death scuppers what plans there might have been for a revolution and instead a scramble for the regency begins.

Or

Glorious revolution happens, Anne's children survive.

The options:

Charles, Duke of Cambridge (b.1677) eldest son of James II and Mary of Modena, would be eleven when his father dies in 1688, and consequently more in tune with being raised by an Anglican regency.

James Francis Edward Stuart (b. 1688) second son of James II and Mary of Moden, would be born just after his father dies in 1688, and can be shaped accordingly.

William, Duke of Gloucester (b.1689) his birth would symbolise a success of the Glorious Revolution especially if he's born healthy and without any of the ailments that plagued him otl.


Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
 
How effectively would parliament or whoever be able to separate the Catholic Mary Modena from her kids and prevent her religiously contaminating them? And Charles is old enough to notice if his mother is treated harshly and could be embittered about the whole thing. In any case, given their parentage there could potentially always be a lingering distrust about the religious inclinations of a King Charles III or James III.

A scenario in which James II is never run off the thrown also means his bastards are still kicking around English politics rather than in exile on the continent, which could complicate things- they're obviously nephews of the Duke of Marlborough (...which could be politically significant, somehow?) and they're Catholic (are they liable to flip to Protestantism?). People might get nervous if a King Charles III/James III shows too much fondness for a Catholic half-brother.

In general, with no Jacobite rebellion, wouldn't there be many figures still active in England who had to run off into continental exile IOTL? I don't know how that would effect things, but it surely would, right?

Of course, from a sentimental viewpoint it'd be nice to see William survive, because his mother's history IOTL is just catastrophically depressing (18 pregnancies for no surviving children!). And if you keep some of the physical ailments that he suffered IOTL (just reduce their intensity so he can survive long enough to have kids) then he might be even more inclined to leave ruling to parliament because he lacks the health/energy for robust, active rule or is unable to properly assert himself. If you want to amp things up further, if dies of his ailments in his 30s and leaves behind a child heir, then there's a decade or so of regency during which royal power could erode further in favour of parliament.

Also, with a King William IV who is English (his Danish father notwithstanding- he's been born and raised in England), is it possible the Jacobites get less support? I know religion was the driving issue, but having foreign Hanoverian rulers probably didn't help.

Additionally, with a clear Protestant heir is it possible the Act of Union is delayed/butterflied- wasn't it at least partially motivated by concerns the Scots would choose a monarch other than Sophia/George when Anne died, and therefore go their own way?
 
How effectively would parliament or whoever be able to separate the Catholic Mary Modena from her kids and prevent her religiously contaminating them? And Charles is old enough to notice if his mother is treated harshly and could be embittered about the whole thing. In any case, given their parentage there could potentially always be a lingering distrust about the religious inclinations of a King Charles III or James III.

A scenario in which James II is never run off the thrown also means his bastards are still kicking around English politics rather than in exile on the continent, which could complicate things- they're obviously nephews of the Duke of Marlborough (...which could be politically significant, somehow?) and they're Catholic (are they liable to flip to Protestantism?). People might get nervous if a King Charles III/James III shows too much fondness for a Catholic half-brother.

In general, with no Jacobite rebellion, wouldn't there be many figures still active in England who had to run off into continental exile IOTL? I don't know how that would effect things, but it surely would, right?

Of course, from a sentimental viewpoint it'd be nice to see William survive, because his mother's history IOTL is just catastrophically depressing (18 pregnancies for no surviving children!). And if you keep some of the physical ailments that he suffered IOTL (just reduce their intensity so he can survive long enough to have kids) then he might be even more inclined to leave ruling to parliament because he lacks the health/energy for robust, active rule or is unable to properly assert himself. If you want to amp things up further, if dies of his ailments in his 30s and leaves behind a child heir, then there's a decade or so of regency during which royal power could erode further in favour of parliament.

Also, with a King William IV who is English (his Danish father notwithstanding- he's been born and raised in England), is it possible the Jacobites get less support? I know religion was the driving issue, but having foreign Hanoverian rulers probably didn't help.

Additionally, with a clear Protestant heir is it possible the Act of Union is delayed/butterflied- wasn't it at least partially motivated by concerns the Scots would choose a monarch other than Sophia/George when Anne died, and therefore go their own way?

Hmm, some very fair points raised here. In regards to Charles, I do think that he'd have had a split between anglican upbringing of his early years under his uncle and then the catholic leanings of his father, so his religious outlook is open to questioning. Depending on who is on the regency council as well I suppose. Same is true for James III, depending on who is on the regency council, he could well grow up a staunch Anglican.

And a ye, with many jacobite nobles still around in Britain around this time, that would consequently have a chance to perhaps give the tories a lot more of a solid footing for things.

And aye, William surviving would be good, he could help shift things to Parliament due to as you suggest ailments. He could well mean that Jacobites get less support due to being born locally. As for the Act of Union that could well be delayed by a few years, as there is one clear successor.
 
I don't think you can save the stuarts. James II's late-life conversion and his wife being Catholic taint both the children to the point of war, that's why he was dumped along with his kids.

William is the best bet, doing whatever version you like of @Tyler96's scenario.
 
I don't think you can save the stuarts. James II's late-life conversion and his wife being Catholic taint both the children to the point of war, that's why he was dumped along with his kids.

William is the best bet, doing whatever version you like of @Tyler96's scenario.

Intriguing, for the Stuarts to be saved, I imagine then that James either needed to not convert to Catholicism, or have a son by his first wife who was Anglican
 
I don't think so. Not to achieve your "constitutional" goal, a Stuart will try to govern more. Williams' health gives the toehold needed to achieve your stated goal.
 
What? You get us all going on the subject and don't know what it is?

Flog yourself with a wet noodle. At once.

Why don't you tell us what you THINK it is. (Buying time for research for myself:winkytongue:)
 
lol you see I think there are two different models. The British model where the king gradually hands over all political power to elected officials, but not with a formal hand over. Then there's the Scandinavian model till World War One, where the crown was formally apolitical but had large reserve powers and could make or break an elected government
 
A William of Glouchester could be interesting.

Don't have a lot of comments about the effects of constitutional monarchy.

But William is very high on the list for the Danish throne, a few convenient death (about 3 if I remember correct) and you have a personal union, with a albeit bigger European mainland state, but you also have a English King born in England.

How exactly England or Denmark-Norway for that matters react to it, I don't know. It is nevertheless, a fun though process !

Edit: I fear Denmark would not exactly be a good inspiration for a constitutional monarchy, It have just become a absolute one about two decades before William's birth.
 
A William of Glouchester could be interesting.

Don't have a lot of comments about the effects of constitutional monarchy.

But William is very high on the list for the Danish throne, a few convenient death (about 3 if I remember correct) and you have a personal union, with a albeit bigger European mainland state, but you also have a English King born in England.

How exactly England or Denmark-Norway for that matters react to it, I don't know. It is nevertheless, a fun though process !

Edit: I fear Denmark would not exactly be a good inspiration for a constitutional monarchy, It have just become a absolute one about two decades before William's birth.


Indeed, though they were autocratic constitutional monarchies in the 19th century
 
Indeed, though they were autocratic constitutional monarchies in the 19th century
Very much true.
hen there's the Scandinavian model till World War One, where the crown was formally apolitical but had large reserve powers and could make or break an elected government
But while this is true, when the Danish king actually tried to this after WW I, it sparked a rather big crisis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis_of_1920

So while the Danish King might technically have had a lot of power, he could not necessarily wield it. :)!
 
Leaning toward a sort of authoritarian constitutional monarchy, I do think that could be interesting to see and somewhat possible
 
So William duke of Gloucester is the monarch getting the constitutional set up. I imagine he'd be marrying a Protestant princess perhaps from Denmark? Or one of the German states
 
Top