WI 1688 Dutch invasion didn't happen?

OTL, the Dutch successfully invaded and occupied England. The reason was to turn England into a French enemy in order to combat Louis XIV and French hegemonic tendencies over Europe. The invasion and occupation turned out to be a boon for England as the Dutch helped reform English systems of governance and finance. The Dutch also suppressed the Catholics in England and the rest of the British Isles, sparing England from religious strife. Dutch capital flowed into London, making it a financial powerhouse. England/Britain would go on to build on the Glorious Revolution and found the largest European empire in history. The Dutch, OTOH, declined after the Glorious Revolution, going from the pre-eminent financial superpower, that was the envy of the English and other Europeans, to a small country.

If the Dutch didn't invade, how would the destinies of the two countries have played out as well as those of the British Isles and Continental Europe? Would the Dutch still have declined, owing to their unfavorable geographical location? Would England/Britain still have the Glorious Revolution and found a powerful empire?
 
Is the POD that the invasion fails or that the Dutch don't (and if so, why? does William die beforehand? did Princess Mary marry someone safely English? did James never produce a Catholic son?)?

Those all have different consequences. For instance, if William dies, then the Dutch are looking at the possibility of another Stadholderless period, a decade earlier; I'd have to leave that to someone with more knowledge of the Dutch than I have to answer how that would play out.

If the invasion fails, then James (who has just seen the lynchpin of the Grand Alliance try to steal his throne) is now a committed French ally (as opposed to waffling like OTL), which probably significantly helps Louis XIV in the War of the League of Augsburg. That's a major boost, and could see the French gaining significant territory and the Dutch seriously threatened.

If James II maintains his rule in England, he's going to try and keep the Dominion of New England going, which will cause significant problems in the New World (although not an early Revolution or anything like that).
 
Many of the seeds of the British Empire (for instance, much of the population of the English, later British, colonies in North America) were planted long before the Glorious Revolution. Whoever wins, it's difficult to imagine some kind of English or British colonial empire not existing in some form with any late-17th-century PoD.

If William III fails for some reason or another, James II probably cracks down on the rebellious nobility and moves in the direction of royal absolutism. That's obvious enough. This has two possible results: either the Glorious Revolution happens later without Dutch involvement (IOTL William III had an army of 15,000 men and brought 20,000 extra sets of weaponry, so numerous were his supporters in Great Britain, so a purely internal revolution isn't impossible if James II moves far enough towards absolutism), in which case things are likely to go in a vaguely liberal direction (maybe even a republic), or the Stuarts win, in which case England and Scotland seethe under religious strife (Catholic kings with ambitions of complete royal rule, reigning in an island that was staunchly Protestant) and quite possibly overthrow the existing order entirely when the Age of Revolutions comes along.
 
If the Dutch didn't invade, how would the destinies of the two countries have played out as well as those of the British Isles and Continental Europe? Would the Dutch still have declined, owing to their unfavorable geographical location? Would England/Britain still have the Glorious Revolution and found a powerful empire?
To be blunt, Parliament and the people James managed to antagonize would have invited someone else anti-French in. With due respect you seem to have the causation mixed up between the Glorious Revolution and Willem III van Oranje coming over.
 
To be blunt, Parliament and the people James managed to antagonize would have invited someone else anti-French in. With due respect you seem to have the causation mixed up between the Glorious Revolution and Willem III van Oranje coming over.

James II was definitely the son of Charles I. An idiot in other words.
 
Is the POD that the invasion fails or that the Dutch don't (and if so, why? does William die beforehand? did Princess Mary marry someone safely English? did James never produce a Catholic son?)?

Those all have different consequences. For instance, if William dies, then the Dutch are looking at the possibility of another Stadholderless period, a decade earlier; I'd have to leave that to someone with more knowledge of the Dutch than I have to answer how that would play out.


Can we try out different scenarios?

Suppose the English navy catches sight of the Dutch navy and manages to disrupt it enough or defeat it outright, for the invasion to fail?

Suppose James II reassures William that he would join an anti-French coalition like James II considered, thereby calling off the invasion?

Suppose France attacks the Netherlands to prevent the invasion from happenng like Louis XIV thought of doing?

If the invasion fails, then James (who has just seen the lynchpin of the Grand Alliance try to steal his throne) is now a committed French ally (as opposed to waffling like OTL), which probably significantly helps Louis XIV in the War of the League of Augsburg. That's a major boost, and could see the French gaining significant territory and the Dutch seriously threatened.

I agree. It is very plausible that France would have achieved hegemony over Europe but it wouldn't have lasted for long when the next war inevitable comes.

If James II maintains his rule in England, he's going to try and keep the Dominion of New England going, which will cause significant problems in the New World (although not an early Revolution or anything like that).

Interesting scenario. I think it would have been enough to prevent the American Revolution altogether since the 13 Colonies would have been too fractious to form a united front against Britain. France might retain its New World colonies, The French Revolution would not have happened and Spain retains its New World possessions. Spanish Mexico would have crept further north of California.
 
Many of the seeds of the British Empire (for instance, much of the population of the English, later British, colonies in North America) were planted long before the Glorious Revolution. Whoever wins, it's difficult to imagine some kind of English or British colonial empire not existing in some form with any late-17th-century PoD.

I agree. The Industrial Revolution helped immensely too. But I doubt that without a stable government and efficient financial system that the Glorious Revolution brought to England, this NTL English/British Empire would be anything but large and powerful as the OTL one, or that Britain would have intervened so effectively in Continental affairs.

If William III fails for some reason or another, James II probably cracks down on the rebellious nobility and moves in the direction of royal absolutism. That's obvious enough. This has two possible results: either the Glorious Revolution happens later without Dutch involvement (IOTL William III had an army of 15,000 men and brought 20,000 extra sets of weaponry, so numerous were his supporters in Great Britain, so a purely internal revolution isn't impossible if James II moves far enough towards absolutism), in which case things are likely to go in a vaguely liberal direction (maybe even a republic), or the Stuarts win, in which case England and Scotland seethe under religious strife (Catholic kings with ambitions of complete royal rule, reigning in an island that was staunchly Protestant) and quite possibly overthrow the existing order entirely when the Age of Revolutions comes along.

Thanks for the response.
 
To be blunt, Parliament and the people James managed to antagonize would have invited someone else anti-French in. With due respect you seem to have the causation mixed up between the Glorious Revolution and Willem III van Oranje coming over.

Who could they have invited that had the strength enough to overthrow James II? Furthermore, after the exhausting English Civil War and the disastrous Dutch Wars, there was not enough support in England to topple James II. It was Parliament alone that invited William, not the people.

It was only when William landed in England that the dominoes began to fall. Seeing that William came with a huge naval fleet and landed with a large, professional army while James's army was unprofessional and scattered all over England, the English decided to back the likely winner in the coming conflict: William. So, William coming over caused the Glorious Revolution, not the other way around.
 
Top