WI James II and Mary of Modena die just after the birth of their son?

Just an idea I was thinking about, using two possible PODs: suppose that James II contracts some disease or infection (POD 1) by the time Mary of Modena was pregnant. If she dies during the labor (POD 2), and the king also dies not much later (let's say one or two days later), but the baby is alive and healthy, what happens with the succession? Would William and Mary still go to England, or the English government would think more interesting the idea of an infant king that could be controlled for many years to come?
 
Mary probably becomes regent, perhaps co-regent with some other parliamentary big-wig. The Child being only a day or two old at birth hasn't been baptized a Catholic yet, so odds are he's brought up Protestant. I doubt this would affect England's entrance into the War of the Grand Alliance though. If anything Mary's influence will bring them in sooner and with more force.
 
The Child being only a day or two old at birth hasn't been baptized a Catholic yet,
:confused:No one is 'baptized Catholic'. You are baptized Christian. Even the RC's recognize other denominations' baptisms - and did, even during the 30 Years War, I believe. The people who DIDN'T recognize others' baptisms were the Anabaptists (as they considered infant baptism invalid), which is the main reason that EVERYONE persecuted them.
 
I think the thing here is that the driving force behind the supposed conversion to Catholicism was James (and Charles before him, to a far more tentative degree). Sure, they had their Catholic noble supporters who they surrounded themselves with at court, but once the King was dead their position would be entirely dependent on their ability to talk their way into holding their places. Considering what Parliament did IRL it's logical to suggest that Parliament would try to force a Protestant resolution, but so also would the majority of Protestant nobles in court. In my eyes there's little reason to believe that the Protestants in both circles wouldn't be able to simply force a settlement which led to James' son being brought up Protestant. Being only days old he will have no memory of his father or mother, and his upbringing could potentially, and indeed quite plausibly, prevent him ever knowing his parents were Catholic until such a point as the idea personally disgusts him and leads him to believe quite fervently that the divine provenance which led to him being given a Protestant schooling was in the best interests of himself and the country, if not going so far as saying their deaths were a good thing.
 
I think the thing here is that the driving force behind the supposed conversion to Catholicism was James (and Charles before him, to a far more tentative degree). Sure, they had their Catholic noble supporters who they surrounded themselves with at court, but once the King was dead their position would be entirely dependent on their ability to talk their way into holding their places. Considering what Parliament did IRL it's logical to suggest that Parliament would try to force a Protestant resolution, but so also would the majority of Protestant nobles in court. In my eyes there's little reason to believe that the Protestants in both circles wouldn't be able to simply force a settlement which led to James' son being brought up Protestant. Being only days old he will have no memory of his father or mother, and his upbringing could potentially, and indeed quite plausibly, prevent him ever knowing his parents were Catholic until such a point as the idea personally disgusts him and leads him to believe quite fervently that the divine provenance which led to him being given a Protestant schooling was in the best interests of himself and the country, if not going so far as saying their deaths were a good thing.

Do you believe, as Fearless Leader said, that Mary would become regent, or court politics would try to avoid her coming from Netherlands? Who would be in a position of power to become regent then? And would it affect England's entrance in the Grand Alliance War?
 
I believe it was Henri IV of France who said "Paris was worth a mass". He then converted to catholicism to be recognized as King of France. I would think even a very young boy like the son of James II would have had no problem converting to be king of England. Unfortunately James II lived long enough as did Mary of Modena to influence the "Old Pretender" and thus the man with the most legitimate and strongest right to the throne never sat on it nor did his descendants.
 
There would have been an interesting (but mercifully brief) interlude where Britain was ruled by Judge Jeffreys!!

As Lord Chancellor, Jeffreys had posession of the Great Seal, hence was the only one who could issue orders with any semblance of legality. Luckily, he was CofE, not Catholic, so at least there's no trouble on that score. Probably he sends for Mary, though it is just possible that he invites Anne, who is resident in England, to become Regent instead.

Assuming Mary gets it, the big difference is that William is never King in his own right, so if Mary still dies in 1694, his influence dies with her, and Anne becomes the new Regent.
 
If Mary becomes Regent, would not William just stay in the Netherlands and run his Dutch government there? Or would he come with her and then England would have a foreigner help rule England? I think it would be better to have Anne who as you said, was already in England as regent. Mary would still be heiress presumptive until the boy James III had children of his own issue. If he dies while Mary is still alive with no issue than she becomes Queen, but not necessarily with William as co-monarch as William III. Then as you said, if Mary dies still in 1694, Anne becomes Queen sooner.
 
Top