WI: James II didn't lose his nerve

OK so I'm rereading Ungrateful daughters by Maureen Waller and it got me thinking about James II. More specifically when William of Orange invaded England. According to Wikipedia ( gotta love it:D) James lost his nerve and declined to attack the invading army, despite his army's numerical superiority. So my question is what if James didn't lose his nerve. Also according to Wikipedia, several protestant officers, including the future Duke of Marlborough and others had already defected. So did James have a chance or not? Is it more likely that James of William would win? And if James won what would be his next move?
 
Perhaps James II, despite numerical superiority, couldn't count on the loyalty of his remaining forces. The Navy, too, he had completely alienated. Perhaps he should have taken that offer of help from Louis XIV.....

His fate was probably sealed in the previous 2 years by his various acts of absolutism either enacted or in the works. His support base was ultimately very slim.
 
OK so I'm rereading Ungrateful daughters by Maureen Waller and it got me thinking about James II. More specifically when William of Orange invaded England. According to Wikipedia ( gotta love it:D) James lost his nerve and declined to attack the invading army, despite his army's numerical superiority. So my question is what if James didn't lose his nerve. Also according to Wikipedia, several protestant officers, including the future Duke of Marlborough and others had already defected. So did James have a chance or not? Is it more likely that James of William would win? And if James won what would be his next move?

I'm not altogether sure that James could even trust his army towards the end. Didn't he overhear one of his sentries whistling "Liliburo" (the song of William III's army) as he paced and then decide that the game was up?
 
True enough; but is it plausible that he could trust his army for the one upcoming battle? And if so, what's the next move if and when he wins?

Well it depends on what happens to William III and how big a defeat William suffers. I'm not sure the exact numbers of James' and William's armies but if William suffers a decisive defeat then he would probably try to flee back to the Netherlands, if he makes it is anyone's guess. However if William dies in battle then the threat would be eliminated completely. There's still the problem of the English nobles that defected, not sure what would happen to Mary, Anne and her husband George of Denmark. In the short term, James would either lessen his religious and absolute policies or take the victory as a sign from God that he's doing the right thing and continue them. If that happens I'm not sure who the opposition would turn to. Mary wouldn't be in any position to launch her own invasion, maybe Anne and George flee to Denmark but I doubt that his brother Christian V would launch his own invasion on his sister-in-laws behalf.
 
Um, outnumbering William does not mean victory is inevitable, especially with an army of shaky loyalty.
 
Um, outnumbering William does not mean victory is inevitable, especially with an army of shaky loyalty.

true. If he loses then James' credibility would be destroyed. If he's killed would there be an attempt to recall his son the old Pretender and place him on the throne, perhaps with William and Mary as regents. Or maybe the opposite with William and Mary taking the throne and James Francis as heir, especially if William Duke of Gloucester dies as in OTL.

Edit. If recalled he would obviously be raised as a protestant.
 
Would be interesting if he's defeated and Mary of Modena and young James Francis fall into William of Orange's hands. I think by this point the world is too modern for them to be "disposed of".
 
Why so? asked the skeptic.

Theres a big difference between deposing a Catholic king of a protestant country and murdering his innocent young son. The act would be condimed universally and could lead to a uprising agaonst the new king and queen. The only person who wpuld benefit from that would be Anne.
 
Theres a big difference between deposing a Catholic king of a protestant country and murdering his innocent young son. The act would be condimed universally and could lead to a uprising agaonst the new king and queen. The only person who wpuld benefit from that would be Anne.

And why is this the case in 1689? As in, on what basis are we saying the world has moved on?
 
And why is this the case in 1689? As in, on what basis are we saying the world has moved on?

I was just sharing a personal opinion. Executing or disappearing with your brother/brother-in-law is not a good look, not least when the said child poses no immediate risk to your safety/the country's well being and you're a foreign monarch. I just don't think, personally, that some John Lacklandesque dealings with Arthur (unpopular even at that time) would fly in the 17th century.
 
I was just sharing a personal opinion. Executing or disappearing with your brother/brother-in-law is not a good look, not least when the said child poses no immediate risk to your safety/the country's well being and you're a foreign monarch. I just don't think, personally, that some John Lacklandesque dealings with Arthur (unpopular even at that time) would fly in the 17th century.

Fair enough.

I suspect that it would certainly make people suspicious of William in England, and it's not as if everyone loved him at first meeting OTL.
 
Fair enough.

I suspect that it would certainly make people suspicious of William in England, and it's not as if everyone loved him at first meeting OTL.

Also true. Most people tolerated William and loved Mary. I think her death and James' reaction to it (he forbid morning in his court-in-exile and got Louis XIV to do the same at Versailles) is what won him sympathy and partial popularity. Also the fact that Anne, a holey English Princess was his heiress didn't hurt either.
 
true. If he loses then James' credibility would be destroyed. If he's killed would there be an attempt to recall his son the old Pretender and place him on the throne, perhaps with William and Mary as regents. Or maybe the opposite with William and Mary taking the throne and James Francis as heir, especially if William Duke of Gloucester dies as in OTL.

Edit. If recalled he would obviously be raised as a protestant.

The "Old Pretender" was an infant boy. James sent him and his mother to France in secret on the night of 9-10 December 1688. They slipped out of Whitehall Palace, crossed the river in a skiff, and went by coach to Gravesend where a ship was waiting.

James himself fled on the night of 10-11 December, but was caught by some fishermen and returned to London on 16 December. On 17 December, William's troops occupied London, and James was forced to leave the city the next morning. He went to Rochester under escort; and on 22 December fled to France himself. According to Macaulay, William wanted James to flee the country, and made sure that no one interfered.

It does seem entirely possible that the Queen and Prince might have fallen into William's hands. However, it also seems to me that he wouldn't want to have them. As with James, his position was all the stronger with them gone.

The replacement of James as King was conditioned on his de facto abdication by fleeing the country. Hardly anyone was willing to say that Parliament could depose the King. William was not going to remove James by force or have him executed; it would have been politically disastrous.

Another point: James was, according to Macaulay, in a near-total funk, confused and demoralized, and in terror for his life. But it still seems unlikely that he would flee the country and leave his wife and son behind.

Perhaps it would work if James chose to fight, but his army mostly deserted, he was killed, and his wife and son captured.

The boy cannot abdicate, and he is the rightful successor, which is very awkward for William. I think William has to settle for a Regency. And yes, young James will be raised as a Protestant.

Or, the Convention Parliament that meets finds some excuse for declaring that James abdicated, both for himself and the boy. Legalisms can be set aside in times of crisis. Then send the boy and his mother into exile. Keeping him around just invites a new War of the Roses.

And William wants to be King, not Regent.
 
The "Old Pretender" was an infant boy. James sent him and his mother to France in secret on the night of 9-10 December 1688. They slipped out of Whitehall Palace, crossed the river in a skiff, and went by coach to Gravesend where a ship was waiting.

James himself fled on the night of 10-11 December, but was caught by some fishermen and returned to London on 16 December. On 17 December, William's troops occupied London, and James was forced to leave the city the next morning. He went to Rochester under escort; and on 22 December fled to France himself. According to Macaulay, William wanted James to flee the country, and made sure that no one interfered.

It does seem entirely possible that the Queen and Prince might have fallen into William's hands. However, it also seems to me that he wouldn't want to have them. As with James, his position was all the stronger with them gone.

The replacement of James as King was conditioned on his de facto abdication by fleeing the country. Hardly anyone was willing to say that Parliament could depose the King. William was not going to remove James by force or have him executed; it would have been politically disastrous.

Another point: James was, according to Macaulay, in a near-total funk, confused and demoralized, and in terror for his life. But it still seems unlikely that he would flee the country and leave his wife and son behind.

Perhaps it would work if James chose to fight, but his army mostly deserted, he was killed, and his wife and son captured.

The boy cannot abdicate, and he is the rightful successor, which is very awkward for William. I think William has to settle for a Regency. And yes, young James will be raised as a Protestant.

Or, the Convention Parliament that meets finds some excuse for declaring that James abdicated, both for himself and the boy. Legalisms can be set aside in times of crisis. Then send the boy and his mother into exile. Keeping him around just invites a new War of the Roses.

And William wants to be King, not Regent.

The entire official point of William invading was to protect the protestant religion. If James is dead in battle then his son becomes James III and VIII. The succession is intimidate. There's a big difference between declaring a King that fled the country to have abdicated and deposing a legitimate King who's done nothing wrong. William would have to set himself up as regent, or co-regent with Mary. After all,I bet the English nobility would prefer a baby King to a foreigner, especially one that would drag England into continental wars. Also, if James III is captured with his mother and James II is dead, then what else can William do? Because he legitimately ascended the throne, sending him into exile would make William look like a usurper and make James III a very sympathetic figure, both home and abroad. Keeping him prisoner would encourage an uprising on his behalf and killing him would be the worst PR move he could make. Besides, he and Mary would have a guaranteed 18 years as regents, and after he comes of age, influence over him. Sure neither William nor Mary would live to see James' majority, but they didn't know that. The real interesting question would be, if William and Mary die in schedule, who would become the new Regent? I would guess either Queen Mother Mary Beatrice or Princess Anne of Denmark (OTL's Queen Anne).
 
The entire official point of William invading was to protect the protestant religion. If James is dead in battle then his son becomes James III and VIII. The succession is intimidate. There's a big difference between declaring a King that fled the country to have abdicated and deposing a legitimate King who's done nothing wrong.

Parliament had no problem essentially deposing a legitimate king that had done nothing wrong in James II/VII. Why is it all concerned with an infant TTL?

Because he legitimately ascended the throne, sending him into exile would make William look like a usurper and make James III a very sympathetic figure, both home and abroad.

William was a usurper. James III isn't likely to rally support more than his father failed to.
 
Parliament had no problem essentially deposing a legitimate king that had done nothing wrong in James II/VII. Why is it all concerned with an infant TTL?

William was a usurper. James III isn't likely to rally support more than his father failed to.

Both very good points. In regards to James having done nothing wrong, in the eyes of his subjects he had. By being a Catholic who encouraged conversion and the eventual restoration of the Catholic Religion and by attempting to rule without Parliament, James had made himself hated. His son, on the other hand had not and wasn't nearly old enough to have been 'tainted' by his fathers ideas and policies. Plus there's no precedent to depose a legitimate baby King in England, especially if James and his mother are still in the country. James II fled the country, so in the eyes of Parliament he had already abdicated, they just confirmed it. If James Francis Edward (the Old Pretender) is already in France with his mother then no question William and Mary become co-rulers. But if he's still there then there will be a fight over who becomes Monarch.

As for William being a usurper, legally he was one but with all that James II did, in the eyes of many we was saving England and the Protestant religion from the dirty papists and French. However, like I said earlier, deposing a Catholic absolute King is one thing, deposing a baby who is the legitimate heir and can still be molded to be a good protestant King who understand he has to rule with parliament, is another. James II being deposed was the ultimate rejection of his policies and a symbol of his failure as a King. Its easier to keep a crown then regain it . James III, on the other hand, would have none of those failures tainting him. If he's still deposed then he would probably be kept in England (no need to such a great weapon to Louis XIV to be used against you) and could become William and Mary's or Anne's successor, especially if William, Duke of Gloucester dies in schedule. I know in OTL the idea was suggested that James Francis be brought over from France and be raised as Williams her after Mary's death and before Williams, so its not to far fetched, especially if James is dead.
Edit: I just remembered that James Francis wasn't attained for treason, thus losing his title as Prince of Wales, until 1702. I don't know if that effect this idea one way or the other, but at the very least, it means the idea that James was a changeling child smuggled in wasn't recognized by William's government.
 
Last edited:
Top