WI James II/VII had sons instead of daughters?

This occurred to me when I realized that James' first wife, Anne Hyde, was the only British royal spouse-parent between Lord Darnley and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who was of British birth. And her blood died out of the royal line.

So... WI James' children by her (Mary and Anne) were instead Martin and Andrew?

ISTM they would be raised Protestant.

Their marriages will be different of course. (Later, for one thing.)

But otherwise, the first predictable change may come if/when James' Catholic son is born. There will be no succession issue over it - no tales of a "warming-pan baby", no Monmouth rebellion, no Bloody Assizes. James, though still a fool and a bully, may hang on to power till his death in ~1700.

So - no Glorious Revolution, no civil warfare in Scotland and Ireland. No quasi-union-of-crowns with the Netherlands.

England does not join the Grand Alliance against France.

Martin and/or Andrew probably beget children, continuing the House of Stuart.

So no House of Hanover and no personal union there either.

And the British royal family is a lot more British. (George VI's nearest British ancestor was his 8-greats-grandmother Elizabeth Stuart.)

Or maybe not that much more. George I was Elizabeth Stuart's grandson. But she was half-Danish; so he's ~1/8 British. James I was almost 3/4 British; aside from his maternal grandmother, his only non-British ancestry is his 3-greats-grandmother, Henry V's widow Catherine of Valois, and 3/4 of his 6-greats-grandfather John of Gaunt. But still that brings George I down to ~3/32 British.

Martin II would be Anne Hyde's grandson (1/4), and James I's 2-greats-grandson (~1/32). So Martin II is ~9/32, three times as much.

And of course, unlike the first three Hanovers, these later Stuarts would all be raised in England.

Any other thoughts?
 
Where's Martin coming from here?

More likely names are those of the OTL Old Pretender and his sons, so James Francis Edward and Charles Edward (probably not both as middle name Edwards though). Assuming that they are raised protestant, it does mean that the politics of the time will be a lot different. Charles II's bastards will be slightly less prominent at court, James II can afford to be a bit more outré in the view of Parliament because there's a nice proper protestant to come. They'd probably marry into one of the major powers of Europe- the Danes and the French spring to mind, but there's also the possibility of a match with Brandenburg, the Palatinate, Bavaria or Saxony.

Britain probably takes a more neutral position on the continental wars that follow, though Parliament will probably push for involvement if Louis XIV appears to be getting to much.
 
First of all, no way they would be named Martin and Andrew. Second, James actually had four sons by Anne Hyde, but they sadly died in childhood. However, you could easily have a few, Charles and the first James, survive, as they died of Smallpox and the plague, receptively. But with an assured Protestant succession, there would be no deposing James II, that's for sure.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Actually if James II moved too close to Rome you might see him deposed in favor of his son, That is not unlike what happened to John and Edward II.
 
Actually if James II moved too close to Rome you might see him deposed in favor of his son, That is not unlike what happened to John and Edward II.

Why? When James II had Mary as his heiress presumptive, most were content to wait for him to die, seeing him as a temporary Catholic King. Here there would be no chance of a Catholic heir being born to displace anyone.
 
Where's Martin coming from here?

More likely names are those of the OTL Old Pretender and his sons, so James Francis Edward and Charles Edward (probably not both as middle name Edwards though)...
I think the OP just took M (from Mary) and A (from Anne) and looked for male names beginning with M and A.

I think an interesting question would be how that would play out at the exclusion crisis. One reason quite a lot of people supported the King (ie the Abhorrers) was that excluding James necessarily put in Mary , and thus William. Lot of people didn't like that. But if James had a protestant son of age, that would be a lot more acceptable . So the Exclusion cry might have gotten longer legs , depending of course on whether the said son was willing to back stab his father.
 
I think the OP just took M (from Mary) and A (from Anne) and looked for male names beginning with M and A.

I think an interesting question would be how that would play out at the exclusion crisis. One reason quite a lot of people supported the King (ie the Abhorrers) was that excluding James necessarily put in Mary , and thus William. Lot of people didn't like that. But if James had a protestant son of age, that would be a lot more acceptable . So the Exclusion cry might have gotten longer legs , depending of course on whether the said son was willing to back stab his father.

There would still be the obstacle of Charles II. Even with a Protestant nephew, I can't see Charles abandoning his brother.
 
It does seem to have been one of the few things where he dug his toes in and drew a line in the sand. But, having said that, he was pushed into a pretty tight corner OTL. It was really only the French subsidy that gave him room to swing.

What would Louis's stance be if the Exclusion program was James's protestant son acting as Regent for his father (in the event that the latter came to the throne) ? (Bearing in mind that the whole Exclusion issue was pre the birth of James III & VIII). More or less supportive ?
 
It does seem to have been one of the few things where he dug his toes in and drew a line in the sand. But, having said that, he was pushed into a pretty tight corner OTL. It was really only the French subsidy that gave him room to swing.

What would Louis's stance be if the Exclusion program was James's protestant son acting as Regent for his father (in the event that the latter came to the throne) ? (Bearing in mind that the whole Exclusion issue was pre the birth of James III & VIII). More or less supportive ?

I think Louis would rather have James II on the full throne, rather than under a Regent. Remember the French subsidy was for Charles, not James. Its not like Louis XIV sent the subsidy with the agreement that Charles would do everything to see his brother succeed. When the subsidy started, in the early 1670s, James' conversion was still secret.
 
I think Louis would rather have James II on the full throne, rather than under a Regent. Remember the French subsidy was for Charles, not James. Its not like Louis XIV sent the subsidy with the agreement that Charles would do everything to see his brother succeed. When the subsidy started, in the early 1670s, James' conversion was still secret.


I doubt that Louis was much motivated by james's religion. But there were real politick reasons why he might OTL have wished not to see James excluded.

The Exclusion Bill would have had the effect (when it was mooted) of passing the crown to Mary. And Mary meant in effect William of Orange, Louis' sworn enemy. For Louis , James was better than William and Mary.

But if James had a lawful son, then his exclusion would mean the son inheriting, not William. So a major reason for Louis' support is gone.

The subsidy was the Charles, of course, but as everyone realized, the effect of the subsidy was that Charles could manage without calling Parliament again ( and he did not). No Parliament, no forum for further agitation.

There were actually a series of subsidies, starting as you say, in 1670. But, importantly, Barillon and Lawrence Hyde had negotiated a new , and much larger subsidy agreement, just in time for the Oxford Parliament. Charles actually received word of the final agreement on 8th April , while Shaftesbury was making even greater claims.

A fascinating point, that I had not previously realized, was that the exclusion bill only covered England and Ireland. As far as I am aware there was no Scottish equivalent .
 
Top