WI Mary II and Anne die in 1677?

Just an idea: in 1677, around the time of the marriage of Mary and William of Orange, Anne got smallpox and couldn't attend the cerimony. Not much later, in December, the young baby Charles Stuart (son of James and Mary of Modena) also died from the same disease.
So, WI Anne had died from smallpox, and Mary had got it too, dying not much later? Now James would have lost all his daughters and sons (except princess Isabel Stuart, who IOTL died in 1681). William of Orange wouldn't have an English bride too. How could this situation be developed?
 
William marries someone else (I've no idea who, but needless to say she won't be as high-ranking or as closely related as Mary) after the suitable mourning period and maybe has a son, thereby avoiding the Second Stadtholderless Period; 'William IV of Orange' goes on to great things given his upbringing, yada yada. As long as Anne Hyde dies at the right time and York remarries to Mary of Modena - he'll be extremely keen to get an heir, so I don't see why he wouldn't, unless it was to marry Arabella Churchill for similar reasons as Anne Hyde - then William III will be the first-place Protestant heir. Now, Charles II will demand that James raise any later-born kids Anglican, but after he dies his wishes will be meaningless. James II will raise his heir Catholic as soon as he becomes King, be he Alt-Old Pretender or a legitimate brother of the Duke of Berwick, and this, compounded with James' absolutist tendencies, will make the situation in England similar to OTL.

So, now, either Monmouth's Rebellion succeeds (I don't see why it would); William III invades and becomes King (even more likely given that he was closer in the line of succession); someone else forces James to abdicate to his son, to be raised in the right faith (James would rather flee to France, kids and all); Commonwealth 2.0; or a surprise random contender comes a-knocking, like the Elector Palatine or the Duke of Somerset or someone.

If William still wins, he has at least one son, so the House of Orange is secure on the British thrones, we don't get the Act of Settlement, no Georges, and possibly a short-lived Anglo-Dutch personal union (Yay! Personal Union Time on alternatehistory.com!) that will pretty much end whenever the Estates of Holland (hegemonic over the Estates-General) get bored of kowtowing to London. So, in contrast to my opening sentence, there will be a Second Stadtholderless Period. :rolleyes:
 
As long as Anne Hyde dies at the right time and York remarries to Mary of Modena

With a POD in 1677 he was already married to Mary of Modena. The prince Charles that died in 1677 was their first son. And they had a living daughter by that time: Isabel Stuart, that IOTL died in 1681.
 
Just an idea: in 1677, around the time of the marriage of Mary and William of Orange, Anne got smallpox and couldn't attend the cerimony. Not much later, in December, the young baby Charles Stuart (son of James and Mary of Modena) also died from the same disease.
So, WI Anne had died from smallpox, and Mary had got it too, dying not much later? Now James would have lost all his daughters and sons (except princess Isabel Stuart, who IOTL died in 1681). William of Orange wouldn't have an English bride too. How could this situation be developed?

Well this would basically knock out the house of Stuart's direct line, as Lady Isabel would be the only surviving child of the Duke of York. Now Isabel died of natural causes, so there's no reason to think she couldn't live longer or even survive to adulthood. However, this could weaken the power of the exclusionists, as this would make William III of Orange third-in-line to the throne. Remember that William was never popular among either the Whigs nor the Tories, and was only tolerated because he was Mary's husband. So I can't see William alone being invited to invade England or having the support among the Nobility, gentry and people to really pull off overthrowing both James II and his TTL son(s). At most he would be able to become Regent for either James or his successor but not the throne.

On a related note, I think we'd see a bit of panic among the English elite, perhaps forcing Count Palatine Rupert to marry and produce a potential heir (remember after William the throne would go to the Queen of Spain, then the Duchess of Savoy, then the Duchess's daughter(s) ).

William marries someone else (I've no idea who, but needless to say she won't be as high-ranking or as closely related as Mary) after the suitable mourning period and maybe has a son, thereby avoiding the Second Stadtholderless Period; 'William IV of Orange' goes on to great things given his upbringing, yada yada. As long as Anne Hyde dies at the right time and York remarries to Mary of Modena - he'll be extremely keen to get an heir, so I don't see why he wouldn't, unless it was to marry Arabella Churchill for similar reasons as Anne Hyde - then William III will be the first-place Protestant heir. Now, Charles II will demand that James raise any later-born kids Anglican, but after he dies his wishes will be meaningless. James II will raise his heir Catholic as soon as he becomes King, be he Alt-Old Pretender or a legitimate brother of the Duke of Berwick, and this, compounded with James' absolutist tendencies, will make the situation in England similar to OTL.

So, now, either Monmouth's Rebellion succeeds (I don't see why it would); William III invades and becomes King (even more likely given that he was closer in the line of succession); someone else forces James to abdicate to his son, to be raised in the right faith (James would rather flee to France, kids and all); Commonwealth 2.0; or a surprise random contender comes a-knocking, like the Elector Palatine or the Duke of Somerset or someone.

If William still wins, he has at least one son, so the House of Orange is secure on the British thrones, we don't get the Act of Settlement, no Georges, and possibly a short-lived Anglo-Dutch personal union (Yay! Personal Union Time on alternatehistory.com!) that will pretty much end whenever the Estates of Holland (hegemonic over the Estates-General) get bored of kowtowing to London. So, in contrast to my opening sentence, there will be a Second Stadtholderless Period. :rolleyes:

OK I think your VASTLY overestimating things here. First off, by the time of the POD Anne Hyde was seven years dead and James had already married Mary Beatrice. Second, in my opinion William being the highest Protestant heir might strengthen Monmouth's position, as he has the advantage of being English while William's OTL advantage, Lady Mary, is gone. As I pointed out above, William was unpopular among the entire English establishment and was only tolerated as Mary II's husband and later Anne, Princess of Denmark was the heiress apparent. So he's unlikely to become King or be invited to invade England. At the very least at least some of the defecting Officers and nobles would stay loyal (Marlborough for instance).

Also HOW could the Duke of Somerset claim the throne? Any claim he would have would be from the Tudors, making him an even more remote candidate than the House of Hanover. Also, by this time the Netherlands was beginning its decline, so chances whatever is done in The Hague would only matter to William III or his son.

My prediction is that without Mary and Anne James would be much more secure long term. Anne basically began and spread the warming-pan baby legend while Mary gave William's invasion and usurpation legitimacy. Long term, the Stuart semi-absolute monarchy would become well established, the British isles would no doubt have established legal rights for religious minorities, and enter into an alliance with France, combining Europe's greatest land power with the rising naval power. The only real question is would England still develop strong financial institutions.
 
Top