WI: Mary II rules by herself?

I’n fascinated with the role of the queen regnant and my second favourite Mary II slots nicely into an alternative timeline.

She kept a correspondence with a female in her household that bordered on lesbianism and she said (pretty sure this is a quote) ‘though I have played the whore a little, I love you of all things in the world’ and I think she called her unborn child with William a spawn of Satan or something.

Just wondering what would happen so William would be Prince Consort or if he was out of the picture of if she ruled more.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the most logical route would be that Mary II and William III have a similar deal to Queen Mary and Philip of Spain. They rule as joint monarchs until she dies, at which point the heir comes from her side of the family and not his.

Mary II dies in 1698, William doesn't ascend to King in his own right. Anne comes to the throne a few years earlier, and dies without issue after a near 20 year reign. At which point, Parliament seek out Sophia of Hanover and offer her the crown - but she dies before becoming Queen, and we get King George anyways.

Even if we suppose Sophia lives a little longer (say 14 years, at which point she would be 97), and actually lIves to be crowned and outlives her son, George II becomes plain King George.

I suppose that such a diversion could allow George's'' son, Prince Frederick (he's not in the same place at the same time to get hit by a cricket ball) to survive and become King Frederick.

But then his son - King George III in OTL and extraordinarily long lived for the time - becomes King George II here - at which point we're at the turning point where anyone who wasn't born before the Hanoverians took the crown and the butterfly effect would really come into play.

It's possible this ATL version of King George isn't mad, his childhood would have been dramatically different and his father may not have even married the same person.

Let's say he marries Diana Spencer in 1730 as the King and Robert Walpole are far more dazzled by the offered dowry than they were in real life. In real life, Diana had no children who survived - same happens here, so Frederick has no immediate heir and the crown passes to his younger sister, Princess Anne, and her descendants.

His brothers had no surviving legitimate heir.

George (in real life, George II) dies in 1860, rules here from 1827 after his mother, Queen Sophia lives to the age of 94. Frederick rules for 40 years to 1800 (George III would rule IRL to 1820) and the crown passes to Anne's descendants - at this point, that''s William V, Prince of Orange (King William IV here)

But he dies in 1806, and the crown passes to his son, also William (King William V for us) and we follow the line of Orange.

William VI, William VII, Queen Wilhelmina, Queen Juliana, Queen Beatrix and King William VIII.

Of course, the butterfly effect would change the line of Orange in the same way it did the marriage of Prince Frederick.
 
I'd say the most logical route would be that Mary II and William III have a similar deal to Queen Mary and Philip of Spain. They rule as joint monarchs until she dies, at which point the heir comes from her side of the family and not his.

Mary II dies in 1698, William doesn't ascend to King in his own right. Anne comes to the throne a few years earlier, and dies without issue after a near 20 year reign. At which point, Parliament seek out Sophia of Hanover and offer her the crown - but she dies before becoming Queen, and we get King George anyways.

Even if we suppose Sophia lives a little longer (say 14 years, at which point she would be 97), and actually lIves to be crowned and outlives her son, George II becomes plain King George.

I suppose that such a diversion could allow George's'' son, Prince Frederick (he's not in the same place at the same time to get hit by a cricket ball) to survive and become King Frederick.

But then his son - King George III in OTL and extraordinarily long lived for the time - becomes King George II here - at which point we're at the turning point where anyone who wasn't born before the Hanoverians took the crown and the butterfly effect would really come into play.

It's possible this ATL version of King George isn't mad, his childhood would have been dramatically different and his father may not have even married the same person.

Let's say he marries Diana Spencer in 1730 as the King and Robert Walpole are far more dazzled by the offered dowry than they were in real life. In real life, Diana had no children who survived - same happens here, so Frederick has no immediate heir and the crown passes to his younger sister, Princess Anne, and her descendants.

His brothers had no surviving legitimate heir.

George (in real life, George II) dies in 1860, rules here from 1827 after his mother, Queen Sophia lives to the age of 94. Frederick rules for 40 years to 1800 (George III would rule IRL to 1820) and the crown passes to Anne's descendants - at this point, that''s William V, Prince of Orange (King William IV here)

But he dies in 1806, and the crown passes to his son, also William (King William V for us) and we follow the line of Orange.

William VI, William VII, Queen Wilhelmina, Queen Juliana, Queen Beatrix and King William VIII.

Of course, the butterfly effect would change the line of Orange in the same way it did the marriage of Prince Frederick.

That is most fascinating, thank you for such a long and detailed response! Yes, only until a few days ago actually the only portrait of Sophia I had seen was as a young woman and was quite surprised to find her to live to such an old age! Thank you so much for writing out a detailed timeline!!
 
Top