WI: No 1660 tragedy for the House of Stuart?

I know most will read this and go "what tragedy? Weren't the Stuarts were restored that year?" Well I'm getting to that. Yes 1660 was the year the Stuarts were restored to the throne. However, in the later half of the year Prince Henry Stuart Duke of Gloucester and Princess Mary Stuart, Princess Royal & Dowager Princess of Orange, died of smallpox. So my question is what if they both lived? How would this effect British history? With Henry I can pretty much guess but what about Mary? Would she manage to get the Regency for her son, the future William III? Would the House of Orange be restored to the Stadtholdership earlier with Mary alive to keep the Orange cause alive in the Stuart Court? Would Henry become Henry IX? Would the Stuarts continue to reign up to today? Hell would Mary remarry, since she was only 28/29?
 
Well, Henry of Oatlands (this Henry) was a staunch Protestant, of the Church of England . And reputed a most excellent soldier.

He was low in the line of succession, after Charles II , Charles's lawful children (none) , James II & VII ; James's children (James, Mary, Anne, Louisa).

But being Protestant, and competent, had he lived to 1688 (he would have only been 48), one might suppose that he might have taken the throne instead of William III and Mary (though Mary had the nearer claim in law, insofar as lawful meant anything - by _law_ James II & VIII was rightful king). But Henry would no doubt have been a much more welcome claimant than Dutch William. He was remembered at the time, and men spoke wistfully of his name as a bright hope untimely lost.

How this would have figured during the Exclusion Crisis is hard to say. It would probably have been easier to gain support for the exclusion of the Duke of York if the beneficiary was a Protestant prince of the House of Stuart , rather than a Dutchman.

Presumably he would have married, if he did and had children, then almost certainly there would be no Hanoverian succession, regardless of how the succession worked out prior to 1714. It could well work out exactly as OTL , except that Henry's child(ren) succeeded Anne instead of George of Hannover. (or Henry himself, though he'd be 74 years old)
 
That would have a substantial impact on the development of the relationship between Parliament and the monarchy. OTL the Hanoverian kings' lack of understanding of English and British institutions meant they tended to let their Prime Ministers handle most of the day to day affairs of government. A series of native kings who (presumably) would understand the situation better might mean a more active role for the monarchy going into the 18th century which means lots of butterflies.
 
Well, Henry of Oatlands (this Henry) was a staunch Protestant, of the Church of England . And reputed a most excellent soldier.

He was low in the line of succession, after Charles II , Charles's lawful children (none) , James II & VII ; James's children (James, Mary, Anne, Louisa).

But being Protestant, and competent, had he lived to 1688 (he would have only been 48), one might suppose that he might have taken the throne instead of William III and Mary (though Mary had the nearer claim in law, insofar as lawful meant anything - by _law_ James II & VIII was rightful king). But Henry would no doubt have been a much more welcome claimant than Dutch William. He was remembered at the time, and men spoke wistfully of his name as a bright hope untimely lost.

How this would have figured during the Exclusion Crisis is hard to say. It would probably have been easier to gain support for the exclusion of the Duke of York if the beneficiary was a Protestant prince of the House of Stuart , rather than a Dutchman.

Presumably he would have married, if he did and had children, then almost certainly there would be no Hanoverian succession, regardless of how the succession worked out prior to 1714. It could well work out exactly as OTL , except that Henry's child(ren) succeeded Anne instead of George of Hannover. (or Henry himself, though he'd be 74 years old)


So he could become King in either 1689 or in 1714. Personally I wonder if he would though.For example, Charles II stayed very loyal to James during the Exclusion crisis, even though it would have no doubt have been easier to disinherit him. And Charles I's last words to Henry said something to the effect of stay loyal to your Brothers and the rightful succession (at the time of Charles' execution there was talk of placing Henry on the throne as a puppet King). So whether or not Henry would take the throne is up for debate. However, if Henry is alive, and stayed in England (remember he could chose to join his brother in exile) would William still be able to muscle his way into co-sovereign with Mary? I remember reading that most of the Lords wanted Mary only, with William as Prince-Consort, but William threatened to take his Dutch soldiers and return to the Netherlands,so he ended up getting his way. But with Henry being alive, I wonder if the House of Lords would just decide to call his bluff? Oh, as for a wife, before his death there was talk of him marrying a niece of le Grand Condé. I guess the neice was Charlotte Louise, Mademoiselle de Dunois, daughter of his sister Anne Geneviève de Bourbon, Duchesse de Longueville, though again his wife would be anyone's guess.

That would have a substantial impact on the development of the relationship between Parliament and the monarchy. OTL the Hanoverian kings' lack of understanding of English and British institutions meant they tended to let their Prime Ministers handle most of the day to day affairs of government. A series of native kings who (presumably) would understand the situation better might mean a more active role for the monarchy going into the 18th century which means lots of butterflies.

So a surviving House of Stuart would no doubt lead to a stronger Crown. Makes since. I wonder if the modern Cabinet and Prime Minister would develop the same way it did OTL and how different would they be if they didn't? Perhaps the Prime Minister and Cabinet would serve at the Monarch's pleasure rather than parliaments? Similar to the government of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Second French Empires?

Any thoughts about a surviving Princess Royal?
 
Well, if he is still alive in 1714, and not in the Tower , he's a shoo-in. The only reason that Sophie of Hannover got the nod was because there simply wasn't another Protestant anywhere in the succession. A living, sane, male heir of Charles I, (in 1701 he would only be 61), no way would even the Whig Parliament get agreement to bypass him. But the bit about "not in the Tower" is significant.

If Henry lived and William III did come over then it quite possible that William and Henry could (literally) come to blows. I very much doubt that he would flee initially with James II & VII if William wasn't after his head (literally) . He was a firm protestant, and, even if he stood loyal to the Duke of York at the exclusion crisis (I suspect he would) , he would not see any reason to share James's exile. Which is why I think it could work out as OTL until 1714, unless William decides that Henry is too big a threat and does a Tudor on him

It might be hard for Henry to substitute for William in 1688, because William had an army and Henry would not have one. And if William did come over he would (as OTL) insist on being King. If he did take his toys and go home, then James wins in Ireland in 1689 for certain (no Dutch troops); and once he has Ireland England is only a matter of time, and the Whigs were smart enough to see that.

Many (perhaps most) of those who deserted to William of Orange in 1688 did envisage some sort of Regency , but William just would not buy that.

Probably the most significant effect of a living Henry would be to focus the Tory opposition to William. OTL the Tories were conflicted: on the one hand they hated William. But, on the other, the only alternative was a papist, or Anne. And William had Anne well covered, if she had stepped out of line she would have been in the Tower right smart. Anne wasn't a fighter, she could be stubborn but she no-one saw her as a military leader (nor was George of Denmark) . Henry would have been a tougher nut, and the Tories would have rallied round him.

The constitutional changes would be immense. OTL , the first two Georges didn't think it worth making a stand over their prerogative rights : their hearts were in Germany, and England was just an opportunity to be taken advantage of as long as possible. If the country eventually went to hell in a handbasket, they would have been happy go home to Hannover. George III tried to re-establish the position of the Crown, but his precarious mental state (and somewhat, his lack of capacity) made it just too hard.

A *Henry , and his sons , would have carried on the Stuart concept of kingship : A king who _ruled_ : not by divine right, but certainly more than by the will of Parliament. As you say, development would have been a lot more like the German states. Perhaps eventually evolving something like 19th century Hungary? Or even 18th century Hannover.
 
Last edited:
Well, if he is still alive in 1714, and not in the Tower , he's a shoo-in. The only reason that Sophie of Hannover got the nod was because there simply wasn't another Protestant anywhere in the succession. A living, sane, male heir of Charles I, (in 1701 he would only be 61), no way would even the Whig Parliament get agreement to bypass him. But the bit about "not in the Tower" is significant.

If Henry lived and William III did come over then it quite possible that William and Henry could (literally) come to blows. I very much doubt that he would flee initially with James II & VII if William wasn't after his head (literally) . He was a firm protestant, and, even if he stood loyal to the Duke of York at the exclusion crisis (I suspect he would) , he would not see any reason to share James's exile. Which is why I think it could work out as OTL until 1714, unless William decides that Henry is too big a threat and does a Tudor on him

It might be hard for Henry to substitute for William in 1688, because William had an army and Henry would not have one. And if William did come over he would (as OTL) insist on being King. If he did take his toys and go home, then James wins in Ireland in 1689 for certain (no Dutch troops); and once he has Ireland England is only a matter of time, and the Whigs were smart enough to see that.

Many (perhaps most) of those who deserted to William of Orange in 1688 did envisage some sort of Regency , but William just would not buy that.

Probably the most significant effect of a living Henry would be to focus the Tory opposition to William. OTL the Tories were conflicted: on the one hand they hated William. But, on the other, the only alternative was a papist, or Anne. And William had Anne well covered, if she had stepped out of line she would have been in the Tower right smart. Anne wasn't a fighter, she could be stubborn but she no-one saw her as a military leader (nor was George of Denmark) . Henry would have been a tougher nut, and the Tories would have rallied round him.

You mentioned all the nobles and the army that defected to William OTL. Could this army and the nobles not switch loyalty to Henry instead of a foreigner? Also, I think you give William and the Whigs too much credit. This isn't the time of Henry VIII and the Tudors. If William, a foreigner, tries to throw a Protestant Royal Duke in the tower I can almost guarantee he'd have a fight on his hands. Henry would be a popular figure and I doubt William would want to risk his precarious position. Also, push comes to shove, Henry was a competent General (he fought for Spain in the later stages of the Franco-Spanish war and became a highly distinguished soldier) and could possibly beat William.

Also, would William, as you said, take his toys and go home? It would make him look like a petty child to all of Europe, and could inflame the anti-Orange elements in the Netherlands for wasting dutch resources on a completely pointless invasion. If Henry is made King in 1689, he could possibly beat James. As I mentioned above, he was a distinguished soldier and leader before his death and considering that 28 years would have passed, its not unthinkable that Henry would be a even better general.

I agree about the Tories. Henry would be a perfect compromise candidate for those who wanted to keep a protestant Monarch and those who abhorred the idea of a foreign ruler.

Any thoughts about the Princess Royal Mary?
 
A lot of nobles defected to William, but they didn't take so many troops with them (admittedly, a lot of the rank and file just went home). But even if James had kept his army together , it wouldn't have stood much chance against William's Dutch veterans. James "army" was the Squire , and his tenant farmers and the farm lad, armed with left over Civil War weapons. William's army was professional soldiers.

How would a contest between Henry and James, no William involved , have gone. Say the letter of invitation was sent to Henry not William ? Hard to say. Both would have had the same standard of troops. James would have had an advantage, since he would have more artillery, and the fairly well trained (but small) guards regiments.

But would Henry have gone into rebellion ? It's hard to say, because he died so young, we don't really know much about his personality. But he seems to me, for the little it's worth, to have been a pretty honourable sort of man, more like Charles II than James. I don't think he would have rebelled. Opposed James in Parliament maybe (which could have led to a spiraling crisis). And, if Henry stayed by James side in 1688, (as I think he would have, so long as James had not turned on him) a lot of those nobles would have stayed. Henry would have been a guarantee , so to speak.

These were not Tudor times but they could be brutal enough. Remember, even Marlborough ended up in the Tower at one point. And Algernon Sydney, the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Russell were executed as slickly as any of the Tudors could have wished. Though, "in the Tower" need not mean execution. Just being kept out the way could have been effective.

It is important to realise that William did not care a fig about England. His reason for invading, and for remaining, was that he wanted English resources to fight France. The war with France was critical to the Netherlands. It wasn't critical to England. As long as James was king, England would at best be neutral, might even ally with France.

The only sure way for William to get English resources (mainly money) was to rule the country. To do that he had to be King. If he wasn't king it wasn't worth it to him. I'm sure , though, that he would have gone home with his ships heavy with loot, and probably a good Treaty as well. Leaving the Whigs who had invited him over to James's vengeance. They knew that, if William abandoned them , they were worse than dead men. And William would play the game only as long as it was worth while to him.

Actually, thinking about it, I think the most likely scenario would be that William would not invade. The discontented would invite him , as OTL, but the presence of Henry would be the deciding factor that would make William decline. OTL he was very dubious and uncertain about it, and nearly refused. Add a Henry, and I don't think he would take the chance. The fact that he was the only possible Protestant "savior" was his trump card. Remove that, I don't think there would have been a Glorious Revolution. Perhaps (probably) some sort of revolution/rebellion/civil war, but not a Glorious Revolution. Perhaps something more like the Wars of the Roses. Though all Charles I's children seemed fond of one another, there did not seem much sibling rivalry.
 
Last edited:
Top