WI: William III adopts the Prince of Wales (aka the Old Pretender)?

So while reading King over the Water by Alice Shields and Andrew Lang, I came across a very interesting passage. Twice, in 1697 and apparently in 1700/1701, William III offered to adopt his brother-in-law the Prince of Wales as his heir, in exchange for undisturbed possession of the throne during his (William's lifetime). This offer is repeated in several books, including Ungrateful Daughters, the Old Chevalier and A Court in Exile, so clearly this offer was indeed made. The fact that William, the Protestant hero, dropped any demand for the Prince to become Protestant makes the fact that James II and Queen Mary rejected the offer even more ridiculous. So lets say the offer was accepted, either by Louis XIV accepting on behalf of the Prince or by James finally making a good decision.

What happens next? How would William, assuming the offer is genuine (which I believe it was. After all, if the Jacobites and French had decided to publish the offer it would have done more damage to William than themselves) go about enforcing the agreement? Would knowing that his surrogate grandson's accession was basically guaranteed change the way Louis XIV acted in regard to the Duc d'Anjou's inheritance? Would the Spanish succession war still break out? What about the British isles? Would we see a return of the Crown's full authority? Would a union between England and Scotland still occur?
 
So while reading King over the Water by Alice Shields and Andrew Lang, I came across a very interesting passage. Twice, in 1697 and apparently in 1700/1701, William III offered to adopt his brother-in-law the Prince of Wales as his heir, in exchange for undisturbed possession of the throne during his (William's lifetime). This offer is repeated in several books, including Ungrateful Daughters, the Old Chevalier and A Court in Exile, so clearly this offer was indeed made. The fact that William, the Protestant hero, dropped any demand for the Prince to become Protestant makes the fact that James II and Queen Mary rejected the offer even more ridiculous. So lets say the offer was accepted, either by Louis XIV accepting on behalf of the Prince or by James finally making a good decision.

What happens next? How would William, assuming the offer is genuine (which I believe it was. After all, if the Jacobites and French had decided to publish the offer it would have done more damage to William than themselves) go about enforcing the agreement? Would knowing that his surrogate grandson's accession was basically guaranteed change the way Louis XIV acted in regard to the Duc d'Anjou's inheritance? Would the Spanish succession war still break out? What about the British isles? Would we see a return of the Crown's full authority? Would a union between England and Scotland still occur?

I'm not sure I believe it. First, William, nor Mary, nor Anne ever even acknowledged that James Francis Edward was James II's son. Anne was the primary person who spread the fake warming pan (fake child theory) and apparently made Mary believe it (which was one of the only ways Mary salved her conscience since she did not initially favor dethroning her father). William in his international correspondence (for public consumption) with his anti-French allies continually called JFES the "so-called Prince of Wales". To adopt and admit they had stolen the throne from a rightful heir (which JFES was) is something I can't see William doing. And I can never see Anne giving up her right to the throne, which making the Old Pretender Willam's heir would basically entail.

Also I can't see Mary of Modena ever giving her son up to William, who had basically stolen her son's birthright, caused her husband to die in exile AND, against international protocol and laws, refused to return Mary's (pricey) dowry which the British govt. had confiscated.
 
Besides wouldn't he rather adopt a Nassau relative? OTOH the only way for William to deny Anne would have been him been him having a male heir, even from a second marriage. Sure there were treaties, but if William III like the Habsburg Charles VI would have had time enough for such a hypothetical male heir from a second marriage, I'm sure he would have done anything to have him as his successor.
 
I'm not sure I believe it. First, William, nor Mary, nor Anne ever even acknowledged that James Francis Edward was James II's son. Anne was the primary person who spread the fake warming pan (fake child theory) and apparently made Mary believe it (which was one of the only ways Mary salved her conscience since she did not initially favor dethroning her father). William in his international correspondence (for public consumption) with his anti-French allies continually called JFES the "so-called Prince of Wales". To adopt and admit they had stolen the throne from a rightful heir (which JFES was) is something I can't see William doing. And I can never see Anne giving up her right to the throne, which making the Old Pretender Willam's heir would basically entail.

Also I can't see Mary of Modena ever giving her son up to William, who had basically stolen her son's birthright, caused her husband to die in exile AND, against international protocol and laws, refused to return Mary's (pricey) dowry which the British govt. had confiscated.

First off, that's not actually the case. None of them acknowledged him in public. I don't know much about Mary's opinion, but during the early 1690s a lot of people floated the idea of William and Mary adopting the Prince as their son and heir. From what I can tell Mary never really shot it down. As to William, there was no doubt in his head about the Prince's paternity. According to Lord Ailesbury, for one, William once asked to see a portrait of him and remarked "About the mouth he is most like my uncle King Charles, and his eyes are most like his mother's." That doesn't sound like someone who thinks the Prince is a fake. Hell in correspondence with Electress Sophia, who had everything to gain from the Prince being a fake, both acknowledged that there was no doubt that James Francis was the son of James II and Mary Beatrice. Only Anne never acknowledged her brother period.

Second, if William wasn't honest why make the offer? It would have done more damage to him than James II if it became public. From the various books and bio's I've read on the era and William III, its increasingly clear that William was sick and tired of England and was quickly becoming disinterested in its future. The only reason he had invaded in the first place was to secure English resources for the war with France. Lets be honest, if James II had signed onto the Grand alliance but did everything else the same chances are there would have been no Dutch invasion. William would have had his English support.

As for Anne, William hated her and would have no reason to support a woman who brought no advantages and had treated his wife, her sister so horribly. Also, before anyone brings him up, the Duke of Gloucester was basically a nonentity. Anyone with half a brain would tell that, at best, he'd be the English Carlos II and at worst die young, like he did. James Francis Edward was the best choice. He was the legitimate heir and his accession would eliminate a potent weapon from France's arsenal. Not to mention an agreement with Saint-Germain and Versailles would secure William's reign for life.

Finally, to Mary Beatrice, her opinion wouldn't really matter. However, by the time William offered to drop the Catholic part (around 1700 since he promised to veto/repeal the Act of Settlement) I think he also had dropped the demand for the Prince to be sent to his custody. Chances are the agreement would be similar to what the Tories suggested in the early 1710s: the Jacobites remain in France for William's reign and return with the new King after his death, not unlike what happened to Charles II really.

One last thing. Remember that the Tories came close to deciding to have James III succeed Queen Anne in 1714. It was only her supposedly unexpected death (the fact that she'd been sick for over a year kinda makes me call BS) that derailed those plans (the Tories being caught off guard). Here we'd have the King, supported by the Tories, angling to have the Prince succeed William. A much better situation for a restoration.

Besides wouldn't he rather adopt a Nassau relative? OTOH the only way for William to deny Anne would have been him been him having a male heir, even from a second marriage. Sure there were treaties, but if William III like the Habsburg Charles VI would have had time enough for such a hypothetical male heir from a second marriage, I'm sure he would have done anything to have him as his successor.

The House of Orange-Nassau had NO claim to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones. William's claim was via his mother, not his father, so no good there. Second, the son of the King trumps the daughter of the King. If James's rights were recognized, he'd trump Anne and any issue she had. Third, William became King over Anne because he was married to Mary. Any children from a second marriage would be behind Anne and her issue.

The fact that William never remarried even after the Duke of Gloucester should tell you all you need to know about his chances of having a child. Clearly he knew that there was no chance of his fathering an heir. Remember William had a mistress, Elizabeth Villiers, for 15 years with no child born. After the relationship ended Villiers married the Earl of Orkney and had three daughters in quick succession. Clearly any problem was with William.
 
First off, that's not actually the case. None of them acknowledged him in public. I don't know much about Mary's opinion, but during the early 1690s a lot of people floated the idea of William and Mary adopting the Prince as their son and heir. From what I can tell Mary never really shot it down. As to William, there was no doubt in his head about the Prince's paternity. According to Lord Ailesbury, for one, William once asked to see a portrait of him and remarked "About the mouth he is most like my uncle King Charles, and his eyes are most like his mother's." That doesn't sound like someone who thinks the Prince is a fake. Hell in correspondence with Electress Sophia, who had everything to gain from the Prince being a fake, both acknowledged that there was no doubt that James Francis was the son of James II and Mary Beatrice. Only Anne never acknowledged her brother period.

Second, if William wasn't honest why make the offer? It would have done more damage to him than James II if it became public. From the various books and bio's I've read on the era and William III, its increasingly clear that William was sick and tired of England and was quickly becoming disinterested in its future. The only reason he had invaded in the first place was to secure English resources for the war with France. Lets be honest, if James II had signed onto the Grand alliance but did everything else the same chances are there would have been no Dutch invasion. William would have had his English support.

As for Anne, William hated her and would have no reason to support a woman who brought no advantages and had treated his wife, her sister so horribly. Also, before anyone brings him up, the Duke of Gloucester was basically a nonentity. Anyone with half a brain would tell that, at best, he'd be the English Carlos II and at worst die young, like he did. James Francis Edward was the best choice. He was the legitimate heir and his accession would eliminate a potent weapon from France's arsenal. Not to mention an agreement with Saint-Germain and Versailles would secure William's reign for life.

Mary did not think her brother was really her brother. Most biographies I've read pretty much say this. Anne had convinced her of this and was one of the reasons why Mary went along with the Glorious Revolution. And I never doubted that any of them actually thought James Francis Edward was a fake personally but Willam/Mary/Anne WERE the major public propagators of the myth that JFES was a "supposed" Prince of Wales. One of the their justifications for Mary's (and Anne's) claim to the throne was was based on this (and the idea that Mary of Modena could not give birth to surviving children - when the birth of Princess Louisa in France blew this line of thought out of the water - William/Mary/Anne just pretended that Louisa did not exist, indeed the FIRST TIME Anne ever acknowledged her half-sister's existence was when she received news of her death from the French ambassador).

Publicly and to the world William, Mary and Anne had declared JFES to be a fraud and not James II's son, even if they knew differently in their hearts. For William to "adopt" him after all that and publicly reversing himself (how would that work?) doesn't really fit his character as its come down to us. And Anne would not take it lying down - she NEVER acknowledged that Mary of Modena had any legitimate children with James II - and she was as much a die-hard Anglican believer as her father became a Catholic one. If JFES ever converted to Anglicanism for the throne (which is out of character for him and something he refused over and over again in OTL) she would see him as a Trojan horse crypto-Catholic and if he remained a Catholic and William made him his heir, Anne, and most of those Protestant lords/Anglican bishops who had dethroned James II would never accept it and there could be another war.
 
Mary did not think her brother was really her brother. Most biographies I've read pretty much say this. Anne had convinced her of this and was one of the reasons why Mary went along with the Glorious Revolution. And I never doubted that any of them actually thought James Francis Edward was a fake personally but Willam/Mary/Anne WERE the major public propagators of the myth that JFES was a "supposed" Prince of Wales. One of the their justifications for Mary's (and Anne's) claim to the throne was was based on this (and the idea that Mary of Modena could not give birth to surviving children - when the birth of Princess Louisa in France blew this line of thought out of the water - William/Mary/Anne just pretended that Louisa did not exist, indeed the FIRST TIME Anne ever acknowledged her half-sister's existence was when she received news of her death from the French ambassador).

Publicly and to the world William, Mary and Anne had declared JFES to be a fraud and not James II's son, even if they knew differently in their hearts. For William to "adopt" him after all that and publicly reversing himself (how would that work?) doesn't really fit his character as its come down to us. And Anne would not take it lying down - she NEVER acknowledged that Mary of Modena had any legitimate children with James II - and she was as much a die-hard Anglican believer as her father became a Catholic one. If JFES ever converted to Anglicanism for the throne (which is out of character for him and something he refused over and over again in OTL) she would see him as a Trojan horse crypto-Catholic and if he remained a Catholic and William made him his heir, Anne, and most of those Protestant lords/Anglican bishops who had dethroned James II would never accept it and there could be another war.

Actually Anne only doubted her brother, not her half-sister Maria Louisa. James was a threat to her, Louisa was not, so no need to doubt her paternity (and the fact that the entire French court had attended the Princess's birth didn't hurt either). You gotta remember the circumstances surrounding the two offers. The first was during the negotiations for the Treaty of Ryswick. At that point William had accomplished his goals: French expansion was contained and a peaceful solution to the Spanish succession was in the works. There was no need to deny the Prince of Wales any longer. Hell making him the heir would have probably helped in negotiations between William and Louis over the Spanish Monarchy.

The second offer came in 1700, after the death of the Duke of Gloucester. There was no chance of Anne having another child nor of William marrying: the line of succession established in the Bill of rights was dead. At the same time, there was no guarantee that the Tories (who had a majority in the Commons) and the nation at large would go along with the Hanoverian succession. Finally there was France, waiting in the wings to dominate the continent. By making James his heir William would have denied Louis an excuse to go to war again.

At the time of both offers William believed that he had achieved his goals and that making peace with the Jacobites would be in the best long-term interests to assure his goals remained completed. As for Anne, yeah she would never take it lying down, but after Gloucester's death her importance slipped. She was a childless woman who was unlikely to give birth to a living child, let alone one who would survive to adulthood. As to William's personality not allowing him to do so, I'm not sure I understand. His actions from Mary II's death to his own showed that he no longer cared about England's succession or about their politics outside of the necessary support for his war. I think the final straw was when Parliament dismantled his army after the Nine years' war. At that point William was basically disgusted with the English lot.

I'm kind of rambling at this point, but my point is this: William offered to adopt the Prince of Wales as his heir. That's mentioned in so many different sources that its impossible to doubt. William hated his sister-in-law and would screw her over if possible. His blocking of her allowance from Parliament, denying her and Prince George a personal escort from the Guard regiments and refusing to accept Lady Marlborough at court proved this. There was no point in making such an offer twice if William wasn't serious about it. Assuming the offer was genuine (with the lack of evidence to the contrary we must) William must have believed that such a feat was possible, if not why make the offer? In conclusion I believe that William, if he truly wished to, could have engineered a peaceful succession for his cousin/brother-in-law, even with opposition from his sister-in-law.

Hell, worst comes to worst he publishes all the letters Anne wrote, proclaims he was convinced by the Princess of Denmark that James was a fake Prince and proceed to lay blame completely on Anne. An unlikely scenario to be sure, but it is a possibility.

For now lets assume that everything goes right and James succeeds William. What would the long-term affects be?
 
Actually Anne only doubted her brother, not her half-sister Maria Louisa. James was a threat to her, Louisa was not, so no need to doubt her paternity (and the fact that the entire French court had attended the Princess's birth didn't hurt either). You gotta remember the circumstances surrounding the two offers. The first was during the negotiations for the Treaty of Ryswick. At that point William had accomplished his goals: French expansion was contained and a peaceful solution to the Spanish succession was in the works. There was no need to deny the Prince of Wales any longer. Hell making him the heir would have probably helped in negotiations between William and Louis over the Spanish Monarchy.

Wasn't William seen as the champion of Protestantism (even though technically speaking he was an ally of the Pope and the Habsburgs against France?). That's certainly what the hard-line proponents of the Glorious Revolution thought (such as the Bishop of London) and the Penal Laws against Catholics were started by William (breaking his own terms to the Irish to get them to surrender).

And he's going to adopt a Catholic heir?

Hell, worst comes to worst he publishes all the letters Anne wrote, proclaims he was convinced by the Princess of Denmark that James was a fake Prince and proceed to lay blame completely on Anne. An unlikely scenario to be sure, but it is a possibility.

For now lets assume that everything goes right and James succeeds William. What would the long-term affects be?

Again, even if Anne is diminished, she is still a figurehead for the opposition (and I really do think the more I read of her she is the most personally unlikeable of the latter Stuarts) and what about all those figures who owed their titles and honors and awards (such as Devonshire, Marlborough, Prince George, Talbot, Danby, the Hydes, etc.) to the Revolution would welcome the son of the man they had so openly betrayed? I don't think so. Especially if JFES is the same one as OTL who admired his father greatly. I predict a Civil War of some kind at the least.
 
A'hem

Is this the alternate history board or a pissing contest to prove reality ?

And before ya aw'll go jumping up and down on me about "plausibility" ...
I think Emperor Constantine has made an accurate POD with regard to William's state of mind toward England and Anne as well as the continental relationships he has pointed out. Regardless of wether you sighted his sources or not.
 
(...)

The House of Orange-Nassau had NO claim to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones. William's claim was via his mother, not his father, so no good there. Second, the son of the King trumps the daughter of the King. If James's rights were recognized, he'd trump Anne and any issue she had. Third, William became King over Anne because he was married to Mary. Any children from a second marriage would be behind Anne and her issue.

The fact that William never remarried even after the Duke of Gloucester should tell you all you need to know about his chances of having a child. Clearly he knew that there was no chance of his fathering an heir. Remember William had a mistress, Elizabeth Villiers, for 15 years with no child born. After the relationship ended Villiers married the Earl of Orkney and had three daughters in quick succession. Clearly any problem was with William.

I'll admit that a different Nassau relative would be too much, but (and you pointed out it's unlikely) if William would have been able to have legitimate male issue from a potential second marriage, then I can see him taking the measures needed to have him succeed him.
It's a lot of if's, but IMHO more plausible than William adopting the Old pretender.

Not to mention that the adopted heir would need to convert to Protestantism to make him acceptable.
 
Is this the alternate history board or a pissing contest to prove reality ?

And before ya aw'll go jumping up and down on me about "plausibility" ...
I think Emperor Constantine has made an accurate POD with regard to William's state of mind toward England and Anne as well as the continental relationships he has pointed out. Regardless of wether you sighted his sources or not.

Thank you! I think its a perfectly plausible scenario and one that I've never seen mentioned or explored before. Sadly when most people on this board read "Jacobite" their first reaction is to call the idea impossible.
 
So while reading King over the Water by Alice Shields and Andrew Lang, I came across a very interesting passage. Twice, in 1697 and apparently in 1700/1701, William III offered to adopt his brother-in-law the Prince of Wales as his heir, in exchange for undisturbed possession of the throne during his (William's lifetime). This offer is repeated in several books, including Ungrateful Daughters, the Old Chevalier and A Court in Exile, so clearly this offer was indeed made. The fact that William, the Protestant hero, dropped any demand for the Prince to become Protestant makes the fact that James II and Queen Mary rejected the offer even more ridiculous. So lets say the offer was accepted, either by Louis XIV accepting on behalf of the Prince or by James finally making a good decision.

What happens next? How would William, assuming the offer is genuine (which I believe it was. After all, if the Jacobites and French had decided to publish the offer it would have done more damage to William than themselves) go about enforcing the agreement? Would knowing that his surrogate grandson's accession was basically guaranteed change the way Louis XIV acted in regard to the Duc d'Anjou's inheritance? Would the Spanish succession war still break out? What about the British isles? Would we see a return of the Crown's full authority? Would a union between England and Scotland still occur?

I've read about this/an offer as well. William entertained the Electress Sophia at Het Loo (or somewhere like that) and broached the subject of the English succession with her. The Electress pointed out that there was already an heir, and that all he had endured thus far would be likely to make him a better king than his father. It seems a bit weird if one considers it on the surface (with William being Protestant and all that (especially considering he was the one who usurped the PoW's rights in the first place)), but I've heard of odder things.

For instance, Queen Anne wanting to block George I's reign so badly, she was willing to marry her aforementioned half-sister off to the future George II in order that neither Sophia nor Georg could set foot in England. Unlikely to be sure, but the idea of said marriage was considered around 1705/1706 or so AFAIK
 
Last edited:
To be Frank at the of the invasion William was the champion of English protestants (BTW I'm a Dutch Roman Catholic).
By the time his army, which had grown by defecting British protestants, reached Parliament, William was in the position that they in parliament made the right decision.
Technically William usurped the rights of his father, still William being a member of the Stuart family, not dynasty, might not have been against James II son succeeding him, provided he is or becomes a protestant.
 
Wasn't William seen as the champion of Protestantism (even though technically speaking he was an ally of the Pope and the Habsburgs against France?). That's certainly what the hard-line proponents of the Glorious Revolution thought (such as the Bishop of London) and the Penal Laws against Catholics were started by William (breaking his own terms to the Irish to get them to surrender).

And he's going to adopt a Catholic heir?



Again, even if Anne is diminished, she is still a figurehead for the opposition (and I really do think the more I read of her she is the most personally unlikeable of the latter Stuarts) and what about all those figures who owed their titles and honors and awards (such as Devonshire, Marlborough, Prince George, Talbot, Danby, the Hydes, etc.) to the Revolution would welcome the son of the man they had so openly betrayed? I don't think so. Especially if JFES is the same one as OTL who admired his father greatly. I predict a Civil War of some kind at the least.

William never seemed to consider himself the champion of Protestantism. After all, He had no problems allying with Spain and Austria against France. In truth William was anti-French first and foremost. He wanted France contained and would do anything to see that happen. If adopting the Prince of Wales lessened French power, he'd do it. To the penal laws, they were all passed after Mary's death, when William's apathy to the British Isles began. Seems to me that he merely signed what was placed in front of him.

To the various Peers and politicians, you forget just how much double-dealing was going on. Most of the men you mentioned maintained close correspondence with Saint-Germain and wouldn't find it that difficult to align themselves with the new regime. At most we'd see a reverse '15, with some of the more radical Whigs rising against James III in favor of Anne or the Hanovarians. Chances are it would be a repeat of our own '15 rising: a few early victories but ends with a Whig defeat. Revolting against someone who's alienated most of his supporters (ie James II) is one thing. Revolting against a child ruler who could easily prove to be his father's opposite is another thing entirely. Most revolts against child monarchs are directed at removing the Regent/governing ministers, not the Sovereign.
 
To be Frank at the of the invasion William was the champion of English protestants (BTW I'm a Dutch Roman Catholic).
By the time his army, which had grown by defecting British protestants, reached Parliament, William was in the position that they in parliament made the right decision.
Technically William usurped the rights of his father, still William being a member of the Stuart family, not dynasty, might not have been against James II son succeeding him, provided he is or becomes a protestant.

From my reading William seemed to be willing to allow the Prince to succeed him without a conversion (the Prince's liberty of conscious and religion was mentioned favorably on both sides). Of course, its hard to tell what William would have really agreed to if his offer had been accepted.
 
This is perhaps skipping past the actual "getting" Jamie into England in the first place, but I'm curious as to what might happen when William dies. Jamie is still underage as per terms of his father's will. The will AFAIK stipulated that Mary of Modena was to be regent until his 21st birthday. That will not go over well in London - not only has England very little of a tradition of queens-regent, but she's the Catholic Madame East "the pope's daughter/whore". Also, what of La Consolatrice? Brought over to England? Left in France a la Minette?

Then, how does Anne deal with her displacement? Perhaps staring deeper into the brandy bottle sooner than OTL:p but her brother-in-law's screwed her over, royally :D. Center of opposition she might become, but what sort of opposition might she be - she has no children to carry the fight on, nor likely to have any. Although, an interesting suggestion came up after Prince Georg of Denmark died: Anne should remarry! To her own half-brother! And bestow on him the crown matrimonial!

The English cleric who suggested this (closet Jacobite if I recall), was arrested for treason or somesuch, and when told to recant this statement, he replied that surely in good conscience then if her Majesty had told the truth, and the Pretender was a changeling, it would not be incest. Needless to say he was shortly thereafter released.
 
This is perhaps skipping past the actual "getting" Jamie into England in the first place, but I'm curious as to what might happen when William dies. Jamie is still underage as per terms of his father's will. The will AFAIK stipulated that Mary of Modena was to be regent until his 21st birthday. That will not go over well in London - not only has England very little of a tradition of queens-regent, but she's the Catholic Madame East "the pope's daughter/whore". Also, what of La Consolatrice? Brought over to England? Left in France a la Minette?

Then, how does Anne deal with her displacement? Perhaps staring deeper into the brandy bottle sooner than OTL:p but her brother-in-law's screwed her over, royally :D. Center of opposition she might become, but what sort of opposition might she be - she has no children to carry the fight on, nor likely to have any. Although, an interesting suggestion came up after Prince Georg of Denmark died: Anne should remarry! To her own half-brother! And bestow on him the crown matrimonial!

The English cleric who suggested this (closet Jacobite if I recall), was arrested for treason or somesuch, and when told to recant this statement, he replied that surely in good conscience then if her Majesty had told the truth, and the Pretender was a changeling, it would not be incest. Needless to say he was shortly thereafter released.

I think the regency would have to be decided before William's death. The choices would be Queen Mary Beatrice, a Regency council under the Queen Mother's presidency (with the Denmarks no doubt on it) or declare James III of age at 13, like what happened with Richard II and the French monarchs. Also, Louisa Maria is definitely brought over with her mother and brother. The only reason Minette remained in France was because her mother was in exile there.

As for Anne, yeah she'd be heiress presumptive but her influence would be slim. The Tories, assuming a settlement dealing with the Church and Catholics is reached, will rally behind their new King, while Anne had already alienated herself from the Whigs by this point. Those completely opposed to a Catholic monarch will rally behind her, but without children her position is nominal at best.

I've never heard of that before but that sounds about right.:rolleyes: If there's one thing Anne was good at it was sidestepping the issue.
 
Top