William III adopts James the Old Pretender as his heir

It would depend on the terms of acceptance. No way James Snr is accepting the terms dished out without making some counters. He doesn't have a leg to stand on - technically - but I imagine that this might be as much an agreement between William and Louis as an agreement between William, Sophia of the Palatinate and underage James III (since I imagine that it will be up to Louis to persuade Jimmy II)

Interesting, who would be making the choice if both James II and Mary Beatrice are dead, and its the first offer in 1697?
 
Louis XIV, most likely. IIRC, James commended both his kids to Le Roi Soleil's care when he died OTL.

Interesting, I can see Louis thinking it advangteous to agree to what William III is proposing. As it removes a potential headache, and also means that William is indebted to him.
 
So, @Emperor Constantine has mentioned before that during his reign, William III had at different times offered to adopt James Francis Edward Stuart, otherwise known as the old pretender, as his heir. The first time he did this, he said it was conditional on James becoming Protestant, the second time, he dropped that demand. However, both times it was rejected, and history went as it did.

What I'm wondering is, what would have happened had the first offer been accepted? James is adopted by William, named as heir and converts to Anglicanism. How does this affect things within Britain, as it pertains to things with Anne and the wider political situation?

William, Mary and Anne all pretended that James Edward was not James II's son (the Warming Pan theory) to justify not having a Regency in his name when James II was dethroned. Anne was the major proponent of it and was the one who convinced Mary. Otherwise how could they take his place in the line of succession (the exclusion of Catholics was never "official" till Electress Sophia was made heir YEARS later). In letter to his allies, William referred to the infant James Edward as the "supposed Prince of Wales". Anne never accepted James Edward was her brother publicly and never even acknowledged her French-born sister, Louisa's, very existence until that girl was dead and she received the news from the French ambassador. If James Edward is indeed made William III's heir (which is nearly ASB, since he would never convert knowing his character), Anne (who is next in line) will NEVER accept it. She either convinced herself (or more likely was just that spiteful and petty) that JE was not a "real" Stuart.
 
William, Mary and Anne all pretended that James Edward was not James II's son (the Warming Pan theory) to justify not having a Regency in his name when James II was dethroned. Anne was the major proponent of it and was the one who convinced Mary. Otherwise how could they take his place in the line of succession (the exclusion of Catholics was never "official" till Electress Sophia was made heir YEARS later). In letter to his allies, William referred to the infant James Edward as the "supposed Prince of Wales". Anne never accepted James Edward was her brother publicly and never even acknowledged her French-born sister, Louisa's, very existence until that girl was dead and she received the news from the French ambassador. If James Edward is indeed made William III's heir (which is nearly ASB, since he would never convert knowing his character), Anne (who is next in line) will NEVER accept it. She either convinced herself (or more likely was just that spiteful and petty) that JE was not a "real" Stuart.

Is james personality set in stone in 1697: with both parents dead and him aged nine?
 
OK I can't seem to locate my source for the second offer that came in 1700 but I do have multiple sources from the 1697 one; William had no intentions of forcing the Prince to be raised Anglican but was content to allow him to continue to be educated in the Catholic faith. The issue with the 1697 offer was that William wanted custody of the Prince of Wales, something the King and Queen refused to entertain; apparently there were fears that he would poison him but I don't give much credence to that fear. I remember that the second offer had dropped that requirement.

@jb3, not true. William never PUBLICLY acknowledged the Prince of Wales but privately had no doubt that he was his first cousin. According to Lord Ailesbury, He 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 to his mother's." Plus William acknowledged the legitimacy of the Prince in conversations with Electress Sophia, even though it was in both of their interests to do otherwise. The Only one that stubbornly clung to that theory was Anne herself.

And I actually had a good scenario for this situation; in 1700 Anne had her last pregnancy, a stillborn child. So my idea was this kills her, then in July Gloucester dies on schedule. The second offer is made (that let James stay with his parents) and Louis XIV forces his cousin to accept it. The Act of Settlement isn't passed and instead the King, with the Tories, pass a one-off bill to allow the Prince to succeed as a Catholic. Come James's death in 1701 the Jacobites and France do nothing, meaning that the Spanish succession war is averted (or at least severely curtailed) as the proclamation of James III & VIII is what drove Parliament to support William's rearmament and opposition to the succession of Felipe V in Madrid. Now who would be the Regent or whether Parliament would chose to use the Richard II precedent I don't know, but effectively Louis XIV would have given two Kings to two countries and created a situation in which three Kings (or potential Kings; Bourgogne, Anjou and Wales) were close childhood friends, raised in close proximity to each other. That would be entirely unprecedented in modern history and could mean a League of Spain, Britain and France emerges later on.
 
Is james personality set in stone in 1697: with both parents dead and him aged nine?

He would old enough to see both (by-then) devoutly Catholic parents run off to England and mistreated by Wiliiam III (who refused to return his mother's dowry as per international norms and made a point of every treaty with France that he and his father be kicked out of the county and not acknowledged) and his 2 half-sisters, all of whom claimed publicly to the world at some point he was not his mother's son. His other sister, who he is the protector of, is all of 7 and the same three relatives (as well as the British government) has never even acknowledged her existence. He also knows that most of the people surrounding William had a hand in father's overthrow or literally betrayed him and they would probably be the Regents who would oversee his every move (and probably marry off/ bethroth Louisa without his permission). The only thing he can rely on is the sufferance and the mercy of the Sun King (who by 1697 had increasingly turned to religion under the care of Madam Maitenon) who gave them refuge. He would also be opposed by Anne's camp (since she would never accept this) should he convert and be King. I think there is enough there given his background even in 1697 that he would refuse to abjure his faith as he would refuse in 1715.

@jb3, not true. William never PUBLICLY acknowledged the Prince of Wales but privately had no doubt that he was his first cousin. According to Lord Ailesbury, He 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 to his mother's." Plus William acknowledged the legitimacy of the Prince in conversations with Electress Sophia, even though it was in both of their interests to do otherwise. The Only one that stubbornly clung to that theory was Anne herself.

I have no doubt that William privately knew it was false. I think Mary initially did not believe it (in her letters? she said was originally for a Regency) but did by her death because of Anne. I am not sure what Anne believed. I personally find her the most unlikeable and small-minded of the later Stuarts. But for the world at least they (and the British govt.) did not acknowledge he was the Heir or even had any claims (and NEVER acknowledged Louisa existed). When JE did publicly claim to be "King" it passed "An Act for the Attainder of the pretended Prince of Wales of High Treason" which referred to him as "pretended Prince".
 
Last edited:
OK I can't seem to locate my source for the second offer that came in 1700 but I do have multiple sources from the 1697 one; William had no intentions of forcing the Prince to be raised Anglican but was content to allow him to continue to be educated in the Catholic faith. The issue with the 1697 offer was that William wanted custody of the Prince of Wales, something the King and Queen refused to entertain; apparently there were fears that he would poison him but I don't give much credence to that fear. I remember that the second offer had dropped that requirement.

@jb3, not true. William never PUBLICLY acknowledged the Prince of Wales but privately had no doubt that he was his first cousin. According to Lord Ailesbury, He 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 to his mother's." Plus William acknowledged the legitimacy of the Prince in conversations with Electress Sophia, even though it was in both of their interests to do otherwise. The Only one that stubbornly clung to that theory was Anne herself.

And I actually had a good scenario for this situation; in 1700 Anne had her last pregnancy, a stillborn child. So my idea was this kills her, then in July Gloucester dies on schedule. The second offer is made (that let James stay with his parents) and Louis XIV forces his cousin to accept it. The Act of Settlement isn't passed and instead the King, with the Tories, pass a one-off bill to allow the Prince to succeed as a Catholic. Come James's death in 1701 the Jacobites and France do nothing, meaning that the Spanish succession war is averted (or at least severely curtailed) as the proclamation of James III & VIII is what drove Parliament to support William's rearmament and opposition to the succession of Felipe V in Madrid. Now who would be the Regent or whether Parliament would chose to use the Richard II precedent I don't know, but effectively Louis XIV would have given two Kings to two countries and created a situation in which three Kings (or potential Kings; Bourgogne, Anjou and Wales) were close childhood friends, raised in close proximity to each other. That would be entirely unprecedented in modern history and could mean a League of Spain, Britain and France emerges later on.

Now this would be fascinating to see, would James remain a Catholic then, and if so, would he need to raise his future children as Anglicans? Much like Charles II did for his sisters? Furthermore, would James need to wait until 1702 or whenever William dies in this instance before venturing home?
 
Now this would be fascinating to see, would James remain a Catholic then, and if so, would he need to raise his future children as Anglicans? Much like Charles II did for his sisters? Furthermore, would James need to wait until 1702 or whenever William dies in this instance before venturing home?

Harder to say. I think that at the least the Tories might demand, and receive, some kind of Act that limits the power of a Catholic King over the Church and I think James himself would be strongly encouraged to convert/marry a Protestant, raise his children as Protestants but by and large the Tories frowned upon any limits to the Monarchy's divine authority, which would include limiting religion. As for when he arrives, hard to say as well. Technically the Prince of Wales would be free to return to London from 1697 until his attainder in 1702; he was legally created Prince of Wales, so no pretender there, was guilty of nothing and could be charged with nothing. But he was also barely thirteen when his father died, so it would be up to his parents/mother instead of the Prince himself.
 
Harder to say. I think that at the least the Tories might demand, and receive, some kind of Act that limits the power of a Catholic King over the Church and I think James himself would be strongly encouraged to convert/marry a Protestant, raise his children as Protestants but by and large the Tories frowned upon any limits to the Monarchy's divine authority, which would include limiting religion. As for when he arrives, hard to say as well. Technically the Prince of Wales would be free to return to London from 1697 until his attainder in 1702; he was legally created Prince of Wales, so no pretender there, was guilty of nothing and could be charged with nothing. But he was also barely thirteen when his father died, so it would be up to his parents/mother instead of the Prince himself.
Interesting, I do think if he converts he’d have an easier time of it, and of course louis might encourage such a thing no? And if he’s an orphan what then?
 
Interesting, I do think if he converts he’d have an easier time of it, and of course louis might encourage such a thing no? And if he’s an orphan what then?

No. Louis XIV would NEVER encourage James's conversion; the Sun King even point blank said that if he ever converted James would be dead to him (paraphrasing here but you get what I mean). So if James converted before his patron's death Anglo-French relations would rupture. So any conversion would likely wait until 1715 (if things go on schedule).
 
I could've missed the boat on this (my internet was down) but a good idea for JFES if he WON'T convert, is to restore the Convocations of the Clergy (abolished by Henry VIII, restored by Mary and then abolished again by Elizabeth). It'd be a sort of clerical parliament so that while the king is a papist, CoE policies are still exercised by Anglicans. @JedidiahStott once said tthat it would be enough of a Tory wet dream that they might overlook James' papistry.
 
No. Louis XIV would NEVER encourage James's conversion; the Sun King even point blank said that if he ever converted James would be dead to him (paraphrasing here but you get what I mean). So if James converted before his patron's death Anglo-French relations would rupture. So any conversion would likely wait until 1715 (if things go on schedule).
Hmm interesting this now makes me wonder which choice to go for. James as an orphan in 1697, or a James in 1700 waiting for the chance to convert aha
 
I could've missed the boat on this (my internet was down) but a good idea for JFES if he WON'T convert, is to restore the Convocations of the Clergy (abolished by Henry VIII, restored by Mary and then abolished again by Elizabeth). It'd be a sort of clerical parliament so that while the king is a papist, CoE policies are still exercised by Anglicans. @JedidiahStott once said tthat it would be enough of a Tory wet dream that they might overlook James' papistry.
I agree that could be pretty interesting
 
I agree that could be pretty interesting

I don't say James WILL agree to it. However, it has things working in its favour:
1) it shows the rabid Anglicans that the king is willing to compromise (he recognizes that to be Catholic AND Supreme Head of a heretic church is problematic. So, something along the lines of Saxony and the Palatinate's religious idea when their ruler was no longer of the same religion as the subjects)
2) it pleases the Whigs since it weakens the power of the king over the State Church (could be temporary if Jamie marries a Protestant and has Protestant kids; could also be permanent if he doesn't) - even though it was the Whigs that called the last convocation in the 18th century before dismissing it.
3) it appeals to an old tradition which could sit well with traditionalists who aren't entirely comfortable with either a Catholic king or skipping 50+ places in the succession (indefeasible hereditary right)
4) One of the convocation's rights pre-1534 (Submission of the Clergy) was to initiate canon law as well as oversee free elections of bishops. Henry VIII and Cromwell (?) made it so that the convocation was beholden to the king. By " restoring" the ancient privileges of free elections, initiating canon law (these are still subject to royal approval (both pre and post-Henry) AIUI) etc this might gain a lot of support from the clergy (who in those days, many were usually second or younger sons of peers). The pulpit was the pre-industrial form of the radio/TV in a society where few in the lower classes could read or write. Jamie gets (part of) the clergy on his side, he can ensure a major popularity groundswell (in theory).
 
I don't say James WILL agree to it. However, it has things working in its favour:
1) it shows the rabid Anglicans that the king is willing to compromise (he recognizes that to be Catholic AND Supreme Head of a heretic church is problematic. So, something along the lines of Saxony and the Palatinate's religious idea when their ruler was no longer of the same religion as the subjects)
2) it pleases the Whigs since it weakens the power of the king over the State Church (could be temporary if Jamie marries a Protestant and has Protestant kids; could also be permanent if he doesn't) - even though it was the Whigs that called the last convocation in the 18th century before dismissing it.
3) it appeals to an old tradition which could sit well with traditionalists who aren't entirely comfortable with either a Catholic king or skipping 50+ places in the succession (indefeasible hereditary right)
4) One of the convocation's rights pre-1534 (Submission of the Clergy) was to initiate canon law as well as oversee free elections of bishops. Henry VIII and Cromwell (?) made it so that the convocation was beholden to the king. By " restoring" the ancient privileges of free elections, initiating canon law (these are still subject to royal approval (both pre and post-Henry) AIUI) etc this might gain a lot of support from the clergy (who in those days, many were usually second or younger sons of peers). The pulpit was the pre-industrial form of the radio/TV in a society where few in the lower classes could read or write. Jamie gets (part of) the clergy on his side, he can ensure a major popularity groundswell (in theory).

Agreed with you there, I do think that if it's put to him correctly, he would agree to it, at least perhaps for his reign. And as for marriages, I can see the Tories/whoever is in government advising for a Protestant marriage/ betrothal. Perhaps even to Sophia Dorothea of Hanover?
 
So what’s the consensus? Should James take the 1697 offer or?

Maybe keep to OTL, let James the Beshitten die, and then Dutch Billy "adopts" JFES à la Stephen-Henry II after the duke of Gloucester kicks (which is what the Electress Sophie suggested - that exile would've taught the Stuarts something). If Billy doesn't need a conversion, both Saint-Germaine and Versailles are going to be FAR more receptive to it than the 1697 where a conversion was needed.
 
Maybe keep to OTL, let James the Beshitten die, and then Dutch Billy "adopts" JFES à la Stephen-Henry II after the duke of Gloucester kicks (which is what the Electress Sophie suggested - that exile would've taught the Stuarts something). If Billy doesn't need a conversion, both Saint-Germaine and Versailles are going to be FAR more receptive to it than the 1697 where a conversion was needed.

Interesting, and do you think that would go over well with Parliament/ whoever is on the council at the time? Also, would it necessairily need William to then die in 1702, or could he live until James is perhaps about eighteen?
 
Top