William III adopts James the Old Pretender as his heir

Fair dos. But in your view from a story telling perspective what would be more interesting?

I think a "regency" board would be awkward. Those likely to sit on it would be the same people who deprived Jamie of his inheritance in the first place. However, it would make Jamie more alive to who needs to be watched etc. It'd probably also go over well with the public to have a transition phase, where Jamie succeeds but is still likely to be seen as a French puppet with a swarm of Jesuit priests; and while he IS involved in the running of his country, for the next few years, its Anglican politicians who are making the decisions. A sort of "damn the government, cheer the king", that by the time the regency is over, Jamie isn't so much of a bubble-boy, or politically naïve and more likely (IMO) to be like Charles II or III rather than James II or Charles I
 
I think a "regency" board would be awkward. Those likely to sit on it would be the same people who deprived Jamie of his inheritance in the first place. However, it would make Jamie more alive to who needs to be watched etc. It'd probably also go over well with the public to have a transition phase, where Jamie succeeds but is still likely to be seen as a French puppet with a swarm of Jesuit priests; and while he IS involved in the running of his country, for the next few years, its Anglican politicians who are making the decisions. A sort of "damn the government, cheer the king", that by the time the regency is over, Jamie isn't so much of a bubble-boy, or politically naïve and more likely (IMO) to be like Charles II or III rather than James II or Charles I

Interesting that would be fascinating to see. I do wonder who would sit on the board, given that the WHig Junto had fallen from favour around this time. I also imagine as Constantine said, that there might not be British involvement in the War of Succession if this agreement is made.
 
As as a rough outline, how does this sound?

In 1700, Anne Duchess of Cumberland dies in childbirth, shortly after the death of her only surviving son William, Duke of Gloucester. This consequently gets William thinking about the succession, and after a discussion with his ministers, he decides to make an offer to the Jacobite court in Saint Germain. He states that he will recognise James Francis Edward Stuart as his heir, without the need for the boy to convert. After much debate and discussion, the proposal is eventually accepted, and William through an Act of Parliament recognises his cousin as his heir, with James being formally recognised as Prince of Wales, shortly after James II dies in 1701. William III himself would soon follow his uncle to the grave, after a fall from his horse sees his neck break. Leaving the fourteen year old Prince of Wales, now King, as James III. And this is when the fun begins.
 
If the House of Stewart endures after William of Orange, he may be be counted among the monarchs of that dynasty in England, given that his wife was a Stewart, and that his heir would be a Stewart.
 
I do think the easiest thing would be a non-regency a la Richard II or a "French style majority" at age thirteen, though I sure as hell wouldn't call it the later publicly if I was an English politician! I can also say that honestly, without English involvement the Spanish succession war would either not happen or be much smaller. Hell, if it still happens but without Britain, we could see France successfully steal the Imperial Crown from the Habsburgs and crown their Wittelsbach allies!
 
I do think the easiest thing would be a non-regency a la Richard II or a "French style majority" at age thirteen, though I sure as hell wouldn't call it the later publicly if I was an English politician! I can also say that honestly, without English involvement the Spanish succession war would either not happen or be much smaller. Hell, if it still happens but without Britain, we could see France successfully steal the Imperial Crown from the Habsburgs and crown their Wittelsbach allies!
Oh now that is interesting, would James essentially rule with advisors doing he bulk?
 
Seems to me Louis was pretty bellicose about everything after Carlos II died. It was as if he were determined to start the war and fight the world, including Britain. I'm in the cheap seats, but the view from here says it was more than Louis' talk regarding James II that made sure there was a war. IF I were the author of this TTL, I'd pencil in the war happening (starting, at least) pretty much OTL.

With that in mind, James III would be seen from a French POV as jumping ship and joining with an enemy combatant.
 
Seems to me Louis was pretty bellicose about everything after Carlos II died. It was as if he were determined to start the war and fight the world, including Britain. I'm in the cheap seats, but the view from here says it was more than Louis' talk regarding James II that made sure there was a war. IF I were the author of this TTL, I'd pencil in the war happening (starting, at least) pretty much OTL.

With that in mind, James III would be seen from a French POV as jumping ship and joining with an enemy combatant.

Would he be viewed that way though? He's not converted, and he is ruling as King in his own name
 
Would he be viewed that way though? He's not converted, and he is ruling as King in his own name
IF, as I propose, Britain (I guess it would be England at the time - this being pre unification of the 3 countries) is an enemy combatant, and James III has willingly joined them, how else could the French see it? Maybe they would try to work with him to end the war, or work with him after the war, but in the meantime, he's with the enemy.
 
IF, as I propose, Britain (I guess it would be England at the time - this being pre unification of the 3 countries) is an enemy combatant, and James III has willingly joined them, how else could the French see it? Maybe they would try to work with him to end the war, or work with him after the war, but in the meantime, he's with the enemy.

Hmm interesting, would it be seen as in England's interests to join the war? Considering the main reason they did join was because Louis proclaimed James III as King.
 
also amongst the top reasons were France's aggressive moves toward the Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. Also, threatening a massive Bourbon shift of balance of power. And fears of economic disadvantage. A symbolic recognition of James III as rightful king, by itself, was not cause for war. It was icing on the cake. France could have avoided war, but it would have taken more than merely staying away from that recognition.

If James is part of the English recognized succession, or king, he has to advocate for English interests, and France was trammeling those interests left and right. Perhaps things could have been settled diplomatically, but OTL France made it clear that the only way to a resolution was through force of arms. I don't see France accepting lesser gains out of the goodness of their heart.
 
also amongst the top reasons were France's aggressive moves toward the Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. Also, threatening a massive Bourbon shift of balance of power. And fears of economic disadvantage. A symbolic recognition of James III as rightful king, by itself, was not cause for war. It was icing on the cake. France could have avoided war, but it would have taken more than merely staying away from that recognition.

If James is part of the English recognized succession, or king, he has to advocate for English interests, and France was trammeling those interests left and right. Perhaps things could have been settled diplomatically, but OTL France made it clear that the only way to a resolution was through force of arms. I don't see France accepting lesser gains out of the goodness of their heart.

HJmm interesting, so do you think then that they would not have tried to negotiate something such as a preferred English access in regards to French trade and goods?
 
Why would France give up an advantage? The two countries were rivals in world trade. James on the throne is not going to change that. OTL they showed that they could play nice if there were a reason (such as during the Orleans regency), but France isn't giving up economic advantages just because their buddy James is on the throne. James already will be having a tough time staying on the throne, and can't afford to give up English advantages in return and look like a French toady. they can negotiate all day long, but France won't give something for nothing. The religious divide was real, but the economic rivalry goes beyond religion. England has to keep the Bourbons in check, lest the hegemony get too overbearing.
 
@unprincipled peter, I agree but your giving a bit too much credit to James here. More likely the Stuarts are going to bind over backwards for the Sun King to keep a reliable foreign ally. After all, they've been deposed twice now; its not unreasonable to think that James III would want to keep a foreign army on retainer as security in case of emergencies. So until Louis XIV dies and le Grand Dauphin, le Petit Dauphin or Bretagne/Anjou (the last being OTL Louis XV) ascends the throne England is likely to kowtow to France. Although, if I remember correctly, Louis XIV and James II were able to negotiate a pretty favorable trade deal for North America, so maybe Louis throws James a bone here; preferential trade compared to say the Dutch or other Protestant powers?
 
@unprincipled peter, I agree but your giving a bit too much credit to James here. More likely the Stuarts are going to bind over backwards for the Sun King to keep a reliable foreign ally. After all, they've been deposed twice now; its not unreasonable to think that James III would want to keep a foreign army on retainer as security in case of emergencies. So until Louis XIV dies and le Grand Dauphin, le Petit Dauphin or Bretagne/Anjou (the last being OTL Louis XV) ascends the throne England is likely to kowtow to France. Although, if I remember correctly, Louis XIV and James II were able to negotiate a pretty favorable trade deal for North America, so maybe Louis throws James a bone here; preferential trade compared to say the Dutch or other Protestant powers?
Agreed there, and tbf if when Louis does-if he’s the one who dies from smallpox instead of his grandson- then this could shake a lot of things up.
 
@unprincipled peter, I agree but your giving a bit too much credit to James here. More likely the Stuarts are going to bind over backwards for the Sun King to keep a reliable foreign ally. After all, they've been deposed twice now; its not unreasonable to think that James III would want to keep a foreign army on retainer as security in case of emergencies. So until Louis XIV dies and le Grand Dauphin, le Petit Dauphin or Bretagne/Anjou (the last being OTL Louis XV) ascends the throne England is likely to kowtow to France. Although, if I remember correctly, Louis XIV and James II were able to negotiate a pretty favorable trade deal for North America, so maybe Louis throws James a bone here; preferential trade compared to say the Dutch or other Protestant powers?
I see it the other way: James has to kowtow to English interests. bowing to the French is the quickest way an early grave. The Stuarts owe English/William for the crown - they installed him, not Louis.

At the point of ascension/POD, the Bourbons are attempting to gain overwhelming world hegemony, to the detriment to England. Louis has been extremely bellicose, acting under the assumption that war was inevitable, thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy. James, the Catholic boy king seen as French influenced foreign raised, is going to acquiesce? that'll go over like flatulence in church. As you/VVD said, it'll be mostly advisers doing the ruling. They're going to advise staying in power. The foreign army is far away, fighting continental armies. there is some slim room for compromise, but the French have to compromise, too. OTL, France opted to go for it all, and were well on their way when James II died/POD begins. France has to reverse course, step away from the brink of war, and make a significant concession. they aren't going to do that when they think they have a novice boy king in their hip pocket. France will forge full steam ahead, which England cannot accept, no matter what James wants. IF James III being invited to England as English recognized heir causes both sides to bend, war (France/England) can be averted, but the POD is too 11th hour to make that realistic. Realistically, war can only be averted if England implodes in civil war. OTL, we've seen how much action Louis puts behind his support of the Stuarts, which is not much at all. There'll be a nice castle waiting for you James, if you get out alive. In the meanwhile, excuse us as we take over Spain and the continent.
Keep Carlos II alive another year or two, so that James III is in the line of succession when the crisis hits. Now you're introducing yet another POD, and there's too many already.
 
Top