William III and Mary II have children

Not to rain on your parade here. But that was more the way he worked and his character then a real conviction. He had confrontations like this before 1688 in the Republic. F.i. he tried to force Amsterdam to vote for war against France for years. The major of Amsterdam made personal notes over these negotiations and he mentions the stubbornness of the prince, but also his pragmatism after the initial angry outbursts.
Compared with his position in the Republic, a position that was really quite limited, because he was financially completely dependent on the goodwill of the Regents, he still had more powers in England. William had learned to deal with meddlesome burghers.
What was then the problem William had with the bill of rights? His problem was that with the bill of rights he wasn't sure that he would achieve his main goal that was the reason to start the invasion, namely bringing England out of the French control it was in, into an alliance against France.
All his actions before 88 and after 88 had one goal, avoid a universal monarchy in Europe by France. When still in the republic he constantly tried to form alliances against France, but he saw that only inclusion of England would bring a long lasting succes against France. This was also what he constantly heard the regents that opposed him in the Republic arguing. They didn't want to bring the Republic in a war against France alone.
The bill of rights would mean that parliament would still have to approve a war with France and William wasn't sure they would vote for that. That's why he was against the idea in the first place, but if there was anyone that was groomed from birth to function as a 'constitutional monarch' it was William. And his pragmatism showed itself soon enough

Interesting.

Do you think this invasion would still happen, if he's not getting the support he received otl from Anne and her husband?
 
So if Anne and the Churchills stay loyal to the King, then that would easily cause a domino effect with the rest of the army, leaving William to actually fight an invasion rather than prancing into London, ready for the crown. Now I'm not saying that James would win, but I will say that his chances would be much better.
The reason the troops stayed in London was because they were considered unreliable. Even when Anne declares herself for James, the feeling of unreliability remains the same, so it is still possible that the troops stay in London before it's too late.
 
They were in communication though, and Anne did have some support did she not?
I don't know enough about the internal English situation to judge her position. My crude impression is that Anne wasn't really political active before 88.
William wanted at least an official invitation by the English to invade, which he got from the immortal seven . That invitation was enough for him and with that invitation he knew to convince the dutch Estates General to finance the expedition. Although Anne knew of the plan, she didn't send her approval until after William was on English soil.

Btw it is still controversial where the original initiative for the conspiracy lies, In England itself or with William.
 
I don't know enough about the internal English situation to judge her position. My crude impression is that Anne wasn't really political active before 88.
William wanted at least an official invitation by the English to invade, which he got from the immortal seven . That invitation was enough for him and with that invitation he knew to convince the dutch Estates General to finance the expedition. Although Anne knew of the plan, she didn't send her approval until after William was on English soil.

Btw it is still controversial where the original initiative for the conspiracy lies, In England itself or with William.

Very true, if Anne decides she'd rather side with her father and half brother-better being second in line than fifth- and brings her husband with her, and the Churchills, where does this leave William in terms of defections from the army?
 
Very true, if Anne decides she'd rather side with her father and half brother-better being second in line than fifth- and brings her husband with her, and the Churchills, where does this leave William in terms of defections from the army?
There were defections before Marlborough, less than William hoped for in the first days, but enough to make James distrust London and the effectiveness of his army. That's why he kept his troops there. And this will IMO only fuel more desertions. For a different outcome James must act.
 
There were defections before Marlborough, less than William hoped for in the first days, but enough to make James distrust London and the effectiveness of his army. That's why he kept his troops there. And this will IMO only fuel more desertions. For a different outcome James must act.

Indeed true, I imagine if he has Churchill on his side he will. James was a good commander, but Churchill was top tier afte r all
 
Not to rain on your parade here. But that was more the way he worked and his character then a real conviction. He had confrontations like this before 1688 in the Republic. F.i. he tried to force Amsterdam to vote for war against France for years. The major of Amsterdam made personal notes over these negotiations and he mentions the stubbornness of the prince, but also his pragmatism after the initial angry outbursts.
Compared with his position in the Republic, a position that was really quite limited, because he was financially completely dependent on the goodwill of the Regents, he still had more powers in England. William had learned to deal with meddlesome burghers.
What was then the problem William had with the bill of rights? His problem was that with the bill of rights he wasn't sure that he would achieve his main goal that was the reason to start the invasion, namely bringing England out of the French control it was in, into an alliance against France.
All his actions before 88 and after 88 had one goal, avoid a universal monarchy in Europe by France. When still in the republic he constantly tried to form alliances against France, but he saw that only inclusion of England would bring a long lasting succes against France. This was also what he constantly heard the regents that opposed him in the Republic arguing. They didn't want to bring the Republic in a war against France alone.
The bill of rights would mean that parliament would still have to approve a war with France and William wasn't sure they would vote for that. That's why he was against the idea in the first place, but if there was anyone that was groomed from birth to function as a 'constitutional monarch' it was William. And his pragmatism showed itself soon enough

His problem with the Bill of Rights was the curtailment of Royal prerogative and the financial powers of the Crown. He was heavily angered over the smaller amount of money he was given vs what was voted to James II (calling Parliament ungrateful for example). And pragmatic? No I'd say he was realistic in what he could get away with in the Netherlands, where he was, after all, a mere elected official, de-facto hereditary or no. Your also rather conveniently ignoring his fit over who got the throne in late '88. When Parliament dug their heals in over making him full co-sovereign with Mary II, rather than her consort, he threatened to take his army and leave until he got his way. Not very pragmatic.

He could easily do the same thing over the Bill of Rights: either veto it entirely and threaten to abandon England if they insist on it. If he really started to called their bluff, Parliament would be left at the mercy of the returning James II, who would likely execute every last one of them if he could. I can't see Parliament taking that risk.
 
His problem with the Bill of Rights was the curtailment of Royal prerogative and the financial powers of the Crown. He was heavily angered over the smaller amount of money he was given vs what was voted to James II (calling Parliament ungrateful for example). And pragmatic? No I'd say he was realistic in what he could get away with in the Netherlands, where he was, after all, a mere elected official, de-facto hereditary or no. Your also rather conveniently ignoring his fit over who got the throne in late '88. When Parliament dug their heals in over making him full co-sovereign with Mary II, rather than her consort, he threatened to take his army and leave until he got his way. Not very pragmatic.

He could easily do the same thing over the Bill of Rights: either veto it entirely and threaten to abandon England if they insist on it. If he really started to called their bluff, Parliament would be left at the mercy of the returning James II, who would likely execute every last one of them if he could. I can't see Parliament taking that risk.

So, no bill of rights? Excellent
 
I don't know enough about the internal English situation to judge her position. My crude impression is that Anne wasn't really political active before 88.
William wanted at least an official invitation by the English to invade, which he got from the immortal seven . That invitation was enough for him and with that invitation he knew to convince the dutch Estates General to finance the expedition. Although Anne knew of the plan, she didn't send her approval until after William was on English soil.

Btw it is still controversial where the original initiative for the conspiracy lies, In England itself or with William.

Anne may have one entered politics directly in 1688 but when she did it was in a major way. The Princess of Denmark was the one who more or less sponsored, championed and popularized the Warming Pan myth. Anne also sure as hell convinced Mary that it was true, as the Princess of Orange truly believed that her father was trying to foist a changeling on the nation.

As for Anne's approval or disapproval, you have to understand that everything she did was with the goal of gaining the throne, either for herself or her children. If she didn't back her brother-in-law early on, it was because she thought he would fail and that failure would elevate her own position to right behind her infant half-brother. She switched sides once it was clear to her and her friends that her father was done. That in turn made her heiress presumptive, her position improved further when she gave birth to Gloucester in 1689. She then reopened relations with Saint-Germain after her father landed in Ireland and kept up the correspondence for over a decade, promising to restore her father/brother after William's death, which she never did.

So logically Marlborough's defection was something worked out in advance between himself, the Denmarks and Sarah. His defection and Anne and Sarah's flight from the Cockpit was simply too well coordinated to have not been worked out in advance.

Oh now that would be interesting, hmm if they go for that would the whole mess of the bill of rights etc still happen?

Definitely not! Anne can easily say she can't sign any constitutional changes as a "mere" regent and by the time James III comes of age, England would be involved in the Spanish war, so no time for constitutional arguments.
 
Last edited:
So, no bill of rights? Excellent

I wouldn't say it wouldn't happen later down the road, just that William held more cards than Parliament did and if he cared to, could play them. As @H.Flashman(VC) said, William's goal was always the containment of France, but I do think that his childlessness played a role in rolling over to Parliament during his and Mary's reign (see my thread over his idea of adopting the Prince of Wales circa 1700 WITHOUT RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS as an example). Anything he did to strengthen the monarchy would only help Anne, one of his mortal enemies. TTL though, he has direct heirs and can engage in dynasty building: no reason to leave the monarchy in a weaker place for his son.
 
Anne may have one entered politics directly in 1688 but when she did it was in a major way. The Princess of Denmark was the one who more or less sponsored the , champions and popularized the Warming Pan myth. Anne also sure as hell convinced Mary that it was true, as the Princess of Orange truly believed that her father was trying to foist a changeling on the nation.

As for Anne's approval or disapproval, you have to understand that everything she did was with the goal of gaining the throne, either for herself or her children. If she didn't back her brother-in-law early on, it was because she thought he would fail and that failure would elevate her own position to right behind her infant half-brother. She switched sides once it was clear to her and her friends that her father was done. That in turn made her heiress presumptive, her position improved further when she gave birth to Gloucester in 1689. She then reopened relations with Saint-Germain after her father landed in Ireland and kept up the correspondence for over a decade, promising to restore her father/brother after William's death, which she never did.

So logically Marlborough's defection was something worked out in advance between himself, the Denmarks and Sarah. His defection and Anne and Sarah's flight from the Cockpit was simply too well coordinated to have not been worked out in advance.



Definitely not! Anne can easily say she can't sign any constitutional changes as a "mere" regent and by the time James III comes of age, England would be involved in the Spanish war, so no time for constitutional arguments.

Oh interesting, very interesting and certainly a different picture to one history books usually paint.

And awesome, that's going to be a fun one to explore
I wouldn't say it wouldn't happen later down the road, just that William held more cards than Parliament did and if he cared to, could play them. As @H.Flashman(VC) said, William's goal was always the containment of France, but I do think that his childlessness played a role in rolling over to Parliament during his and Mary's reign (see my thread over his idea of adopting the Prince of Wales circa 1700 WITHOUT RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS as an example). Anything he did to strengthen the monarchy would only help Anne, one of his mortal enemies. TTL though, he has direct heirs and can engage in dynasty building: no reason to leave the monarchy in a weaker place for his son.
Oh interesting, and definitely agreed there, he's going to be a different aniumal this time around. On that note how high were the chances such an adoption of James going through were there?
 
Anne may have one entered politics directly in 1688 but when she did it was in a major way. The Princess of Denmark was the one who more or less sponsored the , champions and popularized the Warming Pan myth. Anne also sure as hell convinced Mary that it was true, as the Princess of Orange truly believed that her father was trying to foist a changeling on the nation.

As for Anne's approval or disapproval, you have to understand that everything she did was with the goal of gaining the throne, either for herself or her children. If she didn't back her brother-in-law early on, it was because she thought he would fail and that failure would elevate her own position to right behind her infant half-brother. She switched sides once it was clear to her and her friends that her father was done. That in turn made her heiress presumptive, her position improved further when she gave birth to Gloucester in 1689. She then reopened relations with Saint-Germain after her father landed in Ireland and kept up the correspondence for over a decade, promising to restore her father/brother after William's death, which she never did.

So logically Marlborough's defection was something worked out in advance between himself, the Denmarks and Sarah. His defection and Anne and Sarah's flight from the Cockpit was simply too well coordinated to have not been worked out in advance.



Definitely not! Anne can easily say she can't sign any constitutional changes as a "mere" regent and by the time James III comes of age, England would be involved in the Spanish war, so no time for constitutional arguments.

So if similar support comes around the Oranges, how does Anne react. Sticking by dad offers a better chance of advancement (assuming a failed GR gets Mary and her kids kicked out of the line of succession, leaving Anne second after the infant PoW) but if James appears up the creek without a paddle does she swallow her pride to support her sister and family, or take the risk that Dad'll pull it out somehow?
 
So if similar support comes around the Oranges, how does Anne react. Sticking by dad offers a better chance of advancement (assuming a failed GR gets Mary and her kids kicked out of the line of succession, leaving Anne second after the infant PoW) but if James appears up the creek without a paddle does she swallow her pride to support her sister and family, or take the risk that Dad'll pull it out somehow?

I think she might swallow her pride you know, or at least that might be what Sarah tells her to do
 
Well is pretty likely who if Mary has children Anne will not think to start and spread the Warming Pan myth
 
Top