William III dies/No Glorious Revolution in 1688

So, I've seen threads around this topic before, but not sure if they've gone very far.

Let's say that in 1688, William III either backs out of going through with his invasion, or whilst on the way over, his ship sinks, what are the consequences of this? Both for the Netherlands, and for England?

James II has just avoided a calamity, but can he hold on till his son is old enough to ascend the throne, or will he still face another rebellion?

I'm not sure if the rebels would go into conflict, without a figure to rally behind. And of course many could see William's ship sinking as divine retribution.
 
Well, for one thing, I don't see Ireland becoming quite so divided - without a Good King Billy to rally behind, I don't know if the Protestants will ever be as powerful as they were after the Battle of the Boyne. Of course, it also depends on whether Mary dies with her husband or not and what she and Anne choose to do in the aftermath of this shipwreck, if she survives. The Protestants are still going to see them as better successors to their father than their Catholic brother... But that's about as far as my knowledge goes. I'm no expert in Stuart history...
 
Well, for one thing, I don't see Ireland becoming quite so divided - without a Good King Billy to rally behind, I don't know if the Protestants will ever be as powerful as they were after the Battle of the Boyne. Of course, it also depends on whether Mary dies with her husband or not and what she and Anne choose to do in the aftermath of this shipwreck, if she survives. The Protestants are still going to see them as better successors to their father than their Catholic brother... But that's about as far as my knowledge goes. I'm no expert in Stuart history...

That's true, I don't think the Whigs would habe the guts to try another thing after William dies.
 
What about the Protestants rallying around another such as
- 16 year old Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland. Who is a unwed Protestant son of Charles II.
- His Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark and Norway, husband of Anne.
- Duke Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 2nd son of Sophia of Palestine, allowing her eldest son George to succeed as ruler of Hannover.
 
What about the Protestants rallying around another such as
- 16 year old Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland. Who is a unwed Protestant son of Charles II.
- His Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark and Norway, husband of Anne.
- Duke Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 2nd son of Sophia of Palestine, allowing her eldest son George to succeed as ruler of Hannover.

Hmm would either one of those candidates consider themselves viable for the throne? And would the whigs consider them suitable?
 

Philip

Donor
Hmm would either one of those candidates consider themselves viable for the throne? And would the whigs consider them suitable?

IIRC, George of Denmark did not have disposition to take the throne. He was more of the ever-dutiful second son. If Mary dies William, Anne has the strongest claim. In that case, George be appealing as he might be perceived as more easily controlled.
 
IIRC, George of Denmark did not have disposition to take the throne. He was more of the ever-dutiful second son. If Mary dies William, Anne has the strongest claim. In that case, George be appealing as he might be perceived as more easily controlled.

Agreed, though could he be convinced into being used as a figurehead?
 
You already heard my view about France and England in this kind of scenario but concerning Netherlands, I think that it would mean an earlier depression of their economy, with a lesser acces to English market, their banker and burgher would suffer a lot, in the same time they would need to have a powerfull fleet and army against their opponents, their economy would be under high pressure, and if they fight against France and England they would surely loose their colonies sooner.
 
You already heard my view about France and England in this kind of scenario but concerning Netherlands, I think that it would mean an earlier depression of their economy, with a lesser acces to English market, their banker and burgher would suffer a lot, in the same time they would need to have a powerfull fleet and army against their opponents, their economy would be under high pressure, and if they fight against France and England they would surely loose their colonies sooner.

Agreed, could you remind me what your views on France and England were in this scenario?
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
You already heard my view about France and England in this kind of scenario but concerning Netherlands, I think that it would mean an earlier depression of their economy, with a lesser acces to English market, their banker and burgher would suffer a lot, in the same time they would need to have a powerfull fleet and army against their opponents, their economy would be under high pressure, and if they fight against France and England they would surely loose their colonies sooner.

Did the Glorious Revolution really do much for the Dutch economy? AFAIK f.e. the Navigation Acts were not abolished.
 
Agreed, could you remind me what your views on France and England were in this scenario?

here few example of james II policy and some exemple of what he could have done Increase the size of the army, developping the manufacturing sector,centralize the state, impose central control of the local government, developping the surveillance system, create national instution, the thirteen colonies would be more centralized, England and French trade would surely grow under his reign, the setback would be a small emigration of protestant and a lesser migration of huguenot in England, nop boom of English and Netherlands trade and would not see some mesure take by Whilliam II happened, the situation would be a little more tense but during thee war James II would surely join french side and would made quick gain that could be useful to England and improve his legitimaty.

France would be the great winner since England armies would not be against him and would surely join his side, Sweden and Denmark joined the coalition side thanks to the involvement of William in this case he would lose credibbility and affraid to fight a naval war against France and England in the same time (epescially in term of trade) would made them not join or leave the coalition), in this case France would be in a great position i'm nost sure that Brandebuurg of Bavarai would want to join a war that seems loose before it started, Savoy would likely sign a peace (OTl they refused because they think that they would have the numeric superioty) with a lesser war the finance would be in a better situation and would avoid the worst of the famine of 1693 and would fight against it they would still have dead (but if they got 500 000 nstead of 1.500.000 it would mean 5% of population this kind of impact would be monstruous in the long term) also they would have a have more conquest so they will be in a better situation especially if they could trade with English.

Did the Glorious Revolution really do much for the Dutch economy? AFAIK f.e. the Navigation Acts were not abolished.


According to different source the trade boomed between both power during his reign.

the strength of the relationship can also be seen in the “british trade surpluses” after 1688, THE STUDENT ECONOMIC REVIEWVOL. XXVIII 53 culminating from “re-exports ofVirginia tobacco” and “newworld drugs, dyestuffs” and “beverages”, with these re-exports reaching £200,000-400,000 in 1693-1695 (deVries and van derwoude, 1997, p.485).the bullion flows in the longer term after 1688 were also very significant.the republic ran a deficit, but this was paid in large part by its services and investment income.to give a scale of the bullion flows from britain to the republicin this period,and thus their interdependency,from 1706-80‘a total of £59 million’ flowed in, with this number being equivalent to ‘the total output of Dutch mints in this period’ (deVries and van derwoude, 1997, p.486 [ref. HOW DUTCHWASTHE INDUS- TRIAL REVOLUTION? PETER N. PREBENSEN Senior Sophister]
 
I can definitely see it tried. I think the question is will Anne play along with Parliment or be more ambitious.

Hmm this is true, I could see ANne fearing for her life and perhaps going with George to Denmark.

here few example of james II policy and some exemple of what he could have done Increase the size of the army, developping the manufacturing sector,centralize the state, impose central control of the local government, developping the surveillance system, create national instution, the thirteen colonies would be more centralized, England and French trade would surely grow under his reign, the setback would be a small emigration of protestant and a lesser migration of huguenot in England, nop boom of English and Netherlands trade and would not see some mesure take by Whilliam II happened, the situation would be a little more tense but during thee war James II would surely join french side and would made quick gain that could be useful to England and improve his legitimaty.

France would be the great winner since England armies would not be against him and would surely join his side, Sweden and Denmark joined the coalition side thanks to the involvement of William in this case he would lose credibbility and affraid to fight a naval war against France and England in the same time (epescially in term of trade) would made them not join or leave the coalition), in this case France would be in a great position i'm nost sure that Brandebuurg of Bavarai would want to join a war that seems loose before it started, Savoy would likely sign a peace (OTl they refused because they think that they would have the numeric superioty) with a lesser war the finance would be in a better situation and would avoid the worst of the famine of 1693 and would fight against it they would still have dead (but if they got 500 000 nstead of 1.500.000 it would mean 5% of population this kind of impact would be monstruous in the long term) also they would have a have more conquest so they will be in a better situation especially if they could trade with English.

Interesting, I agree with you there if James continues down the pathway he'd been down before the revolution started things might quickly improve in his favour.
 
What about the Protestants rallying around another such as
- 16 year old Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland. Who is a unwed Protestant son of Charles II.
- His Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark and Norway, husband of Anne.
- Duke Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 2nd son of Sophia of Palestine, allowing her eldest son George to succeed as ruler of Hannover.
Maximilian could be interesting as a crown would be higher than whatnhis brither had
 
I think in this case Anne might get along with her surviving family a lot better than in the case of OTL. In OTL, she had to manufacture that rumor (or at least fan the flames) of the origins of her brother and do everything she could do not be associated with the old regime since the GR gave precedent for Parliament overthrowing kings whenever they feel like it.
 
Well, for one thing, I don't see Ireland becoming quite so divided - without a Good King Billy to rally behind, I don't know if the Protestants will ever be as powerful as they were after the Battle of the Boyne. Of course, it also depends on whether Mary dies with her husband or not and what she and Anne choose to do in the aftermath of this shipwreck, if she survives. The Protestants are still going to see them as better successors to their father than their Catholic brother... But that's about as far as my knowledge goes. I'm no expert in Stuart history...

From what I recall, even if Mary didn't die, she wasn't interested in being Queen Regnant, and did so very unwillingly. Not the most enthusiastic rallying point.

What about the Protestants rallying around another such as
- 16 year old Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland. Who is a unwed Protestant son of Charles II.
- His Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark and Norway, husband of Anne.
- Duke Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg, 2nd son of Sophia of Palestine, allowing her eldest son George to succeed as ruler of Hannover.

William III was able to be crowned King because he his mother was Princess Royal and he was in the line of succession in his own right. Rewriting the laws to allow a Hannoverian, a bastard, or god forbid, a Danish nobody is going to stall the revolution right when they need momentum. I can't see anyone but William pulling off what he did.
 
William III was able to be crowned King because he his mother was Princess Royal and he was in the line of succession in his own right. Rewriting the laws to allow a Hannoverian, a bastard, or god forbid, a Danish nobody is going to stall the revolution right when they need momentum. I can't see anyone but William pulling off what he did.

Might be possible with the Danish nobody. I just returned this book about coups, but basically important conspirators, execution speed, and positioning matters a lot more than popular support.
 
If James acts quickly in September and arrests officers for treason when he gets the news that’s another huge blow for them
 
Might be possible with the Danish nobody. I just returned this book about coups, but basically important conspirators, execution speed, and positioning matters a lot more than popular support.

Not a fan of William III, but based on all accounts of George of Denmark's character, he could never have pulled off what William did (and unlike William wasn't a quasi-head of state in his own right with an army/navy of his own). William was a decent politician (even if not personally liked) and pretty much everything that needed to go his way in 1688, went his way.
 
Not a fan of William III, but based on all accounts of George of Denmark's character, he could never have pulled off what William did (and unlike William wasn't a quasi-head of state in his own right with an army/navy of his own). William was a decent politician (even if not personally liked) and pretty much everything that needed to go his way in 1688, went his way.
Who would you rate in a fight: James with the duke or Marlborough or William
 
Top