William III dies/No Glorious Revolution in 1688

samcster94

Banned
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.
Still be interesting to see a weaker leader try and lose though.
 
He would have to be pushed into it. He rode out with James to confront William during the invasion, but defected after many other nobles defected. He simply wasn't ambitious.

Interesting and if hames has beaten William then he’s not doing nothing
 
If Anne and George do nothing once William is out the picture, what becomes of them? And what would become of Mary? She's now Dowager Princess of Orange with no children. Does she return to England?
 
If Anne and George do nothing once William is out the picture, what becomes of them? And what would become of Mary? She's now Dowager Princess of Orange with no children. Does she return to England?

I'd guess that depends on what happens to her younger brother. Child mortality is still high in this period. If butterflies mean the young Prince dies TTL rather than survives, then Mary is still her father's heiress. She'd need be in England in that scenario, I suspect.
 
I'd guess that depends on what happens to her younger brother. Child mortality is still high in this period. If butterflies mean the young Prince dies TTL rather than survives, then Mary is still her father's heiress. She'd need be in England in that scenario, I suspect.
Aroghty and if he survives I suppose she might just fade into obscurity
 
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.

George wouldn't pull it off, the traitors would have to try. I don't know if they will succeed, but unlike the case with William, they will need to try without their figurehead. What matters is that they have the right people when the iron is hot, of course they need to avoid being exposed in the meantime which makes it tricky. If they quickly take London and arrest important people, they pretty much win. This means they need to get traitors in the camp of the army without tipping off loyalist officers. It's not easy, but it would be doable.
 
George wouldn't pull it off, the traitors would have to try. I don't know if they will succeed, but unlike the case with William, they will need to try without their figurehead. What matters is that they have the right people when the iron is hot, of course they need to avoid being exposed in the meantime which makes it tricky. If they quickly take London and arrest important people, they pretty much win. This means they need to get traitors in the camp of the army without tipping off loyalist officers. It's not easy, but it would be doable.
George wouldn't pull it off, the traitors would have to try. I don't know if they will succeed, but unlike the case with William, they will need to try without their figurehead. What matters is that they have the right people when the iron is hot, of course they need to avoid being exposed in the meantime which makes it tricky. If they quickly take London and arrest important people, they pretty much win. This means they need to get traitors in the camp of the army without tipping off loyalist officers. It's not easy, but it would be doable.
What stops George immediately telling james?
 
Top