Charles II and James II swap death dates?

[FalconHonour]

I've been pondering this on my travels today, and I wondered what you all thought.

How would England's history have changed if James, Duke of York and Charles II had swapped death dates, meaning James died in 1685 and Charles in 1701?

Would Charles have been pressured into divorcing Catherine if his brother had died before him?

Or would Parliament have accepted William and Mary as Charles's heirs?

 

[Nova_Philomena]

I don't think Catherine of Braganza or Charles would have any children either way, William and Mary would probably still be made his heirs. As to a divorce between Catherine and Charles, he could probably do it, but the match did contribute to the Anglo-Portuguese alliance, and Catherine of Braganza did have a great dowry so I can't imagine Charles divorcing her.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Charles won’t divorce Catherine—he was pressured to even IOTL, at the height of the Popish Plot. IIRC, some wished for him to divorce her and marry a young (and fertile) German princess. Not sure if there were any specific princesses suggested, but he refused to do so.

Charles and Catherine had a complicated relationship. I wouldn’t say he loved her, but he was fond of her and wasn’t going to throw her to the wolves. James II dying just makes thing easier, as his politically toxic Catholicism is out of the way. Mary can be Charles’ successor—though no Glorious Revolution means that likely no co-reign between her and William, he really won’t be in a position to try and secure political power for himself unlike IOTL. At the same time, Mary was pretty content to do as he pleased…

One knock off is no Glorious Revolution, so the crown will retain some significant powers it had lost. No Bill of Rights, no act forcing Parliament to meet annually—things will remain standardized around the Triennial Act, requiring Parliament to meet every three years.

One interesting knock off effect will definitely be the 1690s and the War of the League of Augsburg. Does Charles II keep getting French monies and try and remain neutral? The War of the Spanish Succession will kick off as well.

 

[FalconHonour]

Charles won’t divorce Catherine—he was pressured to even IOTL, at the height of the Popish Plot. IIRC, some wished for him to divorce her and marry a young (and fertile) German princess. Not sure if there were any specific princesses suggested, but he refused to do so.

Charles and Catherine had a complicated relationship. I wouldn’t say he loved her, but he was fond of her and wasn’t going to throw her to the wolves. James II dying just makes thing easier, as his politically toxic Catholicism is out of the way. Mary can be Charles’ successor—though no Glorious Revolution means that likely no co-reign between her and William, he really won’t be in a position to try and secure political power for himself unlike IOTL. At the same time, Mary was pretty content to do as he pleased…

One knock off is no Glorious Revolution, so the crown will retain some significant powers it had lost. No Bill of Rights, no act forcing Parliament to meet annually—things will remain standardized around the Triennial Act, requiring Parliament to meet every three years.

One interesting knock off effect will definitely be the 1690s and the War of the League of Augsburg. Does Charles II keep getting French monies and try and remain neutral? The War of the Spanish Succession will kick off as well.

Ooh. Yes, I had forgotten about that. A more powerful Crown and Mary as sole monarch rather than William being King with her... Would that keep England from being so involved with the Netherlands, perhaps?

But then again, as you say, Charles needs to keep the French sweet, if he's going to keep his pension, so maybe that drags him into the European theatre of war after all...

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

But then again, as you say, Charles needs to keep the French sweet, if he's going to keep his pension, so maybe that drags him into the European theatre of war after all...

keeping the French sweet doesn't mean he needs to get involved. Louis just needs to be sure that Charles isn't going to join the opposite side (which was what he feared with James). Charles can kick back in London and watch the money rolling in.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I've been pondering this on my travels today, and I wondered what you all thought.

How would England's history have changed if James, Duke of York and Charles II had swapped death dates, meaning James died in 1685 and Charles in 1701?

Would Charles have been pressured into divorcing Catherine if his brother had died before him?

Or would Parliament have accepted William and Mary as Charles's heirs?

You can certainly kill James in 1682 with not much change needed in terms of PoD when the Gloucester goes down. IMHO that would be better than choosing a random date of 1685 for him.

 

[King of Danes]

Honestly the best situation for the Stuarts would be if James dies of smallpox in 1660 instead of Henry. Charles snuffs it on schedule and solidly Protestant Henry takes over in 1685. He likely is married to a Protestant (a Danish princess was considered for him) and has some Protestant heirs ready to stabilize the line

 

[Gonzaga]

With Charles II still on the throne, how would English neutrality affect the Nine Years War?

 

[Nuraghe]

With Charles II still on the throne, how would English neutrality affect the Nine Years War?

difficult to make precise predictions, surely the question of the Union of the Crowns will have changed considerably compared to OTL ( given that Anna also did it because she feared that Scotland was a strong recruiting base for the Jacobite movement ( which it actually was ), any children James had with Mary of Modena would obviously have grown up as High Anglicans, to avoid the repetition of situations similar to the exclusion crisis or the papist plot, but in this case they will have to renounce their rights to Modena, we certainly won't see a crisis situation / loggerheads between Rome and London like Otl, Charles II unlike his brother could continue his communication policy with the papacy but keeping it secret and avoiding any possible point of conflict that could make it public and create potential problems ( Otl Charles intervened indirectly in the conclave of 1676 and I also seek a solution to the Irish problem always through the same channels, so I don't see why he won't continue to do the same ), I can say that France would do better overall than Otl, because it would still have to face the opposition of Eugene of Savoy ( but who unfortunately does not have the gift of multiplication ) but William of Orange would not have to his disposal of England's capital and human resources as Otl, which would make an important difference, this will certainly also influence the diaspora of Protestant exiles fleeing the French expansion towards England, to a greater extent than OTL ( not only Huguenots, but many also German Lutherans, which could act as a starting point for a third way ( of Lutheran inspiration ) between the high and low churches ), the imposition of the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 certainly would not happen, so we will continue to see the English royals more free from a marital point of view, I imagine that in the end Louis manages to force a deal on the Habsburgs, where in exchange for Milan and perhaps a free hand for Bavaria, they recognize his control over one of Lorraine or the Spanish Netherlands, possibly the former, given that the Sun King will aim to inherit as much of the Spanish possessions as possible once Carlos II dies, including the latter, from the colonial point of view we will see the survival of the Acadians, which may influence the growth of the population of New France in the future, perhaps Louis could later take a look at the colonies again, sending a few hundred people in plus

 

[FalconHonour]

Honestly the best situation for the Stuarts would be if James dies of smallpox in 1660 instead of Henry. Charles snuffs it on schedule and solidly Protestant Henry takes over in 1685. He likely is married to a Protestant (a Danish princess was considered for him) and has some Protestant heirs ready to stabilize the line

Ooh. Now there's an interesting idea! 🤔

 

[King of Danes]

Ooh. Now there's an interesting idea! 🤔

I’m already working on a tree for it!

 

[Nuraghe]

Ooh. Now there's an interesting idea! 🤔

it is actually possible that Henry survived the smallpox and that James died during the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War, given that Otl came slightly close on at least one occasion, this would also allow Charles to decide a possible catholic marriage for his granddaughters ( Mary in particular )

 

[Tudorfan]

Assuming James and Charles change death dates, there's the issue of succession; first is Mary, then Anne, then William (since he won't be joint monarch with Mary and he dies before Anne anyway, he's basically unimportant), but who comes next? If James has no other children - and c. 1685, he had no living sons or other children bar Mary and Anne - who's next to the throne? Would it pass to Anne Marie d'Orléans (27 August 1669 – 26 August 1728) who married Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy (future king of Sardinia) and had issue, since she's the daughter of Henrietta of England, Duchess of Orleans, daughter of Charles I of England?

By 1714 Anne, Mary and William are dead. So with no exclusion of Catholics, she's next - so does it become a union of Great Britain and Sardinia via Charles Emmanuel III of Savoy, who's born in 1701, on the death of his mother in 1728 and then he becomes King of Sardinia in 1730, thus creating a union?

 

[Nuraghe]

Assuming James and Charles change death dates, there's the issue of succession; first is Mary, then Anne, then William (since he won't be joint monarch with Mary and he dies before Anne anyway, he's basically unimportant), but who comes next? If James has no other children - and c. 1685, he had no living sons or other children bar Mary and Anne - who's next to the throne? Would it pass to Anne Marie d'Orléans (27 August 1669 – 26 August 1728) who married Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy (future king of Sardinia) and had issue, since she's the daughter of Henrietta of England, Duchess of Orleans, daughter of Charles I of England?

By 1714 Anne, Mary and William are dead. So with no exclusion of Catholics, she's next - so does it become a union of Great Britain and Sardinia via Charles Emmanuel III of Savoy, who's born in 1701, on the death of his mother in 1728 and then he becomes King of Sardinia in 1730, thus creating a union?

actually this is an important problem, if we assume that James or Charles have no further heirs, but I highly doubt that in England and Savoy people will accept this union without batting an eyelid, because both parties will push for a change, in London they will want the duke to become Protestant, in Turin and Cagliari, one thing of this kind is intolerable ( without forgetting how such a situation would be seen by Rome and the great Catholic powers, not very well ) therefore there would be the possibility of causing a war to avoid this ( because no one would want London to gain a stable foothold in Italy and the central Mediterranean ) which the English will lose, of course a compromise can always be found, by converting a minor Savoyard scion, but this would also cause quite a few problems

 

[Gonzaga]

actually this is an important problem, if we assume that James or Charles have no further heirs, but I highly doubt that in England and Savoy people will accept this union without batting an eyelid, because both parties will push for a change, in London they will want the duke to become Protestant, in Turin and Cagliari, one thing of this kind is intolerable ( without forgetting how such a situation would be seen by Rome and the great Catholic powers, not very well ) therefore there would be the possibility of causing a war to avoid this ( because no one would want London to gain a stable foothold in Italy and the central Mediterranean ) which the English will lose, of course a compromise can always be found, by converting a minor Savoyard scion, but this would also cause quite a few problems

Just a correction, Cagliari doesn't matter in this problem, the House of Savoy only became kings of Sardinia in 1720.
The death of Charles II in 1701 (assuming that the Spanish Charles II dies in 1700) means that the English succession will happen against the backdrop of War of the Spanish Succession. I assume that, given the causes of their deaths IOTL, Mary and William wiil still be alive in 1701. Louis XIV will be angry, but there will no claimant he can support now to cause rebellions in the Stuart realms.

 

[Nuraghe]

Just a correction, Cagliari doesn't matter in this problem, the House of Savoy only became kings of Sardinia in 1720.
The death of Charles II in 1701 (assuming that the Spanish Charles II dies in 1700) means that the English succession will happen against the backdrop of War of the Spanish Succession. I assume that, given the causes of their deaths IOTL, Mary and William wiil still be alive in 1701. Louis XIV will be angry, but there will no claimant he can support now to cause rebellions in the Stuart realms.

you are certainly right to say that Cagliari has no relevance at this moment, but let's talk frankly do you think that the Sardinian people and clergy passively accept having a possible Protestant as their next sovereign ?, especially if they are certain they have strong foreign support behind them, being Sardinian myself I can easily tell you that they will not accept it, indeed they would probably favor a possible Spanish reacquisition or at least the assignment of a new Catholic prince, certainly all this starts as a response to the scenario imagined by the previous user, but I agree with you that such a change would create important differences in the WoSS making any discussion on Charles Emmanuel III Otl useless

 

[DrakeRlugia]

If the succession goes Mary, Anne (then) William... it's quite possible that Mary will live beyond her OTL death date, as she caught smallpox in England; same with William, who died due to a horse accident in England, as Gonzaga has mentioned. Of course, they could both die sooner, too. But them living longer is a possibility; just as it's possible that Anne could have a surviving child or Mary bringing a child to term with William (her miscarriage was in the 1670s and rendered her sterile iirc... could be avoided perhaps).

If Mary and William remain childless and Anne remains without having successful issue, it's quite possible that William might decide to remarry following (if) Mary predeceases him, especially if he's a heartbeat away from the throne and he's the last viable Protestant successor. There would be a more pressing need for him to marry in such a scenario. I can't see the British being accepting / happy with the idea of the throne being inherited by Anne Marie d'Orléans, a Catholic Frenchwoman and married to the King of Sardinia to boot. William would also be all the more eager to mount the throne in such a situation, especially if he's locked out of power during Mary's reign and is eager to bring Britain into the Protestant alliance against France / Louis XIV.

 

[Tudorfan]

See, told you the succession needed to be sorted! Now we've got three separate suggestions! What have I started!?

 

[Nuraghe]

you are certainly right to say that Cagliari has no relevance at this moment, but let's talk frankly do you think that the Sardinian people and clergy passively accept having a possible Protestant as their next sovereign ?, especially if they are certain they have strong foreign support behind them, being Sardinian myself I can easily tell you that they will not accept it, indeed they would probably favor a possible Spanish reacquisition or at least the assignment of a new Catholic prince, certainly all this starts as a response to the scenario imagined by the previous user, but I agree with you that such a change would create important differences in the WoSS making any discussion on Charles Emmanuel III Otl useless

Furthermore, we must not exclude a priori that in the event of the possible extinction of the Stuarts, Charles, before his death, might decide to have the closest heirs in the line of succession collected and brought to court ( and willing to become Protestants or already being so (1) to train them in future prediction, given that by living until 1701, the reigns of James II and Mary and William were probably skipped ( almost entirely ) finally I think sure that if Louis had been able to choose in hindsight who was best for his purposes as an English ruler, he would almost certainly have preferred Charles II over his Otl successors


1 ) always in the event that his granddaughters have no descendants, which is very susceptible to change

 

[Tyler96]

Monmouth would survive beyond 1688 here. Any chance he dusts off the 'my parents were actually married' claim at a later date if Mary/William/Anne are childless and there's a threat of Catholic succession?