No son for James II

Faeelin

Banned
A thought: Suppose that James II's wife hadn't given him a son, James Stuart, in 1688?

This means that the Protestants of England don't fear that their king will have a Catholic successor; if the king died, the crown would pass to Mary, the wife of William of Orange.

But a delay of even a few years would mean a radically different England. Parliament hadn't been called since 1681; the King had a standing army that he paid for out of his own pocket; and William would come to claim his wife's inheritance, not to free England from the threat of religious freedom.

Any thoughts on how this could go?
 
Well, unless butterflies somehow accelerate James's death, the throne will pass to Anne rather than Mary, who pre-deceased him OTL.

This almost certainly means British neutrality in the Nine Years War, which should allow the French to retain all their gains of the 1680s, maybe even expand on them a little.
 
Top