Stuart 'Might-Have-Been' thread

[Prince_Lieven]

Perhaps so! But maybe the Whigs who invited William to England would instead have turned to Anne and George of Denmark - though if that pair had any sense they would make their peace with James, since they had no army of their own.

[bell_the_cat]

Perhaps so! But maybe the Whigs who invited William to England would instead have turned to Anne and George of Denmark - though if that pair had any sense they would make their peace with James, since they had no army of their own.

I think James would have kept his throne if William hadn't invaded. I can't really see Anne and George as an effective political force.  :-/

[Prince_Lieven]

I agree, not to mention that neither of them were as much of an inspiring figure to the Protestant cause as William was.

[palatine]

I agree that it would have been difficult to pull off the Glorious Revolution without William's leadership.  The Whigs wanted James gone, but none of them had the political stature to drive him out.   James probably could have held on to his thrones, since the salutary fright he'd received from William's invasion plans might have led him to change his ways and do what was necessary to win back popularity.  

Alternatively, James might have been inspired by William's thwarted invasion to search out and crack down on anyone he believed was involved in it, which could have resulted in Anne and George taking the lead and driving him out, guided by the Churchills.  The framework was set up for the overthrow, so all Anne would have needed to do was to escape from London, summon the army to desert her father and follow her instead, and declare herself the Regent for her sister Mary.  

If the Glorious Revolution had taken place this way, William would not have been made a joint monarch with Mary, since Dutch troops wouldn't have been loitering around London menacing Parliament in 1688-9.  If Mary died on schedule, Anne would have taken the throne in 1694 and William would have headed back to Holland.  If William of Gloucester died on schedule, Anne might well have brokered a deal with Parliament and the exiled Stuarts to establish her half brother James Edward as her successor.

[Prince_Lieven]

Hmmm, yes, but I don't think Anne was assertive or intelligent enough for any of that. Of course, guided by Sarah Churchill, it might be very different . . .

[palatine]

That's an interesting hypothetical: what if Sarah Jennings Churchill had never been born?   Would the Glorious Revolution have taken place anyway?  

[bell_the_cat]

That's an interesting hypothetical: what if Sarah Jennings Churchill had never been born?   Would the Glorious Revolution have taken place anyway?  

Surely William would have invaded even if there had been no Sarah Jennings? Or am I missing the point?

I was thinking about Saxony (where I live), as it is an interesting comparison. The ruling family became Catholic at about this time, in order to become Kings of Poland as well, but by and large the Saxons remained Protestant.

This may be what would have happened in England and Scotland as well. I don't think James would have been able to establish an absolute monarchy on the French lines, and he may well have been wise enough not to try. The monarchy would have been more powerful in the eighteenth century though.....

[Prince_Lieven]

That's an interesting hypothetical: what if Sarah Jennings Churchill had never been born?   Would the Glorious Revolution have taken place anyway?  

I think it would have taken place regardless, but maybe Anne wouldn't have had the courage to abandon James.

[palatine]

Surely William would have invaded even if there had been no Sarah Jennings? Or am I missing the point?

Sarah almost certainly had a hand in the letters Anne sent to Mary about their stepmother's pregnancy and delivery.  In "Ungrateful Daughters", Maureen Waller said that those letters were an important factor in William's decision to invade.   Remove Sarah from the scene, and perhaps Anne and William might have behaved differently.  Without the warming-pan story, William would have found his invasion a lot more difficult, and might even have met resistance from the population, if not from James himself.

It's also questionable whether John Churchill would have had enough influence to ensure that key officers and troops would desert James when William arrived.  John's ties to Anne's household gave him a lot of clout with the officers and the rank and file, but those ties came through Sarah.  It might have been a lot more difficult for him to organize the mass desertion without that tie to Anne.  

[palatine]

I was thinking about Saxony (where I live), as it is an interesting comparison. The ruling family became Catholic at about this time, in order to become Kings of Poland as well, but by and large the Saxons remained Protestant.

This may be what would have happened in England and Scotland as well. I don't think James would have been able to establish an absolute monarchy on the French lines, and he may well have been wise enough not to try. The monarchy would have been more powerful in the eighteenth century though.....

I think the reason that the rulers of Saxony got away with that is because the laws of the Holy Roman Empire allowed the ruler to choose the religion of their subjects (cuius regio, eius religio), but also allowed them to tolerate subjects who practised different faiths from their own.  For a lot of reasons, the rulers couldn't monkey around with the three religions that were legal in that era, Calvinism, the Lutheran faith, and Catholicism.    Thanks to the depopulation from all the wars in that era, most rulers were very tolerant towards people whose faith was different from their own in an effort to boost their population.   

The people of Saxony could thus rest assured that their newly Catholic Elector couldn't tamper with their churches and that he would tolerate their faith instead of going around announcing "I'm a Catholic and now you are too!" as he was legally entitled to do.

James II faced a very different situation.  He was a Catholic who recognized the spiritual authority of the Pope, but he was also the head of the Church of England.  James controlled who became bishops, etc., and could conceivably have moved the CoE closer to Catholicism if he'd wished to do so.

Perhaps if he'd turned over control of the CoE to a council of archbishops, his religion might have been tolerated and he might have kept his throne.

[bell_the_cat]

I think the reason that the rulers of Saxony got away with that is because the laws of the Holy Roman Empire allowed the ruler to choose the religion of their subjects (cuius regio, eius religio), but also allowed them to tolerate subjects who practised different faiths from their own.  For a lot of reasons, the rulers couldn't monkey around with the three religions that were legal in that era, Calvinism, the Lutheran faith, and Catholicism.    Thanks to the depopulation from all the wars in that era, most rulers were very tolerant towards people whose faith was different from their own in an effort to boost their population.   

The people of Saxony could thus rest assured that their newly Catholic Elector couldn't tamper with their churches and that he would tolerate their faith instead of going around announcing "I'm a Catholic and now you are too!" as he was legally entitled to do.

James II faced a very different situation.  He was a Catholic who recognized the spiritual authority of the Pope, but he was also the head of the Church of England.  James controlled who became bishops, etc., and could conceivably have moved the CoE closer to Catholicism if he'd wished to do so.

Perhaps if he'd turned over control of the CoE to a council of archbishops, his religion might have been tolerated and he might have kept his throne.

Yes you're right that is the difference, but I suppose the situation in Scotland was more like that in Germany!

I've been thinking about the Sarha Jennings question. What you wanted to know is would James have fled if Anne hadn't gone over to the other side? I'm not sure of the exact chronology offevents, but it seems to me that Anne's desertion was a sign of the hopelessness of James' position (the size of Williams invasion force and the lack of support for James). So her act was a symptom rather than a cause of the predicament.  :-/

Didn't you also say that Prince George had a say in this, rather than it being the influence of Sarah?

[palatine]

I've been thinking about the Sarha Jennings question. What you wanted to know is would James have fled if Anne hadn't gone over to the other side? I'm not sure of the exact chronology offevents, but it seems to me that Anne's desertion was a sign of the hopelessness of James' position (the size of Williams invasion force and the lack of support for James). So her act was a symptom rather than a cause of the predicament.  :-/

Didn't you also say that Prince George had a say in this, rather than it being the influence of Sarah?

It's my understanding that George was firmly under the control of his wife and the Churchills, particularly John.  I don't think George was really involved in Anne's decision to desert her father.  When he himself deserted James, he did so in the company of John.  George remained loyal to John throughout his life, long after Anne and Sarah's friendship came to an end.  He even backed John to Anne and backed him in the House of Lords.

I don't know if removing Sarah would avert the Glorious Revolution as a whole, but it might have kept Anne loyal to her father, thus removing her prestige and approbation from the Whigs and John, who made use of her approval to win people in general and the army in particular over to William's side.  Anne's belief in the warming-pan story carried a lot of weight; without Sarah, perhaps she wouldn't have given the idea as much credence as she did.  Anne might even have been forced to attend the birth of her half-brother as a witness instead of leaving town in Sarah's company.

The most important thing that Sarah's removal might have achieved is that the army might have stayed loyal to James.  Without Sarah, John might have stayed loyal to James, or he might have lacked the clout and prestige to organize the mass desertions.  A major reason he was able to organize the mass desertions was because of his close ties to Anne through Sarah.  Remove those ties and both officers and troops might refuse to follow John's lead.

If James had held the loyalty of his army, he might have decided to fight William rather than flee.  This would have resulted in civil war, which James probably could have won, thanks to William's poor generalship, the xenophobia of the day, the superior size of his own army, and the help and backing of Louis XIV.

[DssofBelem]

Maybe a Little off-topic right now, but what about a marriage between Sophia of Hanover and Charles II? My opinion:

Charles II married Princess Sophia of The Palatinate in 1658, and both were 28 at The time. It was largely a mariage de convenance but Charles admired Sophia's witty personality. Though Sophia was certainly not in Love with him at The time, we can't consider it an unhappy union. It produced several children, among them Charles George, later king George I. Sophia jokingly called him "depraved" and usually had fun making his mistresses lives a hell. She had a very bad relantionship with The Duke of York and his Daughters, and disapproved of his daughter Anne's marriage to Charles George.

If anyone is interested, could develop The idea further (it's 11 P.M and I'm on IPad so...).