Alternate Succession For The British Crown

[Marengo]

What if William III and Mary had a son is something that is interesting. Perhaps a union between the Netherlands and England (as Cromwell already tried), with England as the dominant party of course. No Hannoverians, no Windsors, and the Nassau-Dietz line (now Orange-Nassau) would have stayed local governors in Frisia and Groningen. It is likely that William III would have received a hereditary title of Duke / count of various provinces in The Netherlands or even king if he would have had descendants. For the Netherlands it wouldn't have mattered much: according to historian Pieter Geyl, the Stuart connection of the house of Orange fastened the decay of the Dutch republic as it was eclipsed by the English. The reign of William III saved the Netherlands as an independant state, but after he took the crown the British interests always went before the Dutch. A union would have had an even greater effect.

[An Ard Ri]

Interesting ....I wonder what such a union would have been called The Kingdom of England,Scotland,Ireland & the Dutch Republic/Provinces?

[Ish]

A union comparable to that of the one between England and Scotland may not have happened - the union between England and Scotland only happened 100 years after their crowns were merged when a succession crisis brought about the possibility of the two separating again and forced the issue. With the UK and Hanover - two states with no historic connections and greatest separated by geography - they were joined together with a single monarch for another 100 years or so without any union of government before being separated because of different succession laws.

With the Dutch, had William and Mary had children (or even had William had a second wife with whom he had children), I think a personal union between the two states would have continued, but not necessarily a union of government like what happened with Scotland and England. The UK and Netherlands would have been two separated (geography, culture, history, etc) to have made one government make sense at the time.

[Marengo]

A personal union is the most likely scenario indeed. But a complete union isn't such a far fetched idea. Oliver Cromwell tried to arrange it, and even tried to tempt the provice Holland to merge on its own, without the other provinces. This however met with opposition from both the Orange party as the most of the regents. But under an Orange king it would be more tempting for the Orange party at least. Esp. as the power of Orange would have been much bigger if Willem III actually had had a son.

The connections between England and Holland (& Zeeland to a lesser extend) were quite intense and old, uncomparable with Hanover; though not as close as those of Scotland and England of course. British historian Lisa Jardine wrote an interesting book about it, 'Going Dutch, How England Plundered Holland's Glory', which has as main thesis that the Dutch impact on Englands (daily) life was enormous. But since English and Dutch interests were very different, it is unlikely that such a union (personal or not) would have lasted.

Review: Going Dutch by Lisa Jardine | Books | The Guardian

[CyrilVladisla]

If Henry I's son, Prince William the Atheling, had not died when the White Ship sank in 1120, William might have succeeded to the throne as King William III.
Then the House of Plantagenet might not have come to the throne.

On January 1, 1511, a son was born to King Henry VIII and Queen Catherine. He was Henry, Prince of Wales.
Sadly the Prince lived only a few months.
If Prince Henry had lived, he might have succeeded to the throne as King Henry IX.
His father might not have divorced Catherine of Aragon.
There would have been no six wives of Henry VIII.

If either Queen Mary I or her sister, Queen Elizabeth I had married Edward Courtenay and there had been continuous male descendants to inherit the throne, there would have been the House of Courtenay.

What if Princess Anne had been the eldest daughter of King James II? Suppose Princess Anne married Prince William of Orange (1650-1702). William and Anne would have ruled as joint sovereigns.
Their eldest son William would be heir to be the stadholder of The Netherlands.
Their second son Henry would be heir to England and Scotland.

Suppose Queen Mary I of England married the Infante Louis, son of King Manuel of Portugal.
How would a Portuguese alliance help Mary's reign?

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

On January 1, 1511, a son was born to King Henry VIII and Queen Catherine. He was Henry, Prince of Wales.
Sadly the Prince lived only a few months.
If Prince Henry had lived, he might have succeeded to the throne as King Henry IX.
His father might not have divorced Catherine of Aragon.
There would have been no six wives of Henry VIII.

And possibly no anglican church (and no law banning roman-catholics from the throne )

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think that is necessarily the case as there was a large reformist movement in England - especially with regards to keeping money in England rather then sending it to Rome - this was the same reason why many of the German princes supported the reformists - not because of beliefs but because they would have more say in the running of their own country.

The religious question was very strong at the time.

If they had remained RC then I would expect that the law would have banned non-RC's from the throne - as happened in the Roman Catholic countries.

[Ish]

The reformation in England would have taken a drastically different shape, though, had Henry and Catherine had a surviving son. Both were very devote Catholics (at least up until Henry tried to get a divorce) and their daughter was rather fanatical in her beliefs.

It's very likely that in order for Protestantism to take hold in such a scenario would have required a civil war and a downfall of a king - or at least a situation similar to what happened in Scotland (where the Catholic Mary was pushed out in favour of her infant son, James, who was then raised by the Presbyterian Lords).

Regardless, had Henry not wanted a divorce I somehow doubt the Anglican church as it exists now - in it's very unique hybrid of Catholicism and Protestantism - would not have come about.

[carlfraley]

Henry was still very much a catholic in his beliefs and practices . Albeit he just called it the Anglican /Protestant church. Henry's main beef was a power struggle/political. And the wealth certainly helped. The modern Anglican Church came after Henry and Elizabeth is my understanding from what I was taught in college


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

[Siamesess]

I have a question. I want to know what will happen. If Prince William Duke of Gloucester. (Son of Queen Anne) died after his mom and he have succeed to throne as king William IV and had issue.Maybe, The Hanoverian lines will never succeed to throne and we will not have mad King George or Queen Victoria,Right?

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Siamesess

I have a question. I want to know what will happen. If Prince William Duke of Gloucester. (Son of Queen Anne) died after his mom and he have succeed to throne as king William IV and had issue.Maybe, The Hanoverian lines will never succeed to throne and we will not have mad King George or Queen Victoria,Right?

If William had lived and had issue then they would have reigned, not the Hanovers.

The Hanovers were only named as the heirs after William died.

[Skippyboo]

There are several points in time where if a royal death didn't occur history would have been dramatically changed.

If Arthur Prince of Wales son of Henry VII doesn't die and has children -no Henry VIII, Edward V, Mary or Elizabeth, possible no Stuart succession.

If Henry Prince of Wales son James I lives, no Charles I- civil war may not happen.

If Charlotte of Wales, daughter of Prince Regent future George VI doesn't die in childbirth but lives with healthy baby, Victoria isn't ever born due to Charlotte death being the reason for George III sons to try for legitimate heir. So no Victoria, no current royals and different European royals too. Plus Charlotte's husband became King Leopold of Belgium so if Consort to UK Queen doesn't become King of The Belgiums


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Meraude]

What if Richard III had won the battle of Bosworth Field instead of Henry Tudor. Whom would he have married, probably not Elizabeth of York as she was after all his niece. Would he have married an English lady or would he have chosen a foreign princess, perhaps a grand-daughter of one of the sisters of Henry IV?

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Meraude

What if Richard III had won the battle of Bosworth Field instead of Henry Tudor. Whom would he have married, probably not Elizabeth of York as she was after all his niece. Would he have married an English lady or would he have chosen a foreign princess, perhaps a grand-daughter of one of the sisters of Henry IV?

Documents discovered in Portugal show that Richard was deep into negotiations to marry Princess Joanna, sister of King John II of Portugal; his niece Elizabeth was to marry the king's eventual successor, Manuel I. Joanna and her brother were the senior by "blood" Lancastrian heirs of John of Gaunt. Richard's proposed Portuguese marriage would have united the Houses of York and Lancaster. All English records of these negotiations vanished, (along with most of the legal records of Richard's reign) probably in Tudor times.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

What if Princess Anne had been the eldest daughter of King James II? Suppose Princess Anne married Prince William of Orange (1650-1702). William and Anne would have ruled as joint sovereigns.
Their eldest son William would be heir to be the stadholder of The Netherlands.
Their second son Henry would be heir to England and Scotland.

That would assume a few things: one that William would have been more fertile with another wife and that Anne would have been more fertile with another husband.

I also would not expect that the British would have been willing to accept the second son as their monarch over the elder son. More likely the elder son would have inherited both the British and the Netherlands, creating a personal union of the two nations (as had happened with England and Scotland in the reign of James I, briefly with Britain and the Netherlands during William III's reign, and then with Britain and Hanover during the reigns of the Hanovers). The only way I think this wouldn't have happened is if either country made a fuss about sharing a monarch - which we know wouldn't have happened with Britain - causing one of them to chose a different monarch, or if the international stage made a fuss and was in a position to force Britain and the Netherlands to have different monarchs (like what happened between France and Spain).

[Winnie]

I believe that wonderful things would have happen to Britain if Victoria's Albert had not died so very young. The more I have read about him personally, the more I like him and his ways. He seemed a very good man.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Ish

That would assume a few things: one that William would have been more fertile with another wife and that Anne would have been more fertile with another husband.

Anne had about 17 pregnancies. She had no trouble falling pregnant. It was delivering live babies that was her problem.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Anne had about 17 pregnancies. She had no trouble falling pregnant. It was delivering live babies that was her problem.

Fertile may not have been the best choice in words there, as both Anne and Mary had pregnancies but had issues with carrying to term, especially Anne. I would wonder if either would have been able to have healthier pregnancies and/or children had they had different spouses.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by Ish

Fertile may not have been the best choice in words there, as both Anne and Mary had pregnancies but had issues with carrying to term, especially Anne. I would wonder if either would have been able to have healthier pregnancies and/or children had they had different spouses.

At least three of Anne's early pregnancies seems to have been carried to term, her two daughters died very young of smallpox and her son died at the age of 11. Most of her miscarriages or premature births happened after the birth of her son, perhaps something had happened during that delivery that made it difficult for her to carry later child to term. I would say that her body never had the time to recuperate between pregnancies, as there were times when she had two miscarriages the same year. Perhaps if she had rested a year or two between each pregnancy/miscarriage she might have been able to carry a child to term.

[CyrilVladisla]

In 1505, negotiations began for the marriage of 11-year-old Princess Mary, the daughter of King Henry VIII, to Charles, the grandson of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.
As the victory of Thérouanne was celebrated, it was agreed that Charles and Mary should be married by May of 1514.
Charles and Mary did not marry.
Suppose in May of 1514, Charles of Spain marries Princess Mary.
What happens then?

King Edward IV of England reigned 1461 to 1470 and 1471 to 1483.
Suppose Edward and his wife, Queen Elizabeth Woodville have no children.
Edward dies in 1483. Suppose his brother George, Duke of Clarence, does not die in 1478.
George lives numerous years past 1478.
Thus in 1483 the Duke of Clarence becomes King George I. What happens then?