In OTL, Charles II of England lived from 29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685 - 54 years, 8 months and 9 days. While his brother James II lived from 14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701 - 67 years, 11 months and 3 days.

So WI each brother ends up with the longevity of the other? Charles II lives for 67 years, 11 months and 3 days from 29 May 1630 to 2 May 1698, while his brother James lives for 54 years 8 months and 9 days from 14 October 1633 to 23 June 1688. For the purposes of the WI, let us assume that each has the same health that he had until 6 February 1685, so there are no divergences until that date.

First of all, we get an extension of the relative political stability of Charles II's reign. His wife Catherine of Braganza lived until 1705, so presumably he will not beget any legitimate children.

James just about lives to see the birth of his son James Francis Edward on 10 June 1688. I assume that Charles arranges for his nephew to be raised as an Anglican, just as he did for his nieces Mary and Anne.

How does Charles react to the outbreak of the Nine Years' War in September 1688?

There will presumably be no Glorious Revolution, so the English (and the Scottish) constitution will continue as it was under Charles II - the King only calls a parliament when he wants or needs to etc.

I will assume that James' daughter May dies on schedule in 1694.

When Charles dies in May 1698, *JFE is aged just short of ten. A Regent will be needed - I suggest that his half-sister Anne will get the job.

Thoughts?

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:

> James just about lives to see the birth of his son
> James Francis Edward on 10 June 1688. I assume that
> Charles arranges for his nephew to be raised as an
> Anglican, just as he did for his nieces Mary and
> Anne.

That's going to be trickier. James had not
converted to Catholicism when Mary and Anne were
born, and did not admit to the conversion until
1676, when they were 14 and 11. Their mother had
also converted, but was dead by that time.

Young James will be born Catholic, to a Catholic
mother. Charles can still override Mary of Modena,
but it's going to be a more drastic action. If James
is alive at the birth, he would insist on Catholic
baptism; would Charles override him too.

> How does Charles react to the outbreak of the Nine
> Years' War in September 1688?

England remains neutral or pro-French.

> There will presumably be no Glorious Revolution, so
> the English (and the Scottish) constitution will
> continue as it was under Charles II - the King only
> calls a parliament when he wants or needs to etc.

But Parliament still controls the public purse. If
Charles wants money he has to call Parliament.

> I will assume that James' daughter May dies on
> schedule in 1694.

ITYM Mary. ITTL, she'll be living in the Netherlands
with William.

> When Charles dies in May 1698, *JFE is aged just
> short of ten. A Regent will be needed - I suggest
> that his half-sister Anne will get the job.

OTL, Anne believed that JFE was a spurious
"warming-pan baby"; but that was when James II was
reigning as a Catholic and his son seemed to mean
a Catholic succession. There may still be rumors
of that, but with James' death and Charles taking
charge of JFE, those rumors could be quelled, and
Anne would accept her brother. Then she could act
as Regent.

> Thoughts?

There are lots of knock-ons; for Scotland, for
Ireland, for the Netherlands, and of course for
England; and even for Spain. If England remains
neutral, does France outright win the Nine Years
War or the War of the Spanish Succession?
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerd�s.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 04:38:06 UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > James just about lives to see the birth of his son
> > James Francis Edward on 10 June 1688. I assume that
> > Charles arranges for his nephew to be raised as an
> > Anglican, just as he did for his nieces Mary and
> > Anne.
> That's going to be trickier. James had not
> converted to Catholicism when Mary and Anne were
> born, and did not admit to the conversion until
> 1676, when they were 14 and 11. Their mother had
> also converted, but was dead by that time.
>
> Young James will be born Catholic, to a Catholic
> mother. Charles can still override Mary of Modena,
> but it's going to be a more drastic action. If James
> is alive at the birth, he would insist on Catholic
> baptism; would Charles override him too.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England#Conversion_to_Roman_Catholicism_and_second_marriage says that he stepped down as Lord High Admiral in 1673 when the Test Act was passed, so his Roman Catholic sympathies seem to have been fairly well-known by that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England#Issue lists five named children born to James and Mary of Modena during Charles II's lifetime. Do you (or does anyone) happen to know if they were baptised CofE or RC? E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677) was ahead of his Protestant elder half-sisters in the succession, so presumably his prospective religious upbringing would have been a matter of public interest.

Charles and James had themselves been born to a RC mother (Henrietta Maria of France) and had been raised as Anglicans. I suggest that Mary of Modena would not have had any more say over her son's upbringing than her mother-in-law had had.
>
> > How does Charles react to the outbreak of the Nine
> > Years' War in September 1688?
> England remains neutral or pro-French.
> > There will presumably be no Glorious Revolution, so
> > the English (and the Scottish) constitution will
> > continue as it was under Charles II - the King only
> > calls a parliament when he wants or needs to etc.
> But Parliament still controls the public purse. If
> Charles wants money he has to call Parliament.
>
Indeed - a case of him needing to, as I said above.
> > I will assume that James' daughter May dies on
> > schedule in 1694.
> ITYM Mary.
>
Oops.
> ITTL, she'll be living in the Netherlands with William.
>
For the purposes of this TL, I suggest that smallpox could strike as easily in The Hague as in London.
>
> > When Charles dies in May 1698, *JFE is aged just
> > short of ten. A Regent will be needed - I suggest
> > that his half-sister Anne will get the job.
> OTL, Anne believed that JFE was a spurious
> "warming-pan baby"; but that was when James II was
> reigning as a Catholic and his son seemed to mean
> a Catholic succession. There may still be rumors
> of that, but with James' death and Charles taking
> charge of JFE, those rumors could be quelled, and
> Anne would accept her brother. Then she could act
> as Regent.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> There are lots of knock-ons; for Scotland, for
> Ireland, for the Netherlands, and of course for
> England; and even for Spain. If England remains
> neutral, does France outright win the Nine Years
> War or the War of the Spanish Succession?
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 5/12/21 4:30 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:

> [wiki] says that he stepped down as Lord High Admiral in 1673 when
> the Test Act was passed, so his Roman Catholic sympathies seem to
> have been fairly well-known by that time.
But that was still several years after Mary and Anne were born.
IOW, there was a substantial period when James could not object
to Mary and Anne being raised Protestant without disclosing his
Catholicism.

There would be no such period at all for JFE.

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 09:54:44 UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 5/12/21 4:30 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
>
> > [wiki] says that he stepped down as Lord High Admiral in 1673 when
> > the Test Act was passed, so his Roman Catholic sympathies seem to
> > have been fairly well-known by that time.
> But that was still several years after Mary and Anne were born.
> IOW, there was a substantial period when James could not object
> to Mary and Anne being raised Protestant without disclosing his
> Catholicism.
>
> There would be no such period at all for JFE.
>
To repeat what I said earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677) https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001758&tree=LEO was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after his father, the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He was in exactly the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in the ATL.

https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n96/mode/2up - Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England

"Mary Beatrice was, of course, desirous that her first-born
should be brought up in the religion which she had been
taught to venerate above all others. Her husband, though
he desired it no less, knew that it was impossible, and
explained to her, "that their children were the property
of the nation, and that soon after their marriage, it had
been moved in parliament, that they should be brought up
in the established religion of the realm, like his two elder
daughters the princesses Mary and Anne, or they would be
taken from them and placed under the care of others. It
was besides, the pleasure of the king, to which they must
submit."
1 [MS. Memorials of Mary Beatrice, in the Archives
au Royaume de France.]
The youthful mother, like a rash, inconsiderate
girl as she was, determined to have her own way in spite of
king, bishops, and parliament A few hours after the birth
of her babe, she took an opportunity of sending for her
confessor, father Gallis, and persuaded him to baptize it
privately on her own bed according to the rites of the church
of Rome.

When her royal brother-in-law, king Charles, came to
discuss with her and his brother the arrangements for the
christening of the new-born princess, Mary Beatrice told
him exultingly that " her daughter was already baptized,"
King Charles treated the communication with absolute
indifference, and without paying the slightest regard to the
tears and expostulations of the young mother, who was
terrified at the thought of having been the means of incur-
ring a sacrilege through the reiteration of the baptismal
sacrament, he ordered the little princess to be borne with
all due solemnity to the chapel royal, and had her chris-
tened there by a protestant bishop according to the rites of
the church of England. 8 She was given the names of
Katharina Laura, out of compliment to the queen and the
duchess of Modena. Her sponsors were her elder sisters
the princesses Mary and Anne, and the duke of Monmouth.
Her previous admission into the church of Rome by father
Gallis, was kept a profound secret ; if it had been known,
it would probably have cost that ecclesiastic dear, and might
have been very injurious to both the duke and duchess of
York. This fact was divulged by Mary Beatrice herself to
the abbess and nuns of Chaillot. She said, " that she wa»
very much terrified afterwards at what she had done, but
that father Gallis had consoled her by the assurance that
she had not incurred, as she feared, a deadly sin." 1

Charles II. who was still greatly annoyed at the irreparable
manner in which his brother had injured his prospects, and
deprived both himself and his country of his services, by
forsaking the communion of the church of England for that
of Rome, must have regarded the catholic baptism of the
new-born princess, as an especial piece of perversity on the
part of his sister-in-law. He was too good-natured, how-
ever, to agitate her by any serious manifestation of dis^
pleasure. Having had a catholic mother, he was able to
make allowances for the imprudent but natural zeal of a
young romantic girl of sixteen, who having been educated
in a convent could scarcely form an idea of the adverse
feeling with which the rites of her religion were regarded by
the majority of the people of England at that period."

https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n102/mode/2up which cites https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=171 - Diary of Dr Lake - October 21st, 1677 - "the duke ... would never hinder but that his children should be educated in the religeon (sic) of the Church of England, which caused generall joy in the Councill" https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=173 - November 7th, 1677 - [Charles Duke of Cambridge was] "christened the next day in the evening, by the Bishop of Durham. The king and the Prince of Orange were godfathers". I suggest that, in this ATL, there is no reason to doubt that *JFE would receive a Protestant baptism, just as his elder brother had.

On 5/14/21 2:04 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> To repeat what I said earlier [Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge
> (1677)] was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after
> his father, the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He
> was in exactly the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in
> the ATL...

A very authoritative answer. Thank you.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 09:54:44 UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 5/12/21 4:30 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
>>
>> > [wiki] says that he stepped down as Lord High Admiral in 1673 when
>> > the Test Act was passed, so his Roman Catholic sympathies seem to
>> > have been fairly well-known by that time.
>> But that was still several years after Mary and Anne were born.
>> IOW, there was a substantial period when James could not object
>> to Mary and Anne being raised Protestant without disclosing his
>> Catholicism.
>>
>> There would be no such period at all for JFE.
>>
> To repeat what I said earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677) https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001758&tree=LEO was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after his father, the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He was in exactly the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in the ATL.
>
> https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n96/mode/2up - Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England
>
> "Mary Beatrice was, of course, desirous that her first-born
> should be brought up in the religion which she had been
> taught to venerate above all others. Her husband, though
> he desired it no less, knew that it was impossible, and
> explained to her, "that their children were the property
> of the nation, and that soon after their marriage, it had
> been moved in parliament, that they should be brought up
> in the established religion of the realm, like his two elder
> daughters the princesses Mary and Anne, or they would be
> taken from them and placed under the care of others. It
> was besides, the pleasure of the king, to which they must
> submit."

So what would need to be different for the King to have a
less Protestant pleasure?

> 1 [MS. Memorials of Mary Beatrice, in the Archives
> au Royaume de France.]
> The youthful mother, like a rash, inconsiderate
> girl as she was, determined to have her own way in spite of
> king, bishops, and parliament A few hours after the birth
> of her babe, she took an opportunity of sending for her
> confessor, father Gallis, and persuaded him to baptize it
> privately on her own bed according to the rites of the church
> of Rome.
>
> When her royal brother-in-law, king Charles, came to
> discuss with her and his brother the arrangements for the
> christening of the new-born princess, Mary Beatrice told
> him exultingly that " her daughter was already baptized,"
> King Charles treated the communication with absolute
> indifference, and without paying the slightest regard to the
> tears and expostulations of the young mother, who was
> terrified at the thought of having been the means of incur-
> ring a sacrilege through the reiteration of the baptismal
> sacrament, he ordered the little princess to be borne with
> all due solemnity to the chapel royal, and had her chris-
> tened there by a protestant bishop according to the rites of
> the church of England. 8 She was given the names of
> Katharina Laura, out of compliment to the queen and the
> duchess of Modena. Her sponsors were her elder sisters
> the princesses Mary and Anne, and the duke of Monmouth.
> Her previous admission into the church of Rome by father
> Gallis, was kept a profound secret ; if it had been known,
> it would probably have cost that ecclesiastic dear, and might
> have been very injurious to both the duke and duchess of
> York. This fact was divulged by Mary Beatrice herself to
> the abbess and nuns of Chaillot. She said, " that she wa?
> very much terrified afterwards at what she had done, but
> that father Gallis had consoled her by the assurance that
> she had not incurred, as she feared, a deadly sin." 1
>
> Charles II. who was still greatly annoyed at the irreparable
> manner in which his brother had injured his prospects, and
> deprived both himself and his country of his services, by
> forsaking the communion of the church of England for that
> of Rome, must have regarded the catholic baptism of the
> new-born princess, as an especial piece of perversity on the
> part of his sister-in-law. He was too good-natured, how-
> ever, to agitate her by any serious manifestation of dis^
> pleasure. Having had a catholic mother, he was able to
> make allowances for the imprudent but natural zeal of a
> young romantic girl of sixteen, who having been educated
> in a convent could scarcely form an idea of the adverse
> feeling with which the rites of her religion were regarded by
> the majority of the people of England at that period."

....or to significantly alter those feelings?
> https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n102/mode/2up which cites https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=171 - Diary of Dr Lake - October 21st, 1677 - "the duke ... would never hinder but that his children should be educated in the religeon (sic) of the Church of England, which caused generall joy in the Councill" https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=173 - November 7th, 1677 - [Charles Duke of Cambridge was] "christened the next day in the evening, by the Bishop of Durham. The king and the Prince of Orange were godfathers". I suggest that, in this ATL, there is no reason to doubt that *JFE would receive a Protestant baptism, just as his elder brother had.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:54:13 PM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:
> > To repeat what I said earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677) https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001758&tree=LEO was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after his father, the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He was in exactly the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in the ATL.
> > https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n96/mode/2up - Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England
> > "Mary Beatrice was, of course, desirous that her first-born
> > should be brought up in the religion which she had been
> > taught to venerate above all others. Her husband, though
> > he desired it no less, knew that it was impossible, and
> > explained to her, "that their children were the property
> > of the nation, and that soon after their marriage, it had
> > been moved in parliament, that they should be brought up
> > in the established religion of the realm, like his two elder
> > daughters the princesses Mary and Anne, or they would be
> > taken from them and placed under the care of others. It
> > was besides, the pleasure of the king, to which they must
> > submit."
>
> So what would need to be different for the King to have a
> less Protestant pleasure?
>
You would need Charles II to have less sense than he had in OTL, and less ability to foresee that, if he allowed James' son to be brought up as a Roman Catholic, the result would be what happened in OTL in 1688. (And yes, I realise that the firstborn referred to above was a girl - but if she had been so brought up, it wpould have set a precedent for the brothers who arrived in OTL).
....
> > ... the imprudent but natural zeal of a
> > young romantic girl of sixteen, who having been educated
> > in a convent could scarcely form an idea of the adverse
> > feeling with which the rites of her religion were regarded by
> > the majority of the people of England at that period."
>
> ...or to significantly alter those feelings?
>
A start would be to alter Louis XIV so that he does not introduce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonnades or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau
>
> > https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n102/mode/2up which cites https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=171 - Diary of Dr Lake - October 21st, 1677 - "the duke ... would never hinder but that his children should be educated in the religeon (sic) of the Church of England, which caused generall joy in the Councill" https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=173 - November 7th, 1677 - [Charles Duke of Cambridge was] "christened the next day in the evening, by the Bishop of Durham. The king and the Prince of Orange were godfathers". I suggest that, in this ATL, there is no reason to doubt that *JFE would receive a Protestant baptism, just as his elder brother had.

On 7/22/21 5:54 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> To repeat what I said earlier
> -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677)
> https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001758&tree=LEO
> was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after his father,
> the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He was in exactly
> the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in the ATL.

I've forgotten the PoD... Your point about Catherine Laura is
well-taken. Presumably *JFE would also be raised Protestant. But when is
he born? If he is under ten years old when Charles dies, I think
everyone would expect him to convert to Catholic. Certainly Mary
would demand it.

There would also be the possibility that Charles would accede to the
Exclusionists, if the replacement successor was to be *JFE - and if
Charles thinks he may die before *JFE is grown. (The exclusion would
presumably include a Protestant regency for *JFE, thus insuring that
*JFE won't be converted.)

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 10:54:12 PM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/22/21 5:54 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> > To repeat what I said earlier
> > -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677)
> > https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001758&tree=LEO
> > was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after his father,
> > the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He was in exactly
> > the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in the ATL.
>
> I've forgotten the PoD... Your point about Catherine Laura is
> well-taken. Presumably *JFE would also be raised Protestant. But when is
> he born? If he is under ten years old when Charles dies, I think
> everyone would expect him to convert to Catholic. Certainly Mary
> would demand it.
>
> There would also be the possibility that Charles would accede to the
> Exclusionists, if the replacement successor was to be *JFE - and if
> Charles thinks he may die before *JFE is grown. (The exclusion would
> presumably include a Protestant regency for *JFE, thus insuring that
> *JFE won't be converted.)
>
The POD was as follows

"In OTL, Charles II of England lived from 29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685 - 54 years, 8 months and 9 days. While his brother James II lived from 14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701 - 67 years, 11 months and 3 days.

So WI each brother ends up with the longevity of the other? Charles II lives for 67 years, 11 months and 3 days from 29 May 1630 to 2 May 1698, while his brother James lives for 54 years 8 months and 9 days from 14 October 1633 to 23 June 1688. For the purposes of the WI, let us assume that each has the same health that he had until 6 February 1685, so there are no divergences until that date."

*JFE was born on 10 June 1688, so would be just short of ten on 2 May 1698. As I said (or meant to say) upthread "I will assume that James' daughter Mary dies on schedule in 1694 ... For the purposes of this TL, I suggest that smallpox could strike as easily in The Hague as in London." So Anne is next in line after *JFE. As I also said upthread, I do not think that Mary of Modena would be in any position to demand the conversion of *JFE.

There would be no need to exclude anybody, as the Grim Reaper would already have excluded *James II in this TL. I agree with you that *Charles II and Parliament would enact a Protestant regency for *JFE - presumably involving Anne. She might be joined by whoever was Charles II's chief minister by 1698 and whoever was Archbishop of Canterbury by that date. *Charles will have too much sense to appoint George of Denmark - although he might have some involvement in teaching *JFE about naval matters.

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:54:13 PM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:
>> > To repeat what I said earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677) https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001758&tree=LEO was born in the lifetime of his uncle Charles II and after his father, the future James II, converted to Roman Catholicism. He was in exactly the same position in OTL as *JFE would have been in in the ATL.
>> > https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n96/mode/2up - Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England
>> > "Mary Beatrice was, of course, desirous that her first-born
>> > should be brought up in the religion which she had been
>> > taught to venerate above all others. Her husband, though
>> > he desired it no less, knew that it was impossible, and
>> > explained to her, "that their children were the property
>> > of the nation, and that soon after their marriage, it had
>> > been moved in parliament, that they should be brought up
>> > in the established religion of the realm, like his two elder
>> > daughters the princesses Mary and Anne, or they would be
>> > taken from them and placed under the care of others. It
>> > was besides, the pleasure of the king, to which they must
>> > submit."
>>
>> So what would need to be different for the King to have a
>> less Protestant pleasure?
>>
> You would need Charles II to have less sense than he had in OTL, and less
> ability to foresee that, if he allowed James' son to be brought up as a Roman
> Catholic, the result would be what happened in OTL in 1688.

I am of course meaning to include what would be necessary to lessen
support for Protestantism among those who in OTL supported what
happened in 1688.

> (And yes, I realise that the firstborn referred to above was a girl - but if she
> had been so brought up, it wpould have set a precedent for the brothers who
> arrived in OTL).
> ...
>> > ... the imprudent but natural zeal of a
>> > young romantic girl of sixteen, who having been educated
>> > in a convent could scarcely form an idea of the adverse
>> > feeling with which the rites of her religion were regarded by
>> > the majority of the people of England at that period."
>>
>> ...or to significantly alter those feelings?
>>
> A start would be to alter Louis XIV so that he does not introduce
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonnades or
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau

Baffling why that persecution of persons would focus enmity on
liturgy...but you're saying the 1680s are an early enough POD?

>>
>> > https://archive.org/details/livesqueensengl03unkngoog/page/n102/mode/2up which cites https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=171 - Diary of Dr Lake - October 21st, 1677 - "the duke ... would never hinder but that his children should be educated in the religeon (sic) of the Church of England, which caused generall joy in the Councill" https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000007373592&view=1up&seq=173 - November 7th, 1677 - [Charles Duke of Cambridge was] "christened the next day in the evening, by the Bishop of Durham. The king and the Prince of Orange were godfathers". I suggest that, in this ATL, there is no reason to doubt that *JFE would receive a Protestant baptism, just as his elder brother had.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 7/25/21 5:33 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:

> The POD was as follows
> "In OTL, Charles II of England lived from 29 May 1630 – 6
> February 1685 - 54 years, 8 months and 9 days. While his
> brother James II lived from 14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701
> - 67 years, 11 months and 3 days.
>
> So WI each brother ends up with the longevity of the other?
> Charles II lives for 67 years, 11 months and 3 days from 29 May
> 1630 to 2 May 1698, while his brother James lives for 54 years
> 8 months and 9 days from 14 October 1633 to 23 June 1688. For
> the purposes of the WI, let us assume that each has the same
> health that he had until 6 February 1685, so there are no
> divergences until that date."

Thank you..

> *JFE was born on 10 June 1688, so would be just short of ten on
> 2 May 1698. As I said (or meant to say) upthread "I will assume
> that James' daughter Mary dies on schedule in 1694 ... For the
> purposes of this TL, I suggest that smallpox could strike as
> easily in The Hague as in London."

She might be in London anyway; there is a large knock-on from
Charles reigning through 1698, namely a very different position
of England in the War of the Grand Alliance.

With England neutral, France may conquer the Netherlands, forcing
William and Mary into exile.

> So Anne is next in line after *JFE. As I also said upthread,
> I do not think that Mary of Modena would be in any position
> to demand the conversion of *JFE.

Agreed. I was thinking of a possible situation where James
succeeds Charles. It wouldn't happen, but would be a possibility
until James dies.

> There would be no need to exclude anybody, as the Grim Reaper
> would already have excluded *James II in this TL.

But until then, James would be a threat, as he was until 1685 OTL.
And the threat would be more acute, because of the expectation
that if James succeeds, *JFE will become a Catholic.

So Charles may accede to exclusion of James.

> I agree with
> you that *Charles II and Parliament would enact a Protestant
> regency for *JFE - presumably involving Anne. She might be
> joined by whoever was Charles II's chief minister by 1698 and
> whoever was Archbishop of Canterbury by that date.

Anne seems likely, although by 1698 I think she was already
an alcoholic (which given her continually tragic personal
life was understandable). Mary wouldn't figure - if she's not
dead as OTL, then she's in the Netherlands with William.

So the Archbishop and the Earl of Whatever. Hmm. ITTL, there
will be no Monmouth Rebellion, so _he_ is still around. Would
Charles trust him to be regent?

---
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 12:07:15 AM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/25/21 5:33 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
>
> > The POD was as follows
> > "In OTL, Charles II of England lived from 29 May 1630 – 6
> > February 1685 - 54 years, 8 months and 9 days. While his
> > brother James II lived from 14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701
> > - 67 years, 11 months and 3 days.
> >
> > So WI each brother ends up with the longevity of the other?
> > Charles II lives for 67 years, 11 months and 3 days from 29 May
> > 1630 to 2 May 1698, while his brother James lives for 54 years
> > 8 months and 9 days from 14 October 1633 to 23 June 1688. For
> > the purposes of the WI, let us assume that each has the same
> > health that he had until 6 February 1685, so there are no
> > divergences until that date."
> Thank you..
> > *JFE was born on 10 June 1688, so would be just short of ten on
> > 2 May 1698. As I said (or meant to say) upthread "I will assume
> > that James' daughter Mary dies on schedule in 1694 ... For the
> > purposes of this TL, I suggest that smallpox could strike as
> > easily in The Hague as in London."
> She might be in London anyway; there is a large knock-on from
> Charles reigning through 1698, namely a very different position
> of England in the War of the Grand Alliance.
>
> With England neutral, France may conquer the Netherlands, forcing
> William and Mary into exile.
> > So Anne is next in line after *JFE. As I also said upthread,
> > I do not think that Mary of Modena would be in any position
> > to demand the conversion of *JFE.
> Agreed. I was thinking of a possible situation where James
> succeeds Charles. It wouldn't happen, but would be a possibility
> until James dies.
> > There would be no need to exclude anybody, as the Grim Reaper
> > would already have excluded *James II in this TL.
> But until then, James would be a threat, as he was until 1685 OTL.
> And the threat would be more acute, because of the expectation
> that if James succeeds, *JFE will become a Catholic.
> So Charles may accede to exclusion of James.
>
NB that in this TL the birth of *JFE and the death of his father occur in the same month - June 1688. I doubt if there would be time for anyone to propose an exclusion, any more than there was in the lifetime of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stuart,_Duke_of_Cambridge_(1677)
>
> > I agree with
> > you that *Charles II and Parliament would enact a Protestant
> > regency for *JFE - presumably involving Anne. She might be
> > joined by whoever was Charles II's chief minister by 1698 and
> > whoever was Archbishop of Canterbury by that date.
>
> Anne seems likely, although by 1698 I think she was already
> an alcoholic (which given her continually tragic personal
> life was understandable). Mary wouldn't figure - if she's not
> dead as OTL, then she's in the Netherlands with William.
> So the Archbishop and the Earl of Whatever. Hmm. ITTL, there
> will be no Monmouth Rebellion, so _he_ is still around. Would
> Charles trust him to be regent?
>
Possibly, if he could be trusted not to make a bid for the throne himself. There was the precedent of Moray's regency for James VI of Scots.

On 8/1/21 7:31 AM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> NB that in this TL the birth of *JFE and the death of his father occur in
> the same month - June 1688. I doubt if there would be time for anyone to
> propose an exclusion, any more than there was in the lifetime
> of Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677)
Right. Hmm.

WI King James had died immediately after JFE's
birth? (Or just before.) Mary would want to be regent
and for JFE to be Catholic, but has no power. OTOH,
the Protestant magnates have no power yet either.

James might appoint a Lord Protector from his deathbed.
But if he has no chance, who decides?

>> Would Charles trust [Monmouth] to be regent?
>>
> Possibly, if he could be trusted not to make a bid for the throne
> himself. There was the precedent of Moray's regency for James VI of
> Scots.

I thought of that. Besides which, Monmouth would have
ten years to settle into the role of loyal-cousin-of-
the-heir. Also, he tried it on against James II because
there were a lot of people who didn't want James.
Nobody doesn't want *JFE.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:01:22 PM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> WI King James had died immediately after JFE's
> birth? (Or just before.) Mary would want to be regent
> and for JFE to be Catholic, but has no power. OTOH,
> the Protestant magnates have no power yet either.
>
> James might appoint a Lord Protector from his deathbed.
> But if he has no chance, who decides?
>
So the POD is that James II expires with joy at the birth of a healthy son on Sunday 10th June 1688. Parliament is not sitting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bishops are due in court on Friday 15th.
Leading politicians -
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Belasyse,_1st_Baron_Belasyse - "in 1687 was appointed as First Lord Commissioner of the Treasury which, on account of his Catholicism, caused political problems for the king, although in a Court dominated by extremists, he was regarded as moderate."
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Godolphin,_1st_Earl_of_Godolphin - Second Lord of the Treasury - "He was present at the birth of the Old Pretender, but during the ensuing controversy as to whether or not the birth was genuine, he said diplomatically that he had no useful information to contribute, as he was too far from the bed to see anything. He was one of the council of five appointed by King James to represent him in London when James went to battle after the landing of William of Orange in England, and along with Lord Halifax and Lord Nottingham, he was afterwards appointed a commissioner to negotiate with the prince."
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer,_2nd_Earl_of_Sunderland - Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for the Southern Department - "[I]n 1687, ... he openly embraced the Roman Catholic faith, insincerely, it would seem, and merely to please the King. ...However, while he enjoyed the confidence of Queen Mary of Modena, it was clear that he was growing uncomfortable under the recently enthroned James: the violently hostile reception he got from the public when he gave evidence at the Trial of the Seven Bishops left him badly shaken."

James' daughter Mary is in The Hague. His daughter Anne is in Bath, recuperating from a miscarriage.

Hard to say what happens. I cannot see this group of politicians wanting to make any radical changes. Certainly there does not seem to be anyone who would be willing and able make the changes which the Duke of Somerset made in 1547.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:01:22 PM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 8/1/21 7:31 AM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > NB that in this TL the birth of *JFE and the death of his father occur in
> > the same month - June 1688. I doubt if there would be time for anyone to
> > propose an exclusion, any more than there was in the lifetime
> > of Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677)
> Right. Hmm.
>
> WI King James had died immediately after JFE's
> birth? (Or just before.) Mary would want to be regent
> and for JFE to be Catholic, but has no power. OTOH,
> the Protestant magnates have no power yet either.
>
> James might appoint a Lord Protector from his deathbed.
> But if he has no chance, who decides?
>
> >> Would Charles trust [Monmouth] to be regent?
> >>
> > Possibly, if he could be trusted not to make a bid for the throne
> > himself. There was the precedent of Moray's regency for James VI of
> > Scots.
> I thought of that. Besides which, Monmouth would have
> ten years to settle into the role of loyal-cousin-of-
> the-heir. Also, he tried it on against James II because
> there were a lot of people who didn't want James.
> Nobody doesn't want *JFE.
>
Monmouth was not of course Charles II's only illegitimate son. Might any of the following come to prominence in either
(a) The TL where James dies in 1688 and Charles in 1698?
(b) The TL where Charles dies on schedule in 1685 and James in 1688?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_FitzRoy,_2nd_Duke_of_Cleveland
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_FitzRoy,_1st_Duke_of_Grafton - he seems to have had naval and military experience. His death in 1690 would presumably be butterflied.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_FitzRoy,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beauclerk,_1st_Duke_of_St_Albans "He became colonel in the 8th regiment of horse in 1687, and served with the emperor Leopold I, being present at the siege of Belgrade in 1688."
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lennox,_1st_Duke_of_Richmond

On 8/1/21 1:27 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> Hard to say what happens. I cannot see this group of politicians wanting
> to make any radical changes. Certainly there does not seem to be anyone
> who would be willing and able make the changes which the Duke of
> Somerset made in 1547.

I think Parliament is going to meet immediately, and appoint a
Protestant minister and regency. There simply aren't enough Catholics
to hold on to power without Crown authority, and the infant *JFE can't
provide that.

However, James would probably have made a will naming a possible regent.
Did he do so in OTL? (Which the same as the alternate ATL up to his
death.)

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 4:02:43 AM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 8/1/21 1:27 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > Hard to say what happens. I cannot see this group of politicians wanting
> > to make any radical changes. Certainly there does not seem to be anyone
> > who would be willing and able make the changes which the Duke of
> > Somerset made in 1547.
> I think Parliament is going to meet immediately, and appoint a
> Protestant minister and regency. There simply aren't enough Catholics
> to hold on to power without Crown authority, and the infant *JFE can't
> provide that.
>
> However, James would probably have made a will naming a possible regent.
> Did he do so in OTL? (Which the same as the alternate ATL up to his
> death.)
>
The answer to that question may be in either

1. J. Nicholls, A Collection of the Wills of the Kings and Queens of England,. London, 1780
2. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137601445 © 2017 - Royal Wills in Britain from 1509 to 2008 Authors: Nash, Michael L.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:37:52 PM UTC+1, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 4:02:43 AM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 8/1/21 1:27 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > Hard to say what happens. I cannot see this group of politicians wanting
> > > to make any radical changes. Certainly there does not seem to be anyone
> > > who would be willing and able make the changes which the Duke of
> > > Somerset made in 1547.
> > I think Parliament is going to meet immediately, and appoint a
> > Protestant minister and regency. There simply aren't enough Catholics
> > to hold on to power without Crown authority, and the infant *JFE can't
> > provide that.
> >
> > However, James would probably have made a will naming a possible regent..
> > Did he do so in OTL? (Which the same as the alternate ATL up to his
> > death.)
> >
> The answer to that question may be in either
>
> 1. J. Nicholls, A Collection of the Wills of the Kings and Queens of England,. London, 1780
> 2. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137601445 © 2017 - Royal Wills in Britain from 1509 to 2008 Authors: Nash, Michael L.
>
It is actually at https://archive.org/details/lifeofjamessecon02inne/page/642/mode/2up - dated 17th November 1688 - just before he left for Salisbury.
"And Wee Will Ordaine & Appointe that Our said Dearest Consort have the Sole Governance Tuition & Guardianshipp of Our said Deare Sonn till he shall have fully compleated the fourteenth yeare of his Age Doing nevertheless all things as under Him and in His Name Notwithstanding His Infancy or the Tuition
aforesaid ... [long list of names] Wee Will That they & every of them shall be of Councell for the aiding of Our Dearest Consort when they or any of them shall be thereunto by Her called"

Which might well have as much effect as the appointment of a regency council in Henry VIII's will.

On 8/3/21 4:04 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:37:52 PM UTC+1, Graham Truesdale wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 4:02:43 AM UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>> However, James would probably have made a will naming a possible regent.
>>> Did he do so in OTL? (Which the same as the alternate ATL up to his
>>> death.)
>>>
>> The answer to that question may be in either
>>
>> 1. J. Nicholls, A Collection of the Wills of the Kings and Queens of England,. London, 1780
>> 2. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137601445 © 2017 - Royal Wills in Britain from 1509 to 2008 Authors: Nash, Michael L.
>>
> It is actually at https://archive.org/details/lifeofjamessecon02inne/page/642/mode/2up
> - dated 17th November 1688 - just before he left for Salisbury.
> "And Wee Will Ordaine & Appointe that Our said Dearest Consort have the
> Sole Governance Tuition & Guardianshipp of Our said Deare Sonn till he
> shall have fully compleated the fourteenth yeare of his Age Doing
> nevertheless all things as under Him and in His Name Notwithstanding His
> Infancy or the Tuition aforesaid ... [long list of names] Wee Will That
> they & every of them shall be of Councell for the aiding of Our Dearest
> Consort when they or any of them shall be thereunto by Her called"

So he appointed Queen Mary. IMO she couldn't make it stick very long.
I think the Protestant leaders in Parliament would quietly hand her
an ultimatum: give up the regency and custody of *JFE, or *JFE would
be declared a spurious "warming-pan baby".

> Which might well have as much effect as the appointment of a regency
> council in Henry VIII's will.
I see what you mean.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.