Um, did you think Parliament was packed with brain-dead automatons that can easily be led around if only James picked one of two options?
There exists a far simpler POD, well two but I'll leave it up to you to figure them out, if you care to.
The Stuarts remain in power
- Thread starter Gustavus Adolphus
- Start date
Um, did you think Parliament was packed with brain-dead automatons that can easily be led around if only James picked one of two options?
There exists a far simpler POD, well two but I'll leave it up to you to figure them out, if you care to.
fine Ill just have James disband parliment like OTL but he converts and then he does not make the same blunders as OTL leading to him having power and because He is now Protestant the people support him because there is a Protestant line on the English throne....Um, did you think Parliament was packed with brain-dead automatons that can easily be led around if only James picked one of two options?
No I meant that i did not know opposition was that strong against James in parliment...
There exists a far simpler POD, well two but I'll leave it up to you to figure them out, if you care to.
Somehow I think most people will see James' 11th hour conversion as phony, but that's just me.
However, you have managed to scrape the surface of the issue. If you're willing to expand the search to outside this very small box you'll probably see it rather easily.
The Grin Without a Cat
Banned
fine then il do this, James disbands parliment, then he converts to Protestant and he does not put catholics in high office, this reassures the people and he stays on the throne, how is that
IT'S ASB!
IT'S ASB!
Yeah, most of the James II remaining in power scenarios are. Out of the two PODs I suggested as alternatives, half of them involve genetic change.
Absolutely; James II having a profound, hard-wiring changing, mid-life epiphany and radically altering the way he looks at himself and interacts with the world around him is very extremely (x7) unlikely. GA - How easy do you think it is for a middle aged person to make the major theological, political, psychological & philosophical changes you're suggesting and how quickly do you think a person can make such major changes in their way of living and being?
A James II who somehow becomes completely sterile the moment he marries Mary of Modena? Or alternatively he only has daughters with her. My impression was that if you prevent the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart, you at least delay the Glorious Revolution. From what I remember while James wasn't popular within the rest of the government, it was the birth of the old pretender that actually sparked his overthrow. Perhaps without that spark, James can last with a disgruntled government until his death in 1701 at which point you have Queen Anne come on the throne, and though there will be butterflies, the Hanoverian claimant most likely follows Anne.
Sorry if that idea simply doesn't work either.
Both came to mind, actually.
That's what I'm thinking. From what I've read and understood, his opponents were content to wait him out, but then "James III" got born and the shit hit the fan.
I have quite a few points to make here.
Firstly, James was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, so to state him converting is asb is wrong, why not stop him converting in the first place?
Secondly, in quite a few areas he was years ahead of his time. If you want an example, he favoured religious tolerance, which combined with his personal faith and the birth of his son is what lost him his throne.
Thirdly, the way the thread has been going, you would think England, Scotland and Ireland were democratic havens at the time, they were anything but, as the number of elelctors would suggest.
The main benefit of the Glorious Revolution, in my opinion in Scotland where the powers of the Parliament were increased by the abolition of the Lords of the Articles. In England it also increased the power of Parliament(read the Lords). Overall, I think the revolution was good in the long run down to this.
The Test Act was wrong however, and James was right to oppose it.
The following is a link if anyone wants source material from the time.
http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/index.htm
To keep him in the throne, simply have him not convert to the Roman Catholic faith and keep his mouth shut over controversial issues.
Firstly, James was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, so to state him converting is asb is wrong, why not stop him converting in the first place?
Secondly, in quite a few areas he was years ahead of his time. If you want an example, he favoured religious tolerance, which combined with his personal faith and the birth of his son is what lost him his throne.
Thirdly, the way the thread has been going, you would think England, Scotland and Ireland were democratic havens at the time, they were anything but, as the number of elelctors would suggest.
The main benefit of the Glorious Revolution, in my opinion in Scotland where the powers of the Parliament were increased by the abolition of the Lords of the Articles. In England it also increased the power of Parliament(read the Lords). Overall, I think the revolution was good in the long run down to this.
The Test Act was wrong however, and James was right to oppose it.
The following is a link if anyone wants source material from the time.
http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/index.htm
To keep him in the throne, simply have him not convert to the Roman Catholic faith and keep his mouth shut over controversial issues.
TY for the advice, Howevere how plausable would this be, After James dissolves parliment and William tries to invade England, James repels him with his army, I read that Had James led his troops they would have crushed William and have William die in that battle and have James execute Mary, Now win no other cpaiments to the English throne, James can start a purge of England having his standing army annighlates all resistance turning England into a terro state..... Then he could keep his throne and have absoulute power....