What if the outcome of the "Glorious" Revolution had been decided by a sword duel between King James VII & II and William of Orange?

[Count]

This is one of the most unhinged threads I’ve ever seen. The premise is clearly ASB.
What parliament? It was only assembled after James’ army collapsed because he had a mental breakdown and his officers lost confidence in him. Also James would not send Anne to a Catholic nunnery, that’s insane.
Also James was a patriotic Englishman who made clear he would be King of England or nothing, he made the minimum concessions to the Patriot Parliament he had to make to levy war, and even in his testimonial of 1701 on his deathbed to his son (a rather unhinged document where he mostly insists traitors must be punished and not conciliated etc) the Irish are not to be given any serious role in government

 

[Hoffman]

James was hesitant, indecisive, cowardly, and overestimated his own abilities.
The likelihood is he would flee from a duel after having already lost.

 

[Elfwine]

Also James was a patriotic Englishman who made clear he would be King of England or nothing, he made the minimum concessions to the Patriot Parliament he had to make to levy war, and even in his testimonial of 1701 on his deathbed to his son (a rather unhinged document where he mostly insists traitors must be punished and not conciliated etc) the Irish are not to be given any serious role in government

Is that bit on the role of the Irish in government any different than anything earlier, as in making a stronger point of it? Just thinking that it even just being there at all feels like James wanted to make a point of it, but I'm not familiar enough with Stuart policies to compare him to other Stuarts.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

This is one of the most unhinged threads I’ve ever seen. The premise is clearly ASB.
What parliament? It was only assembled after James’ army collapsed because he had a mental breakdown and his officers lost confidence in him. Also James would not send Anne to a Catholic nunnery, that’s insane.
Also James was a patriotic Englishman who made clear he would be King of England or nothing, he made the minimum concessions to the Patriot Parliament he had to make to levy war, and even in his testimonial of 1701 on his deathbed to his son (a rather unhinged document where he mostly insists traitors must be punished and not conciliated etc) the Irish are not to be given any serious role in government

Do you have a link to this testimonial? I couldn't find it. There's nothing unhinged about wanting the rightful king, the king who would have spared your people centuries of misery, to have defeated an incestuous usurper.

Even if King James didn't give the Irish a serious role in government, that's still better than the Protestant Ascendancy.

James was hesitant, indecisive, cowardly, and overestimated his own abilities.
The likelihood is he would flee from a duel after having already lost.

Actually it was William of Orange who underestimated James's power. William simply got lucky that James was deserted by his army, who were treacherous cowards. Had James not been betrayed by his army (treason was a capital offence at the time btw), William would have been defeated.

 

[Hoffman]

Actually it was William of Orange who underestimated James's power. William simply got lucky that James was deserted by his army, who were treacherous cowards. Had James not been betrayed by his army (treason was a capital offence at the time btw), William would have been defeated.

I would say that thinking you have an army, when in fact your opponent has that exact same army, is quite a severe overestimation of your own support.

If it came to a personal duel, James would probably be attacked by his own hands.

 

[Elfwine]

There's nothing unhinged about wanting the rightful king, the king who would have spared your people centuries of misery, to have defeated an incestuous usurper.

There's a lot of question marks to if James would have spared the Irish centuries of misery, for one thing.

I think it would be genuinely interesting to see a thread on if James did, in fact, continue to rule - but threads like "What if William decided to act like Darth Vader? Wouldn't that be a laugh?" or "What if William got in a duel with James that he has absolutely no reason to?" don't really invite much discussion of how a continued Stuart dynasty would have made a difference to anything.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

I would say that thinking you have an army, when in fact your opponent has that exact same army, is quite a severe overestimation of your own support.

If it came to a personal duel, James would probably be attacked by his own hands.

King James was a gallant man with battlefield experience. He would not be attacked by his own hands. He was also smarter than William of Orange.

There's a lot of question marks to if James would have spared the Irish centuries of misery, for one thing.

At the very least, he wouldn't have passed the Penal Laws, or any other anti-Catholic laws that had the effect of disenfranchising the vast majority of indigenous Irish people. British settler populations in Ireland (and that's what the Anglo-Irish and Ulster Scots are, make no mistake) having voting rights never benefited us in any way, because they weren't Irish, didn't consider themselves Irish, looked down on us, were completely fine with us having no rights. So yes, there were elections in Ireland in the 18th century, but they were just different groups of Britons competing for who would rule over us.

I think it would be genuinely interesting to see a thread on if James did, in fact, continue to rule - but threads like "What if William decided to act like Darth Vader? Wouldn't that be a laugh?"

You remember that one! The purpose of that thread was to drive home the point that William was an evil and unhinged man who betrayed his family. William of Orange murdered a lot of innocent people, and was also incestuous.
William was nowhere near as sympathetic as Anakin was, though, so I guess it was a bad comparison. Anakin had a traumatic childhood and did what he did to save the love of his life. I felt genuinely bad for Anakin when he got dismembered, screamed "I HATE YOU!" and burned, despite Anakin being fictional. Nothing could ever make me feel bad for William, not after what William did to my ancestors.

or "What if William got in a duel with James that he has absolutely no reason to?" don't really invite much discussion of how a continued Stuart dynasty would have made a difference to anything.

Because that's a good way for James to beat William for good. William was asthmatic, cowardly, slightly hunchbacked, and much shorter than James. A one-on-one sword duel is a very easy way for James to defeat William. William wouldn't have stood a chance. It would have been over for William within 90 seconds.

 

[Stahlo]

William of Orange and James VII have been dead for three hundred years. It might be time to move on bud.

 

[Elfwine]

You remember that one! The purpose of that thread was to drive home the point that William was an evil and unhinged man who betrayed his family. William of Orange murdered a lot of innocent people, and was also incestuous.

If that was the purpose, I must say that it failed.

Especially since "I'm going to happily ignore that the role of Mary's father and uncle in her marriage because this is about trying to promote the Jacobite cause more than two centuries after it stopped being relevant to anything." has its own issues.

I would be happy to talk about how the laws James might pass, or might not pass, would address existing things as relates to that English prejudice towards and less than benign rule of Ireland did not start in 1688 - but I don't think I have anything else to add relates to the topic of William to wanting to fight James in a sword duel.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Hastings]

Yeah and the thing is, yes Bonnie Prince Charlie is very romantic and I mean that unironically. But the Glorious Revolution is what made England so great. The English picked up a lot from the Dutch, particularly in finance, which allowed them in the long run to be greater given their larger population. It also resolved the worst thing about the Stuarts dynamic, the constant struggle between King and Parliament. This made it very hard also for British to do much militarily because funding at scale had to come from parliament who didn't trust the Stuarts with a large army while conversely the Stuarts tried to avoid having to call parliament if they could help it. William was more willing to work in bounds as he was technically not even a king in the Netherlands.

Also, the Stuarts had no special thing for Ireland. What reason had they to? They were English (+Scots) oppressors and had little interest there before losing their thrones and not much more after. Now it may help in terms of religious aspects and less nobility will get purged. But Ireland will still be very much a colony.

 

[Elfwine]

Also, the Stuarts had no special thing for Ireland. What reason had they to? They were English (+Scots) oppressors and had little interest there before losing their thrones and not much more after. Now it may help in terms of religious aspects and less nobility will get purged. But Ireland will still be very much a colony.

I am legitimately curious how the religious matters would have gone here. Even assuming Catholic kings were accepted, my limited understanding is that there's going to be a lot of friction on that point with a POD anywhere near James VII/II.

 

[Masteroftheuniverse]

King James was a gallant man with battlefield experience. He would not be attacked by his own hands. He was also smarter than William of Orange.

At the very least, he wouldn't have passed the Penal Laws, or any other anti-Catholic laws that had the effect of disenfranchising the vast majority of indigenous Irish people. British settler populations in Ireland (and that's what the Anglo-Irish and Ulster Scots are, make no mistake) having voting rights never benefited us in any way, because they weren't Irish, didn't consider themselves Irish, looked down on us, were completely fine with us having no rights. So yes, there were elections in Ireland in the 18th century, but they were just different groups of Britons competing for who would rule over us.

You remember that one! The purpose of that thread was to drive home the point that William was an evil and unhinged man who betrayed his family. William of Orange murdered a lot of innocent people, and was also incestuous.
William was nowhere near as sympathetic as Anakin was, though, so I guess it was a bad comparison. Anakin had a traumatic childhood and did what he did to save the love of his life. I felt genuinely bad for Anakin when he got dismembered, screamed "I HATE YOU!" and burned, despite Anakin being fictional. Nothing could ever make me feel bad for William, not after what William did to my ancestors.

Because that's a good way for James to beat William for good. William was asthmatic, cowardly, slightly hunchbacked, and much shorter than James. A one-on-one sword duel is a very easy way for James to defeat William. William wouldn't have stood a chance. It would have been over for William within 90 seconds.

If James I was so awesome, why did he lose?
Also, it's not healthy to hate a dead man so much.

 

[Hastings]

I was meaning in terms of Ireland. In terms of England+Scotland, yeah less so. Also, lets be frank. While avoiding being overthrown 3 years into his reign is quite plausible, I'm not sure the odds of him reigning till dying of old age are great. Religion will keep being a tension point, and the last year particularly of James's reign does not suggest he is likely to handle things with finesse. He's not his brother or uncle and eventually I think gets domestically overthrown a-la his father.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

William of Orange and James VII have been dead for three hundred years. It might be time to move on bud.

Would you tell that to a black person who was complaining about Robert E. Lee? A Jewish person who was complaining about Bohdan Khmelnitsky? A Korean person who was complaining about Hideki Tojo?

If that was the purpose, I must say that it failed.

That thread was also just an idea I was trying out - combine alternate history with pop culture.

Especially since "I'm going to happily ignore that the role of Mary's father and uncle in her marriage because this is about trying to promote the Jacobite cause more than two centuries after it stopped being relevant to anything." has its own issues.

James only consented to the marriage under pressure from his brother and a nobleman, who tricked him by saying that it would make him more popular with Protestants.

I would be happy to talk about how the laws James might pass, or might not pass, would address existing things as relates to that English prejudice towards and less than benign rule of Ireland did not start in 1688 - but I don't think I have anything else to add relates to the topic of William to wanting to fight James in a sword duel.

Edited for clarity.

What I'm trying to do is come up with an (at least semi-)plausible way for James to defeat William.

Yeah and the thing is, yes Bonnie Prince Charlie is very romantic and I mean that unironically. But the Glorious Revolution is what made England so great. The English picked up a lot from the Dutch, particularly in finance, which allowed them in the long run to be greater given their larger population. It also resolved the worst thing about the Stuarts dynamic, the constant struggle between King and Parliament. This made it very hard also for British to do much militarily because funding at scale had to come from parliament who didn't trust the Stuarts with a large army while conversely the Stuarts tried to avoid having to call parliament if they could help it. William was more willing to work in bounds as he was technically not even a king in the Netherlands.

I don't really care if the "Glorious" Revolution (or as I like to say, the Treasonous Usurpation) made England so great. It was a disaster for Ireland. I'm Irish, not English. I'd much rather have a powerful British King than a powerful British Parliament, because, as I have said before, all the worst things happened to us when Parliament had the power. Cromwell, the Protestant Ascendancy, the Great Hunger. All when the monarchy was either nonexistent or under Parliament's thumb.
Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Royal House of Stuart is much more romantic than a fat, middle aged German who didn't even care enough to learn to speak English at more than a beginner level.

Also, the Stuarts had no special thing for Ireland. What reason had they to? They were English (+Scots) oppressors and had little interest there before losing their thrones and not much more after. Now it may help in terms of religious aspects and less nobility will get purged. But Ireland will still be very much a colony.

The Irish and the Scots are Celtic brother nations. Even if Ireland under King James wouldn't have been perfect, it would have been a lot better than under William of Orange.

I am legitimately curious how the religious matters would have gone here. Even assuming Catholic kings were accepted, my limited understanding is that there's going to be a lot of friction on that point with a POD anywhere near James VII/II.

We would have been spared from the Protestant Ascendancy. Possibly the Protestant settler populations would have even been sent back to Britain. They wanted to live under British Protestant rule, request granted.

If James I was so awesome, why did he lose?
Also, it's not healthy to hate a dead man so much.

Lots of black people still hate Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. Lots of Jewish people still hate Adolf Hitler and Bohdan Khmelnitsky. Hating deceased historical figures who harmed your people is hardly unheard of.

I was meaning in terms of Ireland. In terms of England+Scotland, yeah less so. Also, lets be frank. While avoiding being overthrown 3 years into his reign is quite plausible, I'm not sure the odds of him reigning till dying of old age are great. Religion will keep being a tension point, and the last year particularly of James's reign does not suggest he is likely to handle things with finesse. He's not his brother or uncle and eventually I think gets domestically overthrown a-la his father.

If he had defeated William, he would have been in a much stronger position.

 

[Elfwine]

What I'm trying to do is come up with an (at least semi-)plausible way for James to defeat William.

I am not an expert on the period, but I know there have been comments by others that the Stuarts were not wholly unpopular. James running - whatever his reasons and whether or not I agree with them - did not really make the most of what support he might potentially have found.

Possibly the Protestant settler populations would have even been sent back to Britain.

That would sure be a reversal of by this point (1688, not 2024) multiple centuries of how the English government felt about ruling Ireland.

 

[Masteroftheuniverse]

Lots of black people still hate Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. Lots of Jewish people still hate Adolf Hitler and Bohdan Khmelnitsky. Hating deceased historical figures who harmed your people is hardly unheard of.

Not unheard of but not particularly healthy. Obsessing about humiliating someone who died hundreds of years before you were born is a little strange.
And you haven't answered the question of how James II, the perfect paragon of virtue who was super smart and right about everything, managed to lose to William III, who was fat and old and stupid and incestuous.

 

[AsukaEMP]

Would you tell that to a black person who was complaining about Robert E. Lee? A Jewish person who was complaining about Bohdan Khmelnitsky? A Korean person who was complaining about Hideki Tojo?

Did they ask me "What if the outcome of the Civil War had been decided by a sword duel between Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee" first?

 

[Charles III Stuart]

I am not an expert on the period, but I know there have been comments by others that the Stuarts were not wholly unpopular. James running - whatever his reasons and whether or not I agree with them - did not really make the most of what support he might potentially have found.
That would sure be a reversal of by this point (1688, not 2024) multiple centuries of how the English government felt about ruling Ireland.

In fact James was the victim of bigotry and religious intolerance. He did nothing wrong personally.

Did they ask me "What if the outcome of the Civil War had been decided by a sword duel between Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee" first?

Grant was a known drunkard, so it depends on if he was sober at the time. If Grant is sober, he beats Lee. If Grant is drunk, Lee beats him.

Not unheard of but not particularly healthy. Obsessing about humiliating someone who died hundreds of years before you were born is a little strange.
And you haven't answered the question of how James II, the perfect paragon of virtue who was super smart and right about everything, managed to lose to William III, who was fat and old and stupid and incestuous.

Because James's army betrayed him. Treason was a capital offence at the time BTW. William wasn't fat and he never lived to be old, but he was an incestuous, cowardly man lacking in intellect.

 

[Elfwine]

In fact James was the victim of bigotry and religious intolerance. He did nothing wrong personally.

If your premise is that James did nothing wrong and the only reason he was overthrown was other people's evil, I think it's going to be difficult to discuss how things might have gone differently.

Good luck with your writing.

 

[edgeworthy]

. William wasn't fat and he never lived to be old, but he was an incestuous, cowardly man lacking in intellect.

Under English, and Irish, Law First Cousins do not count as Incest. And such marriages were frequent, especially amoungst Royalty.
(The Catholic Church was happy to grant dispensations)

William was by the standards of the time an extremely well educated man, having attended the University of Leiden in his youth.

And he was a successful military commander. Even his enemies praised his leadership and valour. The contemporary Marquis de Quincy, still considered an authoritative source, for example, wrote that it was due to William's insight and personal courage that the Allies held out at the Battle of Seneffe, while he also praised how William led his troops to safety during the battles of Steenkerque and Landen.
The main criticism of him as a General was in his tendency of often throwing himself into the fray, thus losing oversight of the "Big Picture".

He was a great man, an enemy of France, to which he did a great deal of harm, but we owe him our esteem. - Napoleon Bonaparte