| February 21 |  |
Editor says, what if William III had survived his fatal accident in 1702? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
This story was published in the July 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1702, on this day King William III of England narrowly avoided a serious injury when his favourite horse Sorrel stumbled into a mole's burrow at Windsor Park.
King Billy survives the Velvet Coated AssassinHad he perished at the hands of this so-called "Velvet Coated Assassin" then his successor under the Bill of Rights would have been his late wife's sister Anne Stuart. But when she died childless a dozen years later, the succession then passed to Electress Sophia and her issue. Determined to prevent the rise of an Anglo-German Royal House of Hanover, William married again in order to have children that would be his legal successors.
His son William IV would be the driving force behind the Act of Anglo-Dutch Union that ensures the territories of Britain and the Netherlands would not drift apart due to a ridiculous accident of fate.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: House of Origin, William and Mary, Glorious Revolution, Holland, Britain. Editor says, in this post we repurpose content from Alternate History, Wikipedia and "William and Mary: Heroes of the Glorious Revolution" by John John Van der Kiste. William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone following a fall from his horse, Sorrel. Because his horse had stumbled into a mole's burrow, many Jacobites toasted "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat".
~ "Velvet-Coated Assassin"? An oblique reference to the mole, sir. I have changed the post to make it more obvious.
~ The republican-minded House of Orange would have changed everything. Even if there were an American tax revolt, Willem ("William") V would've just let the matter settle.
~ With the combined Anglo-Dutch fleet, the oceans would have been ruled even more thoroughly by Britain than they were. The RN in Nelson's time considered the Dutch (along with the Danes, the Swedes and later the Americans) to be professionally fully their equals, which they did not think about the French or Spanish.
~ A "personal union" of this type would not have merged the English and Dutch empires. The moment that a succession issue appeared, or the political leadership of one of the two states disagreed with royal policies, the union would have ended. This, of course, happened upon the succession of Queen Victoria to the British throne. As the Salic law was still in effect in Hanover, that state, once-precious to Britain, went its own way, only to fall victim less than thirty years later to Prussian aggression.
~ Hmmmm. William DID issue the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was the model for our Constitution, which was A Good Thing. But on the other hand...well, we would never have had Bonnie Prince Charlie's revolt, which did so much to inspire the modern wars of national liberation, our own American Revolution included. It also inspired historical romance, with Sir Walter Scott's Waverly. Not to mention my own wish fulfillment about a modern girl who goes back in time to make the Bonnie Prince win. For more on that particular AH fantasy, you can go to www.extasybooks.com and search under "Jackie Rose" for "Prince Charlie's Witch."
~ Actually, I doubt that William III was in all that big a rush to marry again, since tradition has it that...well, let's just say that his motto was, "Don't ask, don't tell." And all those handsome Dutch boys who surrounded him shared those sentiments.
~ Where does this leave the Jacobites? Any rebellions?
~ England, in the old days, could not hold on to its properties in France, and eventually probably would not have been able to keep the string with Holland, either. Even if the Dutch had wanted it. The English of old seemed to be able to hang on to something for a while, but not forever.
They still have Gibraltar, but will that last forever? And, in this earlier case, one has to ask if the Dutch -- neighbors to the Germans and that country's culture -- would want to be part British? Forever.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
