What If The Glorious Revolution Failed?

The Actual History

The Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 marked a pivotal moment in British history when King James II was deposed and replaced by his daughter Mary II and her husband William of Orange (later King William III). This bloodless coup fundamentally transformed England's governmental structure and established critical constitutional principles that continue to influence modern democracies.

James II, a Catholic monarch in a predominantly Protestant country, ascended to the English throne in 1685. His reign quickly generated tension as he implemented policies favoring Catholics, appointed them to influential positions in government and military, and attempted to secure religious tolerance through the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, which suspended penal laws against Catholics and Protestant dissenters. While ostensibly promoting religious freedom, many Protestants viewed this action as James using royal prerogative to circumvent parliamentary authority.

The crisis intensified when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son in June 1688. This Catholic male heir threatened to establish a permanent Catholic dynasty, displacing James's Protestant daughters Mary and Anne in the succession. Rumors spread that the infant was an impostor smuggled into the queen's bedchamber in a warming pan, reflecting the deep suspicion among the Protestant establishment.

In response to these developments, seven prominent English noblemen (the "Immortal Seven") invited William of Orange—James's Dutch nephew and son-in-law—to invade England. William, a committed Protestant with his own dynastic ambitions, assembled a large invasion fleet of approximately 500 ships and 15,000 men, landing at Torbay in southwest England on November 5, 1688.

James's position rapidly collapsed as military commanders, nobility, and even his younger daughter Anne deserted him. After an initial attempt to resist, James fled London in December, throwing the Great Seal into the Thames in a symbolic rejection of his responsibilities. He was captured in Kent but allowed to escape to France, where his cousin Louis XIV provided refuge.

The Convention Parliament assembled in January 1689 declared that James had abdicated by fleeing and offered the crown jointly to William and Mary, who accepted along with the Declaration of Rights (later formalized as the Bill of Rights 1689). This document established critical constitutional principles: it prohibited the monarchy from suspending laws or levying taxes without parliamentary consent, guaranteed free elections and parliamentary debates, outlawed standing armies in peacetime without parliamentary approval, and ensured the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. Additionally, the Act of Toleration granted freedom of worship to most Protestant dissenters, while the Act of Settlement 1701 solidified the Protestant succession.

The revolution extended beyond England to Scotland, where Jacobite resistance was suppressed, and to Ireland, where James's Catholic supporters were defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. These military campaigns, often overlooked in the "bloodless revolution" narrative, resulted in significant casualties, particularly in Ireland.

The Glorious Revolution had far-reaching consequences. It established the primacy of Parliament over the Crown, setting England on a path toward constitutional monarchy. It secured Protestant succession, influencing British religious and political identity for centuries. The revolution also positioned Britain for its rise as a global power, as William brought the country into European alliances against France, beginning the long Anglo-French rivalry that would define much of the 18th century's global conflicts.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Glorious Revolution failed? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where James II successfully maintained his grip on the English throne despite William of Orange's invasion in 1688, fundamentally altering the development of constitutional monarchy, religious tolerance, and global power dynamics.

Several plausible paths could have led to this divergence:

First, the weather—a critical factor in William's successful crossing—could have worked against him. Historically, William's first attempt at crossing was thwarted by unfavorable winds, forcing him back to port. In our alternate timeline, a prolonged period of storms in November 1688—not uncommon in the North Sea during autumn—could have severely damaged William's invasion fleet or delayed his landing until winter, giving James precious time to organize a more effective defense and secure loyalties.

Alternatively, James II might have received better intelligence about the impending invasion. With advance warning, he could have purged questionable officers from his army and navy, replacing them with proven Catholics and loyalists. The historical defection of John Churchill (later Duke of Marlborough) and other key military leaders devastated James's defensive capabilities. Had James preemptively removed these figures, his forces might have mounted a credible resistance.

A third possibility involves French intervention. Louis XIV, recognizing the strategic threat posed by William, could have committed substantial French naval forces to the English Channel earlier and more decisively. A French fleet intercepting William's invasion force might have crippled the Dutch attempt before it reached English shores.

Perhaps most consequentially, James might have adjusted his political approach upon learning of William's preparations. Instead of doubling down on unpopular policies, a more pragmatic James could have temporarily moderated his pro-Catholic stance, reinstated Protestant officers, and made limited concessions to Parliamentary concerns, thereby undercutting William's justification as a Protestant savior and preserver of English liberties.

In this timeline, through some combination of these factors, James II successfully repels William's invasion attempt. William's fleet suffers significant damage from autumn storms, and upon landing finds not a welcoming population but organized resistance from a better-prepared royal army. The anticipated defections among key military leaders fail to materialize at the critical moment, and William's forces, far from their supply lines and facing the onset of winter, cannot maintain their position. By January 1689, William is forced to withdraw his remaining forces to the Netherlands, his grand expedition ending in humiliating failure.

Immediate Aftermath

Consolidation of Royal Authority

Following William's failed invasion, James II would have viewed his victory as divine validation of his policies and Catholic faith. Emboldened rather than chastened, he would likely intensify efforts to consolidate royal authority and advance Catholic interests throughout his realms.

The immediate response would involve systematic retribution against those implicated in supporting William's cause. The "Immortal Seven" who signed the invitation to William—including the Bishop of London, the Earl of Danby, and other prominent nobles—would face treason charges. Some might escape to exile in the Netherlands or other Protestant territories, while others would face imprisonment or execution. This purge would extend beyond the original conspirators to encompass suspected sympathizers throughout the aristocracy, clergy, and government administration.

Parliament, already in a contentious relationship with James, would face further marginalization. James might dissolve the existing Parliament and delay calling a new one, governing instead through royal prerogative. When eventually compelled to summon Parliament for financial reasons, he would employ the techniques used by his brother Charles II: careful electoral manipulation, bribery, and intimidation to secure a more compliant assembly.

Religious Policy Acceleration

Religion would dominate the post-invasion domestic agenda. James would accelerate his program of Catholic restoration with renewed confidence. The Declaration of Indulgence, which had suspended penal laws against Catholics and Protestant dissenters, would be reissued and more aggressively enforced. Catholic appointments to key positions in government, military, universities, and the judiciary would increase dramatically.

Anglican institutions would face particular pressure. James would continue installing Catholics in college and university leadership, as he had attempted at Magdalen College, Oxford. The Anglican Church, viewed as a hotbed of resistance to royal authority, would see its independence curtailed through an expanded ecclesiastical commission with sweeping powers to discipline clergy and regulate church affairs.

Ironically, Protestant dissenters might initially benefit from James's policies. The suspension of penal laws would grant them unprecedented freedoms, creating a temporary alliance of convenience between the Crown and these traditionally marginalized groups. However, many dissenters would remain suspicious of James's ultimate intentions, seeing Catholic toleration as a Trojan horse for eventual Catholic dominance.

International Reactions and Alliances

Internationally, James's victory would significantly alter European alignments. Louis XIV of France, who had been preparing for war on the continent, would celebrate this unexpected diplomatic windfall. With his Protestant rival William humiliated and England remaining under a Catholic monarch, Louis would propose a formal alliance with James, potentially offering military and financial support.

This Anglo-French alliance would alarm other European powers. The Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and various German and Italian states would worry about the combined power of England and France disrupting the European balance. The Dutch Republic, reeling from William's defeat, would face potential diplomatic isolation and increased pressure from France.

Protestant states across Europe would receive an influx of English exiles, including political figures, religious leaders, and wealthy merchants seeking to escape religious persecution or political retribution. These exile communities would become centers of anti-James sentiment, publishing pamphlets and maintaining correspondence networks with sympathizers still in England.

Economic and Military Developments

The economic consequences would be substantial and immediate. The failed revolution would trigger financial uncertainty, with merchants and financiers concerned about political stability and religious policy. Some Protestant merchants and bankers might relocate their operations to Amsterdam, Hamburg, or other continental financial centers, taking their capital and expertise with them.

The Bank of England, which in our timeline was established in 1694 as part of the financial revolution following William and Mary's accession, would not be created in its historical form. Instead, James would pursue different financial arrangements, possibly establishing a royal bank more closely modeled on French institutions and under tighter Crown control.

Militarily, James would recognize the vulnerability exposed by William's invasion. He would likely expand the standing army, particularly units with Catholic officers, while purging Protestant officers of questionable loyalty. The English navy, whose defection had been particularly damaging in the actual timeline, would undergo similar restructuring with an emphasis on ensuring the religious and political reliability of its leadership.

By 1690, England under James II would be a transformed country—more authoritarian, more explicitly Catholic in its orientation, and increasingly aligned with Louis XIV's France against the Protestant powers of northern Europe. The constitutional evolution that occurred under William and Mary would be delayed, with royal power ascendant and Parliament diminished. However, beneath the surface, tensions would continue to simmer as suppressed Protestant opposition sought opportunities to challenge the new order.

Long-term Impact

Constitutional and Political Development

The failure of the Glorious Revolution would profoundly alter the constitutional trajectory of England and, subsequently, Great Britain. Without the 1689 Bill of Rights, the relationship between Crown and Parliament would develop along significantly different lines.

James II, having weathered the most serious challenge to his authority, would likely continue ruling with an expanded view of royal prerogative. Parliamentary authority, which grew steadily throughout the 18th century in our timeline, would instead face systematic constraints. Regular parliaments might become less frequent, with James following his father Charles I's example of attempting to rule for extended periods without parliamentary sessions when financially possible.

The legal and political principles established by the historical Bill of Rights—parliamentary consent for taxation, prohibition of standing armies in peacetime without parliamentary approval, free elections, and the right to petition the monarch—would remain contested rather than settled constitutional questions. This would create a fundamentally different political foundation for the nation's development.

By the early 18th century, political structures in this alternate Britain would more closely resemble continental absolutism than the constitutional monarchy that developed historically. However, English common law traditions and the historical independence of the judiciary would create limitations on royal power that didn't exist in France, producing a distinctive hybrid system—a form of "tempered absolutism" rather than pure autocracy.

Religious Evolution and the Church

The religious landscape of Britain would undergo dramatic transformation in this alternate timeline. James II, who lived until 1701 in actual history, would have over a decade to implement his religious policies after defeating William's invasion. During this period, Catholicism would regain significant institutional presence in English society.

The Catholic Church would regain property, establish seminaries and schools, and develop a network of parishes alongside the Anglican establishment. Monasteries and convents, dissolved during the Reformation, might be reestablished in limited numbers. By 1700, perhaps 15-20% of the English population might have converted to Catholicism, primarily among the aristocracy and those seeking royal favor.

The Church of England would face an identity crisis. Without the clear Protestant succession established by the Glorious Revolution, Anglicanism might evolve in a more High Church direction, emphasizing elements compatible with Catholicism. Some Anglican clergy might convert to Catholicism, while others would maintain Protestant doctrine while accepting outward conformity to royal religious policy.

Protestant dissenters would face a complex situation. Initially benefiting from James's policies of religious tolerance designed primarily for Catholics, they would eventually find themselves in a precarious position as Catholic influence grew. Many dissenting communities, particularly Presbyterians and more radical groups, might emigrate to North America in larger numbers than occurred historically.

The Stuart Succession and Dynastic Politics

The Catholic succession secured by James II would fundamentally alter dynastic politics in Britain and Europe. James's son, James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender" in our timeline), would succeed his father as James III around 1701. Raised as a devout Catholic with absolutist political principles, his reign would likely continue his father's policies.

Mary and Anne, James II's Protestant daughters who successively ruled after the Glorious Revolution in our timeline, would face difficult choices in this alternate world. They might remain in England under surveillance, flee to Protestant territories in Europe, or perhaps make pragmatic accommodations with their father and half-brother to maintain their positions in the succession, possibly even converting to Catholicism.

The Hanoverian succession that brought George I to the British throne in 1714 would never materialize. Instead, the Stuart dynasty would continue through James III and eventually to his son Charles Edward Stuart (known as "Bonnie Prince Charlie" in our history), who would become Charles III around the mid-18th century.

Anglo-French Relations and European Power Politics

England's alignment with France would reconfigure European power politics. Rather than engaging in the century-long Anglo-French rivalry that characterized the 18th century in our timeline, the two kingdoms would form the core of a powerful Catholic alliance system.

This Anglo-French bloc would dominate western European affairs, potentially controlling outcomes in conflicts like the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). Spain, which historically lost significant territories in this conflict, might maintain more of its empire under Anglo-French protection, creating a Catholic triumvirate dominating Europe and global colonial possessions.

Protestant powers—particularly the Dutch Republic, Prussia, and other German states—would be forced into defensive alliances, possibly with Austria, creating a bipolar European system divided along religious lines. This religious polarization might extend the religious wars of the 17th century well into the 18th, delaying the Enlightenment's secularizing influence.

Colonial and Global Implications

The colonial map would be dramatically redrawn. Without the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht (which in our timeline gave Britain control of territories including Gibraltar, Minorca, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay Territory), imperial boundaries would develop differently. France might retain more of its North American territories, maintaining "New France" as a viable colonial enterprise into the late 18th century.

In North America, the predominantly Protestant English colonies would find themselves in an increasingly uncomfortable position as their mother country shifted toward Catholicism. This could accelerate independence movements, perhaps leading to revolutionary action decades earlier than in our timeline. Alternatively, increased Catholic migration to these colonies might change their religious and political character, creating divided loyalties during any independence movements.

The broader British Empire would develop along different lines. Without the financial revolution that followed the Glorious Revolution—including the establishment of the Bank of England and the national debt—Britain would lack the financial infrastructure that helped fund imperial expansion in our timeline. This might result in a smaller British colonial footprint, with France, Spain, and the Netherlands controlling larger portions of global trade routes and territories.

Scientific and Intellectual Development

The Enlightenment would still emerge as an intellectual movement, but its expression in English culture would differ significantly. Rather than the empirical, politically liberal tradition represented by Locke, Newton, and later Hume, English intellectual culture might align more closely with Continental traditions, particularly French Cartesianism.

Catholic universities and educational institutions would gain prominence, potentially bringing elements of Counter-Reformation intellectual traditions to England. Jesuit educators, known for their rigorous approach to both sciences and humanities, might establish influential colleges, creating a different foundation for English intellectual development.

Scientific progress would continue but might follow different institutional patterns. The Royal Society, established before James II's reign, would likely face greater religious oversight and pressure to reconcile scientific findings with Catholic doctrine. Some English scientists might emigrate to Protestant countries, creating brain drain similar to what France experienced after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

Revolutionary Ideas and Political Philosophy

By 2025, the concepts of constitutional government, religious pluralism, and individual rights would still exist in this alternate world, but their development and expression would differ markedly from our timeline. The Enlightenment concepts of popular sovereignty and constitutional limitations on government might have emerged more strongly in the American colonies, Scandinavia, or the Netherlands rather than in Britain.

Instead of being viewed as a pioneer of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary supremacy, Britain in this timeline might be seen historically as a bulwark of traditional authority and Catholic restoration—a society that followed a path more similar to Spain or France than the liberal democratic trajectory it pioneered in our world.

The absence of the Glorious Revolution would remove a key reference point for later revolutionary movements. The American and French Revolutions, which both drew inspiration from England's "bloodless revolution," would develop from different intellectual foundations or might occur in substantially altered forms.

In this alternate 2025, political scientists and historians might study "The Great Divergence"—the moment when England turned away from constitutionalism toward absolutism—as one of history's critical turning points, wondering what might have happened had William of Orange succeeded in his bold gamble to reshape English governance.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jonathan Mitcham, Professor of Stuart History at Cambridge University, offers this perspective: "The failure of the Glorious Revolution would have preserved royal sovereignty at a critical juncture when England was deciding between absolutist and constitutional paths. James II's victory would have aligned England more closely with Continental models of governance. The Bill of Rights and its constitutional innovations emerged from specific political circumstances that would be entirely absent in this alternate timeline. By the mid-18th century, I believe we would see an England with stronger monarchical authority, greater religious stratification, and a Parliament that functioned more as an advisory body than a legislative counterweight to royal power. The ripple effects on colonial development, particularly in North America, would be profound, potentially accelerating independence movements among Protestant colonists unwilling to accept Catholic authority."

Professor Eliza Harrington, Chair of Comparative Political Development at Princeton University, approaches the scenario from a different angle: "We often underestimate the resilience of English common law traditions and the gentry's attachment to their ancient rights. Even if James II had repelled William's invasion, he would have faced continuing resistance to Catholic absolutism. I envision a cycle of rebellions similar to those that occurred under the later Stuarts, potentially leading to a delayed but perhaps more violent revolution by the early 18th century. The fascinating question is whether such a delayed revolution would produce more radical outcomes—perhaps an English republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. The American Revolution in our timeline drew heavily on English constitutional precedents established after 1688; without these precedents, colonial revolutionary movements might have embraced more radical Enlightenment principles from the outset."

Dr. Miguel Santayana, Director of the Institute for Religious History in Madrid, provides a perspective on the religious dimensions: "A successful Catholic restoration in England would have fundamentally altered the religious balance of Europe. Protestant powers would have been considerably weakened, while the Counter-Reformation would gain renewed momentum. However, I believe James II would eventually have been forced to adopt a policy of pragmatic toleration similar to what emerged in parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Complete Catholic uniformity was simply unachievable given England's deeply Protestant character after 150 years of Reformation. What might have emerged instead was a multi-confessional state with a Catholic monarchy, Catholic aristocracy, and predominantly Protestant commoners and merchants—a situation that would create ongoing tensions but might also foster earlier development of concepts of religious coexistence out of practical necessity."