And I think the former only travel at the speed of light, whereas the latter are instantaneous. But we’ll have to verify this with experiment. Any one got a spare grand duke who won’t be missed?
Part of the issue is that the letters patent creating most titles (there are some very old titles created in other ways) specify who is allowed to succeed. While the default has long been “heirs male of the body lawfully begotten,” there are exceptions. For example, the succession to the Dukedom of Fife was “the heirs male of his body by his marriage with H.R.H. Princess Louise of Wales … with remainder in default of such issue to their elder daughter Lady Alexandra Duff and after her decease to her heirs male, with like remainder in default of such issue to Lady Maud Duff and to her heirs male and in default of such issue to each of the after born daughters of the Duke of Fife and Princess Louise of Wales and the heirs male of the body and respective bodies of such daughters severally and successively one after another”; the Dukedom of Marlborough has a very complicated remainder that can go through female lines in an effort to find somebody, anybody, to inherit. Some other titles were granted with remainders allowing siblings or other relatives of the original holder to inherit, which is unusual (e.g., Earl Kitchener). A blanket change for all peerage titles would override special instructions unique to specific titles.
This may rock your world, but George III does not have the negative perception in the UK that he holds in the US. We don’t have much of an opinion about him really - ruled a long time, had a good marriage - but his son George IV was bloody awful.
Even with an army, them’s some mad negotiating skills. 
I sing the Georges four
for Providence could stand no more.
Some say that far the worst
of all was George the First,
and yet by some 'tis reckoned
that worse still was George the Second,
and what mortal ever heard
any good of George the Third?
When George the Fourth from Earth descended,
thank God the line of Georges ended.
–Walter Savage Landor
Not really accurate. William was offered the throne with his wife because he threatened to go home if he didn’t get it. If he had, Mary would have gone too, and the English elite would have been stuck with a succession crisis.
They needed William and Mary to displace James without returning to the bad old days of the Civil War.
The joint monarchy of William and Mary was also a limited monarchy, as laid down in the 1689 Bill of Rights, and accepted by William and Mary.
Wiki:
:smack:
Not really accurate. Anne, Mary’s sister, was also in line for the throne and actually preceded William. If Mary hadn’t accepted the throne, it could have been offered to Anne (who eventually succeeded William anyway.) Like Mary, Anne was Protestant, as was her husband Prince George of Denmark. The fact the William had landed with an army and caused James II to flee was a major factor in him getting the deal he insisted on. There were alternatives available.
It’s my understand that the William/Mary combination was essential to cement the fragile alliance between Whigs and Tories in Parliament which enacted the famous and enduring fudge declaring that James had abdicated the Throne by fleeing the country. Anne was a legitimate heir but was not a war leader like William.
It’s been a while since I read up on the subject though.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the Glorious Revolution didn’t take place in isolation. Events in Britain were only a small part of a far larger conflict engulfing the whole of Western Europe - the Nine Years’ War.
Nor was it a simple matter of Catholics vs. Protestants. Catholic Spain (and the Pope) were allied with several Protestant states against Catholic France and Ireland.
William’s landing in England prompted France to declare war on the Dutch Republic. In the immediately following Williamite War In Ireland, Dutch, French Huguenot, German and Danish troops together far outnumbered English and Scottish troops in the allied army fighting in Ireland. The Irish Catholic army was financed and supplied by France, had a large number of French regular troops, and was commanded by a French general.
Also involved in the conflict were the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Savoy. There were battles and sieges all over the place. Once Ireland had been subdued, English and Scottish troops crossed to the Continent and took part in the conflict in Holland and Germany.
So we have to see William becoming King Regnant of England and Scotland in that whole context. William was the highly capable and successful general holding together the Grand Alliance.
That’s sort of the point. William was already a recognized military leader in campaigns against the French. Leading political figures in England sent him an invitation to invade because he had an army, and were ultimately willing to accept his demands because he had a lot more prestige and political and military power in his own right than Anne and her husband. William and Mary weren’t the only game in town, but they were the best option for a stable monarchy. (Actually, the only practical effect of William’s demand was that he jumped the queue in front of Anne. If she hadn’t been around, he would have succeeded to the throne on Mary’s death anyway as the next heir in line.) You can quibble over how important his army was but the fact that he was a military leader in a time of crisis was what gave him the clout to be invited in and ultimately get his way.
Perhaps another Philip? Hmm. No, that didn’t work out too well last time: Philip II of Spain - Wikipedia
ETA: Ah, I see Colibri and others already discussed him.