AHC: As good as William of Orange?

Your challenge is to have the Glorious Revolution occur with someone other than William of Orange. They must have the following credentials that William of Orange had in OTL: 1. Religious, they must be Protestant. 2. Political, parliment is not going to accept an absolutist, constitutional experience required. 3. Dynastic, must have blood or marriage ties to house of Stuart. 3. Military, must have the strength to back up a coup.
 
Protestantism narrows it down to the descendants of Elizabeth of Bohemia, who were in line to the throne, and the Danish royal family, who weren't. So that limits it to the Danes funding an invasion to put Queen Anne and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, on the throne; or alternatively Charles II, Elector Palatine, surviving a bit longer and going for it himself.

However, Charles II was a crap ruler and died in 1685 IOTL, and his heir was his Catholic sister, and he was something like 7th or 8th in line to the throne, so the Parliamentarians who legitimised William's coup would be more likely to laugh him out of town than they were under William. If he did somehow manage to come to a settlement (very unlikely) it would give a lot more power to Parliament than the OTL Bill of Rights.

I don't see Danish foreign policy or George himself thinking up and executing such a daring move as the Glorious Revolution, but if they did, I would speculate that George would make an adequate monarch in a keeping-the-seat-warm manner. It probably wouldn't happen, though.

Maybe if Rupert of the Rhine lived longer?
 
William AND Mary

You're forgetting the significance of Mary II.

You need to detach the reality of rule post-1688 from the period BEFORE the Glorious Revolution.

It was Mary and Anne who put the groundwork into the Revolution's planning - William was a late and reluctant convert.

More importantly Mary's claim is much more important than William's. She was popular, Protestant, had a nice Protestant husband, and a nice Protestant heir in Anne. And no idea, yet, that the marriage would be childless.

Yes, William has a lot of good qualities, but in 1687 he was a series of bonuses, essentially, that came with Mary. They were a package deal but, to many, she was the more important.

So if you are removing him from the scenario I still think it is Mary, not some other person, who is the best bet. Think about it. OTL England already has an example of a wildly popular and successful female ruler (Elizabeth) and Mary was followed by another successful Queen (Anne) who's husband wasn't really much of a political entity. Mary fulfills the first three of your criteria and, depending on circumstances, could inspire enough of a military force.

Of course it depends on your idea of events - why is there no William III? Is he dead prematurely? Was he never born? If so - what has happened to Mary? Who has she married?

Also, as an aside, whilst Rupert is fetished by many today he was never a particularly popular figure in the 17th century. Its hard to imagine enough people warming to an aged Rupert, even though he is Protestant. Moreover, the House of Palatine was always a source of concern for Parliaments before and after the Civil War - they like that they are Protestants but hate the potential to be dragged into a European war. Which is already happening over the Palatine in 1688.
 
Protestantism narrows it down to the descendants of Elizabeth of Bohemia, who were in line to the throne, and the Danish royal family, who weren't. So that limits it to the Danes funding an invasion to put Queen Anne and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, on the throne; or alternatively Charles II, Elector Palatine, surviving a bit longer and going for it himself.

What about the Swedish royal family?
 
Top