AHC:Rupert I of England

Have Prince Rupert of the Rhine, nephew of Charles I, become King of England. I suppose perhaps Charles dies early, childless, and eventually Rupert becomes King? Your thoughts:)
 
Hm. There are several problems here.

Rupert was born in 1619. So , unless he is to live a Biblical lifespan, an accession to the throne must take place before the turn of the century , or very little after ward.

The suggestion that an early death of Car II, overlooks the fact that , by the rules of descent, both the King's brother James Duke of York; James's two daughters, Mary and Ann, and the descendants of the latter ; William III of Holland; Rupert's own older brother and nephew; and a good number of descendants of Charles's sister (since Romish claimants are not yet proscribed) have precedence of him. It would seem unlikely that all could be fortuitously eliminated.

If Rupert could somehow live to 1714 , it is possible that he might be declared as successor in preference to Sophie, most of the other claimants having in the mean time been removed, either by death or proscription. (The actual declaration would be in 1701 when he was "only" 82). But he would have to live to be 95! Remarkable, though not impossible.

By the laws of descent, Rupert, if living and Protestant in 1701 would have a better claim than Sophie (who was his younger sister). Whether that claim would be sufficient, in the absence of his having an heir, is questionable. But by no means impossible.

So, the best option would be for Rupert , firstly to marry a Protestant and produce an heir , and secondly live for a /very/ long time.
 
Hm. There are several problems here.

Rupert was born in 1619. So , unless he is to live a Biblical lifespan, an accession to the throne must take place before the turn of the century , or very little after ward.

I think he's talking about Charles I, and not Charles II. The problem is, if Charles I dies childless, then his sister Elizabeth becomes queen (assuming that she lives longer than Charles). And after Elizabeth, Rupert wouldn't be first in the line of succession, but his elder brother, Charles Louis, and his children would be ahead of him.
 
What if James had died before having children? He had several opportunities to get killed in battle during the Civil War, and again during his service in the French army during the interregnum.
 
You would still need to get rid of
William of Orange (he has a claim in his own right through his mother) ;
Carl Ludwig , Prince Rupert's older brother and his son;
and the descendants of Henrietta Ann , daughter of Charles I .

Quite a lot of them all told.All of whom would have a prior claim assuming that James Duke of York died childless, and Charles II died sometime before Rupert's OTL death in 1682. William of Orange has the best claim, and is Protestant, though of course there would be no Mary for him to marry.
 
Rupert would NEVER become King of England. There was simply to many people ahead of him. A descendent of his could become King, if he married and had legitimate children. Hell they would be guaranteed the throne if history stays the same and William, Mary and Anne die childless. Rupert's descendents would be the next Protestants in line.
 
I think he's talking about Charles I, and not Charles II. The problem is, if Charles I dies childless, then his sister Elizabeth becomes queen (assuming that she lives longer than Charles). And after Elizabeth, Rupert wouldn't be first in the line of succession, but his elder brother, Charles Louis, and his children would be ahead of him.

So, just bump off Charles Louis before he has descendants.
 
So, just bump off Charles Louis before he has descendants.

OK Rupert would NEVER become King without ASB. The only way that could happen is if Charles I dies, then his sister Elizabeth and HER oldest sons, Henry Frederich and Charles Louis. Its not realistic to have all of these people die around the same time, and childless. Like I said ASB.
 
OK Rupert would NEVER become King without ASB. The only way that could happen is if Charles I dies, then his sister Elizabeth and HER oldest sons, Henry Frederich and Charles Louis. Its not realistic to have all of these people die around the same time, and childless. Like I said ASB.

I'm not sure what's so unrealistic about that. Unlikely, but far from impossible.
 
Well he doesn't actually have to become king through primogeniture. I could see a potential for a bloodier civil war killing off the male dynasts and Rupert as the man on the spot, leading the royalists, being acclaimed king ahead of foreigners and women.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The Royal Martyr said:
England was never an elective kingdom but an hereditary kingdom for near these thousand years.

Impossible, I think, for Royalists of the period to go past that. Of, course, if there is no Car I (or he dies very young) we may never have a Civil War. But then Rupert is going to be largely unknown in England (prior to the war his older brother was somewhat known , but only as a fanatical Calvinist - not the sort to appeal to Royalists)
 
Top