English/Protestant House of Wittelsbach?

This question is kind of a long one so bare with me. In 1714 Queen Anne of Great Britain died childless and was succeeded by her distant cousin George I of Hanover. He was the heir of Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia and protestant, thus making him the only acceptable heir. My question is, what if the Male line descendents of Elizabeth Stuart continued? Either with Rupert of the Rhine marries and has children or his nephew Charles II, Elector Palatine has issue. So how would this change history? Would the nine years' war still occur? Would the Palatinate enter a person Union with Britain?
 
Ah. I feel like the sower chap in the Bible.

Lawful protestant male issue of either Rupert or his nephew would almost certainly inherit the British thrones after the decease of Ann. (assuming a reasonable degree of sanity, intellect etc) . He would have everything going for him - protestant - Calvinist too (vitally important that), and an arguable case to be the heir by right of hereditary descent . The Torys would all support him (except the out and out JacobiteS) ; and the Whigs would not object (except the out and out republicans). And his family were well known in England (especially Rupert), unlike George of Hanover . And the palatinate was regarded as the champion of Protestantism. It would be a shoo-in.

I think the nine years war would be largely the same, it wasn't only about the palatinate. Louis would not have the succession claim as an excuse, but he never really needed much of an excuse to seize territory, anyway.
 
Ah. I feel like the sower chap in the Bible.

Lawful protestant male issue of either Rupert or his nephew would almost certainly inherit the British thrones after the decease of Ann. (assuming a reasonable degree of sanity, intellect etc) . He would have everything going for him - protestant - Calvinist too (vitally important that), and an arguable case to be the heir by right of hereditary descent . The Torys would all support him (except the out and out JacobiteS) ; and the Whigs would not object (except the out and out republicans). And his family were well known in England (especially Rupert), unlike George of Hanover . And the palatinate was regarded as the champion of Protestantism. It would be a shoo-in.

I think the nine years war would be largely the same, it wasn't only about the palatinate. Louis would not have the succession claim as an excuse, but he never really needed much of an excuse to seize territory, anyway.

I wonder what reason Louis would use to start the war. Anyway, it the main branch gets the throne, would the Palatinate share the same monarch, or would the throne go to a second son? The Palatinate is a lot different than Hanover. Much harder to enforce and to go to and from. The English Wittelsbachs (I would guess that would be what Ruperts issue would be called) would have less problems and more well known in England. I wonder if the Act of Union would still be forced threw or no? After all the main reason it was passed was out of fear that Scotland would pick a different King after Anne died, perhaps even her half-brother James.
I wonder what excuse Louis would use to start the war.
 
I wonder what reason Louis would use to start the war. Anyway, it the main branch gets the throne, would the Palatinate share the same monarch, or would the throne go to a second son? The Palatinate is a lot different than Hanover. Much harder to enforce and to go to and from. The English Wittelsbachs (I would guess that would be what Ruperts issue would be called) would have less problems and more well known in England. I wonder if the Act of Union would still be forced threw or no? After all the main reason it was passed was out of fear that Scotland would pick a different King after Anne died, perhaps even her half-brother James.
I wonder what excuse Louis would use to start the war.

Probably still an act of union, because it's not going to butterfly away Jacobites in Scotland.
 
Probably still an act of union, because it's not going to butterfly away Jacobites in Scotland.

That's my feelings as well. Even if the Dukes of Cumberland (the English title Rupert was given) were well known and close to the throne I suspect they would still be a fear that Scotland would break with Union of Crowns. Though an unintended consequence of the English Wittelsbachs might be a stronger Monarchy. After all the early Hanovers needed Prime Ministers because they didn't understand English law and customs and, for George I, didn't speak English. Those problems wouldn't exist here.
 
I wonder what reason Louis would use to start the war. Anyway, it the main branch gets the throne, would the Palatinate share the same monarch, or would the throne go to a second son? The Palatinate is a lot different than Hanover. Much harder to enforce and to go to and from. The English Wittelsbachs (I would guess that would be what Ruperts issue would be called) would have less problems and more well known in England. I wonder if the Act of Union would still be forced threw or no? After all the main reason it was passed was out of fear that Scotland would pick a different King after Anne died, perhaps even her half-brother James.
I wonder what excuse Louis would use to start the war.

I very much doubt any "second son" arrangement. That would be in effect to deem the Throne a nominative or elective one. Which was then an absolute no-no to all bar the more extreme Whigs. Remember, divine right is still alive and kicking at this stage. Sophie's claim rested very much on the fact that, if you exclude Roman Catholic lines, she was, in fact, the next heir to the throne. Since the Protestant God obviously hated Papists , that gave her the sanction of divine right.

I'm not sure that the Palatinate is harder to get to - in peace time anyway, and war is always an uncertainty. Easiest way, down the Rhine.

I think the Scottish problem would be much the same . Moreover, the Act of Union preceded the accession of Geo I. Queen Ann would still succeed as OTL, and the Jacobites would not see *Charles III as having any greater claim than Geo I . The Scottish Act of Security wasn't really based on an objection to Sophie/George as such, just an objection to English domination
 
Though an unintended consequence of the English Wittelsbachs might be a stronger Monarchy. After all the early Hanovers needed Prime Ministers because they didn't understand English law and customs and, for George I, didn't speak English. Those problems wouldn't exist here.
I had wondered about that point, but OTOH the rising importance of Parliament & the Ministers actually seems to have begun under Anne (who apparently wasn't very interested in the details, as long as her own favourites were favoured, although admittedly there was her use of the veto on one occasion) if not William III (with his attention partly focussed on his Dutch interests, instead) rather than just under George I... and Rupert had seen first-hand in the ECW what a serious disagreement between King and Parliament could lead to, and might have taught his child[ren] to be wary about proovking more such trouble. I'd expect a slightly stronger monarchy if Rupert's heir had inherited much of his intelligence, but probably not attempts to exert the level of royal control to which the first four Stuart kings of England//GB had aspired.

There's another potential line of Wittelsbach succession, too. Rupert's younger brother Maurice also came to England, and fought for the Crown during the ECW, but died from illness while taking part in a naval expedition (under Rupert's command) during that period. If he had lived too, then marriage and an heir might not have been beyond the bounds of possibility for him.
 
Of course no Hanoverian succession to the crown of Britain would also mean that Britain wasn't as firmly tied to protecting Hanover as IOTL. Obviously we still wouldn't have wanted to see the French establish control over the area, but other than that?
 
Of course no Hanoverian succession to the crown of Britain would also mean that Britain wasn't as firmly tied to protecting Hanover as IOTL. Obviously we still wouldn't have wanted to see the French establish control over the area, but other than that?

I'd imagine that Hanover would remain a second tier German power. Hell it might stay smaller. Didn't George I add a lot of territories to Hanover during his reign as King of Great Britain? So without British influence to back him up, he might never get the new territories.
 
Maybe the British government might even support the acquisition of the more westerly of those areas by our Dutch allies, instead?
 
Top