Rupert of Wittelsbach, King of England?

OTL, King Henry IV of England had four sons and two daughters. However, his children were strangely unproductive; they produced few children, and only one legitimate male grandchild survived to adulthood -- Henry VI, son of Henry V.

However! OTL, Henry IV's daughter Blanche married Louis, the Wittelsbach Count-Elector of the Palatine. The marriage lasted only a few years, because Blanche died young, but it did produce a single son -- Rupert, Prince-Elector of the Rhine. (Not to be confused with the much later Rupert who fought in the English Civil War.)

Alas, Prince-Elector Rupert died young and left no issue. The Wittelsbach inheritance went to his younger half-brother by his father's second marriage, and the English crown went up for grabs in the Wars of the Roses.

So, the obvious WI: suppose Rupert had survived?

Well, we now have an older Lancastrian heir waiting in the wings as heir-presumptive to Henry VI. Sure, it's descent in the female line -- but it's a stronger claim than Richard of York's. And Rupert will take the Electoral dignity upon his father's death in 1436, when he's 30 years old. This will give him a power base of his own, and a title -- Elector -- that is superior to a mere Duke. (IMS it goes Emperor, King, Elector, Grand Duke, Duke.)

First, does this make the Wars of the Roses less likely? One one hand, Henry VI will still be incompetent and unpopular. On the other hand, in this TL rebelling against him is just opening the way for the Wittelsbach claim.

Second, if there's rebellion against Henry anyway, WI the Wittelsbachs intervene? I suspect that relations with France and Burgundy would complicate things considerably; does anyone know more?

Thoughts?


Doug M.
 
but it's a stronger claim than Richard of York's.

It isn't actually, at least not by the Yorkist argument, which traced it's claim straight through the senior line of Edward III. (Lionel of Antwerp, and then his issue, and then on to Richard of York) It's just as flaky as any other Lancastrian-derived claim.

Of course if the Wittelsbachs do become head of House Lancaster, then anything political is dependent on them purusing the claim. Bavaria is a fair bit away from England. Whatever happens in England, I can't really see it myself.
 
Last edited:
It isn't actually, at least not by the Yorkist argument, which traced it's claim straight through the senior line of Edward III. (Lionel of Antwerp, and then his issue, and then on to Richard of York) It's just as flaky as any other Lancastrian-derived claim.

Well, OTL the Yorkists accepted the Lancastrian claim... they just said that, Henry VI having proved himself totally incompetent, the line had effectively failed. The complete absence of other male Lancastrians was a great help here.


Of course if the Wittelsbachs do become head of House Lancaster, then anything political is dependent on them purusing the claim. Bavaria is a fair bit away from England.

This is the Palatinate branch -- a bit further north. And they had trade links to England (which is why the marriage was attractive in the first place).

-- Say for arguments' sake that the war goes as iOTL, and the Wittelsbachs sit out the first couple of rounds. Come the 1480s, they'd still have a much better claim than the Tudors...


Doug M.
 
Well, OTL the Yorkists accepted the Lancastrian claim... they just said that, Henry VI having proved himself totally incompetent, the line had effectively failed.

Not quite. The incompetence of Henry VI was the cause of his eventual fate, but not the justifcation the Yorkists gave for them being suitable candidates to replace the Lancastrians, which had a firm genealogical basis, and in fact trumped that of the Lancastrians.

The complete absence of other male Lancastrians was a great help here.

Uhm, Henry VI had a male heir - who he was forced to disown in favour of Richard Plantagenet.

This is the Palatinate branch -- a bit further north.

Ah right. In that case, I suppose it depends entirely on how politically energetic Rupert is.
 

Susano

Banned
And, despite being electors, a bit more powerless. Both are landlocked and far away from England... theyd have to raise an army in England without foreign support. I guess if there are no more Lancastrian-proper pretenders they could take over the Lancastrian side - but only then.
 
Top