Sophia of Brunswick dead in childbed. What now?

As most know, the Act of Settlement , 1701, settled the crown of England (and Scotland Ireland etc) on Sophia of Hanover and her descendants (failing descendants of Will III , Mary II and Ann).

In OTL 1701 Sophia was alive , 71 years old , and had a numerous brood of children.

But, what if, in 1660, a young Sophia did a Princess Charlotte , died in childbed, giving birth to the OTL future George I. And the infant died with her?

Now this would probably pass relatively unnoticed in England at the time. The Restoration, succession of James II, marriage of the latter, Revolution, succession of Will III, Mary, then Ann, all proceed as OTL. But, what are the Parliament to do, in 1701, when they come to consider where to settle the crown. There is no Sophia, or descendants thereof. And I , for one, am perplexed where they might seek for another Protestant heir.

There is a living female descendant of Sofia's brother Karl-Ludwig of the Pfalz, who has issue . But she is Roman Catholic (as are her children) and married to the Duc d'Orleans , Quite unsuitable.

There is a living daughter of Sophia's other brother Edward :Bendicta-Henrietta, daughter of Edward, Count Palatine. But she is also Romish, and married to John Frederick, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, also a Papist (the only one of his line), older brother of OTL Sofia's husband. Also unsuitable, not being Protestant.

And Benedicta's older sister , married to the insane Prince de Conde. Roman Catholic, wife of a great French peer, quite unsuitable.

Other than that, the line of Elizabeth of Bohemia, the Winter Queen, is extinct.

There are descendants of Charles II's sister Henrietta Anne. Anne Marie d'Orleans, Queen of Sardinia, and her children, Queens of Spain, Dauphine of France, Kings of Sardinia. All Roman Catholic, all great princes, all quite unsuitable.

I can identify no other descendant of James I & VI . There are a few noble families with tenuous links to the Tudor royal line, a few with even more tenuous Plantagenet claims. And , of course, the exiled James II & VII, and his children.

Your challenge : What will the Parliament do ? If they abandon the "being Protestant" clause, then it is well nigh impossible to deny the claims of James II & VII, and his issue. If they insist on a Protestant prince, where is one to be found ?
 
A possibility.

He did have children by his lawful wife, Anne, Duchess suo juro, of Buccleugh. But he was not only illegitimate (and no royal bastard had been legitimated since Plantagenet times, and none ever specifically to enable them to inherit, even Louis of France didn't go that far ), but attainted as well.(unless someone could come up with those mysterious casket letters)

Still, a desperate Parliament might overlook all that. Though, with those obstacles, could they prevail against the Jacobite's who could point to a lawful, legitimate King, whose only problem was his religion.
 
I can't be sure he wasn't Catholic, but Robert Bruce, Lord Bruce (OTL 1679-1741) seems the next in line: he is Henry VII's third daughter Mary Tudor's first daughter Frances Brandon's second daughter Catherine Grey's first son Edward Seymour's first son William Seymour's fourth son Henry Seymour's first daughter Elizabeth Seymour's eldest son. He also has the advantage of being descended from the Stewart's, a long way back.
 
I can't be sure he wasn't Catholic, but Robert Bruce, Lord Bruce (OTL 1679-1741) seems the next in line: he is Henry VII's third daughter Mary Tudor's first daughter Frances Brandon's second daughter Catherine Grey's first son Edward Seymour's first son William Seymour's fourth son Henry Seymour's first daughter Elizabeth Seymour's eldest son. He also has the advantage of being descended from the Stewart's, a long way back.

Jesus, with a succession like that the Jacobites might just have a better chance.
 
The surviving Stuart descendants are all rather Catholic - both Parliaments would have had a real crisis after the death of William of Gloucester (Princess Anne's only surviving child)

Henrietta Duchess of Orleans descendants (senior heirs general after the Old Pretender)

1) Anne Marie d'Orleans (granddaughter of Charles I)
2) Victor Amadeus, Prince of Piedmont (d1715)
3) Charles Emmanuel of Savoy
4) Prince Louis of France (later Louis XV)
5) Prince Louis of Spain (later Louis I of Spain)
6) Prince Philip of Spain
7) Ferdinand of Spain (later Ferdinand VI)

If you then go to Elizabeth Stuart's descendants it doesn't get much better

First up us Elizabeth's granddaughter - Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatine
and her descendants:

2) Philippe d'Orléans Duke of Orléans
3) Louis d'Orléans
4) Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans
5) Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans
6) Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans
7) Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans
(he had two more daughter's born after 1714)
8) Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans
9) Léopold Clément, Hereditary Prince of Lorraine
10) Francis (later Holy Roman Emperor)
11) Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine
12) Elisabeth Therese of Lorraine
13) Anne Charlotte of Lorraine

after her are the descendants of Edward of the Palatine Count Simmern
his three daughters
1) The issue of Louise Marie Princess of Salm
2) Anne Princess of Conde and her numerous issue
3) Benedicta Duchess of Brunswick Luneburg and her issue

That exhausts the legitimate descendants of James VI and I -

In other words the nearest English heir is going to the be the senior descendants of Mary Tudor (sister of Henry VIII) - but it is a very distant claim and is not without question - particularly given the Jacobite sympathies of Charles Bruce's father.

Mary Tudor - Frances Brandon - Catherine Grey - Edward Seymour - William Seymour -Henry Seymour - Elizabeth Seymour - Charles Bruce 3rd Earl of Ailsebury and 4th Earl of Elgin. (his older brother Robert died without issue i believe)
Catherine Grey's sons were legitimised during the reign of James VI and I.

In Scotland the line is even more distant -
James II - Mary - James Hamilton - James Hamilton - John Hamilton - James Hamilton - James Hamilton - Anne Duchess of Hamilton (died 1716) married to William Douglas 1st Earl of Selkirk - James Hamilton 4th Duke of Hamilton
 
By his 2nd marriage, Elector Charles I Louis had a daughter Karoline, who entered into a morganatic and arguably bigamous marriage to the Meinhardt Schomberg, Duke of Schomberg, and had issue. As such, the children were Protestant, and English.

OTL the bigamy was enough for Parliament to reject this branch; here they may not have a choice (since they want a descendant of James I in order to keep Scotland from splitting).
 
By his 2nd marriage, Elector Charles I Louis had a daughter Karoline, who entered into a morganatic and arguably bigamous marriage to the Meinhardt Schomberg, Duke of Schomberg, and had issue. As such, the children were Protestant, and English.

OTL the bigamy was enough for Parliament to reject this branch; here they may not have a choice (since they want a descendant of James I in order to keep Scotland from splitting).


She also had a brother living in 1701. But the problem with them, is that they were (some of) the famous Raugravs. Product of a marriage between Karl Ludwig and Frau von Degenfield, which marriage was unarguably bigamous (by the laws of both England and Germany) and a mesalliance, an unlawful marriage by the laws of Germany (and the Pflaz) . That marriage was not even morganatic, Karl Ludwig created the special title of Raugravine for her.

The bench of bishops would have apoplexy.And no court in Europe would have recognised such a succession. The Raugravs were universally ostracised

Still if Parliament is desperate enough, it is at least royal blood.

The same objections apply there as apply to the legitimization of the issue of one of Car II's bastards.
 
If it's as early as 1660 that Sophia dies then that still leaves her brother Prince Rupert -- who's a staunch Prortestant -- around as a potential claimant. IOTL he lived until 1682, but never married and therefore never produced any legitimate heirs, but with butterflies....

See also https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=286974 and https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=274952&highlight=Rupert.

Rupert never married because of the universal German younger son problem. By the laws of Germany he could only marry a princess. But no princess wanted to look at a penniless younger son. His older brother Karl Ludwig refused to grant him an appanage.

This would be unlikely to change with the death of his sister.

The problem is , that until the death of the young Duke of Gloucester in 1700, no-one really realized there was a problem. Had the *succession problem surfaced earlier, Parliament might well have made Rupert an allowance sufficient to marry on (he would have been willing enough). But by 1700, when the problem surfaced, Rupert was long dead.
 
Rupert never married because of the universal German younger son problem. By the laws of Germany he could only marry a princess. But no princess wanted to look at a penniless younger son. His older brother Karl Ludwig refused to grant him an appanage.

This would be unlikely to change with the death of his sister.

The problem is , that until the death of the young Duke of Gloucester in 1700, no-one really realized there was a problem. Had the *succession problem surfaced earlier, Parliament might well have made Rupert an allowance sufficient to marry on (he would have been willing enough). But by 1700, when the problem surfaced, Rupert was long dead.

With such an exhausted succession, could we see the Jacobites being stronger here?
 
With such an exhausted succession, could we see the Jacobites being stronger here?


Well that was my underlying thought.

OTL a good many men were unhappy at the idea of the crown going to an unknown German prince(ess). But, felt that a better option than a Papist King.

But, if they were required to swallow legitimising a bastard to make him king, or some claimant whose title was lost in the mist of many centuries, many might swing the other way.

Moreover, one the critical points of the Hanoverian succession was when the Dukes of Somerset and Argyle invaded the Council meeting, and persuaded Queen Anne to place the Treasurer's staff in the hands of the Duke of Shrewsbury.

The relative clarity of the Hanoverian claim (a lawful, legitimate Protestant prince, a direct descendant of the still revered Queen of Bohemia, and own nephew to Prince Rupert) gave them a moral strength in that endeavor.

Would they have had the same courage, or the same reception, if espousing the cause of a far more doubtful candidate ?

My own belief , is that absent Sophia, the problem of identifying a suitable claimant would have been sufficient to swing the balance to James II & VII , and we would have seen some sort of accommodation. Or perhaps a different result in 1708 or 1715 .
 
William III ? Forced to remarry? Good luck with that !

Why not? Without any Protestant available to be the heir of the British kingdoms, and Anne constantly having troubles with giving birth to healthy children, William could be the last hope of those who don't want a Catholic succession. Maybe "forced" is the wrong word, but he probably could be "convinced" to remarry in order to save England from the Popists.
 
Well that was my underlying thought.

OTL a good many men were unhappy at the idea of the crown going to an unknown German prince(ess). But, felt that a better option than a Papist King.

But, if they were required to swallow legitimising a bastard to make him king, or some claimant whose title was lost in the mist of many centuries, many might swing the other way.

Moreover, one the critical points of the Hanoverian succession was when the Dukes of Somerset and Argyle invaded the Council meeting, and persuaded Queen Anne to place the Treasurer's staff in the hands of the Duke of Shrewsbury.

The relative clarity of the Hanoverian claim (a lawful, legitimate Protestant prince, a direct descendant of the still revered Queen of Bohemia, and own nephew to Prince Rupert) gave them a moral strength in that endeavor.

Would they have had the same courage, or the same reception, if espousing the cause of a far more doubtful candidate ?

My own belief , is that absent Sophia, the problem of identifying a suitable claimant would have been sufficient to swing the balance to James II & VII , and we would have seen some sort of accommodation. Or perhaps a different result in 1708 or 1715 .

I remember our conversation about a Jacobite coup in 1714, so I would guess there would be a strong possibility of success. But that's what I was thinking. If the succession was to go to a legitimized bastard line or to a relative so distant that even the genealogists had trouble figuring out how he or she was related to Anne and William many people might just swing around to the Jacobites. And if the cause looks to be more successful we could see more French support, either money wise or militarily. Either way the Jacobites would stand a very good chance in TTL.
 
How about Frederica von Schomberg. Actually she, not Sophia of Hanover was the most senior heir of James VI & I to be protestant, so she should've been chosen queen.


Essentially the same option proposed below by Mr Rube. And the same problem, that her descent lay through the union of Karl Ludwig of the Palatine and the Raugravine, a union condemned as bigamous, and unlawful (not to mention immoral and blasphemous) by German and English law . The latter even more so than the former. By English law, her mother (through whom she must toll her descent) was indubitably a bastard.

In her case, and likewise in those of any of Car II's bastards' issue, there was the problem that the descent could only be regularized by the passing of a law retrospectively legitimizing the bastard offspring (Karoline, the Raugrau, Monmouth etc). As far as I am aware such a thing had never been done , and would be legally very dubious.

The requirement was a lawful Protestant heir. And there was none. (unless someone comes up with that mysterious casket, or the missing register page) . No lawful Protestant heir, can the claims of Jac II & VII be resisted ?
 
Top