Sophia of Brunswick dead in childbed. What now?

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 ?

I agree. At this point we might see a slogan of "Better a Papist then a Bastard" which sums up the entire succession problem. Who would England want: a bastard, a legitimate heir who's claims go back to Henry VIII's older sister, which would mean the loss of Scotland, or the legitimate oldest son of James II, who, though Catholic, would have the best claim. In a country like England, legitimacy gos a long way.
 
She's still a Catholic. And what are the English gonna do, kidnap her in a reverse Gunpowder plot? Not to mention I can't see her betraying her brother.

No, but they could invite her back, nice pension and secure position as heiress in return for conversion, and then marry her to someone like Francis Scott, Duke of Buccleuch - great-grandson of King Charles II in the male line and 1st cousin (once removed) of Queen Anne.
 
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.

The problem here is the timing. Until the unexpected death of the Duke of Gloucester, there was no great reason to suppose that England needed to be saved. There was an undoubted, lawful Protestant heir (and quite a decent young man by accounts). And he was well past the dangerous years of childhood - even in the 17th century, teenage boys were usually a healthy lot. Of course, a spare is always handy . But not essential. And Gloucester didn't die until 1700, only two years before William died. And when Mary II died in 1694 (only 8 years before her husband), Anne was only 29 years old. Still very young .Few would reasonably have expected that a young woman, who had already given proof of fertility, would not produce the required heir.
 
No, but they could invite her back, nice pension and secure position as heiress in return for conversion, and then marry her to someone like Francis Scott, Duke of Buccleuch - great-grandson of King Charles II in the male line and 1st cousin (once removed) of Queen Anne.

First off, would Louisa be allowed to accept such an invitation? Remember Louisa's home, France, was at war with Britain until 1713/14 so I can't see Louisa going over the channel. Not to mention would Louis XIV even ALLOW her to leave, assuming she wants to take the throne. Not to mention would Louisa want to betray her family for a Nation that would make her a figurehead, a place that wouldn't respect her religion, a place she would have no protector to help her? My guess: No. It would be James III or nothing.
 
The problem here is the timing. Until the unexpected death of the Duke of Gloucester, there was no great reason to suppose that England needed to be saved. There was an undoubted, lawful Protestant heir (and quite a decent young man by accounts). And he was well past the dangerous years of childhood - even in the 17th century, teenage boys were usually a healthy lot. Of course, a spare is always handy . But not essential. And Gloucester didn't die until 1700, only two years before William died. And when Mary II died in 1694 (only 8 years before her husband), Anne was only 29 years old. Still very young .Few would reasonably have expected that a young woman, who had already given proof of fertility, would not produce the required heir.

Exactly. William of Gloucester seemed fairly healthy and Anne had constant pregnancies, so from a Protestant POV Anne could produce another child. When the Duke died, the succession was suddenly in jeopardy. The idea of William III remarrying has merit, but could he produce a child? Aside from a pregnancy by Mary, there was no other sign of William's own fertility. No bastards, no pregnancy scare from a mistress, nothing. Plus, even if he remarried, there's no guarantee that he would have a child before his death. Also, Anne was 35 in 1700, not 29.
 
Yes. 29 though in 1694 when Mary died, which was the earliest William could think of remarrying. (though he wouldn't probably, until 1700 when Gloucester died, which is probably what you are think of. But then he had only two years to live, not much time to find a wife, marry and produce an heir)
 
Yes. 29 though in 1694 when Mary died, which was the earliest William could think of remarrying. (though he wouldn't probably, until 1700 when Gloucester died, which is probably what you are think of. But then he had only two years to live, not much time to find a wife, marry and produce an heir)

Oh my bad:eek:.
 
Yes. 29 though in 1694 when Mary died, which was the earliest William could think of remarrying. (though he wouldn't probably, until 1700 when Gloucester died, which is probably what you are think of. But then he had only two years to live, not much time to find a wife, marry and produce an heir)

He died from a freak accident involving a mole's burrow. He hardly had only two years to live.
Remember that the Act of Settlement of 1701 already declared that Sophia and her descendents woud get the throne if Anne and William didn't have heirs of their blood. So IOTL William didn't have much pressure to remarry, as the question of the Protestant succession was much more secure. However, ITTL there is no Sophia to be mentioned in the document, and Gloucester would be dead. There would be a lot more pressure to secure a Protestant succession. Probably the butterflies caused by this would be enough to secure that his horse doens't meet that mole's burrow.
 
To be sure. We cannot attempt to account for all possible butterflies. By the same token, William could ITTL die somewhat earlier. Or Gloucester not die at all. It is even possible that some rather large butterfly could butterfly away the Glorious Revolution altogether, leaving James II & VII still on his throne. We can only proceed on the basis of a minimalist interpretation, assuming only what necessarily and logically flows from the original PoD.

You are quite right to note that although we, in hindsight, know that William would die in 1702, he, of course, did not. However, logically, this, if anything, would make him less likely to rush precipitately into re-marriage, since he would have no idea that there was a deadline (no pun intended) involved.
 
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.

Those are good points. I’d been thinking that he might have married a British noblewoman, but if he wants to maintain — and transmit to whatever heirs he might have — his full status as a member of the House of Wittelsbach (with his sons still in the line of succession to inherit the Rhenish Palatinate and even, at least in theory, Bavaria) then his bride has to be either outright royalty or [at least] from a ‘princely’ House whose head holds lands under ‘imperial immediacy’. And from what I’ve read about him, he probably would have wanted that. Damn…
I wonder whether Rupert might have been willing to drop the ‘princely family’ requirement if he’d met & fallen madly in love with a British noblewoman whose family was too important for him to just take her as a mistress while still keeping himself legally free to marry a more ‘suitable’ candidate? I don’t know enough about him to say.

Re the financial side of things: Bearing in mind how small some of those German principalities were, after perhaps several generations of dynastic subdividing, I wonder how much of an income Rupert would have needed in order to seem suitable as a match for a younger daughter from one of the smaller principalities? I must admit that his finances aren’t something that I’ve considered in the past. Presumably he had enough money from one source or another to maintain a reasonable (although not extravagant) style, but how much and where from? Did his dukedom of ‘Cumberland’ actually have any lands attached to the title, alienated from the royal estates or perhaps (considering the title’s “north-western” roots) from the Duchy of Lancaster, or was he reliant solely on an official ‘pension’ and/or the salaries for various official positions [whether as sinecures or actually with duties carried out]f? If the latter was the case then I can see why a potential bride’s father might be concerned about the next generation’s income.
(Checking on Wikipedia, I see that it says he had a pension of £4’000 a year which was the second-highest one that Charles granted, and also held several official positions.)
Re how acceptable his status as an Elector’s younger brother and a King’s nephew (with other heirs already ahead of him in both those lines of succession) would have seemed to a potential princely father-in-law: Do you think that it might have helped if Charles II had been inspired to borrow an idea from the French and assigned Rupert the rank — transmissible through the legitimate male line — of ‘Prince of the Blood’, with precedence over all non-royal British peers?

I wonder whether there’s any way in which he could have acquired the Lordship of Mann which arguably would have placed him in a situation comparable (in this case in relation to the Kings of England) to ‘imperial immediacy’, and whether that might have helped to win over potential princely papas-in-law?
For that matter, if Rupert could be persuaded that the Lord of Mann’s status would be considered princely enough under Imperial laws, I wonder whether any Lord of Mann during the relevant period actually had a daughter or sister available for Rupert to marry? In those days the lordship was held in conjunction with the [English] Earldom of Derby, by members of the Stanley family, so it should be possible to check.

Ah.
Also from the Wikipedia article:
In 1673, Rupert was urged by Charles Louis to return home, marry and establish an heir to the Palatinate, as it appeared likely that Charles Louis's own son would not survive infancy. Rupert refused, and remained in England.[124]
Perhaps Sophia having already died (as well as Maurice, and any other siblings whom they'd lost by then IOTL) would have made Rupert think more about the risk of Charles Louis & son dying, and the need to produce a potential replacement heir, so that he would have followed Charles Louis's suggestion then?
 
Last edited:
That could make for an interesting TL itself...

Gloucester surviving could be interesting since England/Scotland would gain a close Ally in Denmark/Norway (as his uncle/cousin is king there) ... They're prehaps descending (or rather, Sweden Ascending) but certainly still a viable dancing partner if given a bit of support
 
The Parliament has overthrown two Kings in the last 50 years. I hardly think they'll care that much about the legitimacy of the monarch if the other option is a Catholic restoration.
 
The Parliament has overthrown two Kings in the last 50 years. I hardly think they'll care that much about the legitimacy of the monarch if the other option is a Catholic restoration.

Surely that depends at least partially on who controls Parliament when Anne kicks the bucket?
 
Yes. 29 though in 1694 when Mary died, which was the earliest William could think of remarrying. (though he wouldn't probably, until 1700 when Gloucester died, which is probably what you are think of. But then he had only two years to live, not much time to find a wife, marry and produce an heir)

If William III were to remarry, I notice that King Frederick IV of Denmark had a very Protestant sister, Sophia Hedwig, who in OTL remarried unmarried after three engagements fell through. She would have been 23 in 1700.
 
If William III were to remarry, I notice that King Frederick IV of Denmark had a very Protestant sister, Sophia Hedwig, who in OTL remarried unmarried after three engagements fell through. She would have been 23 in 1700.

That could work. Whats interesting about William having a son by a second marriage is that it has the potential to continue the Union with the Netherlands. Sure the Stadtholdership wasn't hereditary yet but William's son would be the strongest contender for the position. Also, with a son for William III, we could see Scotland maintain its independence longer, without the possibility of Scotland passing away from England or worse, restoring James III.
 
That could work. Whats interesting about William having a son by a second marriage is that it has the potential to continue the Union with the Netherlands. Sure the Stadtholdership wasn't hereditary yet but William's son would be the strongest contender for the position. Also, with a son for William III, we could see Scotland maintain its independence longer, without the possibility of Scotland passing away from England or worse, restoring James III.
Not continue. First Anne would be queen while (lets call William's son) Willem IV becomes stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, etc. Unless he is still too young (likely) when William III dies and you get another stadholderless age, until they decide to appoint him stadholder for some reason (basicly like OTL, but with the son of William III, instead of the Frisian branch). But if he is already king of England (because Anne died, before Willem IV could become stadholder), the chances of him becoming stadholder will be smaller (although certainly not zero), as it is possible they would prefer the Frisian branch.

Actualy, in short the personal union* will not continue, but it is possible, maybe even likely that you get a second personal union.

* not that it would be a personal union. Willem IV would not become king of the Netherlands, but stadholder, which is a totaly different position and he would be stadholder only of some provinces, like Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overijssel and unlikely Drenthe. Actualy, I could in theory see Holland choosing the Frisian Nassaus as stadholder (severely limiting the influence of Willem IV in the Netherlands), while Gelre chooses Willem IV. Although Holland might prefer a stadholder in England, so they can basicly rule themselves, while the stadholder is busy ruling England.
 
Top