WI/AHC: Rupert of the Rhine, King of Britain?

No, it doesn't.

Its puts Elizabeth on the throne, then her two OLDER sons, and only then Rupert. Karl Ludwig only predeceased Rupert by two years and their eldest brother, Henry Frederick, who drowned as a young man in exile in the Netherlands IOTL, wouldn't meet that fate in this universe and so would still live.

Its not an impossible challenge, but it requires you to kill off at least four people (Charles I before kids, Elizabeth, her two older sons) before Rupert comes to the throne.

No, it doesn't. Just Charles. Parliament gets to pick the monarch in the event of an interregnum. Tradition dictates the next in line, but, as we know, they can ignore it. If they decide that Rupert's older brothers are "unsuitable" for one reason or another, they could offer it to Rupert. For that matter they could skip Elisabeth and go straight to Rupert, if they decide than Elisabeth's husband is too likely to interfere or get them involved in a war.
 
No, it doesn't. Just Charles. Parliament gets to pick the monarch in the event of an interregnum. Tradition dictates the next in line, but, as we know, they can ignore it. If they decide that Rupert's older brothers are "unsuitable" for one reason or another, they could offer it to Rupert. For that matter they could skip Elisabeth and go straight to Rupert, if they decide than Elisabeth's husband is too likely to interfere or get them involved in a war.

Ahem, Parliament only got to decide due to the results of the Glorious Revolution that put William & Mary on the throne.
As such male preference primogeniture will be followed thus Elizabeth then her eldest 2 sons before Rupert.
 
The second son may be favored in this case because he is unlikely to get Britain in any personal unions. So you need just to get a date in 1629 when Henry Frederick is drowned and Charles II is not yet conceived, and Parliament being against personal union with Palatinate driving England headfirst into expensive war.
 
No, it doesn't. Just Charles. Parliament gets to pick the monarch in the event of an interregnum. Tradition dictates the next in line, but, as we know, they can ignore it. If they decide that Rupert's older brothers are "unsuitable" for one reason or another, they could offer it to Rupert. For that matter they could skip Elisabeth and go straight to Rupert, if they decide than Elisabeth's husband is too likely to interfere or get them involved in a war.

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but yes, it does put Elizabeth and the older sons in line. There isn't any precedent as The Professor points out before the Glorious Revolution for Parliament to pick and choose. You might say "tradition" but point to ANY time in British history where Parliament has acted in this way.

Plus Parliament in the 1620s LOVED Elizabeth. They supported her through a series of loans voted easily through the Commons not only through the 1620s and 1630s but into the 1640s and 1650s when they were at war with her brother/had executed him. Its very unlikely that they would pass over her in favour of her third son. Just like its unlikely that they would ignore Karl Ludwig. It doesn't matter if he seems a weirdo - he's the heir. Plus, as I pointed out earlier they also LOVED Karl Ludwig. In fact Rupert was probably their least favourite of all of Elizabeth's children IOTL.

Plus, when it came to the Palatinate issue - why would Rupert be less likely to involve the country in foreign wars than the other brothers or his parents? IOTL he spent much of his early years fighting the Spanish and Catholic Germans because of his commitment to the cause.

The second son may be favored in this case because he is unlikely to get Britain in any personal unions. So you need just to get a date in 1629 when Henry Frederick is drowned and Charles II is not yet conceived, and Parliament being against personal union with Palatinate driving England headfirst into expensive war.

The problem with 1629 is that you've got a matter on months between Henry Frederick dying in January and Charles dissolving parliament and beginning his eleven years of personal rule. If he dies during Personal Rule, or in any time period dies with enough time to specify his heir (which would be Elizabeth without a doubt) in a will, there is no place for any decision making on the part of Parliament.
 
The problem is that this scenario almost completely ignores the motivation of all the people you've named and the realities of the 1670s.

Why would Anne Hyde, who was perfectly happy living secretly as a Catholic, persuade James to announce his faith, knowing full well the shitstorm it would unleash?
Because she's dying, and under the influence of an aggressive confessor; James is already King, and the priests want his overt support. James declared his faith before succeeding OTL; why is it implausible he would do it as King?
Why would William III, who IOTL spent months preparing his landing out of fear of being attacked, just turn up on his own?
Because he's only 22 years old and doesn't have twenty years experience of political maneuvering? The Rampjaar hasn't discredited the Dutch Republicans, his position in the Netherlands is very weak, and England looks like a chance to acquire a strong position that he could use to take over the Netherlands.
Why would the Dutch let him?
He wasn't a prisoner.
Why would James simply flee the country?
It's what he did OTL.

IOTL he went to Ireland...
He fled England in a panic. No one at that time had actually demanded his abdication; nearly all commentators that I've read say he had a decent chance of keeping his crowns if he had stood firm. Indeed, it's generally agreed that William deliberately connived at James' escape. ITTL, the anti-James sentiment is more violent.

Parliament love Karl Ludwig. It doesn't matter that he's weird - they really did like him...

So you say... Not sure why they would. AIUI, he'd been suspect since his earlier visit to England and intrigues with Parliament. And, as I noted, he's aggressively pursuing an alliance with France that would not be appreciated in England (the marriage of his daughter to Monsieur). Besides which, he could come down with a case of galloping trots that leaves him unfit for much of anything for a while.

England needs someone to step in now.
 
Because she's dying, and under the influence of an aggressive confessor; James is already King, and the priests want his overt support. James declared his faith before succeeding OTL; why is it implausible he would do it as King?

Its not impossible - I've never said it was impossible, but I still believe the scenario as presented is implausible. Anne being under the influence of a deathbed scenario is one thing, but actively pushing James to overtly declare his faith is, I believe, a stretch. IOTL James kept his conversion secret for quite a long time, hedging until 1676. But yes, I've never said it couldn't happen.

Because he's only 22 years old and doesn't have twenty years experience of political maneuvering? The Rampjaar hasn't discredited the Dutch Republicans, his position in the Netherlands is very weak, and England looks like a chance to acquire a strong position that he could use to take over the Netherlands.

He wasn't a prisoner.

Again, yes, but it requires a person we know historically was very cautious to take a huge leap into the unknown. Whilst, as you point out, there's no accounting for age, he has a weaker claim in this timeperiod without his marriage to Mary and added to that in 1670 the Netherlands was under direct threat from France meaning he would want to stay in place and not risk allowing the French in by taking ship to England. IOTL in 1688 William spent several years planning his move and had the added claim of being married to Mary and even then only set sail when he had been assured he had the support of a substantial group of English worthies. Again, by no means impossible, but it requires quite a substantial personality shift on the part of William III.

It's what he did OTL.

He fled England in a panic. No one at that time had actually demanded his abdication; nearly all commentators that I've read say he had a decent chance of keeping his crowns if he had stood firm. Indeed, it's generally agreed that William deliberately connived at James' escape. ITTL, the anti-James sentiment is more violent.

My objection here wouldn't be why would James flee, but why would he just give up. As you say, there was substantial support for James in some parts of the Kingdom and IOTL he hasn't overplayed his hand and cracked down after Monmouth, so no Bloody Jeffreys to limit his popularity. My problem was that, as you yourself point out, James had relative support. Why, after seizing the figurehead of the rebellion and succeeding, as he did IOTL with Monmouth, would James THEN flee? I agree he panicked in 1688 - but the Williamite Wars in Ireland prove he had at least some fight in him.


So you say... Not sure why they would. AIUI, he'd been suspect since his earlier visit to England and intrigues with Parliament. And, as I noted, he's aggressively pursuing an alliance with France that would not be appreciated in England (the marriage of his daughter to Monsieur). Besides which, he could come down with a case of galloping trots that leaves him unfit for much of anything for a while.

England needs someone to step in now.

I don't really know how I can prove this to people without page references that I don't have to hand, but Parliament really did love Karl Ludwig. They pay of his loans, invite him over to stay, and generally send him notes telling him how much they love him in the 1650s and 1660s. Yes he was suspect as you point out, but that was by the King's Party in the 1630s and 1640s. By 1670 many MPs are going to be the ones who were more pally with him - the moderates purged by Cromwell but who return to Parliament in 1660.

Even if he does come down with sickness it doesn't really matter imho - that is how succession works! Crowning Rupert risks Karl Ludwig recovering and then turning up with his own forces and claim - hardly a recipe for peace in England especially, as you point out, if he has secured alliance with the French who may be very unhappy about an aggressive Rupert on the throne.

I'd just also like to say more generally to people in this thread - I've never at any point actually said I think this is ASB. I've in fact been careful not to use those terms, which I think are often just rude short hand. But I do think this AHC is implausible, hence my comments. Some people are knowledgeable about the Eastern Front, some people know lots about the American Civil War - Britain 1600-1900 is my thing.

If people want to write the timeline, write it. I'm not objecting. I'm just pointing out some of the problems. :(
 
Again, yes, but it requires a person we know historically was very cautious to take a huge leap into the unknown. Whilst, as you point out, there's no accounting for age

I think perhaps you underestimate the difference between a 22-year-old just starting out and a 42-year-old with an important position to lose.

Another thought: William goes to England with the overt mission of marriage to Princess Mary; intrigue for the throne is only a tacit possibility to begin with. Then when he's there, various figures approach him... No, that doesn't work - Mary was only 10 years old, and James was against the marriage OTL. This would be William seeking a long-term betrothal that James wouldn't want to start with, much less maintain for several years.

Damn. I can't think of any clever way to get William to England.

... he has a weaker claim in this timeperiod without his marriage to Mary and added to that in 1670 the Netherlands was under direct threat from France meaning he would want to stay in place and not risk allowing the French in by taking ship to England.

Since he doesn't command in the Netherlands, would he really see his absence having that risk?

My objection here wouldn't be why would James flee, but why would he just give up. As you say, there was substantial support for James in some parts of the Kingdom and IOTL...
ITYM "ITTL".

... he hasn't overplayed his hand and cracked down after Monmouth, so no Bloody Jeffreys to limit his popularity.
ITTL James "overplays his hand" (exactly the right metaphor!); he's declared his Catholicism, his heir is Catholic, he's appointed numerous Catholic favorites to office, he's filling ecclesiastical vacancies with "tantivy men". He's responded to unrest with arbitrary arrests, and "just keeps digging" (IYKWIM).

Finally, he has William arrested and then executed. Foolish and counterproductive, of course - but James' OTL record is a list of foolish and counterproductive acts. As with Imperial Japan in 1940-1941, it's hard to argue that he wouldn't be that dumb and/or crazy.

I don't really know how I can prove this to people without page references that I don't have to hand, but Parliament really did love Karl Ludwig. They pay of his loans, invite him over to stay, and generally send him notes telling him how much they love him in the 1650s and 1660s.
"...the 1650s and 1660s"?? The Parliaments in the 1650s were the Rump, the Barebones Parliament, and then the Rump again.

In the 1660s, there was the Convention Parliament, and then the Cavalier Parliament. It seems very odd that Karl Ludwig would be loved by both the Puritans of the Rump or Barebones, and the Royalists of the Convention and Cavalier Parliaments.

Even if he does come down with sickness it doesn't really matter imho - that is how succession works!
Sometimes. And then sometimes not. I can't cite one off the top of my head, but there were cases of "lawful heirs" passed over because they were half-witted, epileptic, or insane. Not always, but it did happen, in a few cases which IIRC involved remote foreign heirs.

Crowning Rupert risks Karl Ludwig recovering and then turning up with his own forces and claim...
Is there really any way Karl Ludwig could bring an army to England (other than a French-backed invasion)? In theory, passing over Karl Ludwig for Rupert could be like Henry Bolingbroke displacing the Mortimer line, and open the road to a new War of the Roses. But in practice? I doubt it. I note that for all the later rhetoric of the Yorks and the fabulizing of Shakespeare, the Mortimer claim was ignored by Mortimer himself at the time.

Besides which, if Karl Ludwig was to succeed, that would put his daughter (Louis XIV's sister-in-law!) in the line of succession. If as OTL KL's son dies without issue, then England passes to her and then to the House of Orleans... So that's a reason to pass over him. Another is his "wife", the Raugrafin, and their children, whom KL might insist be regarded as legitimate and therefore next in line. I note that OTL, the Raugravines were ignored in the 1707 Succession Act.

- hardly a recipe for peace in England especially, as you point out, if he has secured alliance with the French who may be very unhappy about an aggressive Rupert on the throne.
If France is going to push anyone for the throne, surely it would be to restore James.

I'd just also like to say more generally to people in this thread - I've never at any point actually said I think this is ASB. I've in fact been careful not to use those terms, which I think are often just rude short hand. But I do think this AHC is implausible, hence my comments. Some people are knowledgeable about the Eastern Front, some people know lots about the American Civil War - Britain 1600-1900 is my thing.
By all means share your knowledge.

However - inasmuch as the succession ultimately went to Rupert's junior nephew, I don't see that it is intrinsically implausible.

If people want to write the timeline, write it. I'm not objecting. I'm just pointing out some of the problems. :(
I wouldn't try to write this; I haven't got half the background needed. I just took a stab at the AHC.

Here's an alternative. During the exile years, Charles dies, and James converts publicly to Catholicism to gain support from France. Then in 1660, the Convention Parliament then passes over James for the youngest brother Henry, who takes the throne. I think Henry would accept - he was a determined Protestant and had quarreled with James.

Henry in the meantime has met Karl Ludwig, and finds him repulsive. (He was present in Palatinate at the time of Karl's "divorce" of his first wife and bigamous second "marriage".)

Henry marries, but his two children die in the Great Plague, and his wife miscarries, leaving her fertility in doubt (and in fact removed).

He has Parliament pass an Act of Succession naming his cousin Rupert as his successor (after) of any future children. Then Henry himself dies of smallpox in 1671. But oops. William is still out there. Well, he can die off too at some earlier date. Brute force, but not impossible.

Rupert succeeds and reigns for 11 years.
 
Last edited:
Top