WI: The House of Palatinate-Simmern instead of Hannover

Sophia was the recognized heir of England due to her Protestant religion, passing over any and all Catholic claimants. She had an older brother, the Count Palatine of Simmern, Edward. He was landless in the 1640s and settled in Paris, where he married Anne Gonzaga and later ended up being Catholic. Let's butterfly that marriage, and maybe have him instead marry in the 1660s a Protestant Princess of your choice. He might still die young, but if he manages to have any children, even a girl, they would be senior to Sophia of Hannover. Instead of the House of Hannover, we have the House of Palatinate-Simmern, a Protestant branch of the House of Wittelsbach. An especially interesting choice would see him marry a surviving Princess Elizabeth, but that may be too many butterflies. ;) I don't know if he'd live until 1714 (he seems to have lacked Sophia's constitution), but his heirs will be around, and will be the senior-most Protestant line. Let's assume he has a son, maybe named Edward, too. So instead of George I we get an Edward VII. Now what? Of course Parliament is in the ascendency, but especially with an English match, they could be more in tune with England, making them even more popular successors to Anne. Might the dominance that Parliament quickly gained over George I and II be a little bit slower, over the course of the whole of the 18th century?
 
I think the problem with him is that he lived in France, and so in order to gain more status he needed to convert to Catholicism. A better POD would be to make him migrate to a Protestant state, probably Sweden or Denmark, in order to find a good heiress, or keep him in Netherlands and find a good wife among the Nassaus.

IOTL two of his three daughters survived past 1715, so I think it wouldn't be unlikely that his alternate children could be alive to be declared the new monarchs of Britain.

I think the most interesting consequence if he is chosen is that his descendents wouldn't be the rulers of a foreign state, and so British policies could be kept more distant from continental affairs than IOTL. In the other hand, Britain wouldn't have a safe territorial support when involved in a war in the region. Also, as they would be low nobility, they probably could be even more pressed by Parliament that the Electors of Hannover.
 
Parliment had been on the rise since William and Mary, so that trend was going to continue.

George I couldn't speak English so relied on his First Minister to run things, if Edward (or who ever) could speak English better then Walpole would not get so powerful.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I think the most interesting consequence if he is chosen is that his descendents wouldn't be the rulers of a foreign state, and so British policies could be kept more distant from continental affairs than IOTL. In the other hand, Britain wouldn't have a safe territorial support when involved in a war in the region. Also, as they would be low nobility, they probably could be even more pressed by Parliament that the Electors of Hannover.

But if he did have a son that person would be heir to the Palatinate upon the death of Charles II, Elector Palatine in 1685. As a Simmern, even of a cadet line, his claim is still more senior to the Neuburg Line that inherited OTL. It could also change the Nine Years War which was instigated in part by France disputing the Palatine Succession. Long term the Palatinate will be much harder to hold against the French than Hanover so a single son is probably the worst scenario. All daughters and they don't get the Palatinate and two sons and the second one can get the Palatinate and attempt neutrality.

So interestingly a son would, prior to acceding to England, be either be exiled from the Palatinate, given a French Victory there, or ruling a devastated state, assuming an allied victory like OTL. Unlike the Neuburg Electors this Elector would have no other territories to draw from and would have only his war ravaged Rhenish domains. It seems not unlikely that he might simply abandon them to some governor and move to England to wait out Queen Anne. Not sure how the British would react to that though. And how popular he'd be if the British were seen as subsidizing the rebuilding and continuing defense of the Palatinate should he attempt that.
 
I think the problem with him is that he lived in France, and so in order to gain more status he needed to convert to Catholicism. A better POD would be to make him migrate to a Protestant state, probably Sweden or Denmark, in order to find a good heiress, or keep him in Netherlands and find a good wife among the Nassaus.

IOTL two of his three daughters survived past 1715, so I think it wouldn't be unlikely that his alternate children could be alive to be declared the new monarchs of Britain.

I think the most interesting consequence if he is chosen is that his descendents wouldn't be the rulers of a foreign state, and so British policies could be kept more distant from continental affairs than IOTL. In the other hand, Britain wouldn't have a safe territorial support when involved in a war in the region. Also, as they would be low nobility, they probably could be even more pressed by Parliament that the Electors of Hannover.

Well, as stated, they would still be the senior heirs to the Palatinate in 1685. The Palatinate, though, is no Hannover. I think we could take a page from Frederick I of Sweden, who was also the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel. He simply appointed his younger brother as Governor while using Hesse to fund his spending in Sweden. Assuming he has at least two sons (and they have surviving male issue), the line could split into a senior branch ruling in Great Britain and a junior branch with the Electorate; we could also see a Governor as sorts, as suggested. Although the Palatinate had been razed by Louis XIV, it was certainly recovering by the 18th century, and could play a vital role in financing court life--we could see money going to England from the Palatinate, although probably unlikely. Hesse was a relatively rich state while Sweden was not-so. I think a Governor and later a younger brother succeeding to the German domains is most likely. Taking Hannover was one thing, but the British won't care for the landlocked exclaves that made up the Palatinate.

I like the idea of a daughter of the Nassau--but as they wouldn't succeed to the Palatinate till 1685 (if they even do so), and keep close ties with the House of Orange, and the Stuarts as well. Several German Princes fought on the royalist side (Rupprecht 'of the Rhine' comes to mind), so I don't think close ties to England would be impossible. Maybe his son is even considered a good match for the Princess Anne instead of George of Denmark.

Parliment had been on the rise since William and Mary, so that trend was going to continue.

George I couldn't speak English so relied on his First Minister to run things, if Edward (or who ever) could speak English better then Walpole would not get so powerful.

Obviously. And I'm aware. But with English speaking heirs, such a scenario would not exist. The position as Prime Minister as we known it was born out of the early Hannoverians--William III and Anne both had a great deal more of power than them. With English speaking heirs, or at least more politically astute ones, we'd see Parliament continue to gain ascendency at a constant rate throughout the 18th century instead of the reigns of George I and II, then that of George III, who attempted to regain some of the powers of the crown at the expense of Parliament.

There's also the interesting concept of later down the line of the senior branch in Bavaria going extinct. Would these heirs of Simmern be the most senior in this case, as well?
 
Well, as stated, they would still be the senior heirs to the Palatinate in 1685.

Only if they are males. If he has only daughter as IOTL they wouldn't be heirs of the Palatinate under the Salic Law. Choose him a wife from a lower noble house (as he is landless), keep his family Protestant, make him have only daughters (who could be married to even less significant Protestant nobles) and then you could have a very wild heir for Anne in 1714.
 
Only if they are males. If he has only daughter as IOTL they wouldn't be heirs of the Palatinate under the Salic Law. Choose him a wife from a lower noble house (as he is landless), keep his family Protestant, make him have only daughters (who could be married to even less significant Protestant nobles) and then you could have a very wild heir for Anne in 1714.

True - but for the case of the scenario, let's posit he does have male issue, so we'll see the House of Simmern succeed in 1714. Daughters could lead to an even much different heir much how Sophia of Hannover was merely the closest Protestant heir (as the youngest daughter of the Winter King). If he had only daughters, the heir in 1714 could be quite bizarre. Staying in the Netherlands is probably the safest, as he could marry one of the younger daughters of Frederick Henry, but seeing him go on to Denmark or even Sweden is also pretty interesting. Maybe even in Courland? Jacob Ketteler had a few daughters, and they married quite well (a Landgravine of Hesse-Homburg, another of Hesse-Kassel) despite Courland's far afield position. As long as he remains in a Protestant state, I don't think finding him a wife would be too hard, as there would plenty of suitable German Princesses I think, even if of minor houses (but of course, not so minor that the marriage might be considered morgantic, although of course that would be no issue regarding the British succession).
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Staying in the Netherlands is probably the safest, as he could marry one of the younger daughters of Frederick Henry, but seeing him go on to Denmark or even Sweden is also pretty interesting. Maybe even in Courland? Jacob Ketteler had a few daughters, and they married quite well (a Landgravine of Hesse-Homburg, another of Hesse-Kassel) despite Courland's far afield position. As long as he remains in a Protestant state, I don't think finding him a wife would be too hard, as there would plenty of suitable German Princesses I think, even if of minor houses.

So then we assume Edward has a son, I'll go with Edward as well, with whoever he marries. Young Edward grows up wherever his father is, the Netherlands, Denmark, Hesse, Brandenburg, wherever. In 1685 he inherits from his cousin Charles II and becomes Elector Palatine as Edward I. The French invade in 1688 and he's in exile again, presumably going back to the Netherlands or wherever. Seems like the Nine Years' War would follow similar to OTL, unless this Edward is some kind of military genius and leads an army of protestant northern Germany against the French. Assuming he isn't the French pursue their scorched Earth policy in the Rhineland and when Edward finally gets it back after Ryswick in 1697 its completely devastated.

So Edward I begins the long process of rebuilding, ruling in a state that's seen almost all its cities destroyed and most of its population killed or forced to flee. Seems like the Act of Succession or something similar to it would probably follow shortly making him heir presumptive after Princess Anne, to King William III. So at this point Edward I is in his fifties (assuming he's born around the same time as Edward's children with Anna Gonzaga), so he's married by now and his kids have to be adults approaching marriage. Let's say he has at least one son, I'm going to call him Frederick to avoid confusion.

So I wonder if Edward I doesn't just go to England. What's to keep him in the Palatinate? After his experience with the Palatine Succession he may want to take extra steps to secure his position. This way Frederick can also be groomed as a future heir to the throne. Frederick's marriage will probably also be contracted with this in mind. On the other hand will the British really like the idea of an heir presumptive moving in like that. It is a bit... well presumptive, frankly. I suppose a lot depends on his relationship with William and Anne. This may come to a head in short order when the Palatinate is once again invaded by the French during the War of Spanish Succession. Should Edward or Frederick attempt to pressure the British into defending/recovering the Palatinate it may exacerbate those tensions. Then again given the threat of the Jacobites and in order to secure a protestant succession the British may welcome Edward and Frederick in order that their succession is handled smoothly. Certainly good behavior and a certain degree of respect and deference to British traditions would be necessary to sustain a favorable reputation for the Palatines through the reign of Queen Anne.

Either way it seems possible that Edward may not live to see the end of the War given his age at the time (mid-late 60s). So he may end up like OTL Sophia, dying just before Anne and never succeeding her. The difference is that his son, for better or worse, may have already spent several years in England before becoming King. As for the Palatinate Edward would have only ruled there since 1697 (Ryswick) and of that he only resided there for the first four. So would either Edward or Frederick really be that attached to it?, at least as compared to George and Hanover. Out of necessity and for lack of interest it seems like it will go to a second son as soon as one is available. Indeed that may be incorporated into the Treaty of Utrecht or its equivalent it Frederick has a younger brother or a second son by that time.
 
I don't know if he'd live until 1714 (he seems to have lacked Sophia's constitution), but his heirs will be around, and will be the senior-most Protestant line. Let's assume he has a son, maybe named Edward, too. So instead of George I we get an Edward VII.
Actually we don't. We get yet another Edward I (Longshanks wasn't the first Edward to be king in England).

The William and Mary thing was extremely confusing as there were many others who had better claim to the throne, but Mary had the distinction of being Protestant - bear in mind this happened before the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement.
 
Actually we don't. We get yet another Edward I (Longshanks wasn't the first Edward to be king in England).

How not?:confused: The last Edward was Edward VI, son of Henry VIII, so clearly this one would be Edward VII unless he had decided for a different regnal name.

The William and Mary thing was extremely confusing as there were many others who had better claim to the throne, but Mary had the distinction of being Protestant - bear in mind this happened before the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement.

I think you mean Sophia and not Mary, don't you? Mary was the eldest daughter of James II, the only claim better of her would be the one from the son of James II and Mary of Modena. There weren't many others with a better claim.
 
How not?:confused: The last Edward was Edward VI, son of Henry VIII, so clearly this one would be Edward VII unless he had decided for a different regnal name.
That was before Lillibet snuffed it and the English royal family became extinct (again). After 1603 and the succession of James VI, the English system fails (on this topic, the regnal number Elizabeth II for the present incumbent was chosen by Churchill, not by herself).

I think you mean Sophia and not Mary, don't you? Mary was the eldest daughter of James II, the only claim better of her would be the one from the son of James II and Mary of Modena. There weren't many others with a better claim.
There were many who had better claims - they weren't Protestants though.
 
That was before Lillibet snuffed it and the English royal family became extinct (again). After 1603 and the succession of James VI, the English system fails (on this topic, the regnal number Elizabeth II for the present incumbent was chosen by Churchill, not by herself).

So how after 1603 there were Mary II, William IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII?

There were many who had better claims - they weren't Protestants though.

Again, there were better claims than Sophia from people who weren't Protestants. Mary had only one two claims that could be higher than her: from her own father and her brother.
 
So how after 1603 there were Mary II, William IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII?

Because that is correct. English numbering took precedent, it didn't 'reset.' Regnal numbering was only reset once, and that was after William came over from Normandy. So Chookie is wrong, the prince would be known as Edward VII. Elizabeth's numbering was also correct; she was asked to choose a regnal name by Martin Charteris and she chose to remain Elizabeth. The numbering only caused controversy in Scotland because she is styled the second up north as well, and of course we know there was never an Elizabeth I of Scotland (this counteracts with the late Stuarts, who used both numberings--James II/VII, for instance). It was decided that after Elizabeth II, whichever regnal numbering is higher (Scottish or English) will take precedence.

Chookie is confusing things, I think, since as stated, regnal numbering was never reset, even after the Stuarts and the Union. And as you said, the only other better claimant than Mary II was her father himself, or her recently born baby brother.
 
Because that is correct. English numbering took precedent, it didn't 'reset.' Regnal numbering was only reset once, and that was after William came over from Normandy. So Chookie is wrong, the prince would be known as Edward VII. Elizabeth's numbering was also correct; she was asked to choose a regnal name by Martin Charteris and she chose to remain Elizabeth. The numbering only caused controversy in Scotland because she is styled the second up north as well, and of course we know there was never an Elizabeth I of Scotland (this counteracts with the late Stuarts, who used both numberings--James II/VII, for instance). It was decided that after Elizabeth II, whichever regnal numbering is higher (Scottish or English) will take precedence.

Chookie is confusing things, I think, since as stated, regnal numbering was never reset, even after the Stuarts and the Union. And as you said, the only other better claimant than Mary II was her father himself, or her recently born baby brother.
And of course noone even bothered to consider Irish numbering ;)

~snip text~
Yes that seems likely. Moreso if *Frederick I of Great Britain & Ireland has a younger brother.
What would the impact of lesser lands be on the UK's involvement in the continent? Especially if the Parliament has slightly less power wrt OTL in the same period.
Would France be more or less antagonistic with the Palatinate considering the UK's relationship?
 

Vitruvius

Donor
What would the impact of lesser lands be on the UK's involvement in the continent? Especially if the Parliament has slightly less power wrt OTL in the same period.
Would France be more or less antagonistic with the Palatinate considering the UK's relationship?

I'm not sure how it would change British posture, but I'm sure there are plenty of anglophiles here with greater expertise on British domestic politics who could comment on that. But as for the continent, if you want to assume Frederick has a younger brother and the Palatinate goes its separate way, I see a very tough road ahead for its ruler. Since we've given everyone one placeholder names I'll just call him Rupert.

Rupert is now a close relation, brother/son/uncle depending on exact circumstances, to the King of Great Britain. But his realm is right on the border of France, far from the the coast and British aid and the French have, within a generation, occupied and destroyed it. So I think he has to go beyond mere neutrality. One option would be extreme tacitly pro-French neutrality almost repudiating Britain just to avoid giving France any excuses to invade in next war. This may weaken the anti-French block, Hanover for example may join the Palatinate and the Dutch on the sidelines in future wars. In many ways this scenario would be the Finlandization of the Palatinate which I suppose would make the Netherlands and protestant North Germany the Sweden of this analogy.

The other option would be to rule the Palatinate as one big fortification, basically a hyper-militarized state at the vanguard of a British backed protestant-German anti-French alliance that could bring Hanover, Prussia, Hesse and the Rhineland together in common cause against the French. It would probably be like some kind of cross between Savoy and Prussia but smaller and with less room to negotiate different factions. Either scenario would potentially up end the next few wars on the continent, though the former probably more so than the latter. I think the position that Frederick and Britain take towards the continent will probably inform Rupert's foreign policy.
 
Top