Stolengood
Banned
Fairly self-explanatory; how could (or would) you make that happen? And what results would come of that?
I'm curious to see.
I'm curious to see.
WI/AHC: Rupert of the Rhine, King of Britain?
- Thread starter Stolengood
- Start date
He should fight for Parliament instead of for the King.
With him in command, the Roundheads probably win without needing to create a New Model Army, so Cromwell never rises to prominence. And if a defeated Charles I still won't meet their demands - the solution is obvious.
With him in command, the Roundheads probably win without needing to create a New Model Army, so Cromwell never rises to prominence. And if a defeated Charles I still won't meet their demands - the solution is obvious.
Such a suggestion basically requires you to completely handwave Rupert's entire personality though. The man was one of the most committed of the Royalists - there to fight for his Uncle and the wider dynasty.
An alternative might be, instead of Rupert, his elder brother. Karl Ludwig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_Louis,_Elector_Palatine
He went to London in 1644, took the Solemn League and Covenant, and largely endorsed the Parliamentary cause, leading to huge tensions with the rest of his family. Charles I and others thought that he might be trying to position himself as a replacement king, but imho it was more likely he was trying to curry support for an English invasion of his ancestral Palatine lands to evict the Habsburgs.
Trouble is he doesn't seem to have been any great shakes as a soldier - rather he was the political schemer in the family.
Now if he'd had the same personality, combined with Rupert's military skill - - -
Stolengood
Banned
The AHC. Is for RUPERT. To become King of Britain.
I would like to see HOW you could make THAT happen. Seriously. That.
I would like to see HOW you could make THAT happen. Seriously. That.
Simply put, there are too many bodies in the way.
In terms of dynastic succession he isn't even close.
In terms of military success this is scuppered after he surrenders Bristol (and imho he wasn't THAT good anyway)
In terms of politics, whilst Mikestone has a point about his chances being better if he thought for parliament this goes against his whole personality. AND there are people in the way in the order of succession.
I think you have two chances (both slim):
*IOTL his sister Sophia missed out on inheriting after Anne by two months - if Rupert had lived he would have preceded her in the succession order. BUT by 1714 he'd be a sprightly 95.
*If Charles II and James were captured and executed after defeat at Worcester that leaves only Henry - if he dies before the end of the Cromwellian rule then you might see Rupert "restored" as the rightful King, but this requires not just Henry to be dead but also for the Royalists to reject Karl Ludwig's prior claim as elder brother AND for many of the royalists that hated Rupert to have made peace with him beforehand.
In terms of dynastic succession he isn't even close.
In terms of military success this is scuppered after he surrenders Bristol (and imho he wasn't THAT good anyway)
In terms of politics, whilst Mikestone has a point about his chances being better if he thought for parliament this goes against his whole personality. AND there are people in the way in the order of succession.
I think you have two chances (both slim):
*IOTL his sister Sophia missed out on inheriting after Anne by two months - if Rupert had lived he would have preceded her in the succession order. BUT by 1714 he'd be a sprightly 95.
*If Charles II and James were captured and executed after defeat at Worcester that leaves only Henry - if he dies before the end of the Cromwellian rule then you might see Rupert "restored" as the rightful King, but this requires not just Henry to be dead but also for the Royalists to reject Karl Ludwig's prior claim as elder brother AND for many of the royalists that hated Rupert to have made peace with him beforehand.
Maybe in the 1620s.
Have Charles I die nine months or more before Charles II is born. That make Elizabeth of Bohemia Queen of Britain. Then have accident or illness carry off Rupert's two older brothers (iirc quite a few of EoB's children died relatively young for one reason or another) and it's Rupert, Prince of Wales (or maybe "Robert" if they anglicised his name).
Does it have to be Rupert himself?
If he has a legitimate protestant son, Rupert Jr, would not he be eligible over George?
If he has a legitimate protestant son, Rupert Jr, would not he be eligible over George?
Yup. But giving Rupert a legitimate son needs a POD so far back that it would mean hundreds of butterflies between then and the Act of Settlement being passed (if it's still needed). I suppose a faster way to the top might be for him to marry the Princess Mary (as was proposed shortly before/just after the Restoration) then when she died, the offer was made to Minette, as a way of letting her stay in England. Then you just need to get rid of Charles, William and James. Henry's dead. Afraid as consort might be the closest you're gonna get him to be king. Unless Mary dies in childbed with their only child who Rupert then becomes regent for.
Which gives you just as many butterflies but more AH intervention needed to grant him the throne.
Let's say Rupert that when Charles Louis asks him to marry as his own son looked likely to die young, he does so but still refuses to head out to the palatinate.
We'll give him a single son.
First major challenges then is whether the young Duke of Cumberland is for or against James.
If Karl II dies on schedule then 2nd Duke of Cumberland becomes a ruler of Palatinate. No War of Palatine Succession happens.
In fact, in my (first) TL said 2nd Duke (born in 1666, PoD in 1664) is married to Anne instead of Danish Prince, moving him quite up in the succession line
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=292039
The TL is rather primitive compared to A&D and has the Cumberlands as the rulers of Palatinate, not Britain, though.
In fact, in my (first) TL said 2nd Duke (born in 1666, PoD in 1664) is married to Anne instead of Danish Prince, moving him quite up in the succession line
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=292039
The TL is rather primitive compared to A&D and has the Cumberlands as the rulers of Palatinate, not Britain, though.
It's not too hard to have a King Rupert, especially in light of the large dynastic leap to King George that did actually happen. Also, with regards to all the bodies in the way, Rupert was (unlike a lot of the intervening possibilities) the correct religion. So let's say there are two lifespan changes
1)Rupert lives to the age of 83, like his sister Sophia. This is long-lived, but no absurdly implausible, one sibling of theirs (Louise) lived even longer, to 86.
2)Anne dies at as young an age as Mary did. Given that Anne was generally the less healthy one, this isn't terribly implausible.
And let's make the assumption that butterflies don't make the succession completely unrecognizable as Rupert lives longer. Yes they could change everything, but there is no predetermined reason that they would make the succession more or less stable (William could run into a mole sooner for example).
With this in place, we have the scenario that Anne dies in 1698, leaving the sickly Prince William of Gloucester as heir to the throne. He himself dies in 1700, and King William is faced w/ a similar predicament to OTL. The ATL *Act of Settlement most logically makes Rupert (still alive at 82) heir to the throne, then followed by Sophia and her line. William gets assassination by mole(or some other thing butterflied in) and we have King Rupert , who reigns for slightly over a year, followed by Queen Sophia.
So it would be
1689-1694: William III and Mary II
1694-1702: William III
1702-1703: Rupert
1703-1714: Sophia
1714-:George I(etc etc...)
1)Rupert lives to the age of 83, like his sister Sophia. This is long-lived, but no absurdly implausible, one sibling of theirs (Louise) lived even longer, to 86.
2)Anne dies at as young an age as Mary did. Given that Anne was generally the less healthy one, this isn't terribly implausible.
And let's make the assumption that butterflies don't make the succession completely unrecognizable as Rupert lives longer. Yes they could change everything, but there is no predetermined reason that they would make the succession more or less stable (William could run into a mole sooner for example).
With this in place, we have the scenario that Anne dies in 1698, leaving the sickly Prince William of Gloucester as heir to the throne. He himself dies in 1700, and King William is faced w/ a similar predicament to OTL. The ATL *Act of Settlement most logically makes Rupert (still alive at 82) heir to the throne, then followed by Sophia and her line. William gets assassination by mole(or some other thing butterflied in) and we have King Rupert , who reigns for slightly over a year, followed by Queen Sophia.
So it would be
1689-1694: William III and Mary II
1694-1702: William III
1702-1703: Rupert
1703-1714: Sophia
1714-:George I(etc etc...)
The plague, smallpox and a variety of other wee beasties or accidents could get Rupert the throne while still young. All that need happen is for Charles I to die before fathering any children, that puts Elisabeth on the throne, with Rupert as her successor.
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.
Fun fact: during the War of the 3 Kingdoms Charles I though that Charles Louis (Rupert's older brother) was angling for the throne due to his links with the parliamentarians.
Fairly self-explanatory; how could (or would) you make that happen? And what results would come of that?
I'm curious to see.
Charles II dies of the pox in 1670. James II succeeds. His dying wife Anne persuades him to announce himself Catholic, and to state that his daughters and surviving son Edgar are all Catholic too. This triggers a constitutional uproar in England. The uproar boils up further when James marries a French princess and begets another Catholic son in early 1672.
England's Protestant faction invites William of Orange to become king, but he has yet to become stadtholder. He goes to England more or less alone, expecting to be generally acclaimed. Instead he falls into James' hands and is imprisoned. The uproar continues; James panics and has William executed.
This induces outright rebellion. James flees the country with his children. The next Protestant heir is Rupert's older brother Charles Louis, the Elector Palatine. Charles Louis is a weirdo: bigamously married with 11 bastards, his only legitimate son is a complete wuss, and he just married his only legitimate daughter to Philippe D'Orleans.
That leaves Rupert!
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?
Why would William III, who IOTL spent months preparing his landing out of fear of being attacked, just turn up on his own? Why would the Dutch let him? Whatever else you might say about William III he wasn't an idiot.
Why would James simply flee the country? IOTL he went to Ireland and tried to raise an army to invade before finally being forced abroad.
Parliament love Karl Ludwig. It doesn't matter that he's weird - they really did like him and whether he's weird or not doesn't affect the line of succession - he's the legitimate heir.