|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 10, 2021 2:21:21 GMT
The death of King James VI/I's eldest son Henry Frederick from typhoid fever had resulted in the ascension of Charles as the new heir to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Given his OTL tendencies that would lead to the English Civil War, would Charles's earlier death from the same illness (typhoid fever) result in another succession crisis for the British Isles as a whole? Keep in mind that Robert Stuart died in his infancy, and the rest of James VI/I's children would die in their infancy.
As it stands, the only surviving offspring of James VI/I would be Elizabeth Stuart, who would marry Frederick V of the Palatinate, and upon James VI/I's death, the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland would pass to the House of Palatinate-Simmern. Although on the other hand, were there any other pretenders who would have challenged whoever succeeds James VI/I?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 10, 2021 19:10:23 GMT
The death of King James VI/I's eldest son Henry Frederick from typhoid fever had resulted in the ascension of Charles as the new heir to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Given his OTL tendencies that would lead to the English Civil War, would Charles's earlier death from the same illness (typhoid fever) result in another succession crisis for the British Isles as a whole? Keep in mind that Robert Stuart died in his infancy, and the rest of James VI/I's children would die in their infancy. As it stands, the only surviving offspring of James VI/I would be Elizabeth Stuart, who would marry Frederick V of the Palatinate, and upon James VI/I's death, the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland would pass to the House of Palatinate-Simmern. Although on the other hand, were there any other pretenders who would have challenged whoever succeeds James VI/I?
That would be interesting? It would unite the British kingdoms with a major leader of the reformation in the HRE and possibly pull them more completely into the 30 Years War, unless resulting butterflies change that drastically. As I understand it Frederick V was a devout Calvinist so not sure how good a fit he would make with Anglican England although he would probably go down well with John Knox and his supporters in Scotland and possibly cause a lot of unrest in Ireland. If he still becomes the Winter King then that would complicate matters further. He doesn't seem to have been a good leader from the mess he made in Bohemia so it could bode ill for Britain. Well unless butterflies mean he's a considerably different person. Which could be the case as we have a PoD in 1612 so there's a couple of decades to affect things. |
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Nov 10, 2021 23:50:51 GMT
If Elizabeth is married to Frederick then I would suggest that the line of succession skips Elizabeth and goes direct to her daughter Sophia, Electress of Hanover. In OTL that happened but only after Queen Anne died without heirs. Unfortunately for Sophia she died before Anne so the Throne went to Sophia's son George I.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 11, 2021 2:28:38 GMT
If Elizabeth is married to Frederick then I would suggest that the line of succession skips Elizabeth and goes direct to her daughter Sophia, Electress of Hanover. In OTL that happened but only after Queen Anne died without heirs. Unfortunately for Sophia she died before Anne so the Throne went to Sophia's son George I. Why would the line of succession skip straight to Sophia when there were more of her siblings that were older than her? Although on the other hand, would a British (Anglo-Scottis-Irish) involvement in the 30YW also have a negative effect on the British Isles as a whole, since the Catholic population there might be more eager to launch a revolt against what is essentially a Protestant Stuart dynasty? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 11, 2021 11:32:07 GMT
If Elizabeth is married to Frederick then I would suggest that the line of succession skips Elizabeth and goes direct to her daughter Sophia, Electress of Hanover. In OTL that happened but only after Queen Anne died without heirs. Unfortunately for Sophia she died before Anne so the Throne went to Sophia's son George I. Why would the line of succession skip straight to Sophia when there were more of her siblings that were older than her? Although on the other hand, would a British (Anglo-Scottis-Irish) involvement in the 30YW also have a negative effect on the British Isles as a whole, since the Catholic population there might be more eager to launch a revolt against what is essentially a Protestant Stuart dynasty?
That would be my concern. Plus if she still marries Frederick and he's as staunch a Calvinist as OTL he could be an uncomfortable fit with England, let alone Ireland and the still Catholic parts of Scotland. If it ends up in a civil war scenario, an earlier version of OTL basically, then events would be uncertain. If the monarchy wins does that mean the maintenance/strengthening of an absolute monarchy with a strict Calvinist character? If the anti-Frederick elements win then what does it mean for the assorted Anglicans, Catholics, Parliamentarians etc and what sort of society and political and religious culture they try to establish?
This of course assumes that a close British involvement in a TYW's conflict doesn't prompt some foreign intervention. You could have both Spain trying to aid Catholicism and assorted Protestant princes and rulers seeking to aid Frederick. France might interfer as well although OTL it was mainly concerned with opposing the Spanish and stopping the Hapsburg's establishing a centralised HRE in Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Nov 11, 2021 21:50:03 GMT
If Elizabeth is married to Frederick then I would suggest that the line of succession skips Elizabeth and goes direct to her daughter Sophia, Electress of Hanover. In OTL that happened but only after Queen Anne died without heirs. Unfortunately for Sophia she died before Anne so the Throne went to Sophia's son George I. Why would the line of succession skip straight to Sophia when there were more of her siblings that were older than her? Although on the other hand, would a British (Anglo-Scottis-Irish) involvement in the 30YW also have a negative effect on the British Isles as a whole, since the Catholic population there might be more eager to launch a revolt against what is essentially a Protestant Stuart dynasty? Sophia's siblings were one of two things - dead or Roman Catholic. The exception to that rule, because there's always an exception to a rule, was her eldest surviving brother Charles Louis I, Elector Palatine. When deciding the succession you tend to choose someone who isn't about to inherit a Crown, preferably not of the female gender and isn't Catholic. Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot.I see no reason why gunpowder treasonShould ever be forgotGuy Fawkes, 'twas his intent To blow up King and parliament.Three score barrels were laid belowTo prove old England's overthrow.By God's mercy he was catchedWith a dark lantern and lighted match.Holler boys, holler boys, let the bells ringHoller boys, holler boys, God save the KingJames VI & I was more tolerant of Catholics than his predecessors (except Mary I) but unfortunately that failed to translate in to practice. The most famous assassination attempt was the Gunpowder Plot - the attempt by Catholics to blow up Parliament - Catholic were not the dish du jour for the English Parliament so having a potential enemy from within whilst fighting the enemy with out is not exactly in anyone's interest. That and Frederick, King of Bohemia was the square peg in a round hole and beset by bad fortune - elected to nation that was not how should we put it - in the best of shape - he as we know was quickly ousted. Neither Frederick nor Elizabeth spoke Czech and surrounded themselves with foreigners at Court which only served to further isolate them from the real authority the Czech speaking Bohemian Nobility. The writing was on the wall for the Winter King when his fair weather allies the Protestant League abandoned him to fight the Catholic League alone and the end came as the Bohemian forces were routed at the Battle of Winter Mountain. So it wasn't in Great Britain's interest to get involved and The Stuarts also seem to have had a rather soft spot for France... |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 12, 2021 1:05:08 GMT
Why would the line of succession skip straight to Sophia when there were more of her siblings that were older than her? Although on the other hand, would a British (Anglo-Scottis-Irish) involvement in the 30YW also have a negative effect on the British Isles as a whole, since the Catholic population there might be more eager to launch a revolt against what is essentially a Protestant Stuart dynasty? Sophia's siblings were one of two things - dead or Roman Catholic. The exception to that rule, because there's always an exception to a rule, was her eldest surviving brother Charles Louis I, Elector Palatine. When deciding the succession you tend to choose someone who isn't about to inherit a Crown, preferably not of the female gender and isn't Catholic. Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot.I see no reason why gunpowder treasonShould ever be forgotGuy Fawkes, 'twas his intent To blow up King and parliament.Three score barrels were laid belowTo prove old England's overthrow.By God's mercy he was catchedWith a dark lantern and lighted match.Holler boys, holler boys, let the bells ringHoller boys, holler boys, God save the KingJames VI & I was more tolerant of Catholics than his predecessors (except Mary I) but unfortunately that failed to translate in to practice. The most famous assassination attempt was the Gunpowder Plot - the attempt by Catholics to blow up Parliament - Catholic were not the dish du jour for the English Parliament so having a potential enemy from within whilst fighting the enemy with out is not exactly in anyone's interest. That and Frederick, King of Bohemia was the square peg in a round hole and beset by bad fortune - elected to nation that was not how should we put it - in the best of shape - he as we know was quickly ousted. Neither Frederick nor Elizabeth spoke Czech and surrounded themselves with foreigners at Court which only served to further isolate them from the real authority the Czech speaking Bohemian Nobility. The writing was on the wall for the Winter King when his fair weather allies the Protestant League abandoned him to fight the Catholic League alone and the end came as the Bohemian forces were routed at the Battle of Winter Mountain. So it wasn't in Great Britain's interest to get involved and The Stuarts also seem to have had a rather soft spot for France... I was thinking of Great Britain getting involved in the 30YW and aiding the Protestant faction in its conflicts against the Catholics, but ultimately it was far worth staying neutral and avoiding conflict altogether. Perhaps if Charles I Louis's youngest brother Friedrich had survived, he might have become the newly selected King of England, Scotland and Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Nov 12, 2021 20:15:59 GMT
Sophia's siblings were one of two things - dead or Roman Catholic. The exception to that rule, because there's always an exception to a rule, was her eldest surviving brother Charles Louis I, Elector Palatine. When deciding the succession you tend to choose someone who isn't about to inherit a Crown, preferably not of the female gender and isn't Catholic. Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot.I see no reason why gunpowder treasonShould ever be forgotGuy Fawkes, 'twas his intent To blow up King and parliament.Three score barrels were laid belowTo prove old England's overthrow.By God's mercy he was catchedWith a dark lantern and lighted match.Holler boys, holler boys, let the bells ringHoller boys, holler boys, God save the KingJames VI & I was more tolerant of Catholics than his predecessors (except Mary I) but unfortunately that failed to translate in to practice. The most famous assassination attempt was the Gunpowder Plot - the attempt by Catholics to blow up Parliament - Catholic were not the dish du jour for the English Parliament so having a potential enemy from within whilst fighting the enemy with out is not exactly in anyone's interest. That and Frederick, King of Bohemia was the square peg in a round hole and beset by bad fortune - elected to nation that was not how should we put it - in the best of shape - he as we know was quickly ousted. Neither Frederick nor Elizabeth spoke Czech and surrounded themselves with foreigners at Court which only served to further isolate them from the real authority the Czech speaking Bohemian Nobility. The writing was on the wall for the Winter King when his fair weather allies the Protestant League abandoned him to fight the Catholic League alone and the end came as the Bohemian forces were routed at the Battle of Winter Mountain. So it wasn't in Great Britain's interest to get involved and The Stuarts also seem to have had a rather soft spot for France... I was thinking of Great Britain getting involved in the 30YW and aiding the Protestant faction in its conflicts against the Catholics, but ultimately it was far worth staying neutral and avoiding conflict altogether. Perhaps if Charles I Louis's youngest brother Friedrich had survived, he might have become the newly selected King of England, Scotland and Ireland. There are two issues that you will need to find solutions for: (1) France and Spain were both combatants in the 30YW which would present a problem for Great Britain. The British could not fight a combined Franco-Spanish force and forming an alliance with one against the other would upset the delicate balance of power i.e., knocking one out would leave the other in a stronger position to take on Great Britain overseas. (2) What would be the point in Great Britain committing troops to fight in a series of messy European wars when there was no economic reward? I read somewhere that between 50,000 and 60,000 Englishmen did see combat fighting for other countries. If Charles I Louis youngest brother wasn't Roman Catholic then yes he would probably been next in line for the Throne. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 13, 2021 6:17:45 GMT
I'm also wondering if it was possible for Elizabeth Stuart to have also married a different guy, preferably a Protestant prince within the Holy Roman Empire, other than Frederick of the Palatinate. Of course, if Frederick of the Palatinate was unavailable, there would have been other German noble families that would have acted as the alternate version of the Hanover dynasty that eventually gained the British throne.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Nov 13, 2021 11:10:17 GMT
I'm also wondering if it was possible for Elizabeth Stuart to have also married a different guy, preferably a Protestant prince within the Holy Roman Empire, other than Frederick of the Palatinate. Of course, if Frederick of the Palatinate was unavailable, there would have been other German noble families that would have acted as the alternate version of the Hanover dynasty that eventually gained the British throne. When you are the heir apparent to the Throne of Great Britain your Father isn't suffering from a shortage of suitors to choose from and we're talking high calibre gentlemen. I believe Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was a suitor. The problem Sweden was at war with Denmark - Elizabeth's mother was Anne of Denmark. If that issue was removed then that would be some match - the heir apparent to the Throne of Great Britain and the heir apparent to the Throne of Sweden. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 13, 2021 12:30:52 GMT
I was thinking of Great Britain getting involved in the 30YW and aiding the Protestant faction in its conflicts against the Catholics, but ultimately it was far worth staying neutral and avoiding conflict altogether. Perhaps if Charles I Louis's youngest brother Friedrich had survived, he might have become the newly selected King of England, Scotland and Ireland. There are two issues that you will need to find solutions for: (1) France and Spain were both combatants in the 30YW which would present a problem for Great Britain. The British could not fight a combined Franco-Spanish force and forming an alliance with one against the other would upset the delicate balance of power i.e., knocking one out would leave the other in a stronger position to take on Great Britain overseas. (2) What would be the point in Great Britain committing troops to fight in a series of messy European wars when there was no economic reward? I read somewhere that between 50,000 and 60,000 Englishmen did see combat fighting for other countries. If Charles I Louis youngest brother wasn't Roman Catholic then yes he would probably been next in line for the Throne.
They wouldn't need to. France and Spain were on opposing sides. France didn't directly fight in 'Germany' until Sweden was largely exhausted - and it had been funding it before then - but it was fighting Spain with some success before then. Religion was less important to the French monarchy, especially since this was the period of the Edict_of_Nantes and politics, i.e. avoiding an Hapsburg domination domination of Europe. See Cardinal_Richelieu_Thirty_Years'_War for some details. However it would still be a lot bloodier for Britain, although you might also see some colonial gains fighting alongside the Dutch and French against Spain.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 13, 2021 12:36:01 GMT
I'm also wondering if it was possible for Elizabeth Stuart to have also married a different guy, preferably a Protestant prince within the Holy Roman Empire, other than Frederick of the Palatinate. Of course, if Frederick of the Palatinate was unavailable, there would have been other German noble families that would have acted as the alternate version of the Hanover dynasty that eventually gained the British throne. When you are the heir apparent to the Throne of Great Britain your Father isn't suffering from a shortage of suitors to choose from and we're talking high calibre gentlemen. I believe Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was a suitor. The problem Sweden was at war with Denmark - Elizabeth's mother was Anne of Denmark. If that issue was removed then that would be some match - the heir apparent to the Throne of Great Britain and the heir apparent to the Throne of Sweden.
Now that would be interesting, although possibly in the Chinese sense since Sweden replaced Denmark as the primary Protestant power opposing the Hapsburg's ~1626 IIRC. - I played Denmark in one pbm game based in that period a [long  ] while back so remember it vaguely from my research at the time. Plus Sweden at the time was very autocratic so it could bode ill for the development of British politics. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 13, 2021 17:02:42 GMT
There are two issues that you will need to find solutions for: (1) France and Spain were both combatants in the 30YW which would present a problem for Great Britain. The British could not fight a combined Franco-Spanish force and forming an alliance with one against the other would upset the delicate balance of power i.e., knocking one out would leave the other in a stronger position to take on Great Britain overseas. (2) What would be the point in Great Britain committing troops to fight in a series of messy European wars when there was no economic reward? I read somewhere that between 50,000 and 60,000 Englishmen did see combat fighting for other countries. If Charles I Louis youngest brother wasn't Roman Catholic then yes he would probably been next in line for the Throne.
They wouldn't need to. France and Spain were on opposing sides. France didn't directly fight in 'Germany' until Sweden was largely exhausted - and it had been funding it before then - but it was fighting Spain with some success before then. Religion was less important to the French monarchy, especially since this was the period of the Edict_of_Nantes and politics, i.e. avoiding an Hapsburg domination domination of Europe. See Cardinal_Richelieu_Thirty_Years'_War for some details. However it would still be a lot bloodier for Britain, although you might also see some colonial gains fighting alongside the Dutch and French against Spain.
I wouldn't be surprised in this scenario if Britain would have snagged Florida and some random Caribbean territories from Spain during the 30YW, although it might be difficult to control it, even from the newly existing Jamestown colony. However, you could see a more intense British piracy in the Caribbean as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Nov 14, 2021 11:20:42 GMT
There are two issues that you will need to find solutions for: (1) France and Spain were both combatants in the 30YW which would present a problem for Great Britain. The British could not fight a combined Franco-Spanish force and forming an alliance with one against the other would upset the delicate balance of power i.e., knocking one out would leave the other in a stronger position to take on Great Britain overseas. (2) What would be the point in Great Britain committing troops to fight in a series of messy European wars when there was no economic reward? I read somewhere that between 50,000 and 60,000 Englishmen did see combat fighting for other countries. If Charles I Louis youngest brother wasn't Roman Catholic then yes he would probably been next in line for the Throne.
They wouldn't need to. France and Spain were on opposing sides. France didn't directly fight in 'Germany' until Sweden was largely exhausted - and it had been funding it before then - but it was fighting Spain with some success before then. Religion was less important to the French monarchy, especially since this was the period of the Edict_of_Nantes and politics, i.e. avoiding an Hapsburg domination domination of Europe. See Cardinal_Richelieu_Thirty_Years'_War for some details. However it would still be a lot bloodier for Britain, although you might also see some colonial gains fighting alongside the Dutch and French against Spain.
The situation was somewhat complicated. Frederick and Elizabeth had been elected King and Queen Consort of Bohemia in defiance of Ferdinand II HRE, who invaded the kingdom and deposed Fredrick and Elizabeth who fled to Holland. At the same time Spanish and Bavarian troops invaded the Palatinate. English Protestants demanded military intervention to restore Elizabeth, "the Queen of Hearts", to the Palatinate. James knew that a direct intervention would be too costly so sought a diplomatic solution - marry his son Charles, Prince of Wales to the Infanta Maria, daughter of Philip IV of Spain - his aim was to exert influence over the Spanish Hapsburgs in the hopes that they would pressure Ferdinand to restore Frederick and Elizabeth. That little adventure failed and dented Anglo-Spanish relations. In 1624 James' son Charles and George Villiers, the 1st Duke of Buckingham, against James better judgement, managed to persuade Parliament to raise funds to finance a military campaign to take back Palatinate. English troops were under the command of a German mercenary Count Peter Ernst von Mansfeld. For the operation to be successful James sought Louis XIII of France permission for Mansfeld and his troops to transit through French territory. Louis on the other hand was concerned about the struggle for Dutch independence against Spain and wanted English troops to be deployed to the strategically important town of Breda. James could not do that as it risked peace with Spain. Louis withdrew permission thus making the military objective of retaking the Palatinate impossible. In this ATL James would not have Charles as a commodity to marry off to the Infanta, but James would still be interest in maintaining peace with Spain. So how does he achieve his objective of restoring Elizabeth and Frederick - he needed Louis XIII and Louis XIII wanted England to shift the balance of proceedings in the Dutch Republic. So would James have to play one side off against the other and what happens if both parties find out that England was manipulating them both... |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 17, 2021 3:16:05 GMT
I wonder if the marriage match between Elizabeth Stuart and Frederick of the Palatinate was actually a smart match or not, given the Palatinate's interests in the rest of the HRE. Moreover, the balancing act that England had to make in this case was extremely dangerous and highly likely to fail in this case.
|
|
] while back so remember it vaguely from my research at the time. Plus Sweden at the time was very autocratic so it could bode ill for the development of British politics.