House of Palatinate-Simmern England & Scotland after James VI

[Atterdag]

Usually I stay far away from the British isles when it comes to discussions on this forum, but this one had me thinking - and since I haven’t been able to find a thread about it on here, why not throw it out there.



My idea is that otl Charles I of England dies before becoming king - maybe his ships sinks on its way back from Spain in 1623 (surely a divine sign to not getting cozy with Catholics). If I understand British succession law at the time correctly, this would put the children of Elizabeth Stuart and the Winter King next in line to James VI’s thrones.



This would likely mean Frederick Henry of the Palatinate succeeds his uncle, since his otl drowning in the Netherlands is all but guaranteed to be butterflied, or if he should still die around otl then his brother Charles Louis. Let’s cut FH out of the picture for ease of sake (have him drown earlier) and assume Charles Louis inherits England and Scotland in 1625.



A foreign child on the British thrones would probably be a pleasant situation for parliament. Instead of a Catholic sympathizer raised in a proto-absolutist ideology, he would by his father’s example be very aware that kings can all too easily lose their crowns. He would also have a personal reason to be very anti-imperial and anti-Catholic, which would probably also lessen frictions with parliament.



Now I’m not enough of an expert on English history to know if this is enough to prevent the civil war, but it’s probably a good start if nothing else. If the rest of otl goes somewhat as normal, then Charles Louis of England comes of age right around the time that the peace of Prague was signed, and the “Protestant” side was losing some momentum. This could be pretty good timing for a palatinate king of England to launch their own intervention, with the secular goal of reclaiming their palatine holdings. A Dutch alliance is likely a requirement to gain access to the Rhine valley.



This in turn might have France reconsidering their position. Weakening the habsburgs is still important, but now doing so might mean strengthening England with a continental base close to France. How would the French government handle this conundrum?

 

[Jonathan]

Wouldn’t Elizabeth Stuart not stake her claim to the throne? Both Mary and Elizabeth Tudor have shown that women can rule, especially as Henry Frederick is only 11 in 1625 while Charles would barely be 8.

With Elizabeth as heir to England, Scotland and Ireland, I can imagine Frederick may be reluctant to take the Bohemian throne, fearing being stretched between England and Palatinate.

Would Henry or Charles merge both his parents royal houses to cement their claim on Scotland and thus England, with the Palatinate-Simmern-Stuart?

 

[Atterdag]

Wouldn’t Elizabeth Stuart not stake her claim to the throne? Both Mary and Elizabeth Tudor have shown that women can rule, especially as Henry Frederick is only 11 in 1625 while Charles would barely be 8.

With Elizabeth as heir to England, Scotland and Ireland, I can imagine Frederick may be reluctant to take the Bohemian throne, fearing being stretched between England and Palatinate.

The idea is that otl Charles I dies after Elizabeth and her family is already deposed and exiled.

As for Elizabeth, I don’t know if English succession laws put a sister before a nephew, most places that allowed female succession skipped them if there was a male alternative. But even if she doesn’t inherited she’ll be the natural regent until he comes of age.

Would Henry or Charles merge both his parents royal houses to cement their claim on Scotland and thus England, with the Palatinate-Simmern-Stuart?

Probably not if he’s the legitimate heir in both countries, don’t know how important the Stuart name would be in Scotland but the dynasty would only be one king old in England. I’m also not sure how the palatines referred to themselves at the time, if they called themselves Wittelsbachs or simply “of Bavaria”.

 

[Comisario]

The idea is that otl Charles I dies after Elizabeth and her family is already deposed and exiled.

As for Elizabeth, I don’t know if English succession laws put a sister before a nephew, most places that allowed female succession skipped them if there was a male alternative. But even if she doesn’t inherited she’ll be the natural regent until he comes of age.

She would inherit ahead of her sons. That's how it worked at the time - which means she would reign as Elizabeth II of England (I of Scotland) until her OTL death in 1662 or another earlier death by illness or in childbirth. It seems unlikely she would die much earlier, though, given her famed physical robustness and ability to survive illnesses/labours throughout her life.

As to the naming of the house, I'm not sure. I'll have to consult Nadine Akkerman's translated correspondence of Elizabeth Stuart to see if there's any clues in there.

 

[Atterdag]

She would inherit ahead of her sons. That's how it worked at the time - which means she would reign as Elizabeth II of England (I of Scotland) until her OTL death in 1662 or another earlier death by illness or in childbirth. It seems unlikely she would die much earlier, though, given her famed physical robustness and ability to survive illnesses/labours throughout her life.

Interesting, well, that renders this premise kind of moot unless E2 also drowns. Would she pursue her sons’ claims?

 

[Comisario]

Interesting, well, that renders this premise kind of moot unless E2 also drowns. Would she pursue her sons’ claims?

Well, unless Frederick also dies as per OTL (not impossible), then she would be pressing for intervention in her husband's favour. But, still, the answer is yes: she would be looking to pursue the Palatine cause with the backing of England and Scotland. My opinion on how successful she'd be is much more positive than most, as she'd be dealing with a Parliament full of prominent men who adored her and thought that the war in Europe was an existential crisis for Protestantism. With more competent and ideologically committed supporters (rather than the Duke of Buckingham, who she resented), Elizabeth would have a far easier time dealing with Parliament and pursuing a war policy they would all support.

 

[AkhenatenOrRamses]

I remember reading in a biography of Charles I that Charles Louis was considered the king's heir if he died without children (or maybe it was just a reference to Elizabeth Stuart's line in general being next in line for the thrones). But in any case, my guess is that Elizabeth Stuart would've taken the throne with the support of powerful Protestant nobles eager to keep Catholicism at bay.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Elizabeth becomes the heiress and then Queen. Henry Frederick doesn't die in a drowning. There will be enthusiasm for a naval adventure and maybe Elizabeth goes for it maybe she doesn't. But tensions over funding the war effort and general finances will be a big thing. James left a lot of debt after he died. Elizabeth will have to find a way to tackle that before she can prepare a full scale invasion or attempt to reclaim her husbands lands. And of course Buckingham will have to be handled

 

[Comisario]

Elizabeth becomes the heiress and then Queen. Henry Frederick doesn't die in a drowning. There will be enthusiasm for a naval adventure and maybe Elizabeth goes for it maybe she doesn't.

She would have gone for it. It wouldn’t have been a Cadiz farce by any means, which is an overall positive for English prestige and royal honour, as she would not have left it in the hands of Buckingham. If England goes after the West Indies treasure fleet with the loyal command of Lord Warwick’s private naval assets, the possibility for a great victory is far higher than getting a bunch of veteran land campaigners to go and mount a campaign against Cadiz. Partly, though, that’s down to finances as much as Buckingham being incompetent at naval strategy.

But tensions over funding the war effort and general finances will be a big thing. James left a lot of debt after he died. Elizabeth will have to find a way to tackle that before she can prepare a full scale invasion or attempt to reclaim her husbands lands. And of course Buckingham will have to be handled

The financing question is a fascinating one because it drives home how poor at parliamentary management and public relations Charles was in those first few years of his reign. Conrad Russell’s Parliament and English Politics, 1621-1629 is instructive here:

When the Commons of 1625 voted Charles Tonnage and Poundage for one year only, it has commonly been taken to have been their intention to diminish the King’s revenue. In fact, it is possible that the intention of some of those involved in the decision was not to diminish the King’s revenue, but to increase it. According to the anonymous diary, the intention of the House in making a one-year grant was not to deny the King Tonnage and Poundage. They remembered that in the previous Parliament the Act had been cited to justify the pretermitted custom and impositions, and wanted to draft a better-worded Act, to avoid such ambiguities. The lack of time caused by the plague left them without the leisure to draft a bill of the necessary complexity. Phelips’s proposal to make a grant for ‘some years’ was designed, not to deprive the King of Tonnage and Poundage, but to leave time for a properly drafted bill.

Elizabeth would have to deal with the same plague in 1625 but, being a health-conscious mother without OTL Charles I’s early-reign insecurity, wouldn’t have forced men to sit in Westminster to face it. More likely, she would have moved to Oxford immediately and some sort of compromise worked out with the bit of respite they all would have earned. Elizabeth can also demonstrate with more seriousness an ability to run a household competently, having been a refugee in The Hague. She doesn’t strike me, in either Nadine Akkerman’s Elizabeth Stuart: Queen of Hearts or in her volumes of translated correspondence, as someone willing to put the baubles of impositions ahead of a steady stream of income. Psychologically, even though they were siblings, she wasn’t her brother. Neither, it has to be said, was she her father.

Financing the war would be of greater ease for her than her brother, not least because her government would most likely be in the hands of the patrons of the prominent Parliament men who wanted a new negotiated settlement with Charles and which helped to spark off those early antagonisms IOTL. Indeed, the whole narrative of court vs country or Parliament vs government IOTL gets flipped on its head, with only a few “true countrymen” like Edward Alford staying in place to offer gentry opposition to foreign ventures and the encroaching increase of centralisation. Joining him would likely be the pillars of the Spanish faction and their allies, but the virulently Protestant camp would be preferred for advancement. They weren’t in principle opposed to raising taxes, but were consistently preoccupied with those taxes coming via Parliament and being spent on things they could wholeheartedly support. With their hands on the levers ITTL, I can expect a far more harmonious start to her reign than any alternative (including that of OTL).

Buckingham would be handled at some point, perhaps in a bargain with his detractors at Westminster and Dublin Castle over his corrupt Irish affairs and the claim that he poisoned the King. I can’t see Elizabeth wanting to protect him as Charles did, which means far easier parliaments for her going forward.

 

[Henry III]

I think not England was involved in the 30 years War then the fighting would have been happening out side of the Kingdom

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

She would have gone for it. It wouldn’t have been a Cadiz farce by any means, which is an overall positive for English prestige and royal honour, as she would not have left it in the hands of Buckingham. If England goes after the West Indies treasure fleet with the loyal command of Lord Warwick’s private naval assets, the possibility for a great victory is far higher than getting a bunch of veteran land campaigners to go and mount a campaign against Cadiz. Partly, though, that’s down to finances as much as Buckingham being incompetent at naval strategy.


The financing question is a fascinating one because it drives home how poor at parliamentary management and public relations Charles was in those first few years of his reign. Conrad Russell’s Parliament and English Politics, 1621-1629 is instructive here:



Elizabeth would have to deal with the same plague in 1625 but, being a health-conscious mother without OTL Charles I’s early-reign insecurity, wouldn’t have forced men to sit in Westminster to face it. More likely, she would have moved to Oxford immediately and some sort of compromise worked out with the bit of respite they all would have earned. Elizabeth can also demonstrate with more seriousness an ability to run a household competently, having been a refugee in The Hague. She doesn’t strike me, in either Nadine Akkerman’s Elizabeth Stuart: Queen of Hearts or in her volumes of translated correspondence, as someone willing to put the baubles of impositions ahead of a steady stream of income. Psychologically, even though they were siblings, she wasn’t her brother. Neither, it has to be said, was she her father.

Financing the war would be of greater ease for her than her brother, not least because her government would most likely be in the hands of the patrons of the prominent Parliament men who wanted a new negotiated settlement with Charles and which helped to spark off those early antagonisms IOTL. Indeed, the whole narrative of court vs country or Parliament vs government IOTL gets flipped on its head, with only a few “true countrymen” like Edward Alford staying in place to offer gentry opposition to foreign ventures and the encroaching increase of centralisation. Joining him would likely be the pillars of the Spanish faction and their allies, but the virulently Protestant camp would be preferred for advancement. They weren’t in principle opposed to raising taxes, but were consistently preoccupied with those taxes coming via Parliament and being spent on things they could wholeheartedly support. With their hands on the levers ITTL, I can expect a far more harmonious start to her reign than any alternative (including that of OTL).

Buckingham would be handled at some point, perhaps in a bargain with his detractors at Westminster and Dublin Castle over his corrupt Irish affairs and the claim that he poisoned the King. I can’t see Elizabeth wanting to protect him as Charles did, which means far easier parliaments for her going forward.

Interesting I can't quite remember now but I have a feeling those pushing for a naval engagement wanted to directly attack Spain. But if they go for the treasure fleet and succeed that's a win win.

Agree that parliament won't meet in London but instead Oxford.

The denial of tonnage and poundage for life instead of a year of it happens will still be a bit of an issue as it's more of a prestige thing than anything else. Of course if those who wanted it for a year are in government then they may well have it granted for life. Assuming Liz shows she's using it for what they want

 

[Comisario]

Interesting I can't quite remember now but I have a feeling those pushing for a naval engagement wanted to directly attack Spain. But if they go for the treasure fleet and succeed that's a win win.

The policy was based on Lord Warwick’s ventures which he undertook privately, which aimed for disrupting the flow of West Indies treasure to Spain as a means to cripple Spanish currency and stop them funding their fellow Habsburgs in Germany. In July 1627, this policy actually led him to command a ship through the middle of the Spanish Armada in stormy conditions after he mistakenly believed it was merely a small force guarding the treasure fleet. That is basically the policy that the ‘patriotic’ opposition argued for at the time and, if Buckingham isn’t the sole master of policy here, it’s likely the one they will get.

At the time, the mainland Spain strategy was put forward by Buckingham and his naval administration cronies more for personal prestige and associating himself with the raids of Drake (1587) and the Earl of Essex (1596). Buckingham, having more experience as a showman than a strategist, thought he could cover himself in glory and associate himself with Elizabethan successes. The ‘patriot coalition’ of 1624 split because of his insistence upon a mainland strategy over a treasure fleet one. As we know from the Dutch success of 1628, there was the added bonus that capture of even a small number of treasure ships could mean substantial increases to the Exchequer. With that in mind, Elizabeth could use it to prove not only confidence in her war strategy but also give a foundation to a possible land campaign in Germany by the end of the 1620s. Without Buckingham pulling the strings, Richelieu might even pursue the course he OTL did with Sweden and stump up the cash. Even if he doesn’t do a deal directly with England, he could support Sweden’s entry and give indirect support to England in a joint Anglo-Swedish campaign in the Thirty Years’ War.

Agree that parliament won't meet in London but instead Oxford.

The denial of tonnage and poundage for life instead of a year of it happens will still be a bit of an issue as it's more of a prestige thing than anything else. Of course if those who wanted it for a year are in government then they may well have it granted for life. Assuming Liz shows she's using it for what they want

It would be an issue if it happens, but even then the long-term plan on the part of Pembroke’s client network in the Commons was to work out a settlement not entirely unlike the Great Contract that James I’s Robert Cecil tried for back in the 1610s. Regular tax revenue, less royal pandering to Parliament, and an ironclad defence of Parliament’s legal right to raise taxes all rolled into one. When the possibility arose again under Charles, he had already moved on to insisting upon prerogative means of raising revenue and had started burning his bridges with the Parliament men. Here, without Buckingham and without a monarch who was too prickly and insecure by half, a settlement is more likely than not.

Elizabeth exhibited far more pragmatism, a bit like her father in his early reign, than Charles. The experience of exile, pawning heirlooms and gifts from other royal families, and generally cultivating good relations with parliaments who you rely upon for aid (whether in England or in the United Provinces or anywhere else) definitely altered her sense of honour and prestige. She wasn’t going to let the monarchy die by a thousand innovations, but neither was she going to antagonise her natural constituency of support because of the finer points of procedure and parliamentary negotiation.

From what I’ve seen, there’s a real reticence among people - not necessarily people on this forum, but Stuart England enthusiasts more generally - to insist that civil war and total breakdown between Parliament and Crown are fixed historical points in this period. I can’t say I agree, though that doesn’t mean sunshine and rainbows forever. Elizabeth will likely have a worse time of it controlling Ireland, an easier time of it in Scotland, and a potentially difficult though not violent time of it in Wales. Some things will be brought forward, other issues will be kicked down the road until after the *Thirty Years’ War is over. Social forces will come into conflict and the contradictions will be exposed, but that doesn’t mean all-out bloody civil war.

It will surprise basically no-one to know I’ve been working on a timeline along very similar (though not identical by any means) lines and have spent the last year reading just about everything I can get my hands on about the period - and even listening to Greg Koabel’s Early Stuart England podcast to supplement. Highly recommend the podcast, actually.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

1) Elizabeth would succeed ahead of any of her children.
2) As "Elizabeth II", she could get some shine off her namesake.
3) Once she is Queen, she can just get rid of Buckingham (I'd think).

Longer-term: Elizabeth had ten surviving children . OTL, seven of them died without legitimate offspring and one married a Catholic. ITTL, their lives could be very different.

Frederick Henry won't drown in the ferry accident.

Elisabeth may not become a Protestant nun.

Rupert will marry. (OTL he remained single to stay eligible for the Palatinate succession, because Charles Louis wouldn't give him an estate that would support a German wife of required rank.)

Maurice won't drown leading a naval expedition in the Civil War.

Louise probably doesn't run away to become a Catholic nun.

Edward of Simmern won't be hanging around Paris when Anne de Gonzague's relatives decide she needs a husband right now.

John Philip won't be killed as a soldier of fortune.

Henriette Marie won't marry Sigismund Rákóczi and die in Transylvania.

What this all means is that there could be a lot of royal relations. Elizabeth could easily have 20 more surviving legitimate Protestant grandchildren. (OTL she had 9, plus 3 Catholics and 10 bastards.)

 

[HortenseMancini]

I’m curious, what would become of the palatinate in this scenario? Would it remain with the bavarians even after Maximilian i’s death, would it be wrestled back with English and Scottish backing, and if it is wrestled back would it go to the first son or the second?

 

[Comisario]

I’m curious, what would become of the palatinate in this scenario? Would it remain with the bavarians even after Maximilian i’s death, would it be wrestled back with English and Scottish backing, and if it is wrestled back would it go to the first son or the second?

If the English and Scottish forces combine with another nation (most likely candidate here is Sweden), then restitution of the Palatinate is basically inevitable. It will go to Frederick, Elizabeth’s consort, and then pass to Frederick Henry once he has passed. The title would be his but I imagine he would want to rule his larger kingdoms from Whitehall, meaning some sort of viceroy system - likely a younger brother in the position - would make the most sense.

 

[HortenseMancini]

If the English and Scottish forces combine with another nation (most likely candidate here is Sweden), then restitution of the Palatinate is basically inevitable. It will go to Frederick, Elizabeth’s consort, and then pass to Frederick Henry once he has passed. The title would be his but I imagine he would want to rule his larger kingdoms from Whitehall, meaning some sort of viceroy system - likely a younger brother in the position - would make the most sense.

Makes sense to me, it’ll be kinda an earlier version of Hanover.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

John Philip won't be killed as a soldier of fortune.

wasn't he killed in a duel with a guy insulting his mother though?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If the English and Scottish forces combine with another nation (most likely candidate here is Sweden), then restitution of the Palatinate is basically inevitable. It will go to Frederick, Elizabeth’s consort, and then pass to Frederick Henry once he has passed. The title would be his but I imagine he would want to rule his larger kingdoms from Whitehall, meaning some sort of viceroy system - likely a younger brother in the position - would make the most sense.

it would depend. OTL they made restitution to Karl Ludwig. TTL, Ferdinand III might settle the Palatinate on Karl Ludwig instead of inviting a foreign king to own land inside the empire (we're not talking about the lands that France and Sweden claimed for their own). He certainly won't allow a foreign king to hold an electorate, so likely there's no extra electorate created, even if the Wittelsbachs are restored in the Palatinate. There is a third option- aside from the no restoration and full restoration- that he restores the Palatinate (sans the electorate). But to the Neuburg branch on the grounds that the Simmerns took up arms against the emperor. OTL Elizabeth and Rupert were the main mover and shakers in getting the Palatinate restored. They cultivated good relations with the Habsburgs both from Amsterdam (Elizabeth) and Innsbruck (where Rupert was imprisoned IIRC). TTL, neither would happen. The emperor can't shred the treaty of Pavia by awarding the entire Palatinate to Max of Bavaria without pissing the rest of the Pfalz-Wittelsbachs (including Sweden) off, but he can choose who to inherit. The one option is the Simmern king of England, if he gets the electoral vote back, what's to stop him trying to stand for emperor in the next election (ergo, a repeat of the cause of the 30YW)? So, award it to the Neuburgs (who are also Catholics), perhaps with giving the English something like - a secularized bishopric of Bremen? like Karl V tried to bribe Henry VIII with IIRC* @Nuraghe -that's more easily accessible and easily defendable, but not powerful enough to really do much with*

*IIRC there was a suggestion of Rupert being created prince of Bremen-Verden OTL

 

[Comisario]

it would depend. OTL they made restitution to Karl Ludwig. TTL, Ferdinand III might settle the Palatinate on Karl Ludwig instead of inviting a foreign king to own land inside the empire (we're not talking about the lands that France and Sweden claimed for their own). He certainly won't allow a foreign king to hold an electorate, so likely there's no extra electorate created, even if the Wittelsbachs are restored in the Palatinate. There is a third option- aside from the no restoration and full restoration- that he restores the Palatinate (sans the electorate). But to the Neuburg branch on the grounds that the Simmerns took up arms against the emperor. OTL Elizabeth and Rupert were the main mover and shakers in getting the Palatinate restored. They cultivated good relations with the Habsburgs both from Amsterdam (Elizabeth) and Innsbruck (where Rupert was imprisoned IIRC). TTL, neither would happen. The emperor can't shred the treaty of Pavia by awarding the entire Palatinate to Max of Bavaria without pissing the rest of the Pfalz-Wittelsbachs (including Sweden) off, but he can choose who to inherit. The one option is the Simmern king of England, if he gets the electoral vote back, what's to stop him trying to stand for emperor in the next election (ergo, a repeat of the cause of the 30YW)? So, award it to the Neuburgs (who are also Catholics), perhaps with giving the English something like - a secularized bishopric of Bremen? like Karl V tried to bribe Henry VIII with IIRC* @Nuraghe -that's more easily accessible and easily defendable, but not powerful enough to really do much with*

*IIRC there was a suggestion of Rupert being created prince of Bremen-Verden OTL

I think I broadly agree, but only if there’s a peace not being actively enforced by a militarily involved Sweden. In that case, the Habsburgs have less room to manoeuvre themselves out of a repeat of the confessional warfare they’ve just finished with. In my head, I was taking the route of Gustavus Adolphus’s Corpus Evangelicorum and Corpus Bellicum, with Oxenstierna getting a secularised Mainz. All of this imposed in a total victory, of course, only for the war to be fought again - but this time on an existential basis where the HRE might not actually survive.

In another, less militarily involved Sweden scenario, then I do agree with your assessment. But that’s a more diplomatic scenario than I think we’d end up with in this rough TL, realistically speaking.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

wasn't he killed in a duel with a guy insulting his mother though?

No: he killed the other man, then left the Netherlands rather than face trial. He entered the service of the Duke of Lorraine and was KIA during the Fronde.