House of Palatinate-Simmern England & Scotland after James VI

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Ferdinand III ... certainly won't allow a foreign king to hold an electorate...

The first three King Georges of Great Britain were also Prince-Electors of Hanover.

Augustus II of Poland was also Prince-Elector of Saxony.

The first five Kings in/of Prussia were also Prince-Electors of Brandenburg.

Ferdinand himself is both King-Elector of Bohemia and King of Hungary, as were five previous Habsburgs, two Jagiellonians, and seven later Habsburgs.

 

[Mikestone8]

Possible butterfly. If there is a sizeable British force serving with Gustavus Adolphus (iirc he had quite a few Scottish troops even OTL) the various units at Lutzen may be situated differently, and it is at least conceivable that the battle is fought a day or two earlier or later for some reason. So GA's death there may be butterflied away.

Of course he may go on to meet his death somewhere else, but delaying it even a couple of years could avert the disaster at Nordlingen.

 

[FalconHonour]

I am enthralled by this suggestion as I have a real soft spot for Elizabeth Stuart...

Charles dying in 1623 would also have implications for James, surely? Would he not be more likely to offer Elizabeth shelter than OTL, as Parliament wanted, IIRC, if her children are his senior heirs?

Which means she won't be wandering around Europe for the 1623-25 period, which will affect her children's upbringing/personalities...

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

The first three King Georges of Great Britain were also Prince-Electors of Hanover.

Augustus II of Poland was also Prince-Elector of Saxony.

The first five Kings in/of Prussia were also Prince-Electors of Brandenburg.

It's very hard to compare the situations. Leopold I ignored pretty much everyone's advice about allowing Prussia to be elevated to a kingdom. but it was either that or forking over the Piast inheritance in Silesia. Saxony-Poland is a matter of "no good options". The alternative was to have a Bourbon king of Poland or one of several German princes (Turkenlouis of Baden, Leopold of Lorraine, Max II of Bavaria) as candidate (Max and Turkenlouis didn't want it and Leopold was restored in Lorraine), August was at least a "sort of" ally/friendly. And Hannover got the electorate nearly a decade before they were acknowledged as heirs to Britain.

In all three cases, the holder had the electorate first and the kingdom second. None of those electors were technically still under imperial ban when they became king of another country. A closer comparison would be Max II Emanuel accepting the Hungarian throne while under imperial ban during the War of the Spanish Succession. Max declined (in part) because he knew to accept would be a tacit recognition that Bavaria was lost to him. It was only because Karl VI was an idiot that decided he would rather keep Naples (which he lost anyway) than spin it off as an independent kingdom for Max (as Louis XIV was pressing for at Utrecht).

Also, given Ferdinand III's OTL political adroitness (something that sadly gets too often overlooked and was not shared by his father or son), and his managing to unite the empire against the Swedes/French, I don't see why he would be unable to get them to do the same against the English. By the time Ferdinand III becomes emperor in 1637, but certainly by Westphalia, Liz's eldest two sons are likely both fathers already. To children born outside the empire (most likely in England). A child born in Holland or Bohemia or Lorraine could likely still squeak past as "inside the empire", not London. I have a feeling that Ferdinand can drum up the German princes' xenophobia (at practical fever pitch at Westphalia) to award Friedrich V's lands to the Neuburg branch.

Ferdinand himself is both King-Elector of Bohemia and King of Hungary, as were five previous Habsburgs, two Jagiellonians, and seven later Habsburgs.

Bohemia, even pre-Golden Bull, was elevated as a "foreign" elector deliberately to avoid a deadlock of German princes IIRC

 

[Comisario]

Also, given Ferdinand III's OTL political adroitness (something that sadly gets too often overlooked and was not shared by his father or son), and his managing to unite the empire against the Swedes/French, I don't see why he would be unable to get them to do the same against the English. By the time Ferdinand III becomes emperor in 1637, but certainly by Westphalia, Liz's eldest two sons are likely both fathers already. To children born outside the empire (most likely in England). A child born in Holland or Bohemia or Lorraine could likely still squeak past as "inside the empire", not London. I have a feeling that Ferdinand can drum up the German princes' xenophobia (at practical fever pitch at Westphalia) to award Friedrich V's lands to the Neuburg branch.

All that being said, who says the restitution would be done in a Peace of Westphalia at the same time as the OTL one? Ferdinand II could well be the Emperor handling the peace at an earlier juncture rather than Ferdinand III all the way in 1648. An Anglo-Swedish alliance with GA alive could enforce a much more favourable peace on a far more inept Habsburg Emperor than OTL - which isn’t to mistake that for a lasting peace that the German princes will agree with in perpetuity, as I’m sure you’d agree.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see an earlier and far more favourable Protestant (read: Swedish) peace settlement overturned by the time of Ferdinand II’s death in 1637 and the reigniting of conflict over the interloping foreigners from the north.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

(iirc he had quite a few Scottish troops even OTL)

GA's so-called Scottish troops were actually raised in France by Lord Seton and others IIRC

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Let's phrase this hypothetical Anglo-Swedish involvement another way. Sweden only got involved in 1630- which is significantly beyond the POD of Charles dying en route back from Spain (in 1623/1624). Sweden was only able to involve itself because France mediated a truce/treaty between Gustav Adolf and Sigismund III of Poland. Given that the same France that got Sweden "in" is the France that the English were backing the Huguenots against (I don't see why Elizabeth wouldn't back her co-religionists - particularly given her husbands ties to the Huguenot leaders through his Dutch mother- against a traditional English enemy), why would the English agree to backing Sweden (an ally of their enemy)?

 

[Comisario]

Let's phrase this hypothetical Anglo-Swedish involvement another way. Sweden only got involved in 1630- which is significantly beyond the POD of Charles dying en route back from Spain (in 1623/1624). Sweden was only able to involve itself because France mediated a truce/treaty between Gustav Adolf and Sigismund III of Poland. Given that the same France that got Sweden "in" is the France that the English were backing the Huguenots against (I don't see why Elizabeth wouldn't back her co-religionists - particularly given her husbands ties to the Huguenot leaders through his Dutch mother- against a traditional English enemy), why would the English agree to backing Sweden (an ally of their enemy)?

But then one can ask the question: would the Huguenots rebel without the negotiations between the Duc de Soubise and the Duke of Buckingham to antagonise France? Without his personal vendettas facilitated by Charles, the sequence of events in France from 1625 onwards is definitively thrown out the window.

And in OTL, Sweden’s financial backing from France didn’t offend the House Palatine (Elector or Elizabeth) enough to stop them from backing Gustavus Adolphus to the hilt and even getting Frederick sent to fight alongside the Swedish King. Also, Thomas Roe - Elizabethan’s most loyal supporter and personal diplomat - was instrumental in the Swedish-Polish negotiations that got GA out of that war and into the Thirty Years’ War.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

It's very hard to compare the situations.

I don't contend they are equivalent, but they are parallel - enough to show (IMO) that an elector being a foreign king was not intrinsically a big problem.

In all three cases, the holder had the electorate first and the kingdom second.

Dynastically this would be the same. The House of Wittelsbach has held the County Palatine since 1214, but inherits England and Scotland only at the death of Elizabeth (not till 1662, OTL). Henry Frederick would inherit the County and Electorate when his father Frederick V dies (1632 OTL), though not actual possession.

None of those electors were technically still under imperial ban when they became king of another country.

The question will be whether the ban would be sustained against Frederick V because his wife is Queen of England and Scotland, and against Henry Frederick because he is heir to England and Scotland. If as suggested, England joins the Protestant side in the TYW, that would put more pressure on Ferdinand.

When Frederick V dies is key. OTL he went on campaign with Gustavus in 1632, left for home after Gustavus turned him down, and caught some kind of fatal infection on the road. All that will be butterflied, as will Gustavus' death at Lutzen. It should be noted Frederick was seriously injured in the OTL ferry accident that killed Henry Frederick, so that's another butterfly. Also, OTL Gustavus wouldn't support Frederick without explicit English backing or some onerous conditions. ITTL, Frederick will have that backing.

ISTM quite plausible that with Elizabeth as Queen, Frederick has explicit English support, Gustavus signs on, they both survive longer, and Ferdinand has to restore Frederick as a peace condition around 1635.

It's possible that Frederick dug himself in too deep to be restored, even with this additional aid. However, the domain and titles could be "restored" to Henry Frederick.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Gustavus signs on, they both survive longer,

God help us then