Queen Margaret I?
- Thread starter mattw101
- Start date
An earlier Anglo-Scottish regal Union and the end to the Auld Alliance without the need for the reformation or any type of rough wooing.
In addition to this you avoid the Spanish Armada later on as there is no dispute in the line of succession, you possibly get an earlier Parliamentary and political union. Overall, a stronger union.
Also, if James IV is allowed to play the role that William of Orange did after the Glorious Revolution, then England gets a good King. James IV spoke several languages, was interested in the sciences, funded universities etc. His one downside was he was a poor military commander. With the exception of Robert I, IMHO he was the best King Scotland had and def.the best of the Stewarts.
Last edited:
The usual...It all depends on when Henry dies.
Before Flodden, you'd probably get James I/IV as King-Consort. As FletcherofSaltoun said, he's one of the rare competent Stuarts, so it might not be all that bad.
After Flodden but before before January 1, 1515, I think Margaret's claims would pass to her son, James I/V, with a regency council and a personal union situation because the English wouldn't stand for Louis I/XII. Either of these options gives the Stuarts an extra century to screw things up in England. What fun!
After January 1, 1515, it's a toss-up as to whether the English nobility feel like/see any benefit in melding with Scotland or can agree on one of their own as the new king once Mary Tudor is widowed. I doubt the Scots have enough men left after Flodden to do any invading to force the issue, so the decision really is up to the English nobility.
On balance, I think they'd go for James I/V...because of the minority situation. It would give everybody time to adjust to the thing and memories of the Wars of the Roses are fairly vivid.
Either way...
The reformation will probably follow a more continental route...Calvanist England anybody?
Ireland probably won't become a kingdom any time soon. The new king will be busy either fighting a civil war and/or melding two kingsdoms together to bother with Ireland. Hmmm... Catholic England and Calvanist Ireland...
Just my two cents
Before Flodden, you'd probably get James I/IV as King-Consort. As FletcherofSaltoun said, he's one of the rare competent Stuarts, so it might not be all that bad.
After Flodden but before before January 1, 1515, I think Margaret's claims would pass to her son, James I/V, with a regency council and a personal union situation because the English wouldn't stand for Louis I/XII. Either of these options gives the Stuarts an extra century to screw things up in England. What fun!
After January 1, 1515, it's a toss-up as to whether the English nobility feel like/see any benefit in melding with Scotland or can agree on one of their own as the new king once Mary Tudor is widowed. I doubt the Scots have enough men left after Flodden to do any invading to force the issue, so the decision really is up to the English nobility.
On balance, I think they'd go for James I/V...because of the minority situation. It would give everybody time to adjust to the thing and memories of the Wars of the Roses are fairly vivid.
Either way...
The reformation will probably follow a more continental route...Calvanist England anybody?
Ireland probably won't become a kingdom any time soon. The new king will be busy either fighting a civil war and/or melding two kingsdoms together to bother with Ireland. Hmmm... Catholic England and Calvanist Ireland...
Just my two cents
Last edited:
I think that this is going to end up really changing the development of the English Parliamentary system, because the Tudors won't really have their decades worth of developing towards absolutism. A foreign king from a much weaker country isn't really going to be able to dictate terms to the English Parliament.
I like after Flodden. Not only is the King from another, weaker, long-time enemy, he's a child! Plus the already badly upset politics of regency Scotland get added to the politics of England. If Henry dies after Flodden, but before his sister's marriage to Archibald Douglas, then I think Margaret would simply move (with her young son) to London. She was opposed by the pro-French party in Scotland, and with the resources of England behind her I think that she could probably effectively assert her control over both countries.
Now she might not end up being the regent for young James I/V in England, but even then the English will control the regency, and pursue a similarily pro-English policy vis a vis Scotland. This will probably force a situation where the Scots refuse to recognize the English regents (whether Margaret or others), and John Stewart, the Duke of Albany, is able to rule the country as the "Regent".
The big memory that many had of the War of the Roses was that minorities invited civil war. The main reason that Richard III killed his nephews was because of the potential for anarchy that minorities and attendent regencies brought with them.
I think that this POD might actually fit depressingly (for England) well into the Yorkist Restoration timeline. After Flodden, Henry dies (in France), leaving the throne to the infant James I/V while the French prepare for an invasion of England and the whole isle of Britain slides towards choas around the regency.
In the choatic times the cities of England, which enjoyed a great deal of power owing to the massive noble die(kill?)off that was the War of the Roses, continue towards still greater power, embracing the commericially excellent brand of Protestantism, Calvinism.
A Yorkist Restoration, the Lancaster claimant is the child-King of Scotland, religion in flux and the country in choas!
Same as how it worked with Mary I and Phil of Spain in OTL - with Margaret as Queen regnant but with James in a very vague role as a potentially very strong consort, almost co-monarch. That wasn't particularly popular then, and I doubt it would be very popular if it happened earlier but with Scotland taking the place of Spain.
Uh, why? That wouldn't happen unless Margaret abdicated her claims or dies.
A female monarch would be unpopular, but a (foreign) under-age King would be drastically worse. Minorities were rightly considered to be very bad things based on the precedent, and they were to be avoided at all costs. The fact that James would be ruling in complete abstentia makes it a triple awful prospect. If the Lancastrians have even basic political nous then they will cling to Margaret like glue.
But really, having the Lancastrian claim go to Margaret and (eventually) the Stuarts in these circumstances would effectively kill it off really IMO. What people wanted after the Wars of the Roses was political stability; neither Margaret nor her son would readily offer that.
Last edited:
If you're going to be ultra-pedantic about it, then you should probably call them the Stewards.
Anyway, they were a French family to begin with.
Under modern British law and a strict interpretation of primogeniture, you're right, but there was no firm set of succession law in England at this point. There had never been a Queen Regnant to date and there is no reason to think that a semi-salic solution wouldn't have been adopted, where Margaret's claim passed directly to her son. I think one of the reasons the English were willing to experiment in the 1550s was that there were so few Tudors to choose from, not because they felt that having a Queen regnant was a good idea. By the 1550s, the Tudors were the recognised dynasty and the memories of the Plantagenets were fading into myth and history. This wasn't the case in the 1510s.
At this point, the memories of the old dynasty were still very much alive, although there were no actual male Plantagenets left. But that's what makes the minority of an agreed upon heir with the best formal claim to the throne though both female lines(which would undoubtedly be based in London, not as an absentee in Edinburgh) would actually be the lesser of the various evils here.
If you don't go for James, there are too many people with a potential claim to the throne through daughters or sisters of Edward IV. There's
the de la Poles, the Howards, the Courtenays, the potential second families of both Margaret and Mary Tudor (let's call them the Douglases and the Brandons for want of a better idea) and the perennial Buckingham.
If you veer away from James Stewart, there is no clear Yorkist claim and there is no clear Tudor claim because he has the primary claim of both families through Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor. This strikes me as a recipe for disaster and I think the English nobility is collectively smart enough to see this. They're a profoundly conservative bunch who will work to protect their interests above all else but even they can see that another round of civil war is not a good idea, especially when none of them has a clear advantage interms of support and resources.
That's how I see it anyway.
Just one point - Richard de la Pole was recognised as head of the House of York until he died at Pavia in 1525, as his older brother had been designated heir to the throne by Richard III.
I know that your Withered Rose timeline has him as a prime protagonist, so you're partial to him. But I have to wonder how partial the English nobility would be. For the sake of argument, let's assume that your invasion isn't the POD here, just Henry's death.
As far as I can see it, with the exception of Buckingham, de la Pole has the weakest of all the Plantagent-derived claims, as his claim descends from a sister of Edward IV, not one of his daughters, and dates back to the designation of Richard of not-so-beloved memory in 1484. Even then his claim depends on the acceptance that all of Edward IV's children were illegitimate. I don't think that was the general case in the England of the 1510s. By then, too many people had a vested interest in asserting the legitmacy of Edward's children: Henry VIII, Margaret Tudor, James Stewart, Mary Tudor, Louis XII, Suffolk, Exeter, just to name a few.
To me, de la Pole's claim to be the head of the House of York seems very similar to the claims of latter day Jacobites; more than a little divorced from the realities of the England he had left a decade before. He had a claim, it was useful for some foreign powers to use him as a tool from time to time, but I have to wonder how that very support would play out in England. His claim would be a fig leaf that would try very hard to hide the fact that he needed a FRENCH army to put him on the throne. Granted it worked for Henry VII, but that was a slightly different stuation, in which Richard III was rapidly wearing out his welcome.
This isn't the case here. There was no national mourning or rebellion when Henry VIII came to the throne. Even the Yorkists accepted him as the union of the two houses. Most of his problem with them came from his own paranoia. His death, presumably in France, would occasion an outpouring of grief and a search for stabiity and legitimacy that would avoid anything that smacked of a civil war.
James I/V would be the living symbol of that unity, and its extension to peace with Scotland after the events of Flodden. It's even a win-win. The Scots get the title, the English get the power, the nobles get a bit of freedom, Ireland gets left alone. In fact, I'm not sure if Francis I (assuming its him and not Louis XII) wouldn't just breathe a sigh of relief, count his blessings, ferry the English back to England, re-claim Calais at the treaty table, pension off de la Pole, consider a marriage proposal between a future daughter and James I/V for down the line and then turn his attention back to Charles V. A French backed invasion by de la Pole would cost money, divert resources, and re-open a war on that front. It would also be just what the new regime would need to solidify itself and its legitmacy (and emnity to France).
Even if the Yorkists decided for some reason to try to turn back the clock and ignore anything Tudor, de la Pole wasn't the legitimate claimant by the 1510s. If I'm not missing a sister somewhere, Henry Courtenay had the senior claim after The Tudor Girls, thorough his mother Catherine of York, and he had the friendship of Henry VIII, so he'd pull some Tudor loyalists to his side. Given his connection to Norfolk, I figure he could swing the support of the other nobles and possibly the throne.
Now that's an interesting option for your timeline...a three way civil war between Courtenay/Norfolk, the Tudor-Stewart claim and your French-backed de la Pole (maybe with a marriage to one of the Tudor Girls to bolster things).
David
Last edited:
Its the American Labor/Labour thing at work. I couldn't resist!
That's okay. We could try the Valish solution.
For Labo(u)r: it's now Lampour.
For Stuart/Stewart: it's Sntouot (or Sntouort if you speak a rhotic accent).
There.
Great post - I like the idea of the three way fight especially. As for what I said, I just meant that de la Pole was head of the House, not that his claim was very good at all (though when did that stop anybody!
).Another idea I had was for the Spanish to back whoever is fighting the French - I have images of huge armies rampaging through Britain, stirring up civil war and generally causing mayhem.
Of course, that just brings up the whole `Who does Catherine of Aragon marry`question. That`s how this entire Tudor mess started in the first place: with the marriage of a ex-queen.
Which reminds me of another question. How does the whole mess go if Catherine is pregnant when Henry diesÉ Depends if she`s visibly pregnant of not. Lessee...
1) She is visibly pregnant...everybody waits for the child of the Great Harry. if its a boy..exepect extreme absolutist Tudor in a few years Richard II meets Henry VI meets Henry VIII
2) She`s not visibly pregnant... then the fun ensues
2a) Everybody just accepts the Stewart claim, the news gets out and Catherine has a quiet accidentéilness. Myths and stories abound and Tudor pretenders pop up every now and then for a while. Or maybe it gets tied inot the Arthur myth...the real king waiting to return in England`s hour of need.
2b) The regency of James IéV is settling in, the news gets out, everybody waits...it`s a girl..quick betrothal and union of houses.
2c)The regency of James IéV is settling in, the news gets out, everybody waits...it`s a boy...chaos and civil war ensue.
3) The civil war is in full swing, the news gets out and another side is added to the mess...Tudor loyalist with Spanish backing.
There you go...Maximum chaos and a truely bitter and xenophobic England into the mix. Oh and Ireland goes on its merry way, drifting off into the sunset, happily acknowledgeing whoever is on the throne but with a `yessir...you`re the king...but stay they hell over there please and don`t bother us`attitude.
If you don`t do this one.. I might...maybe after I finish the one I`m working on (in about a decade at current rate of progress)
David
Which reminds me of another question. How does the whole mess go if Catherine is pregnant when Henry diesÉ Depends if she`s visibly pregnant of not. Lessee...
1) She is visibly pregnant...everybody waits for the child of the Great Harry. if its a boy..exepect extreme absolutist Tudor in a few years Richard II meets Henry VI meets Henry VIII
2) She`s not visibly pregnant... then the fun ensues
2a) Everybody just accepts the Stewart claim, the news gets out and Catherine has a quiet accidentéilness. Myths and stories abound and Tudor pretenders pop up every now and then for a while. Or maybe it gets tied inot the Arthur myth...the real king waiting to return in England`s hour of need.
2b) The regency of James IéV is settling in, the news gets out, everybody waits...it`s a girl..quick betrothal and union of houses.
2c)The regency of James IéV is settling in, the news gets out, everybody waits...it`s a boy...chaos and civil war ensue.
3) The civil war is in full swing, the news gets out and another side is added to the mess...Tudor loyalist with Spanish backing.
There you go...Maximum chaos and a truely bitter and xenophobic England into the mix. Oh and Ireland goes on its merry way, drifting off into the sunset, happily acknowledgeing whoever is on the throne but with a `yessir...you`re the king...but stay they hell over there please and don`t bother us`attitude.
If you don`t do this one.. I might...maybe after I finish the one I`m working on (in about a decade at current rate of progress)
David
Huzzah! Thanks to Wikipedia (don't shout at me!) I've discovered this...
In 1513, Catherine was pregnant again. Henry left her as Regent of England, as he left to fight a war in France. Scotland invaded, so she sent an army north to meet the Scots. The Scots failed, and Catherine sent Henry the bloodied coat of the Scottish King James IV as proof of her victory. Henry returned, but she delivered the baby, a boy, prematurely, and was stillborn or short-lived.
So in fact Catherine is historically pregnant at the exact time my TL is occurring.
Given Catherine's record with pregnancies however I think its likely that, as in OTL, the child will die.
BUT, idea I just had - I think I remember reading somewhere that the wife of one of the Stuart kings, having given birth to a stillborn son, swapped the baby in a warming pan for a live one (not sure where they acquired it from!) and then pretended it was hers. Could this happen here? If Henry is dead, and the fate of the dynasty rests on the pregnancy, I think it's possible.*
The Spanish then back the boy king, and untold confusion and mayhem breaks loose when the truth slips out (as it inevitably will!
).*Apparently it was the son of James II (James Francis Edward Stuart), and it seems the rumour was false - but that doesn't mean it can't happen in a ATL.