Mary, Queen of France, Queen of England, Queen of Scots?

A bit of a low probability What if, but...

Mary Stuart was the next in line for the English throne after Elisabeth (her son James ended up becoming King of England, of course), and was married to the King of France, Francis II.

Francis II was a sickly, stumpy child, who died of an ear infection (and may have been infertile). But his brother, Charles IX, was healthy enough. So let's presume a sperm zigged when it should have zagged, and Francis II of ATL is a healthy, robust boy. As in OTL, Mary is a brilliant, charming girl, who makes an impression at the French Court, and in 1559 she gives birth to a healthy baby boy, who is named Arthur. The future king of France, and the future king of Scotland.

Now what?

Faeelin said:

Mary Stuart was the next in line for the Scottish throne after Elisabeth

Click to expand...

You mean the English throne?

Implausable, British hated Mary because she was a catholic who brutally slaughtered Protestants and goodies up to Catholics, Scotland was always proud of it's independance from England, expect refusal against Mary should she accept and unite England with Scotland. However I could see a Franco-Scottish union but England is going to shut it's pants...

Alexius I Kommenos said:

Implausable, British hated Mary because she was a catholic who brutally slaughtered Protestants and goodies up to Catholics, Scotland was always proud of it's independance from England, expect refusal against Mary should she accept and unite England with Scotland. However I could see a Franco-Scottish union but England is going to shut it's pants...

Click to expand...

I have to ask, if Scotland was so averse to a union with Scotland, how James VI pulled it off.

Faeelin said:

I have to ask, if Scotland was so averse to a union with Scotland, how James VI pulled it off.

Click to expand...

He did but look what happened to Poor Charles, Stuarts were hated by the English parliment.....

I'd say unless it is Fance occupiying Scotland, she will not even get Scotland... saying the Reformation goes the same way as OTL.

Alexius I Kommenos said:

Implausable, British hated Mary because she was a catholic who brutally slaughtered Protestants and goodies up to Catholics, Scotland was always proud of it's independance from England, expect refusal against Mary should she accept and unite England with Scotland. However I could see a Franco-Scottish union but England is going to shut it's pants...

Click to expand...

Under the assumption it is Mary, Queen of Scots you are talking about, no she never. If she did, she would have lost the throne of Scotland far sooner than she did. She even put up with John Knox marrying one of her relatives for crying out loud.

Scotland was officially a Protestant country when May became Queen. Also, given how England had Elizabeth succeding (Bloody)Mary, its hardly implausible to assume a Catholic could become Queen of England at the time, although she would have to accept the religious situation in the country.

Faeelin said:

I have to ask, if Scotland was so averse to a union with Scotland, how James VI pulled it off.

Click to expand...

Scotland averse to a union with Scotland?

Scotland was actually relatively positive about the union of the crowns. It was the union of the Parliaments that caused the bother.

Alexius I Kommenos said:

He did but look what happened to Poor Charles, Stuarts were hated by the English parliment.....

Click to expand...

Charles was a fool, that is what caused his downfall and was why he fell.

I think if the nearest legitime claimant after Elizabeth to the English throne are the Crown Prince of France, Elizabeth may decide to marry rather than stay unmarried. Frederik II has been suggested before, and he isn't a bad choice, he has the same age as Elizabeth, he is the second greatest Protestant ruler after Elizabeth. He's relative religious tolerant toward difference in Protestant doctrine. All in all from a political, economical and religious standpoint the marriage make sense.

Faeelin said:

A bit of a low probability What if, but...

Mary Stuart was the next in line for the English throne after Elisabeth (her son James ended up becoming King of England, of course), and was married to the King of France, Francis II.

Francis II was a sickly, stumpy child, who died of an ear infection (and may have been infertile). But his brother, Charles IX, was healthy enough. So let's presume a sperm zigged when it should have zagged, and Francis II of ATL is a healthy, robust boy. As in OTL, Mary is a brilliant, charming girl, who makes an impression at the French Court, and in 1559 she gives birth to a healthy baby boy, who is named Arthur. The future king of France, and the future king of Scotland.

Now what?

Click to expand...

In this situation, Elizabeth would probably marry because she has too. The French would certainly be more proactive in maintaining a grip over Scotland, but by this period the Scots were already tired of the Auld Alliance and looked towards Elizabeth, who financed the Protestant Lords of the Congregation against Marie of Guise. I think in this situation we might see Elizabeth aid the Protestant Duke of Albany to usurp the throne from the Catholics. If France has religious problems, they might not be able to do anything and we could see Mary's son as the future King of France, yet only ruling over France. Of course he'd have claims to England and Scotland and might make moves against them in the future... but if he's raised in France, he might not be a popular alternative. Catholic is one thing, but he'd also be a foreigner. France might be able to pull off this union, but I think Spain might be more friendly towards England if only to keep it from happening. The Habsburgs and Valois were both Catholic but hated eachother.

On a purely nitpicking note, I doubt the little boy would be named Arthur. Even if he has Scottish blood and claims to England, certainly the French would make a big deal about giving him a proper name, like Louis, Charles, Henri, or François. Even in the 1490s there was a big deal because Réne of Naples was the god-father to Charles Orland, the Dauphin and wanted to name his solely Orland, after Roland from the Song of Roland. The Princes of the Blood made a huge deal about it being a foreign name and demanded he be given a traditional name after one of his ancestors, Philippe, Louis, or Charles. They ultimately settled on Charles but he also held the name Orland. Those French were quite the sticklers for etiquette...

DrakeRlugia said:

In this situation, Elizabeth would probably marry because she has too. The French would certainly be more proactive in maintaining a grip over Scotland, but by this period the Scots were already tired of the Auld Alliance and looked towards Elizabeth, who financed the Protestant Lords of the Congregation against Marie of Guise. I think in this situation we might see Elizabeth aid the Protestant Duke of Albany to usurp the throne from the Catholics. If France has religious problems, they might not be able to do anything and we could see Mary's son as the future King of France, yet only ruling over France. Of course he'd have claims to England and Scotland and might make moves against them in the future... but if he's raised in France, he might not be a popular alternative. Catholic is one thing, but he'd also be a foreigner. France might be able to pull off this union, but I think Spain might be more friendly towards England if only to keep it from happening. The Habsburgs and Valois were both Catholic but hated eachother.

Click to expand...

That analysis is very much true.

Francis II of France having a son with Mary Stuart has the potential to lead to a Franco-British Empire, or a United Kingdom of France, England, Scotland and Ireland if you prefer... But, only in theory. Technically, there are several huge problems that comes into play.

The First one, which is the maine one, is Religion. France is a Catholic country, even if Protestantism did show up and is causing a mess. Not to mention that Francis II and his spouse, Mary Stuart, were heavily influenced by the House of Guise (Mary being the daughter of a Guise woman), the most arch-catholic family of the time in France. Thus, chances that Francis II of Mary would convert to Protestantism are nearly zero.
On the other hand, England is one of the leading Protestant countries. The horrors of "Bloody" Mary are still in the minds of the English : there's no way the English are going to accept a Catholic on the English throne.
Lastly, there is Scotland who is turning Protestant at the time. Though I do not know enough on Scottish history, I can say this will cause trouble, especially with the attitude of the Scottish Queen Mother, a Guise.

The Second one is purely linked to Franco-English ennemity. Francis II is King of France, thus his son is French in the eyes of the English. The Hundred Years' War isn't that far off... It only ended a Hundred years ago... The English won't accept a French King on the throne, even if he is Elizabeth's successor : too much bad blood between the two countries.

The third one is simply linked to politics... Remember that the Hapsburg are the dominating power in Europe at the time. Seeing the birth of a behemoth, a personnal Union between France and England, is certainly NOT in their interests : these are two of the most powerful nations of the time.

Francis II's son is probably going to claim the three crowns, but will have a very hard time acquiring them.
Elizabeth I will be heavily pressurized into marrying. If she will do this is another story, but this would probably happen : Elizabeth wasn't dumb enough to let her country in the hands of her most hated cousin (Mary Stuart). If Elizabeth marries and has a child, that child will be a thorn in the side of Francis II and Mary's son's ambitions.
Lastly, there is the fact that a Personnal Union between France and Scotland isn't going to be an easy one to realize, especially with rebellious scottish nobles and an hostile England.

DrakeRlugia said:

On a purely nitpicking note, I doubt the little boy would be named Arthur. Even if he has Scottish blood and claims to England, certainly the French would make a big deal about giving him a proper name, like Louis, Charles, Henri, or François. Even in the 1490s there was a big deal because Réne of Naples was the god-father to Charles Orland, the Dauphin and wanted to name his solely Orland, after Roland from the Song of Roland. The Princes of the Blood made a huge deal about it being a foreign name and demanded he be given a traditional name after one of his ancestors, Philippe, Louis, or Charles. They ultimately settled on Charles but he also held the name Orland. Those French were quite the sticklers for etiquette...

Click to expand...

Agreed on the fact Arthur isn't a very likely name... It could be of course as Arthurian legends were already popular on that time, but I don't think it will be the prefered name.

The name of the Francis II and Mary Stuart's son has great chances of being one of the following ones (in order of likehood in my opinion) :
-Francis, because it is the name of the boy's father and of Francis II's grandfather, the great King Francis I of France.
-Henri, because of the boy's grandfather, King Henri II of France. It could also be linked to the fact that Eight Kings of England were named Henry, but this would also show up Mary's ambition.
-Charles, as it is a very common name in the House of Valois : four of the Kings of France of the Valois Dynasty were named Charles (Charles V (1364-1380), Charles VI (1380-1422), Charles VII (1422-1461) and Charles VIII (1483-1498)) and several other members bore that name, including Francis II's younger brother (OTL Charles IX).
-Louis, because it is the name that was the most given to a French King (the last Louis to rule before Francis II was Louis XII). Plus, there is Saint Louis (King Louis IX of France) among them, and we do are in times of religious tension.
-Robert. Two king of Frances (Robert I (922-923) and Robert II the Pious (987-1031)) did bear that name and they are both linked to the Capetians (Robert I was Hugues Capet's grandfather while Robert II was Hugues's son). Problem is that it didn't stay as a popular name for the Kings of France and even if Scottish Kings bear it (Such as Robert Bruce), boy names are generally chosen among the father's ancestors.
-Philip as six kings of France were given that name. It's not a very common name under the main branch of the House of Valois though... The only Valois King named Philip was Philip VI.
-John, one of the least used name for French Kings. It is generally given to cadet sons in the French royal family. Plus, the two king of France who were given that name weren't lucky (John I died five days after his birth and John II became prisonner of the English during the HYW). It is also not a good name for one who wished the English crown (John Lackland).
-James, as it is a very common name for a Scottish King. Not very likely though as boy names are generally chosen in the father's family.

The British Scotsman said:

I'd say unless it is Fance occupiying Scotland, she will not even get Scotland... saying the Reformation goes the same way as OTL.

Click to expand...

She did rule Scotland by being personally Catholic over a Protestant Church for a bit, but aye, that did cause problems.

Valdemar II said:

I think if the nearest legitime claimant after Elizabeth to the English throne are the Crown Prince of France, Elizabeth may decide to marry rather than stay unmarried. Frederik II has been suggested before, and he isn't a bad choice, he has the same age as Elizabeth, he is the second greatest Protestant ruler after Elizabeth. He's relative religious tolerant toward difference in Protestant doctrine. All in all from a political, economical and religious standpoint the marriage make sense.

Click to expand...

Hrm, what's the economic reason to get together?


Not to mention that Francis II and his spouse, Mary Stuart, were heavily influenced by the House of Guise (Mary being the daughter of a Guise woman), the most arch-catholic family of the time in France.[/quote]

I think that this is a bit unfair; Francis's siblings were moderates during the wars of religion.

On the other hand, England is one of the leading Protestant countries. The horrors of "Bloody" Mary are still in the minds of the English : there's no way the English are going to accept a Catholic on the English throne.

Click to expand...

I feel obligated to note that we almost did get Catholic Stuarts a century later, when the Protestants were much more firmly entrenched.

I agree England is unlikely, but I think a Franco-Scottish union might emerge, albeit temporarily.

Faeelin said:

Hrm, what's the economic reason to get together?

Click to expand...

For England it would be to dominatethe Baltic trade, the Hansetic League are decaying, the Dutch are the main competor, with a union with Denmark, English ships and mechants would get free access to the Baltic. For Denmark they would gain access to British know-how and capital, which would allow Denmark to continue developing the sound towns, which lies in the heart of the royal domains, and was a major focus at the time*. It's going to be interesting, Ftrederik to large extent focused on the development of Helsingør rather than Copenhagen as his descendants did. Helsingør at this point was mostly populated by Scots and Dutch. With the greater necessary tolerance (to not piss of the English), we may see Calvinism being popenly allowed, resulting in a large infusion of Dutch** and Scots** beside the English. If Helsingør reach a size where it can compete with Copenhagen, we may see a Denmark not dominated by Copenhagen but by several large cities, much as Netherlands were.

*the Danish policy to focus development on the Sound started under Frederik II and more or less never ended, through the focused moved from Helsinør to Copenhagen under Frederiks son Christian IV.

**With Denmark and England in union, Scots and Dutch mechant would need to live in Denmark to stay competetive with the English mechants in the Baltic trade. The result would also be a stregthening of the Danish burgher class and mechant marine.

Faeelin said:

She did rule Scotland by being personally Catholic over a Protestant Church for a bit, but aye, that did cause problems.

Click to expand...

Yes, but she was not the Queen of France at the time, I doubt the King of France would be willing to compromise as much as she was willing to do to become Queen...

Faeelin said:

I think that this is a bit unfair; Francis's siblings were moderates during the wars of religion.

Click to expand...

Although I have a little doubt with Charles IX (Saint Barthelemew's slaughter happened during his reign and he seems to have taken part in it), I can agree that Francis' siblings were moderates.
I'm not saying Francis II couldn't turn out as a moderate : he is after all a son of Catherine de Medicis (who was moderate despite the black legend around her). But Mary Stuart was heavily under a Guise influence as her mother was a Guise herself. It would thus depend on who Francis listens the most : his mother of his wife.

Faeelin said:

I feel obligated to note that we almost did get Catholic Stuarts a century later, when the Protestants were much more firmly entrenched.

Click to expand...

Point taken. However, I'm practically sure the English wouldn't want a Catholic French on the English throne as that time. During Charles IX and Henry III's reigns, there were negotiations for Elizabeth to marry Hercules-Francis (the youngest brother of Francis II), but all of this failed because the marriage wasn't popular in England and Elizabeth always choosed her people/the good of her kingdom over her feelings (she did enjoy Hercules-Francis' company, giving him the nickname "the frog").

The British Scotsman said:

Yes, but she was not the Queen of France at the time, I doubt the King of France would be willing to compromise as much as she was willing to do to become Queen...

Click to expand...

But she was Queen of France when Scotland officially became a Protestant nation. In reality, a compromise would have to have been made for it to work, she was not as stupid as to allow religion to get in the way...

Numerous issues:

1) Mary Stuart had far more interest in first her French Queen Consorts Crown and secondly in pursuing to the point of death her rights to inherit (if not disposes Elizabeth of it) the English Crown - her interest in Scotland certainly in her early life was minimal. She stays in France then she continues to urge her rights to England.
2) From his accession Francis II was dominated by the Guise party at court, not his mother Catherine de Medici. It was one reason why Catherine was keen to be rid of Mary after Francis' death and was opposed to her marrying the new King Charles. At least in the short term Francis and Mary will be dominated by her uncles who will push her claims to England (remember to Catholic europe Elizabeth was illegitimate and a heretic - Mary was to them the rightful heir of Mary Tudor whatever the English Parliament said.)
3) The pressure on Elizabeth will be immense to a) marryand b) to offer even more support to the lords of the congregation in Scotland and to the Hugenots in France (in OTL she offered scant support despite her council's urging because she believed it completely wrong to support people who were rebelling against their lawful sovereign)
4) Finding a husband for Elizabeth will be virtually impossible - firstly Parliament will not be pleased with a foreign catholic marriage (and marrying to please Philip of Spain will be the most advantageous match with a surviving Francis II) - secondly marrying into one of the other small Protestant nations gives her no advantage in any war with France and thirdly a domestic marriage means upsetting her nobles at home (dudley was out of the question).
5) If Mary imposes some counter reformation measures on Scotland then the Kirk and her nobles will almost certainly move to depose her, they have two candidates - both of whom would have switched religion if necessary to gain a crown - the Hamilton line will be favoured although I suspect Elizabeth would prefer the Earl of Lennox (keeping his wife and sons at home in England as security for his good behaviour). Either way then i suspect that much of the marriage talk will either be Elizabeth and Hamilton, or Elizabeth and Darnley or as an outside chance Elizabeth wishing to remain single but instead offering Catherine Grey (depending whether her liaison with Seymour happens in this tl) up as the sacrificial lamb with a strong hint that she will be ELizabeth's heir. Whatever happens the negotiations will probably resemble those in otl when Elizabeth was urging Mary remarry to please heir with a hint of the succession in England as the prize if she did as Elizabeth wished.
6) In an earlier post someone pointed out te roblems that accompanied the Union of the Crowns with the Accession to the English throne in 1603 - these have become confused with the feelings of nationalism and pride that arose after and during the Act of Union a century later. In the early seventeenth century the feelings were very different - James VI and I first proposed a full political union - it ws rejected by the English Parliament who also didn't like him to use the style King of Britain the Scots peers who couldn't move south quick enough were less bothered about it. There were advantages on both sides that were keenly recognised on both sides.
7) In all the above you have to get over one big character trait of Elizabeth's that throughout her life she believed very strongly that she should be succeeded by the person who had the most right - in her view that really was Mary Stuart and her descendants despite Mary's catholicisim. Mary's deposition and her loss of her son to the Protestant Lords who raised him in the reformed religion solved Elizabeth's dilemma/

I agree with most of the above, but not point 7. Elizabeth's main interest in the succession was in ensuring that it remained undecided. She had experienced how men flocked to her as her sister's star waned, and also experienced her sister's unrelenting jealousy and enmity towards herself as heiress presumptive. She did not want to hand anyone the position of power that being named heir would give them, or risk the conspiracies against herself that would inevitably start to gather around this person, whether he or she wanted them to happen or not. She had enough of them as it was, usually centred around Mary Stuart, without naming an heir.

I never detected any interest on Elizabeth's part in ensuring that the most rightful claim to be her successor triumphed. Although, sticking to the policy outlined above, she would never officially say so, it was quite clear that she expected James VI to succeed her and was happy that he would. He had no rights whatsoever. English succession law at the time was governed by the last will of Henry VIII, he having been authorised by statute to settle the succession in that way. He excluded the entire line of his sister Margaret, Queen of Scots and later Countess of Douglas, leaving the succession in default of heirs from his own children to those of his younger sister Mary.

That was the law as it stood at Elizabeth's death. Nevertheless the excluded James was proclaimed without demur (though the laboured and anxious acession proclamation reads like some demur might have been expected; none eventuated) and processed through England to be crowned with people virtually singing Hosannas and laying palms at his feet. He encountered not just little but no opposition because he was the only realistic choice, and the law be damned.

The more senior members of Mary's line all had some question mark over their legitimacy, making who actually was the most senior contentious, and none of them seemed remotely up to the job. James was perfectly legitimate, senior in two albeit excluded lines, an experienced monarch who had been a fair few years on the throne of not the easiest kingdom to rule, provided with heirs, and generally considered a man of parts. Plus he had the tacit support of his great predecessor and also of her ministers, particularly and crucially Cecil. So he was a shoo-in.

Much of this relates to the thread generally. James was acceptable being Protestant, Scottish and male (after fifty years of Queens, one catastrophic but brief and one brilliant and beloved but enduring to the point almost of wearing out her welcome, the English were ready for a change). Mary Stuart would not have been, being Catholic, French and female. There is zero possibility of the English of the time accepting a French ruler and limited chance of their accepting a Catholic one, so awful had their own Mary I's reign been. Eight decades after Elizabeth's death the resistance to the idea of a Catholic succession was widespread and strong, and earlier it would have been much more powerful. Then her being female would have compounded these two felonies. Her hypothetical son by Francis II would only have lacked the last and by far least important demerit.

So I don't to be honest think this scenario would work at all. Certainly Francis II could have been healthier than he was and he and Mary could have had a child, but the chances are that this would have led to succession wars which France would have lost. I don't think there is any chance at all of the peaceful union of France, England and Scotland being accomplished by such means.

I do not by the way believe that Elizabeth would ever have married under any circumstances or any pressure. She knew what she could accomplish as a ruler and she intended to do it. She knew also that a husband would inevitably seek to take authority from her and would hinder her, quite apart from the political difficulties inherent in the choice of a husband outlined above. And, the indications are that she personally did not wish to be married, preferring to remain herself and her own person rather than be a wife. The succession could look after itself, which it did. Letting things look after themselves formed a large part of her policy, frustrating her advisers no end, but it worked more often than not.

Much agreement with the last point - but on your disagreement with my previous point -i perhaps was a bit unclear.
Politically it was in Elizabeth's interests and in her character to consistantly refuse to name an heir.
However when pushed she consistantly stated that 'he who has the most right should succeed'. Everything that Elizabeth wrote and said (that isn't apocrophal) is pretty clear that she had a strong sense that she a reigning Queen should be succeeded by someone of equal stature who was the rightful heir - she just didn't name them.
Her constant concern regarding Mary wasn't just a religious or political one - she saw her as a fellow Queen as well as a cousin and was deeply aware that Mary's failings reflected on her as a Queen despite the differences in their religion.
During the later reign Elizabeth was exceptionally interested in James VI and constantly writing to him - her stream of letters are almost maternal in nature and it is pretty clear that whilst she refused to name him her view was that he would succeed - and as you point out by then the council were also keen on an adult married protestant male after decades of the aberration (g) of female rule.
The final Henrician act of succession was ignored throughout her reign and at the only point the succession was actively discussed by her council was when she fell ill with smallpox and the council were divided though legally at that point Catherine Grey was the rightful heir (according to the Act of Succession).
By 1603 it was simply left in a cupboard - partially because by then it would be hard to say who was the legal heir - Catherine Grey's grandson or Eleanor Brandon's great granddaughter.

I've read some of that correspondence, and it is a charming insight into the Queen's character. Scolding, chattering, confiding, almost maternal as you say (Elizabeth was of course James's godmother). As I understand it Elizabeth knowingly or not was actually conducting the correspondence with Cecil in the last few years of it; with James's grateful acquiescence Elizabeth's letters were discreetly opened before despatch so Cecil could pen a draft reply to accompany them on their journey north, a procedure which markedly improved relations between the two kingdoms.

I agree and had already said that Elizabeth expected and wanted James to succeed her. I would suspect though that the remarks about the person with most right were intended only to deflect the question. She could hardly be interrogated on the subject if she didn't want to be, and was perfectly safe making a generalised and unexceptionable remark like that so long as specifics weren't entered into.

it is amusing that of the four alternate successions to the English/British crowns the two most obscure include the Anne Stanley (heiress of Eleanor Brandon) one, which is the most soundly based legally, in my opinion anyway. Actually none of them are soundly based legally, since the succession is governed by the Acts of Settlement and Union, but I mean at the time.

The Edward IV/his children were illegitimate one is preposterous, based on the lies of Richard III which still circulate after all these centuries, and even if they were true would be invalidated by the Act settling the succession on Henry VII and his heirs. The Jacobite one is obviously reasonable in some regards but there was ample precedent for removing unsatisfactory monarchs, of which James II and VII was the epitome, and it had very long been established that Parliament controlled the succession. The Lady Frederica Schomberg one, well, it is arguable, just, that her mother was legitimate but in all the circumstances it is not surprising that she was passed over. But the Edward Seymour/Anne Stanley claim had they asserted it would have been very solidly based in law, and if upheld there would have been little James could do.