How Long Can a Dynastic Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland Be Delayed?

[JonasResende]

OTL, when Elizabeth died at the beginning of the 17th century, the Stuarts went south to London and for all intents and purposes, the British Isles were under a single king.

My question relates to how long could they be kept as two separate kingdoms under two separate dynasties? Are they doomed to an intermarriage policy a la Spain-Portugal? Or would they follow two largely divergent policies like Denmark and Sweden until the 19th century?

As a side note, what are some of the more interesting marriages that can dynastically unite the two kingdoms? I'm ignoring the oft-toted Edward VI-Mary, Queen of Scots match (since that's sort of boring - while a union happening through Bloody Mary's half-Habsburg child and Mary, Queen of Scots' Valois kid is less so, for instance). It'd be especially funny if the crowns end up on the same head through accident and happenstance.

 

[isabella]

Well you can have Henry VIII dying before the birth of Bloody Mary (or with Mary stillborn or dying quickly after her father). The next in line would be his elder sister Margaret, Queen of Scotland (Dowager from 1513) and her son James V after her

 

[Rheinbund]

you could let have the frenchy kingdom to have a dynastic union with Scotland, it almost happened unfortunately Francis II died without children.

Else you could have a religious issue, by example Scotland could stay catholic and put in their sucession law that their ruler should be catholic seen a catholic couldn't inherit of the throne of England you could avoid a dynastic union.

You can also have a Scotland more aggressive against England making the English wary of a Scotissh king and inversely, ensuring that their national parliaments would refuse any union.

 

[JonasResende]

Well you can have Henry VIII dying before the birth of Bloody Mary (or with Mary stillborn or dying quickly after her father). The next in line would be his elder sister Margaret, Queen of Scotland (Dowager from 1513) and her son James V after her

I like the idea of this. Particularly if James IV survives Flodden. James was one of the better (see smarter) Stewart/Stuarts IMHO.

you could let have the frenchy kingdom to have a dynastic union with Scotland, it almost happened unfortunately Francis II died without children.

I think had François lived or Mary had had a Valois-husband with whom to sprog, the pressure would've been on for Liz to marry. IIRC, (perhaps @mcdnab knows more, since they did a TL based on the premise) there was a worry when François II died that Mary may have been pregnant. Fortunately, Mary had her courses and the worry passed. If they didn't, I'd imagine the lords are going to want to find a husband for Liz post-haste. Not so much because Mary's child would be Catholic (although that would certainly be in their mind, but Liz hadn't shown herself to be fish-nor-fowl religiously - besides her coronation AFAIK), but because Mary's child would be French. And to an Englishman, the idea of being ruled by a French king was unacceptable.

Else you could have a religious issue, by example Scotland could stay catholic and put in their sucession law that their ruler should be catholic seen a catholic couldn't inherit of the throne of England you could avoid a dynastic union.

You can also have a Scotland more aggressive against England making the English wary of a Scotissh king and inversely, ensuring that their national parliaments would refuse any union.

The problem with that was that England only barred a Catholic in the 1690s/1700s, so before that I'm not sure that it would be a deal-breaker - unless TTL England's had a string of diehard Catholic monarchs before they got a Protestant king. Although England would probably do backflips to try and avoid it (a papist monarch), and would probably protect their "religious (Anglican) liberties" as thickly as a hedge around an apple orchard, with laws to keep a Papist king from meddling with the CoE.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

My question relates to how long could they be kept as two separate kingdoms under two separate dynasties?

To the present day.

 

[JonasResende]

To the present day.

Care to elaborate?

 

[TruthfulPanda]

If the POD is around Elizabeth's reign, keep her from exterminating her relatives and have an alternative to James. And the two realms never enter a dynastic union ...
Or have more of Jame's sons survive and Scotland refusing to accept the same son as England.
And from that time onward the two countries exist cheek to jowl ...

 

[stevej713]

If the POD is around Elizabeth's reign, keep her from exterminating her relatives and have an alternative to James. And the two realms never enter a dynastic union ...
Or have more of Jame's sons survive and Scotland refusing to accept the same son as England.
And from that time onward the two countries exist cheek to jowl ...

Unless, of course, England decides to take Scotland by force.

 

[JonasResende]

Unless, of course, England decides to take Scotland by force.

Didn't go so well for them the last time (Longshanks' reign). IIRC, the English ended up spinning their wheels when Ed would have far rather been doing something else (crusading or campaigning in Gascony).

 

[stevej713]

Didn't go so well for them the last time (Longshanks' reign). IIRC, the English ended up spinning their wheels when Ed would have far rather been doing something else (crusading or campaigning in Gascony).

Just because England failed at one point in history doesn't mean they were incapable of pulling it off eventually. I imagine Cromwell would have subdued an independent Scotland.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

And the purpose of conquering those bleak bogs is ... ?
By mid XVIIth century the merchant class having a large say in the running force of the country, and not only landowners after more tithe paying peasants, who will press for conquest of the Barren North?

 

[JonasResende]

Just because England failed at one point in history doesn't mean they were incapable of pulling it off eventually. I imagine Cromwell would have subdued an independent Scotland.

I'm sure he could've done. And look at how the Irish remember him for doing it

 

[TruthfulPanda]

I'm sure he could've done. And look at how the Irish remember him for doing it

This is because he was too nice - he did not kill everybody, there were survivors. The era had some Sassenach butchers much worse than the Lord Protector, but they did not leave witnesses ...

 

[Von Tyrconnell]

Just because England failed at one point in history doesn't mean they were incapable of pulling it off eventually. I imagine Cromwell would have subdued an independent Scotland.

If Scotland remains Catholic such a war would destroy Cromwell's alliance with France, the Stuarts never taking the English throne would also probably butterfly away the English Civil War and Cromwell coming to power.

 

[JonasResende]

If Scotland remains Catholic such a war would destroy Cromwell's alliance with France, the Stuarts never taking the English throne would also probably butterfly away the English Civil War and Cromwell coming to power.

Probably. Not to say that a Tudor - or someone else - couldn't be as much of a blunderer with parliament as Charles I was perceived as and we get a slightly different Civil War...

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

How about this?

Charles and James both have fatal accidents or illnesses during the Interregnum, leaving their younger brother Henry as heir. (Charles drowns in a shipwreck while sailing to Scotland for OTL's Third Civil War, so the Covenanters don't get hammered OTL.) Cromwell lives ten years longer; he roots the Commonwealth very well in England, but rather neglects Scotland; he campaigns repeatedly in Ireland, and is KIA in 1668.

This leads to a general political crisis; a brutal struggle between Cromwell's chief henchmen for power in England paralyzes the central government. In Scotland, there is a lot of discontent with English domination. Henry has been in contact with the Covenanters; while factions of the New Model Army slug it out in England, a national rebellion in Scotland overthrows English control and enthrones Henry. However, there is scarcely a twitch of royalism in England. Henry cuts a deal with one of the NMA factions - he renounces the English crown, in return for Scottish independence.

That faction triumphs in England, but then its leader dies abruptly, causing additional years of instability. Meanwhile, Henry secures his place in Scotland, tamping down Covenanter extremism. He marries a Dutch princess with a very nice dowry.

In England, the NMA regime becomes strongly republican, abolishing the titles of many great families for royalism or simply being of the wrong faction. In 1693, they abolish all titles.

England and Scotland are now permanently estranged.