ahc wi No Union of the Crowns, Stuarts left in Scotland

Could there have been someone who was not King of Scotland have succeeded to the English Throne after Elizabeth's death.

(of course the ideal would have been for Elizabeth to briefly marry some Noble who would get himself killed in the Low Countries but leave her with a legitimate heir.)

I am assuming that there were other relatives of the Tudors around
 
Philip II had had a weak claim as the spouse of Mary. But he was dead....so perhaps a Spanish takeover of England could work?
 
Perhaps Lady Jane Grey survived? Having either Wyatt's rebellion fizzle out altogether or at least have the Duke of Suffolk (Jane's father) standing aside would have weakened the need to have her executed and Mary might well have spared her.

Jane would almost certainly have outlived Mary and possibly Elizabeth (she was slightly younger than Elizabeth). Assuming she had a child in the late 1550s that son or daughter would be in his or her forties when Elizabeth died and have a good claim to the throne.
 
Under the Third Act of Succession which was never repealed and Henry VIII's will in 1603 the succession was as follows.

If you accept the legitimacy of Catherine Grey's marriage then
1) Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp
2) Edward Seymour
3) William Seymour
4) Francis Seymour
5) Honora Seymour
6) Anne Seymour
7) Mary Seymour
If Catherine Grey's marriage is invalid then the lawful succession passes to the descendants of her aunt Lady Eleanor Brandon
1) Anne Stanley
2) Frances Stanley m 1602 John Egerton, 1st Earl of Bridgewater
3) Elizabeth Stanley m 1601 Henry Hastings later 5th Earl of Huntingdon
4) William Stanley 6th Earl of Derby
 
Under the Third Act of Succession which was never repealed and Henry VIII's will in 1603 the succession was as follows.

If you accept the legitimacy of Catherine Grey's marriage then
1) Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp
2) Edward Seymour
3) William Seymour
4) Francis Seymour
5) Honora Seymour
6) Anne Seymour
7) Mary Seymour
If Catherine Grey's marriage is invalid then the lawful succession passes to the descendants of her aunt Lady Eleanor Brandon
1) Anne Stanley
2) Frances Stanley m 1602 John Egerton, 1st Earl of Bridgewater
3) Elizabeth Stanley m 1601 Henry Hastings later 5th Earl of Huntingdon
4) William Stanley 6th Earl of Derby

The irony is of course that if the crown were to descend to Hastings, then it would see a the royal bloodline of the duke of Clarence's heirs taking the throne. Huntingdon's paternal great-grandmother is Catherine Pole, grand-daughter of Margaret of York, daughter of the aforementioned duke of Clarence. Also, it would mean that the English royal family descends not once but twice from Jacquetta of Luxembourg, and twice from the house of York - through Edward IV and George of Clarence.
 
So without Stuart abberations how strong is the English Parliament?

How are Anglo Scottish relations?

Well, I think that would depend on who inherits - Seymour or Stanley (or some weird little combination where Anne Stanley (b. 1580) marries Viscount Beauchamp (b. 1586) as a way of solidifying the two claims against Stuart arguments.

Then of course there are still the Stewart claimants (children of Margaret Douglas, the queen of Scots' daughter from her second marriage). Arabella Stewart is also a possible candidate as Queen Arabella of England - her grandma was Bess of Hardwick, so it's probably possible with enough scheming.
 
Is it possible/easier to separate Ireland from England at some point (possibly under a separate monarch) if the Stuarts never inherit England?
 
Is it possible/easier to separate Ireland from England at some point (possibly under a separate monarch) if the Stuarts never inherit England?

Nope, I don't think so.

Henry VIII's parliament had passed a law basically stipulating that the king of England was also the king of Ireland, although he had toyed with the idea of naming his bastard, Henry Fitzroy as king/viceroy in Ireland.
 
Nope, I don't think so.

Henry VIII's parliament had passed a law basically stipulating that the king of England was also the king of Ireland, although he had toyed with the idea of naming his bastard, Henry Fitzroy as king/viceroy in Ireland.

That did not stop Henry's desired succession in England from being defeated in our timeline.
 
If the Stuarts are Kings of Scotland alone then England will not bail the country out after the Darien debarcle. Consequently, with them really skint they are not going to be able to full advantage of the Industrial Revolution.

In addition, when the Highland Clearances began in the mid 1700s there is going to be no friendly colonies to go to; if a boatload of Scots turn up in New England, they are lightly to be given the boot out of His Britannic Majesty's waters.
 
If the Stuarts are Kings of Scotland alone then England will not bail the country out after the Darien debarcle. Consequently, with them really skint they are not going to be able to full advantage of the Industrial Revolution.

In addition, when the Highland Clearances began in the mid 1700s there is going to be no friendly colonies to go to; if a boatload of Scots turn up in New England, they are lightly to be given the boot out of His Britannic Majesty's waters.

Might be interesting if there was an independent Scottish colony established someplace unclaimed as a result...
 
Top