Alternate after Elizabeth ?

After the death of Elizabeth 1st If they had decided not to give the english crown to King James of Scotland who would they have picked ? Who would have the best claim ect ?
 
After the death of Elizabeth 1st If they had decided not to give the english crown to King James of Scotland who would they have picked ? Who would have the best claim ect ?



According to the official line of succession, Catherine and Mary Grey, or after their fall, Margaret Clifford and her Stanley children.
 
The main alternative candidates considered by Elizabeth and her immediate court later in her reign were:

  1. Lady Arabella Stuart -- James's first cousin on his father's side, who was orphaned as an infant and raised by her English grandmother (Bess of Hardwick) on the fringes of Elizabeth's court. James was descended from the elder daughter of Henry VII (Margaret Tudor) on both sides of his family: his mother was descended from Margaret via her first husband (James IV of Scotland), and his father was descended from her via her second husband (Matthew Stuart, 4th Earl of Lennox). James's father was the first son of Matthew Stuart and Margaret Tudor, and Arabella's father was their second son. Arabella's main legal advantage over James's claim is that she was born and raised in England and is unquestionably an English subject, whereas James met the requirement that only English subjects could inherit the English throne only through the legal fiction that England's ancient attempts to assert suzerainty over Scotland made Scots honorary English subjects. Arabella's also next in line under the legal reasoning that made James heir to the English throne if James were to die childless.
  2. Edward Seymour -- Eldest son of Lady Catherine Grey by her "husband", the Earl of Hertford. "Husband" is in scare quotes because the marriage was performed in secret, without the Queen's permission (required for royal marriages), without any surviving witnesses or paperwork, and nobody could track down the alleged priest afterwards. The Star Chamber ruled the marriage invalid, declared Edward and his brother bastards, and sentenced their father to a hefty fine for "seducing a virgin of the royal blood". If the determination of bastardry were reversed or ignored, Edward would be the legal heir under the will of Henry VIII and the Third Succession Act (which put the descendants of Henry's younger sister Mary Duchess of Suffolk ahead of the descendants of his older sister Margaret, discussed above).
  3. Lady Anne Stanley -- Eldest daughter of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby. Assuming Edward Seymour is indeed considered a bastard, Lady Anne is the most senior surviving descendant of Mary, Duchess of Suffolk. She's also the stepdaughter of the Lord Chancellor of England at the time of Elizabeth's death.
Other speculation late in Elizabeth's reign explored other candidates in hopes of finding a Catholic heir (this speculation was mainly done on the Continent, or in the English Catholic community), mainly the European descendants of Phillipa of Lancaster (daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster). The major candidates were:

  1. Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia -- Sister of King Philip III of Spain, daughter of the late Philip II of Spain, co-ruler (with her husband, Archduke Albert) of the Spanish Netherlands, and first-runner-up in the recent French throne war. In addition to her very distant Lancastrian descent, she's also the nominated heir to her father's claim to the English throne (based on a combination of Mary, Queen of Scot's will passing along her claim to the English throne to the King of Spain rather than to her infant son, a jure uxoris claim based on his marriage to Bloody Mary, and the explicit endorsement of the Pope early in the Anglo-Spanish war).
  2. Charles Emanuel I, Duke of Savoy -- Has a slightly better genealogical claim based on Lancastrian descent than Isabella, and is somewhat less politically impossible (unlike Spain, Savoy hasn't been continuously at war with England for the last quarter-century, personal union with Savoy isn't a direct and immediate threat to English sovereignty, and his father wasn't the hated consort of Bloody Mary).
There's also any number of major English nobles with at least a drop or two of royal blood, most notably:

  1. George Hastings, 4th Earl of Huntingdon -- With the last remnants of the de la Pole family having faded into obscurity in exile in France, the descendants of George, Duke of Clarence are the only notable surviving heirs of the House of York apart from the House of Tudor itself and its cadet branches. The Hastings of Huntingdon are the senior line here, they're among the foremost noble families in England, and they've generally been very strongly Protestant. George's brother and predecessor had been seriously considered as a potential heir to Elizabeth when she was ill early in her reign, but the Huntingdon line wasn't really mentioned much as potential heir later in her reign. OTL, George Hastings died a year or so after Elizabeth and was succeeded by his grandson Henry, who was married to the aforementioned Lady Anne Stanley's younger sister, and who would become a major Puritan leader.
  2. Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland -- The Percys of Northumberland are descended from Edward III's second son (Lionel of Antwerp, from whom the House of York also derived their primary claim to the throne; the York line is senior to the Northumberland line), and the 9th Earl in particular was Privy Councillor and a major figure in Elizabeth's court late in her reign. He was almost certainly a Catholic sympathizer, and quite possibly a crypto-Catholic himself; rumor of this lead to much of the little support he had as a potential heir to Elizabeth (largely in the English Catholic community, which mentioned his name alongside Infanta Isabella and the Duke of Savoy), but also placed a very low ceiling on his potential support.
  3. There are a few other lines I'm less familiar with. The line of the Dukes of Buckingham had been significant as potental rival claimants under Richard III, Henry VII, and Henry VIII, and the line is still around as of Elizabeth's death, but their political power has long since been broken.
  4. George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon -- His father Henry Carey was Elizabeth's first cousin on their mothers' sides, and was widely rumored to be the illegitimate son of Henry VIII (Henry Carey's mother, Mary Boleyn, had been Henry VIII's mistress around the time he would have been conceived, and he bore a strong resemblance to Henry VIII and was shown considerable favor by both Henry VIII and later Elizabeth). As a bastard, he can't inherit under normal rules of succession, but this can be set aside by an act of Parliament: Mary and Elizabeth were both legally bastards (their respective mothers' marriages to Henry VIII had been annulled and the First and Second Succession Acts had in turn explicitly declared both of them illegitimate, and the Third Succession Act restored them into the line of succession but did not reverse the declaration that they were bastards), Henry VIII probably tried to get Parliament to confirm his other illegitimate son Henry FitzRoy as his heir, and Henry VII's genealogical claim to the throne ran through a legitimized bastard son of John of Gaunt. The various members of the Carey family enjoyed quite a bit of power and influence in Elizabeth's court and had a very friendly relationship with Elizabeth. I don't think the Careys were ever particularly discussed as potential heirs, particularly because their royal descent was never officially confirmed, but they are notable in that at the time of Elizabeth's death they're the only remaining direct descendants of Henry VIII.

Major concerns that lead to the choice of James IOTL:

  1. Established power base -- James was King of Scotland, giving him the ability to raise a sizeable army and put it in England to contest his claim if he were challenged or passed over. None of the other heirs had anywhere near his ability to field an army in England to secure the succession (the Duke of Savoy and especially the Infanta Isabella had armies, but no good way to get them into England). Since an orderly succession was high on everyone's list, most of the major power brokers backed James because any other candidate risked war with James, but James (with support from Cecil and other key figures in Elizabeth's court) could easily sweep aside rival claimants.
  2. Straightforward legal theory of succession -- James had the advantage of being the heir based on simple genealogical seniority, which is straightforward, familiar, and indisputable. The other three major candidates are all more distant relationships, and to choose any of them you need to make a more complex argument about why the usual rules don't apply in this case, and in the case of Anne or Edward, why Edward is or isn't a bastard. And the minor candidates mostly have very weak and very complex claims to the throne. Simple arguments are easier to build consensus around, whereas complex arguments tend to invite further quibbles and disagreement.
  3. Heir Club for Men -- It was believed at the time that men were generally better suited to ruling a nation than women were, a married woman ruling in her own right risks division and controversy between her and her husband, and an unmarried woman could either fail to produce an heir (as Elizabeth did) producing a further succession crisis down the road, or could marry poorly leading to a disastrous reign dominated by an as-yet unknown husband (as Bloody Mary did). Elizabeth's example makes female candidates viable, but they're at a disadvantage to male candidates. At the time of Elizabeth's death, Anne and Arabella are unmarried, and the Infanta is married but is in her late 30s and is rumored to be infertile.
  4. Secure succession after James -- James had two sons (the proverbial "heir and a spare"), a daughter, and an apparently happy marriage to a young, fertile wife, so the succession after his is about as secure as it gets. Edward Seymour has two sons, at least two daughters, and a younger brother, but the other two major candidates were both unmarried women. Most of the minor candidates (with the notable exception of the Infanta) were doing pretty well on this point.
  5. Religion -- England is a protestant country, in the midst of an extended war with the major Catholic power in Europe, with not-too-distant memories of an oppressive Catholic ruler (Bloody Mary) and more recent memories of Catholic assassination and coup plots. Any openly Catholic heir is implausible, and any rumored crypto-Catholic would be at a distinct disadvantage. However, there's a small but powerful and intensely-motivated Catholic minority (perhaps 10-20% of the aristocracy) that has the potential to cause trouble if the heir is too Protestant. James struck a near-perfect balance, being a committed Protestant and the ruler of a Protestant country, but with beliefs on the moderate end of the Protestant spectrum, and with skilfully-sent deniable signals to Catholics that lead most of them to conclude he'd be about the best King (from the Catholic perspective) they could hope for. Anne, Arabella, and Northumberland are rumored crypto-Catholics; the Duke of Savoy and the Infanta are openly Catholic; and Huntingdon and Carey are towards the other extreme, being very nearly Puritans. I don't know anything about Edward Seymour's religion.
  6. Established track record -- James had already been a reigning monarchy for many years. England had a pretty good idea what they were getting with him, while they'd have to wait and find that out with Anne, Arabella, or Edward.
  7. Personal Union -- Uniting the crowns of England and Scotland guarantees England friendly relations on the northern border, a useful ally, and security against invasion so long as the navy remains strong.
James's big disadvantage is that he's not English and has established personal and political ties to a foreign nation. OTL, the early years of his reign were marred with resentment controversy over the favor he showed to the Scottish courtiers who came with him to London. This would also cut against the Infanta and the Duke of Savoy.


My best guess is that it depends on the POD. If James and his children die (perhaps plague, or even assassination) after Court opinion has more-or-less settled on him as Elizabeth's heir, Arabella would have a very strong edge, as all the legal arguments that had been made for James would now point to her.


If James were to render himself politically unacceptable at a late date (for example, by converting to Catholicism), the situation is wide open. Most likely would probably be for Edward Seymour to shore up his claim by marrying his eldest son to Arabella (IOTL, they very nearly did so but were prevented by Elizabeth, and Arabella later married Seymour's second son), and come out on top. Alternately, Henry Hastings (who would become the Earl of Huntingdon and the heir to the Huntingdon claim to the throne shortly after Elizabeth's death) might marry Anne Stanley instead of Anne's younger sister.


With an earlier POD of Elizabeth taking an active hand in nominating a successor rather than maintaining a policy of strategic ambiguity, there's any number of plausible alternatives. With Elizabeth's open support, particularly if she put the matter before Parliament for ratification, it's entirely plausible for any of the three major candidates or even some of the minor candidates (particularly Hastings or Carey) to be confirmed as heir and to have a relatively untroubled succession to the throne. Of the plausible candidates, Elizabeth had the most personal affection for and strongest professional relationship with Carey, followed by Northumberland, but Arabella (who had a much stronger claim to begin with) seems to have been the candidate Elizabeth showed the most inclination to support as heir.


IMO, Anne Stanley had by far the strongest legal claim to the throne, but that alone is a relatively minor consideration.
 
It's important to note that Henry VII was considered to hold the throne (primarily, or also) by right of conquest. The Papal Bull confirming him as King (for England was considered a Papal fief) granted the throne to him and his heirs, and thereafter to whomever they left it by will and testament. I guess historically no one ever made much note of this, but based on this Bull no one would be able to claim the throne from any Yorkist or Plantagenet descent.

In theory at least Elizabeth can leave the throne to whoever she wishes by Act of Parliament. Since Margaret Tudor's descendants were excluded from the succesion by Henry VIII, and Mary Tudor's grand-daughters all fell into disrepute, Elizabeth could potentially be lead to naming far more distant relative as her heir.

As for the Staffords, the son of the last Duke of Buckingham married Ursula Pole (Cardinal Pole's sister and daughter of Margaret Plantagenet), and had issue. Their daughter married Elizabeth I's uncle-by-marriage William Stafford, Mary Boleyn's widower.

Additionally you have the Earl of Rutland and the whole Manners family, who descend from Yorkist blood.
 
The Earl of Westmoreland, carrying both Yorkist and Lancastrian blood, might be possible heirs too.

Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, is another often overlooked one. His mother was a daughter of the Earl of Huntingdon and a daughter of the Duke of Buckingham. His father was the son of Cecily Bourchier, a daughter of William Bourchier, Viscount Bourchier, and Anne Woodville. Viscount Bourchier was the son of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex (great-grandson of Edward III) and Isabel Platagenet - aunt of Richard III & Edward IV, daughter of Richard of York, Earl of Cambridge (grandson of Edward III) and Anne Mortimr (great-granddaughter of Edward III).
 
Top