Anglo-French-Scot Kingdom?
- Thread starter Uruk
- Start date
AFAIK that was only added much later, after the Glorious Revolution (aka Dutch conquest of Britain
).
There'd be pressure to confirm Henry VIII's removal of his sister's line from the succession.
Elizabeth may forgive Edward Seymour's marriage to Catherine Grey (even if retroactively) and allow them to be in line.
In theory, there is little that could oppose a son of Francis II of France and Mary Stuart from inheriting the three Kingdoms of France, England and Scotland. The laws of succession in all three countries make it a possibility, though there is the issue brought by The Professor regarding Henry VIII's will in England.
In practice though, you'd need extraordinary circumstances to make it work. England is the most serious issue: I don't think the English would want a Catholic King on the throne, even more so if it's a French one (the Hundread Years' War isn't that far away). Plus, let's not forget that Mary and Elizabeth were more or less rivals: as such, it's highly unlikely Elizabeth would want Mary's son to be her successor. She did OTL, but Mary was long dead and James VI hadn't been raised by his mother.
You also have troubles in Scotland: Mary wasn't that popular a Queen because she was a bit too French for the Scots' tastes and the Auld Alliance was falling apart. Not to mention the Reformation had also spread to Scotland and a good deal of the country turned Presbytarian (which partially explains why Mary was kicked out shortly after she came back).
And then you have the troubles in France: the French Religious War were very damaging to the country. France was basically in Civil War between 1562 and 1598, with very fragile periods of peace. So the French wouldn't really be in a position to go for a Personnal Union of the Three Kingdoms with all the troubles it would bring. Furthermore, the Guise would have chance of being more important than they were OTL in the French court, and that wouldn't really help.
In practice though, you'd need extraordinary circumstances to make it work. England is the most serious issue: I don't think the English would want a Catholic King on the throne, even more so if it's a French one (the Hundread Years' War isn't that far away). Plus, let's not forget that Mary and Elizabeth were more or less rivals: as such, it's highly unlikely Elizabeth would want Mary's son to be her successor. She did OTL, but Mary was long dead and James VI hadn't been raised by his mother.
You also have troubles in Scotland: Mary wasn't that popular a Queen because she was a bit too French for the Scots' tastes and the Auld Alliance was falling apart. Not to mention the Reformation had also spread to Scotland and a good deal of the country turned Presbytarian (which partially explains why Mary was kicked out shortly after she came back).
And then you have the troubles in France: the French Religious War were very damaging to the country. France was basically in Civil War between 1562 and 1598, with very fragile periods of peace. So the French wouldn't really be in a position to go for a Personnal Union of the Three Kingdoms with all the troubles it would bring. Furthermore, the Guise would have chance of being more important than they were OTL in the French court, and that wouldn't really help.
It wasn't really a removal: more like putting his sister Mary's bloodline before that of his sister Margaret. In other words, Mary Stuart would still be in the English line of succession but she would be relegated behind Catherine Grey and her children.The Professor said:
It would depend on circumstances though. Also, wouldn't parliament have a word on this? Or was the parliament not strong enough at the time?The Professor said:
GdwnsnHo
Banned
I won't disagree that the religious issues are going to be .... troublesome without someone able to steer the realm(s) to peace. (Perhaps allow 3 faiths in 3 kingdoms with the ruler respecting each?).
But, what is Mary dies in childbirth or shortly after? I suppose it would depend on who the next bride was, but it would certainly help with distancing alt-James from Mary.
I think it would work better if the kid of Francis and Mary, let's call him 'Hercule' for now, didn't become the King of England and Scotland, but rather Elizabeth and Mary both lived long enough for Hercule to have two children of his own and give the English/Scottish Crowns to the younger son, while letting the elder be his heir to the French throne.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Can they consider a name change?
'Hercule' of House Poirot sounds amazing. Long Live the Poirot Dynasty!
See A More Personal Union by Thespitron 6000.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=193869&highlight=personal+Union
It deals pretty well with this scenario.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=193869&highlight=personal+Union
It deals pretty well with this scenario.
Francois Jacques is more possible, after Francis I and James V. Lowland Scotland was filled with Presbyterians, so forget about keeping the Scottish throne, Earl of Arran would seize the opportunity to take it for himself.
Thing is the XVIth-XVIIth Century weren't times of Tolerance. In most European countries, States were being built to become confessionnal by following the principle cuius regio, ejus religio (One King, One Faith).GdwnsnHo said:
France was the only country that didn't follow that rule but it came at the price of the Religious Wars because it wasn't a popular idea at the beginning: you had to wait the reign of Henri IV before the Edict of Nantes was proclaimed after all. And even then, the Edict barely stabilized the situation because the Protestants were a bit too powerful: which is why Richelieu worked his way to eventually reduce the Protestant's power by 1629 (taking away the fortress they had thanks to the Edict of Nantes). But in the end, the edict was abolished by Louis XIV in 1685, which effectively ended the French exception on the continent.
To complicate matters, the maternal uncles of Mary Stuart were part of the House of Guise, one of the most virulent Catholic leaders of the Religious Wars. This isn't going to help in making Francis II or his son tolerant. Not to mention that there are number of factions in England and Scotland who probably would want to do away with the "damned Papists".
Mary dead would change little in that scenario: her son would be raised in the French court. With Catherine de Medici being his grandmother, he might have chances of becoming more politically pragmatic but he would most likely be raised a Catholic, which is the biggest issue. And the Guise being his cousins, given the reputation they had as arch-catholics, wouldn't necessarilly help his image in England. And if I recall correctly, Marie de Guise (Mary Stuart's mother) wasn't a popular figure in Scotland, so that would most likely cause trouble as well.GdwnsnHo said:
Hercule doesn't sound like a likely name for that son, or at least not the name he would be christened as: the only French prince named Hercule I know was the Duke of Alençon, younger brother of Henri III, and he was christened as François in the end. Besides, Henri seems like a much more plausible choice in this scenario: it is the name of Francis II's father (Henri II), it would put emphasis on Mary's will to get the English crown (Eight Henrys had ruled England by that point) and it appears to be popular in the Stuart family at the time (Mary's second husband OTL was her cousin Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley).Shiva said:
Regarding the realms being divided between young Henri's children... It's possible they would go for that route because of how different the realms are and because we already have the example of Charles V splitting his possession between his son (Spain) and his brother (the HRE). But I think we're more in a time period were people are going for Personnal Unions than they are for Divided Realms... And really, it would also depend on the personna of the children of Henri's children.
AFAIK that was only added much later, after the Glorious Revolution (aka Dutch conquest of Britain
Wasn't the 'No Catholics' thing first in the 1701 Act of Settlement?
Not quite.
Edit of Fontainebleau (i.e. the revocation of the edit of Nantes) didn't apply to Alsace and when Louis XIV occupied Strasbourg, he only imposed that the cathedrale be given back to catholics and half the city officials be catholics but otherwise left protestants alone. He even paid for a tomb to be built and maintained in a protestant church for one of his favorite marshalls (Maurice of Saxe), who was protestant.
That's why one of the two main concentration of protestants in France nowadays is in Alsace (as well as one of the two university of protestant theology).
Saphroneth
Banned
AFAIK that was only added much later, after the Glorious Revolution (aka Dutch conquest of Britain
British temporary reverse inheritance of the Netherlands, thank you very much. #excuses
GdwnsnHo
Banned
I'll accept your point, but it is helped by the OTL unpopularity of One King, One Faith. I don't believe that a King wouldn't try if they had three realms of three different faiths to circumvent the idea entirely. I don't know how much sway over Avigonon France would still have (or if there could be a Pope there at this point), but if the King can 'persuade' (i.e. inconspicuously threaten) that Pope to be more lax, then there is a chance.
Oddly enough, France or a United Italy, are really the ONLY powers that be that could faintly do this. It may not be probable, but I don't see it as impossible, or even implausible.
Yes, it was an exception, that's why I said not quite. What you said was valid for all of France, except Alsace, and there was a civil war in the Cevennes in 1701-1704 because of it.
But Alsace was treated 'a l'instar de l' etranger effectif' ( as an effectively foreign land) by Louis XIV and his successors until the French revolution, so the edit of fontainebleau did not apply (and Strasbourg only became French 4 years before).
Nope, the Bill of Rights, 1689. Although it was reaffirmed in the Act of Settlement, and also (IIRC) in the Act of Union, 1707.
The Great Schism had ended around one century before the Reformation appeared so there is no Avignon Papacy to ask to be more lax...GdwnsnHo said:
As for saying that a King could try "Thee Faiths in Three Realms"... It is a possibility indeed but I fear both Catholics and Protestants were quite radical at taking each other's blood at the time. The result is more likely to end up as expanding the French Religious Wars to the British Isles... And from my POV, it's more likely to lead to a break up of the possible Anglo-Scot-French Kingdom than it is of keeping it united.
The French Kings/leaders had shown themselves rather pragmatic to religous matters when it furthered their cause (Paris is worth a mass, Franco-Ottoman alliance, Franco-Swedish alliance etc) so can´t we expect some kind of agreement with the local elites?