BOOM!

England, not Britain, and no-one would countenace a republic in 1605. It only happened OTL in reaction to years of Stuart absolutism and thanks to the helpful example of the Dutch. If nothing else it would break the union of the crowns, which everyone was massively politically invested in at the time.

Scotland just lost it's king as well remember, so referring to the problem as "British" rather than "English" is fine if one doesn't wish to ignore Scotland completely.
 
What about the duke of Buckingham George villiers??At this time wasn't the duke of buckingham the major controller of the british army and a man much more powerful than the king and one of the richest men in England, why can't he be the regent he was also a close friend of Charles later on.




Edit.. Oh wait nvm the duke of buckingham is still unknown,

So anyway will George have a prominent position this tl as well??
 
Last edited:
what about the possibility of more than one person taking the claim of the English throne in 1605-06? Could Spain and France support more than one faction (should there be 2 or more claimants to the throne) and keep England unstable for years, long enough to keep both Jamestown and Plymouth from ever getting founded? would a England that been in a civil war for 10-20 years (from 1605-1625) have the means to build colonies?
 

Thande

Donor
Scotland just lost it's king as well remember, so referring to the problem as "British" rather than "English" is fine if one doesn't wish to ignore Scotland completely.

James I himself would probably like that, but no-one would do it. There was no institution called 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' at the time, although James wanted to bring about a full Act of Union. I suppose that might happen in TTL in memory of James and because it lets Scottish politicians basically take over Westminster?
 
Just a thought: if - as Thande says - Scotish nobles could try to gain political power in England due the destruction of nearly all important English peers, the same probably could happen with the Church of England (as all bishops would be present at Parliament as well). Maybe religious important figures could go South too, and it would have interesting influences in the development of the Anglican Church. Would the "anti-Catholic rage" and presence of the Scotish make it more Presbyterian?
 
Yes. The important thing here is the increase of Scottish power at the expense of the English.

Which would lead to a very different union...
 
James I himself would probably like that, but no-one would do it. There was no institution called 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' at the time, although James wanted to bring about a full Act of Union. I suppose that might happen in TTL in memory of James and because it lets Scottish politicians basically take over Westminster?

No formal institution, no. But the island was still called "Britain", so any problem that affects the whole island (such as, oh I don't know, the loss of the Monarch of every country) could be called a "British" problem in the same way a war between the various Italian states could be called an "Italian" problem.
 
Top