Consequences of a slightly healthier Francois II

Francois II was a very sickly person, from what I've read. But his marriage to Mary Queen of Scots does open up an interesting set of circumstances. So let's say when "Francois" is born, the child is healthier. French intervention to the rough wooing still results in Mary's engagement to Francois, and the two are as close as they apparently were IOTL. Francois reigns as King of France for a few more years than he did IOTL. And at some point in this extended reign, Queen Mary bears Francois a male child. How does this effect the history of England, Scotland, and France? Who might inherit the English throne post Elizabeth if Mary's immediate heir is the King of France? How does the presence of a young dauphin effect French history? I admit, the scenario I'm imagining is a bit out there, and maybe it's wildly implausible. Still, I'm sure the implications of this are going to be quiet broad in an international sense.

I apologize if the idea is essentially ASB.
 
I wish I knew enough to comment but I think the only country strong enough to object is Greater Hapsburgia (spain-Austria) so I think a dynastic union is certainly possible. So I think we get a Franco-Anglia superpower for a generation of two. Administering all of that plus colonies would be a pain. So I dunno.
 
I was assuming it would be the English who would object to the Dauphin's claim to the throne. I'd expect Elizabeth and her advisers to work extremely hard to make sure Mary's son doesn't end up on the English throne. Of course, I'm not sure what Elizabeth's options are here. She was deeply personally against getting married, so that's probably out of the picture. Unless the panic convinces her to change her mind somehow. I think it's clear that some English nobleman would make an attempt to deny the King of France and King of Scots the English throne.

I see things becoming messy quickly. Though perhaps I'm overplaying English antagonism towards France in the time period in question.

Edit: And given the fact that she remains Queen/the Queen Mother of France, Mary Stuart probably doesn't return to Scotland.
 
Last edited:
I was assuming it would be the English who would object to the Dauphin's claim to the throne. I'd expect Elizabeth and her advisers to work extremely hard to make sure Mary's son doesn't end up on the English throne. Of course, I'm not sure what Elizabeth's options are here. She was deeply personally against getting married, so that's probably out of the picture. Unless the panic convinces her to change her mind somehow.


Could cause a "diplomatic revolution" by pushing Elizabeth into the arms of Spain. I don't think she'd marry Philip himself if she could avoid it, but might end up having to take one of his Habsburg cousins.
 
Guys

One other possible result might be a cautious Anglo-Scottish alliance. If Mary isn't returning to Scotland there will be resentment at an absent monarch, probably ruling through some lieutenant. Presuming Knox and the other Scottish Presbyterian are about there will also be a deep religious divide. So its likely that you could see unrest at least if not open revolt against Mary/France.

On 2nd thoughts, while Elizabeth will want to reduce French influence in Scotland and has options to support the rebels can she afford to. Barring some drastic changes England really needs to be supporting the Dutch rebels against Spain. Can England be antagonising both great powers at the same time.:eek: Even if they probably can't bury their own rivalry enough to agree on a response?

I do agree that England after Bess will not want a French king ruling them, especially if Catholic. Suspect that some form of bill in Parliament is made to declare an alternative person the king. If nothing else they could go back to pre-Norman times when the monarchy was to a degree elective. Could even set the scene for an early republicanism?

Some interesting options here but god knows how they might work out.

Steve
 
I think that much would depend on what would do James Hamilton, the the Earl of Arran. IOTL he changed allegiances between Catholics and Protestants, and between Mary and the Lords of the Congregation. He was the heir presumptive of the Scotish throne (and so the one who could claim the kingdom if the Scots decide to depose Mary and her French son) but at the same time he was granted estates in France in order to remain loyal to the Valois (he was made Duke of Châtellerault). It would be an interesting character to follow.
 
Guys

One other possible result might be a cautious Anglo-Scottish alliance. If Mary isn't returning to Scotland there will be resentment at an absent monarch, probably ruling through some lieutenant. Presuming Knox and the other Scottish Presbyterian are about there will also be a deep religious divide. So its likely that you could see unrest at least if not open revolt against Mary/France.

On 2nd thoughts, while Elizabeth will want to reduce French influence in Scotland and has options to support the rebels can she afford to. Barring some drastic changes England really needs to be supporting the Dutch rebels against Spain. Can England be antagonising both great powers at the same time.:eek: Even if they probably can't bury their own rivalry enough to agree on a response?

I do agree that England after Bess will not want a French king ruling them, especially if Catholic. Suspect that some form of bill in Parliament is made to declare an alternative person the king. If nothing else they could go back to pre-Norman times when the monarchy was to a degree elective. Could even set the scene for an early republicanism?

Some interesting options here but god knows how they might work out.

Steve

I agree with most of this. By 1560, it seems that much of the Scottish nobility had become annoyed with the level of French influence seen during the reign of Henri II. And as I remember it, Mary of Guise's court had essentially be overthrown before Mary arrived in Scotland. So it's certainly possible you have a situation where Mary is only nominally Queen of Scots.

And for the record. Who's next in line in the succession here from an English protestant point of view? If Mary's line is cut off from the succession, who has the next best claim to the throne? Going through the Tudor Line I think the line of succession would go to Edward Seymour Viscount Beauchamp. if the Stuart line is ignored. Then again, Edward Seymour was the nephew of Lady Jane Grey, so that might cause some problems. Also there seem to have been some legitimacy issues where his birth was concerned due to a distinct lack of documentation. Still, I think given the choice between French rule and Edward's reign, I think the English Court would be willing to overlook that. "Edward VII"will only reign from about 1603-1612 presuming death dates are not somehow butterflied.

The French will contest the succession of Edward Seymour, and it's not inconceivable that Henri III would be willing to fight a war with England to assert his right to throne if he isn't otherwise occupied. If nothing else, Henri and his heirs, assuming he can keep the dynasty going, might provide a headache to the English.
 
The Dauphin will no doubt rule from Paris, which will irritate his already-fractious Scottish subjects; even if he wants a war to prosecute his claim to the English throne, it's at the end of ridiculous supply line through territory he only nominally controls. I see a "rough wooing, part two" that may end up with an English dynasty (Seymour?) taking Scotland by force of arms (Hamilton may be more Scottish, but he's suspect on the religion question and has ties to France - I think a fair number of Scots would actually prefer Seymour to him).

Does Anna Jagiellon still bring in OTL's Henri, or does she now take Charles? She's too old (51) to plausibly bear a child, but the plans were for a joint reign - this may see the house of Jagiellon-Valois firmly established as the monarchs of a constitutional Poland.
 
What is the impact on France of Francois II having a son?

You indicate that in your time line, François II would reign a few more years. In OTL, he was born in 1544, became King in 1559 (July 10) and died in 1560 (December 5). Lets give him 10 extra years. Even if he has a son, that would mean a Regency, and Mary Stuart would be the logical person to be the Regent. So the Guise party would be in power, more decisively that it was in OTL. And of course, by 1572, Henri of Navarre (OTL's Henri IV) would NOT be as close to the throne. The Duke of Anjou (Henri III in OTL) might still be elected King of Poland and be off to Warsaw. The Guise would probably try to mary the young King (let's call him François III) to a Spanish princess. The Wars of Religion could drag on into the 1600s... Not a cheering prospect...

Alternatively, François II could be more sickly than he was in OTL and die in early childhood. Then his brother Charles could be engaged to Mary Queen of Scots. He would become Charles IX in 1560, and maybe he would have had a son. The situation would be closer to OTL's, with Catherine de Medici as regent during Charles first few years as King, but the Guise would be more influencial... France would be torn apart by the religious issue, as it was in OTL, but without moderate personalities like Henri III and Henri IV. Again, not a cheering thought!
 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=157253

https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=161176

These are two previous threads on which we talked about Francis II living longer or having a son. I followed the both of them because the first one was my very first post on this forum.

At first, I talked about the idea because in my mind, this scenario could end up with an Empire including France, a united Britain and Ireland (as it was an English possession at the time) under Francis II and Mary Stuart's son (which I had called Henry). However, the more I looked into the matter, the less plausible it seemed.

The first huge problem is religion. We are at the beginning of the Religious Wars between Catholics and Protestants. France and Scotland are both strong catholic nations, but the Protestants caused a mess in both places OTL. As for England, it is staunchly protestant by the time of Elizabeth's death. We still have Ireland who has a Catholic majority, but the Irish where under heavy persecutions from England.
The result of the union of the three kingdoms of France, Scotland and England is likely to result in a huge and bloody civil war between Catholics and Protestants. This is very likely as Francis II and Mary Stuart were influenced by the Guise family, archcatholics with there eyes set on the French crown.

The second huge problem is that the succession will not be accepted by everyone, and firstly by Elisabeth I of England, who was very smart and one of the greatest rulers of England.
While it's true that Elisabeth didn't want to execute Mary Stuart until it was proven she tried to kill her OTL, she didn't liked her cousin. If Mary Stuart's son turns out to be the next King of France, Elisabeth will certainly try to avert this succession. The two threads I prestend earlier ended up with considering the possibility of Elisabeth marrying so that her child inherits the crown.
Other people who won't accept this succession are probably the Hapsburg as it creates a powerful rival for them : England and France are two of the most powerful countries of the time. They will probably try everything they can to stop this from happening.

Last huge problem : Mary's position in Scotland. Because of the Guise, the Auld Alliance between France and Scotland had become less and less popular. Even if Mary becomes Queen of France, she is likely to lose her crown in Scotland due to a rebellion.

So I doubt we would see a "British French" Empire, or at least not without a huge Religious War of Succession.

What could be interesting though would be how OTL Henry III will act while in Poland. From what I read, he didn't liked the place and this is one of the main reasons he went back to France when his brothers (Francis II and Charles IX) died without issue.
 
Top