Discussion for "Margaret, the Maid of Norway Survives"

Ruling over the entirety of Great Britain seems slightly far-fetched, between enforcing his and her authority against rivals in Scotland and England's contintental possessions, they would be hard pressed to effectively annex all of Ireland.
 
Ruling over the entirety of Great Britain seems slightly far-fetched, between enforcing his and her authority against rivals in Scotland and England's contintental possessions, they would be hard pressed to effectively annex all of Ireland.

Then should I have the personal union break? I don't wish to do that, but...
 
Then should I have the personal union break? I don't wish to do that, but...

I think Great Britain implies Ireland as well, which is unlikely since English control rarely extended outside of the Pale. I think no matter how strong they were they would have faced considerable internal and external pressures, similar to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

There was no shortage of male Scottish heirs who would no doubt have challenged Margaret's rule, particularly if she resided primarily in England and Scotland's resources were drained for English use. Likewise, Edward would be locked in a constant struggle maintaining Normandy and Aquitaine, which were disputed (when it suited them and they were in a position to do so) both by the Kings of France and Castille - the Kings of France claiming it as overlords, the KIngs of Castille claiming it as Eleanor of England's dowry which was never paid.

Also, they would have been the House of Anjou, not Plantagenet (a later creation), and neither Dunkeld nor Norway would have figured at all.
 
I think Great Britain implies Ireland as well, which is unlikely since English control rarely extended outside of the Pale. I think no matter how strong they were they would have faced considerable internal and external pressures, similar to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

There was no shortage of male Scottish heirs who would no doubt have challenged Margaret's rule, particularly if she resided primarily in England and Scotland's resources were drained for English use. Likewise, Edward would be locked in a constant struggle maintaining Normandy and Aquitaine, which were disputed (when it suited them and they were in a position to do so) both by the Kings of France and Castille - the Kings of France claiming it as overlords, the KIngs of Castille claiming it as Eleanor of England's dowry which was never paid.

Also, they would have been the House of Anjou, not Plantagenet (a later creation), and neither Dunkeld nor Norway would have figured at all.

I see....I have been basing my timeline off the Lists of Monarchs threads and my contributions to those....Must I modify it to have it that a unified Britain takes a long time?
 
That would definitely be my personal suggestion yeah .

Alright then. England and Scotland had been first placed under personal union within my timeline in the late 13th century, because of the marriage of Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward II of England) and Margaret, the Maid of Norway (Margaret I of Scotland). Their son, Edward III/I, ruled over England from 1330-1382, and over Scotland from 1337-1382. In any case, I will have it that it will take 200 years from the marriage of Edward II and Margaret I for Great Britain to be unified: that is, not until the 1480s or 1490s. Would that work?
 
Alright then. England and Scotland had been first placed under personal union within my timeline in the late 13th century, because of the marriage of Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward II of England) and Margaret, the Maid of Norway (Margaret I of Scotland). Their son, Edward III/I, ruled over England from 1330-1382, and over Scotland from 1337-1382. In any case, I will have it that it will take 200 years from the marriage of Edward II and Margaret I for Great Britain to be unified: that is, not until the 1480s or 1490s. Would that work?

By "Great Britain to be unified" do you mean the union of the two crowns of England and Scotland? If not, then it already is unified (excepting the Irish wilderness) in the person of Edward III/I.

Also - in real life, when Henry VIII declares his kingdom an "Imperium", he referred to the intensity of rule, and not the extent of his realm, hence why he didn't take the title of Emperor. It is an "imperium" in that it is entirely independent, and not a fief of the Papacy, as had previously been the case. Even if he takes the title Imperium, he would still be "the Eighth", the Eighth Henry to reign over the land, because the Empire would be considered a continuation of the English kingdom, in the same way that the kings of Spain follow the numbering of the Kings of Castille. In real life, Henry saw things as if he was RESTORING the empire of England, and not creating, so retrospectively every ruler would have similarly enjoyed this right to "imperium", even if in ignorance they acted as subjects to the Pope.

Just my two cents :p
 
Couple of other points:

- Hubert is a very peculiar name for an English prince. Naming was usually restricted to names of the immediate royal family or reverred saints.

- The Dauphin marrying Joan of Arc is...almost impossible, to say the least. The illiterate farm girl may have been of use in times of desperation but she would never have served as an appropriate royal consort, and as the issue of such a radical mis-match, her issue might well find themselves challenged for the throne - hardly what France in times of civil war and with rumours already rife of the Dauphin's own illegitimacy.

- Is Elizabeth of Northumberland a cousin of the King?

- Creating the title "King of Normandy" would also be highly contentious issue. Only the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor can create such titles, and neither would have any incentive to do so in such a case. At most the French King could renounce his overlordship to Normandy, but he would not have the authority to set it up as a Kingdom.

- With Henry VIII being the elder brother and marrying Katherine off the bat, he would have no grounds for disputing the legality of the marriage: IRL the whole dispute centered around Katherine's previous marriage to Arthus. In your timeline, if he did want to put Katherine away, he'd have to find other reasons, which would probably not involve breaking with the Catholic Church.
 
I see. May I address your following points:

-This Prince Hubert was a immediate member of the royal family, being one of the sons of Henry IV. Since you said that name was used amongst royal family members, it would count.

-Elizabeth of Northumberland is related to the King.

-Is it necessary to rely on the authority of a foreign power in order to create a kingly title?

-The unification engineered by Henry I (or VII in our timeline and before the unification in mines) is a real union, unlike the personal union that had existed previously from the time of Edward III. As you would note, England and Scotland remained separate kingdoms, with their own governments, militaries, and laws, until Henry I proclaimed himself Emperor.

-Henry VIII (I) would have been dis-satisfied with Katherine of Aragon because of her inability to bear children, and would claim that she had slept with his (in this case younger) brother Arthur before marrying him, thus making the marriage unlawful.

-Henry I (VII) would have adopted the new regnal numberings because he believed Brittania was the successor state (not a continuation) of the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Lordship of Ireland, with all the previous rulers being "rulers of predecessor states".
 
Top