Elizabeth I dies in 1589

Hmm indeed indeed, and of course there is the issue of who James will appoint to help oversee the running of Scotland in his absence, unless he does something such as flit between the two countries in his youth.

Okay interesting, seeing Cecil snr and James interact will be very interesting, perhaps they might be able to stabilise the economy.
 
Hmm. The interesting will be the relations with Spain, with the rememberings of the Spanish Armada, the failure of Drake in 1589, the possibility of a new Spanish Expedition, could be to Ireland when rebellions begin which will be the reactions of James VI?
In OTL when he ascended to the throne he had will of peace of Spain. Could be the things here are different?
 
Hmm. The interesting will be the relations with Spain, with the rememberings of the Spanish Armada, the failure of Drake in 1589, the possibility of a new Spanish Expedition, could be to Ireland when rebellions begin which will be the reactions of James VI?
In OTL when he ascended to the throne he had will of peace of Spain. Could be the things here are different?

Well as he is a young man with the memory of his strict upbringing, I presume either he reacts by fighting Spain, or by wanting to bring peace. Would he still see himself as trying to bring peace between Protestants and Catholics?
 
It's hard to imagine anyone mounting a significant challenge to the succession of King James of Scots. Primogeniture, religion and the political expediency of neutralizing the Scottish threat are all in his favour. With the reformation driving a wedge between England's traditional go-to alliances in France and Spain, a personal union with Scotland (nixing the Auld Alliance) and an already-made dynastic alliance with Denmark-Norway (strengthening England's hand in the North Sea immeasurably versus potential Spanish challenges coming from the Low Countries) are both highly advantageous to national security.

As for the potential rivals to his succession, the Lady Arabella Stuart was favoured by primogeniture and the traditional preference for an heir born in England. As of 1589 she was a girl of 14, unmarried and inexperienced. An appealing candidate for those who might hope to play King (or rather, Queen)maker and dominate government to personal profit, but less than appealing to those Protestants who found themselves ideologically opposed to the dominion of women.

Edward Seymour had the double boons of being an adult male (26 years old) and English-born, but primogeniture stood against him as did the imperfections and questions regarding his birth. As was seen in Mary and Elizabeth, a dubious origin and even outright bastardy were not complete impediments to royal succession in Tudor England, but unlike them Edward did not have the law (by way of an Act of Parliament) or popular and council support clearly on his side. In his favour he has two young sons, English- and true-born. It's worth noting he carried the courtesy title of Beauchamp as only his father's legitimate heir would have been entitled to, and following the Restoration the family's titles were all restored to his son (William Seymour), who became the 2nd Duke. Thus, it wasn't impossible to regard him as legitimate, as he certainly was when it came to the succession of the Earldom of Hertford and other Seymour titles and property. Still, making him King is a tall order. Also in his favour is the fact that he was at court during this period, and could perhaps move faster than James.
 
It's hard to imagine anyone mounting a significant challenge to the succession of King James of Scots. Primogeniture, religion and the political expediency of neutralizing the Scottish threat are all in his favour. With the reformation driving a wedge between England's traditional go-to alliances in France and Spain, a personal union with Scotland (nixing the Auld Alliance) and an already-made dynastic alliance with Denmark-Norway (strengthening England's hand in the North Sea immeasurably versus potential Spanish challenges coming from the Low Countries) are both highly advantageous to national security.

As for the potential rivals to his succession, the Lady Arabella Stuart was favoured by primogeniture and the traditional preference for an heir born in England. As of 1589 she was a girl of 14, unmarried and inexperienced. An appealing candidate for those who might hope to play King (or rather, Queen)maker and dominate government to personal profit, but less than appealing to those Protestants who found themselves ideologically opposed to the dominion of women.

Edward Seymour had the double boons of being an adult male (26 years old) and English-born, but primogeniture stood against him as did the imperfections and questions regarding his birth. As was seen in Mary and Elizabeth, a dubious origin and even outright bastardy were not complete impediments to royal succession in Tudor England, but unlike them Edward did not have the law (by way of an Act of Parliament) or popular and council support clearly on his side. In his favour he has two young sons, English- and true-born. It's worth noting he carried the courtesy title of Beauchamp as only his father's legitimate heir would have been entitled to, and following the Restoration the family's titles were all restored to his son (William Seymour), who became the 2nd Duke. Thus, it wasn't impossible to regard him as legitimate, as he certainly was when it came to the succession of the Earldom of Hertford and other Seymour titles and property. Still, making him King is a tall order. Also in his favour is the fact that he was at court during this period, and could perhaps move faster than James.

Hmm interesting, so could we see Edward perhaps trying to get himself crowned and anointed as Edward VII, whilst James rallies his men and supporters within England to try and remove Seymour?
 
Well as he is a young man with the memory of his strict upbringing, I presume either he reacts by fighting Spain, or by wanting to bring peace. Would he still see himself as trying to bring peace between Protestants and Catholics?
A great incognita. I suppose that could be it will be Philip II of Spain the first in reaction to the news of James VI as sucessor of Elizabeth I. He will try to made open gestures of peace or will try to fund some kind of rebellion in Ireland? Could be James VI only could react at the actions of Philip II and in the actions of Philip II could be the key of war and peace for the James VI's England
 
A great incognita. I suppose that could be it will be Philip II of Spain the first in reaction to the news of James VI as sucessor of Elizabeth I. He will try to made open gestures of peace or will try to fund some kind of rebellion in Ireland? Could be James VI only could react at the actions of Philip II and in the actions of Philip II could be the key of war and peace for the James VI's England

Hmm indeed, likely Philip might well try to make peace with James, and see which way he leans.
 
Strictly James VI has the strongest claim in 1589 - however it is only a few years since his mother's execution which might dampen some of the ardour of Elizabeth's council and advisors (most of whom had clamoured for Mary's death) even if James wasn't particularly bothered by his mother's death when it came to his chance for the English Crown - he is a hard candidate to beat and is likeliest to be named by Elizabeth on her death bed (she was vain and it satisfied her vanity to be succeeded by a fellow sovereign rather than a commoner)

The heir under English law was Margaret Clifford Countess of Derby (granddaughter of Mary Tudor) - banished from court in recent years due to suspicions about her interest in Elizabeth's marital adventures (which would have threatened her own claim) - she has two sons who are of age which would incease her attractiveness perhaps particularly if she was to waive her rights in favour of her eldest son.

Her claim is of course dependent on her cousin Catherine Grey's son's being illegitimate but Seymour was regarded as such at the English Court at this period (his parents marriage was in secret and without consent or witnesses - it wasn't just Elizabeth's fury and personal dislike of the Grey's that forced the marriage to be declared invalid)

Seymour had already married and was father to two sons - his father disapproved of his marriage and his wife was quite low born - which would have perhaps affected any chance of Parliament and the council choosing him over the other rival claims.

The other option is Arbella Stuart (cousin to James VI) the English raised daughter of Charles Stuart - Darnley's brother - who was around 14 or so in 1589 - so ripe for any ambitious English aristocrat. Elizabeth herself in the 1590s toyed with inviting the girl to court to imply to James she had alternatives - Arbella's strongest chance is the network of influence that surrounded her indomitable grandmother Bess of Hardwick.
 
If Henry's Will and Act of Succession were being adhered to then Seymour or Clifford (if Seymour invalidated) would be highest.
If purely primogeniture then James of Scotland, if primogeniture and Englishborn then Arabella Stewart.
 
Okay so looking from this, it seems that it would be a rush for whoever gets to London first and in time to get as many supporters behind them as possible?
 
Okay so looking from this, it seems that it would be a rush for whoever gets to London first and in time to get as many supporters behind them as possible?

Not necessarily. People like Cecil could move in the name of a preferred candidate no matter where said candidate was.
 
A year after averting the Great threat of the Spanish Armada, Elizabeth I falls deathly ill succumbing to her illness on the 15th October, 1589, thus ending the House of Tudor.

Just a thought, would the council not ask for the 56 year old Queen, to appoint or even suggest an heir in case of her death? Could Lord William Cecil, not even suggest that the virgin queen appointed her cousin James as her successor?
 
Just a thought, would the council not ask for the 56 year old Queen, to appoint or even suggest an heir in case of her death? Could Lord William Cecil, not even suggest that the virgin queen appointed her cousin James as her successor?

Most likely aye, if it were during her illness, though, whether or not she does so is another thing.
 
Most likely aye, if it were during her illness, though, whether or not she does so is another thing.

Well with Lord Cecil working the "Tudor Propoganda Machine" at full pelt, any "claiments" would be put down quicker than you can say "treason"

Would James, prefer to name his first son after himself, rather than linking him to King Henry VII.
 
To be honest I suspect that James would be the general favoured choice with reservations as there were among some in OTL. All the other candidates have issues and are much more likely to be challenged and have no clear and obvious claim - even when Jane Grey was proclaimed Northumberland was having to explain her claim both domestically and internationally to show her connection to the royal line... would be even more complex in the case of the other claimants to Elizabeth's throne. As to James VI and I naming his son - I would still think Henry likely - honours his murdered father, emphasis on his dual descent from Henry VII and appeases the English. The general view is that Elizabeth herself was well aware of her courtiers who were courting James VI in the 1590s and certainly did nothing to remove those who favoured his succession at that time with the exception of Essex, who was in open rebellion, so she is unlikely to name anyone else in this time line.
 
Well with Lord Cecil working the "Tudor Propoganda Machine" at full pelt, any "claiments" would be put down quicker than you can say "treason"

Would James, prefer to name his first son after himself, rather than linking him to King Henry VII.

I think Henry makes the most sense, it gives a link to the English, and a nod to the man who gives him his claim.

To be honest I suspect that James would be the general favoured choice with reservations as there were among some in OTL. All the other candidates have issues and are much more likely to be challenged and have no clear and obvious claim - even when Jane Grey was proclaimed Northumberland was having to explain her claim both domestically and internationally to show her connection to the royal line... would be even more complex in the case of the other claimants to Elizabeth's throne. As to James VI and I naming his son - I would still think Henry likely - honours his murdered father, emphasis on his dual descent from Henry VII and appeases the English. The general view is that Elizabeth herself was well aware of her courtiers who were courting James VI in the 1590s and certainly did nothing to remove those who favoured his succession at that time with the exception of Essex, who was in open rebellion, so she is unlikely to name anyone else in this time line.

Aye, that does make sense, so it is likely to be relatively smooth sailing then, do you think?
 
I understand the Cecils were favouring Arbella until the 1590s when they switched to James. Not sure why.

Hmm interesting, depending on when Elizabeth dies, if it is before James marries Anne of Denmark, might they try to convince him to marry Arabella?
 
Top