Elizabeth I has a brother

Firstly, the initial treaty was signed at a time when Edward I was attempting to subdugate Scotland and at war with France, so how it can be seen as anything other than defensive is strange. It developed further though.

and to plagarise from another website...
The formal part of this alliance is mainly linked to a succession of military treaties, renewed reign after reign (20 times between 1326 and 1558). The culmination was during the Hundred Years War and particularly with the Scots troops who disembarked at la Rochelle (up to 30 000 soldiers) in the period 1419-1429 and played a major role, beside the dauphin Charles and Joan of Arc, in the recovery of the French territory.

This alliance also had cultural and commercial aspects. The Scottish students came to French universities such as Paris, Orléans, Bourges, Montpellier, and the first Scottish universities, Saint Andrews and Aberdeen, were designed upon French university model.

By the XVIth century and through general letters of naturality, granted by kings of France and kings of Scots, French and Scots living abroad had dual nationality.

Scotland was at that time one of the major commercial partners of France, especially regarding the Bordeaux wine called “Claret”, and had a low tax status.

The history of the old alliance between France and Scotland, better known as the “Auld Alliance”, is unique in the history of nations because there is no equivalence in terms of duration and intensty.

To call it a treaty based on amutual dislike of England and to state that France cared not a jot for the Scots is disingenuous. Scotland would not have lasted if it were not for the alliance with France. Hell the bodyguard of the King of France was Scottish.

Also you are making the assumption that France would not help Scotland. During the Rough Wooing OTL, French troops assisted the Scots. If the French had not assisted the Scots during the time of Elizabeth I then there would be no need for the treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. I fail to see how this would be different if she had a brother who was King.

Also, with regards to the colonial point you make. I never mentioned it as the butterflies would not affect straight away the colonial situation. That would only change later on.

Religion ended the alliance and put Scotland on a path with England. It would be simpler for any King of England to attempt to turn Scotland towards the English sphere than invade. This way, he secures the northern border and does not have the risk of war. Basically OTL policy.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, the initial treaty was signed at a time when Edward I was attempting to subdugate Scotland and at war with France, so how it can be seen as anything other than defensive is strange. It developed further though.

The alliance was defensive for the French. It was basically a (successful) attempt to open up a second front against the English, to distract them from the important (in the French mind) front, France.

The alliance was initially brought together when the Scots decided they needed foreign support against the English. So basically the French decided to ally with the Scots, because they knew the Scots would distract the English from France.

To call it a treaty based on a mutual dislike of England and to state that France cared not a jot for the Scots is disingenuous. Scotland would not have lasted if it were not for the alliance with France. Hell the bodyguard of the King of France was Scottish.

France cared about Scotland and maintained the alliance for as long as it was useful to the French. The conversion of Scotland to protestantism isn't what ended the Auld Alliance, it was the end of Scottish usefulness to the French. Bloody Queen Mary lost the last English holdings in France, and with the definite end of land war, so ended the need for the Scottish alliance. Even if the Stuarts hadn't inherited the English throne after Elizabeth, it wouldn't have mattered, the French wouldn't spend significant amounts of resources trying to defend a country it no longer needed.

Also you are making the assumption that France would not help Scotland. During the Rough Wooing OTL, French troops assisted the Scots. If the French had not assisted the Scots during the time of Elizabeth I then there would be no need for the treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. I fail to see how this would be different if she had a brother who was King.

The French assisted, but what I'm saying is that the French were not going to be able to really DO anything to save the Scots. They had little leverage over the English and less strategic need to save the Scots, especially in the 16th century as they attempted to break the Hapsburg encirclement of their kingdom.

Religion ended the alliance and put Scotland on a path with England. It would be simpler for any King of England to attempt to turn Scotland towards the English sphere than invade. This way, he secures the northern border and does not have the risk of war. Basically OTL policy.

Scotland ultimately had to be militarily conquered in order to force it into uncontested union with England. The invasion and conquest of Scotland during the English Civil War finally ended Scottish pretensions to independence. So I think that some kind of definite military takeover, probably under some other guise (Henry IX taking over a child king's regency, or supporting Mary against the Protestants, whatever is needed to introduce English force into Scotland) is necessary in order to effect a union.

I think the Tudor regime under Henry IX, without (major) distraction on the continent, and with the protestant reformation going on in Scotland, is going to be able to subdue Scotland.

Then the Kingdom of Great Britain can be declared and absolutist Tudors will rule!
 
Which proves the English were inferior at fighting the Franco-Scottish alliance....;)

No...

At fighting France, yes, but not so much Scotland... ;)

You mistake Scotland for the English province of Wales.....;)

Doubtful, since I live in Wales... :rolleyes:

An independent Scotland in alliance with France meant England's northern border was never secure from the French or the Scots and curbed any English ambitions in France. It was a detterent for England's more colonial-minded monarchs.

Scotland was the distraction in that it prevented England focusing its army entirely on France... :rolleyes:

While Scotland's geography meant that it couldn't be entirely conquered by England, the English could still beat the Scots time after time...

Having a much bigger population helps... ;)
 
Top