Elizabeth Tudor dies before Mary I

Those in Mary's reign - or rather, THE one in Mary's reign (Wyatt's rebellion) still saw the monarch's position as sacrosanct, but wanted to enthrone a Protestant Queen, being Elizabeth.

I agree with Thande, this just isn't the right situation for a Republican movement to form, there's not enough trouble to cause anti-monarchical sentiment. The rebels all would still seek a King (or Queen) to rule them, they merely would want someone of their own religion.

but who? the Grey sisters would be killed in any French take over of, so would Margaret Stanley, Countess of Derby, any hard-core Catholic take over of England would likely set off a hard core Protestant revolt in Scotland, maybe under the Earl of Arran.
 
And what about Margaret Douglas? Philip II could try to support her instead. She was Catholic, and her husband was a Stuart, and so he would have an ally in both Scotland and England (and not only in England as would be Catherine Grey). Also, Catherine was the sister of Jane Grey, who tried to seize the throne of his former wife Mary, and maybe he wouldn't be so willing to support her. They could arrange to Margaret's son (who married Mary QoS IOTL) marry a Habsburg princess, and so ensure an alliance.

Margaret Douglas? no, she was no one, to pick her is undermind the Will if you do that it says that Margaret Tudor's line is in the line for the thrown, which Mary Queen of Scots is senior to Margaret Douglas to pick her only backs Mary's claim to the thrown
 
but who? the Grey sisters would be killed in any French take over of, so would Margaret Stanley, Countess of Derby, any hard-core Catholic take over of England would likely set off a hard core Protestant revolt in Scotland, maybe under the Earl of Arran.

At this point, rather in the same way Henry VII was adopted as the head of the Lancastrian cause, the nobles would probably look for anyone with a claim to the throne. With a little research, I've found a couple of people who could claim this.

There's Geoffrey Pole, brother of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who's right comes from being the living heir to the Duke of Clarence, younger brother (with heirs) to the brothers Edward IV and Richard III. He and his brother have no heirs and both die in 1558, but they have a sister Ursula, who is married to the Baron Stafford, with issue.

There's also Gertrude Manners, daughter of the Earl of Rutland and married to the Earl of Shrewsbury, who would probably be the figurehead monarch over his wife, just as the Duke of Northumberland intended his son Guildford Dudley to be the figurehead over his wife Lady Jane Grey, had their pretence to the throne lasted longer. Gertrude's claim comes by right of her being the legal heir to Edward, Richard and the Duke of Clarence's oldest surviving sister.

But really any noble who could trace his claim to the line of Kings undeniably and not stupidly far in the past in this era would be in with a shout of acceptance by the Privy Council.

It's a somewhat extraordinary succession but if the English were facing this position they'd be needing an extraordinary turn of events.
 
My thoughts exactly. Presumably English Protestantism stays radical as it was under Bloody Mary's persecution, and we never get the relatively fluffy Anglican church that Elizabeth and the early Stuarts oversaw.
Hmmm.... I'll have to go tell our priest that we're 'fluffy'.:) [see what she says.]
 
Good point. That's even more crazy-awesome, with Spain and Flanders on the Catholic side in this mess and the northern Netherlands on the Protestant side :D

I am afraid you are thinking a bit too anachronistic here. At this point in time Falnders was as protestant as the northern Netherlands. Only when it remained in Spanish hands it became catholic again, as most protestant had fled are were converted or killed by the Spanish. Also, I must admit, the northern netherlands weren't as protestant as they were 100 years later. Although the protestant Dutch weren't as ruthless as the catholic Spanish, they still forced conversion in some parts of the Netherlands.

But even if Flanders wasn't catholic, the Walloon parts of the netherlands were. Not completely though, many Walloon protestants would flee to the Northern Netherlands later and i believe that spread of Dutch calvinism basicly started in theWalloon parts.
 
~wades through the thread~

Okay, why is the floor covered in succession crises? :mad:


A summary of what people have posted so far, tell me if I've got this wrong:


  • Mary is the logical French choice for English candidate.
  • Mary Douglas is a Catholic contender who could be supported by Spain against Mary.
  • Catherine Grey is an English Protestant choice, and a little too obscure for heavy foreign support.
  • Philip II is attempting to make himself a candidate as well.
Also, if Mary Stewart does manage to get into power, this United Calvinism thing could be an interesting possibility - Presbyterians mixed with Anglicans mixed with Huguenots.

And we have the possibility of the Dutch revolt being incorporated into this grand War of the English Succession, and maybe even united with England if the Protestants manage to win against the odds. (Not that I believe this is a real possibility, as both Spain and France have other candidates they could support rather than defile their reputation by backing heretics, and if both of Western Europe's dynastic superpowers are fighting against you then you're pretty much boned. Still, it could have nice repercussions after the war.)

So we're left with two possible candidates for Spanish support:

  • Philip II. He has the advantage of being head of the judging panel, but the disadvantage of being spectularly unpopular in England due to his policy of involving England in Spanish wars and losing her continental possessions. He also has no real claim other than "I really really want to be King".
  • Margaret Douglas. She's a descendant of Henry VII, and so has some claim to the English throne - though not as much as Mary Stewart. She's Catholic, but not too Catholic, which is a nice mix, and isn't specifically hated by any portion of the populace. Plus, she's actually English, and has connections in Scotland (if they decide not to back their own Queen, which is certainly possible).
Out of these, I'd say the most legitimate candidate for the English throne is Margaret, but that Philip would gain the Spanish support. Never mind, she could do well on her own as a compromise choice if the war stalemates, but she could also prove to be too bland for any side to support.

The sides, then.

FRANCE: Mary, Queen of Scots.

SPAIN: Philip II.

ENGLISH PROTESTANTS (some): Catherine Grey.

ENGLISH CATHOLICS (and possibly some Protestants): Margaret Douglas.

SCOTLAND: If Catholic, Mary. If Protestant, Margaret.

So who wins?
 
So who wins?

At first glance it looks like the Dutch win, assuming they won't get involved. Spain going to war against both France and England at the same time? That probably means they can't invest heavily in the Netherlands. The southern netherlands could be attacked from France. Spain itself could even get attacked from France. So I think we will se an independent protestant Netherlands including Flanders and all of Brabant and possibly other parts (all of Limburg, part of Hainaut, Luxemburg, etc).

Actually I think that the English have a good chance of winning, considering that Spain can possibly be overstreched and France has his own internal problems with protestants. I personaly think, because of that France is in the least likely position to win. They have to fight both Spain and their own protestants. Spain has to choose which to focus on, the Netherlands, France or England. It probably can't fight all three. The interesting question is wether Phillips II realises that, I can see him focussing on all three and losing all three.

If the Netherlands wins their struggle for independence quickly and France is losing their battle and so limiting the danger for the Dutch from the south, they might get involved in the war in England, helping fellow protestants against the evil catholics. In that case, it is possible for the protestant English emerging victorious.

If you want a union with the Netherlands, the protestant candidate must already be in some way be involved in the Netherlands. How to do that is hard. The Netherlands probably will not focus on England if they are fighting for their own independence. So there is no reason for the protestant candidate to become ruler of the Netherlands as it doesn't bring in a good ally. The Netherlands will not ask someone with only a claim for a throne to be their ruler as that also doesn't bring in a useful ally. If the Dutch enter the struggle when they already have their independence, there is no reason to accept an English king. And I really doubt the Englsih would accept the ruler of the Netherlands (possibly William of Orange) as their king as he would have no claim at the English throne at all. The only possible way for a union would be if the Netherlands becomes a republic and after the war England becomes a republic too.
 
I'm still somewhat of the opinion that once Spain and France are both in the war, the result will be that they concentrate on each other, what with their land border and their need to compete for predominance in Europe. This will give the Dutch leaway to revolt, and since the English only need to defeat what comes across the sea - not easy, but as I alluded to before, with Spain actively attacking France and vice versa I don't see either of them managing to raise a 130-ship Armada any time soon. The English managed to mobilise 45 ships to fight the Armada and the Dutch sent another 80, and even though these were small galleases rather than the galleons the Spanish had, all they need to do is delay their attackers until they hit the North Sea, where the tides make it harder to return back onto a course for England, and they'll either drift towards Scandinavia before they can get back to land and return home, or they'll be caught in the round-Britain currents as the 1588 Armada was. That's not to say that the English will definitely win, and will avoid being invaded, but their cause isn't hopeless by any means.

Really I think this conflict is too complicated to predict, so if you want to write a TL about this scenario, it's entirely down to you to write the events.

Incidentally, while the Scottish commons weren't so pro-active as their English counterparts, the Scottish nobility was becoming more Protestant in this era. It was for this reason, after all, that the Catholic MQoS was driven out of her country and into England.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I am afraid you are thinking a bit too anachronistic here. At this point in time Falnders was as protestant as the northern Netherlands. Only when it remained in Spanish hands it became catholic again, as most protestant had fled are were converted or killed by the Spanish. Also, I must admit, the northern netherlands weren't as protestant as they were 100 years later. Although the protestant Dutch weren't as ruthless as the catholic Spanish, they still forced conversion in some parts of the Netherlands.

But even if Flanders wasn't catholic, the Walloon parts of the netherlands were. Not completely though, many Walloon protestants would flee to the Northern Netherlands later and i believe that spread of Dutch calvinism basicly started in theWalloon parts.

Dutch Calvinism seem to have come the Rhineland and not through Wallonia, there was surprising little religeous interaction between the Wallons and the Dutch & Flemish.

To whether they Dutch could force the Wallons to convert, well I think so and they will be likely to do so, through a significant Catholic minority will likely survive there.
 
Top