favorite dynastic crisis in british AH

the history of England/Great Britain/United Kingdom is full of great almost dynastic crisis, the ones i like are the ones were you need to go way back in the family tree to get an heir, or there are a lot people that could be heirs, and i love a good personal union in there :D

my top hits

James I ship wrecks going to Denmark to get married, he dies no kids, in 1603 when Elizabeth dies the crown goes to Anne Stanley, or maybe to Arbella Stuart who knows

second, no Sophia of Hanover, some how she dies, and has no heirs, thus when Queen Anne dies, there is no one left in the whole Stewart line thats not Catholic, so the heirs are, Catholic James Francis Edward Stuart, the illegitimate son of King James II, Charles FitzRoy, or the heir to Scotland Anne Hamilton and the Heir to England, Margaret Brydges

3rd George III's kids don't have kids, this almost happened in OTL so it's not that out there, which on leads to a UK-Hanover-Brunswick-Württemberg personal union

the George line
George III
George IV
William IV
Augustus I
Mary III
William V
Charles III
William VI

what are your thoughts on these dynastic crisis, and any others you like :)
 
Last edited:
The ones I read?

Kinda, If yer like 10-16, maybe. I read them a while back. I think she wrote some adult novels, but I'm not sure if they're set there.
 
James Francis Edward Stuart converts to Protestantism in 1702 and writes his aunt, now Queen Anne, pledging his loyalty to her and asking permission to return to England. If his conversion and pledge are sincere wouldn't he deserve to be, again, Prince of Wales and Anne's heir?
 
James Francis Edward Stuart converts to Protestantism in 1702 and writes his aunt, now Queen Anne, pledging his loyalty to her and asking permission to return to England. If his conversion and pledge are sincere wouldn't he deserve to be, again, Prince of Wales and Anne's heir?

unlikely, Anne would be risking every thing to have him even be in England, the Protestants will never except the conversion, mind you that James II was born and raised a Anglican, and married an Protestant (Anne Hyde) he didn't come out as a Catholic till 1676, any way i'm getting off track, the Catholics wouldn't want to wait for Anne to die or risk her having a baby and they'd think James Francis Edward Stuart was an underground Catholic, no he's too risky for Anne to even try.

how ever, his sister...... to quote

William Legge said:
The queen [Anne] shewed me a letter wrote in the king of France's own hand, upon the death of her sister; in which there was the highest character that ever was given to any princess of her age. Mr. Richard Hill came straight from the earl of Godolphin's... to me with the news, and said it was the worst that ever came to England. I asked him why he thought so. He said it had been happy if it had been her brother; for then the queen might have sent for her and married her to prince George, who could have no pretensions during her own life; which would have pleased every honest man in the kingdom, and made an end of all disputes for the future.
 
unlikely, Anne would be risking every thing to have him even be in England, the Protestants will never except the conversion, mind you that James II was born and raised a Anglican, and married an Protestant (Anne Hyde) he didn't come out as a Catholic till 1676, any way i'm getting off track, the Catholics wouldn't want to wait for Anne to die or risk her having a baby and they'd think James Francis Edward Stuart was an underground Catholic, no he's too risky for Anne to even try.

You are correct of course, but it would create a succession crisis. Imagine how hard he would work (and remember, in this scenario he's being honest and is sincere) to convince Anne and the Archbishop of Canterbury of the genuineness of his Anglican faith and loyalty to the Anglo-Scots crown.
 
Loads of possibilities:

Elizabeth 1 dies of smallpox in 1563 - English Succession Crisis and probable Civil War - likeliest candidate for the Protestant council is the Lady Catherine Grey already married to Edward Seymour and the mother of one son. Other candidates Mary of Scots, Margaret Douglas Countess of Lennox and her two sons - Lord Darnley and Charles Stuart, Lady Margaret Clifford, Countess of Derby.

As mentioned Henry Prince of Wales eldest son of James VI doesn't die of Typhus in 1612.

My favourite - James VI dies in infancy only 4 years after his mother's deposition. The Scots Throne goes to the Hamiltons', England passes to either Lady Arabella Stuart in 1603 or Elizabeth legitimates the Seymour sons of Catherine Grey.

Queen Anne's son William Duke of Gloucester survives and succeeds her in 1714.

Rupert of the Rhine marries and leaves legitimate English born heirs who are named as heirs in default of Queen Anne in the Act of Settlement and who succeed her in 1714.

Charlotte Princess of Wales' stillborn child in 1817 is born living though Charlotte dies - her son succeeds his grandfather as George V in 1830.

Princess Elizabeth of Clarence daughter of William IV was born healthy and looked likely to survive - if she had done she would have succeeded her father at the age of 16 as Elizabeth II in 1837.

Prince Albert Victor of Wales doesn't succumb to influenza in 1892 and goes on to marry May of Teck and succeeds his father in 1910.
 
No Union of the Thistle and the Rose.

(1). What if King James IV of Scotland didn't marry Princess Margaret Tudor in 1503? No Scottish Right to the Throne of England, hence no Stewart/Stuart inheritance of Elizabeths' Crown in 1603 and consequently no Union of Scotland and England in 1707!

(2)Or if the 1503 marriage did go ahead and Mary I (Queen of Scots), gave birth to an heir, (for this sake, say a son), to Francis II of France. On his death on 1561, their child, (well call him James), becomes the next King of France and heir to the Throne of Scotland. Assuming Mary succeeded Elizabeth I as Queen of England, being younger, (and as Queen Regent of France during her sons minority not falling to Elizabeths axe), suceeds Elizabeth as Queen of England in 1603, and assuming she lives a few more years and dies the Monarch of Scotland and England, her son becomes King of Scotland, England and France, quickly unites the Parliaments of Scotland and France into One Kingdom and then Englands Parliament along with the United Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland and France into the United Kingdom, (singular), of Scotland/England/France. No costly European Wars between England, (later Britain), and France. no Seven Years War in North America resulting in no costly war budget to be partly meet by Colonists, hence no Rebellion, no American War of Independence. No USA? And without no US Revolution, maybe no French Revolution, no Napoleaon, No European Wars around 1799 to 1814? no Nationalist/Liberal Uprisings in Europe? Or is this going to far? Think about the origions of American "Nationalism" and it's effects on France and Frances' effects elsewhere. (Not to mention both Frances effects on Spain and hence her colonies and US effects o Spains (and Portugals) colonies as well?
 
(1). What if King James IV of Scotland didn't marry Princess Margaret Tudor in 1503? No Scottish Right to the Throne of England, hence no Stewart/Stuart inheritance of Elizabeths' Crown in 1603 and consequently no Union of Scotland and England in 1707!

(2)Or if the 1503 marriage did go ahead and Mary I (Queen of Scots), gave birth to an heir, (for this sake, say a son), to Francis II of France. On his death on 1561, their child, (well call him James), becomes the next King of France and heir to the Throne of Scotland. Assuming Mary succeeded Elizabeth I as Queen of England, being younger, (and as Queen Regent of France during her sons minority not falling to Elizabeths axe), suceeds Elizabeth as Queen of England in 1603, and assuming she lives a few more years and dies the Monarch of Scotland and England, her son becomes King of Scotland, England and France, quickly unites the Parliaments of Scotland and France into One Kingdom and then Englands Parliament along with the United Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland and France into the United Kingdom, (singular), of Scotland/England/France. No costly European Wars between England, (later Britain), and France. no Seven Years War in North America resulting in no costly war budget to be partly meet by Colonists, hence no Rebellion, no American War of Independence. No USA? And without no US Revolution, maybe no French Revolution, no Napoleaon, No European Wars around 1799 to 1814? no Nationalist/Liberal Uprisings in Europe? Or is this going to far? Think about the origions of American "Nationalism" and it's effects on France and Frances' effects elsewhere. (Not to mention both Frances effects on Spain and hence her colonies and US effects o Spains (and Portugals) colonies as well?

nice try, but that flapping noise is the sound of ASB, while a Scot-Franco Union could happen, i'd say England is VERY unlikely to let a Catholic be king, the crown goes the way it was meant to in OTL, to Anne Stanley, any way i doubt that Mary would live longer then Elizabeth then were the about the same age.
 
nice try, but that flapping noise is the sound of ASB, while a Scot-Franco Union could happen, i'd say England is VERY unlikely to let a Catholic be king, the crown goes the way it was meant to in OTL, to Anne Stanley, any way i doubt that Mary would live longer then Elizabeth then were the about the same age.

Not only England. I can see a lot of other people disliking the idea as well. Seeing this image of Philip of Spain supporting a Protestant rebellion against a Catholic monarchy.:eek: Also presuming a Mr Knox you might see an Anglo-Scottish alliance against French control.

Steve
 
Given the fact that that scenario was likely on Elizabeth's succession in 1558 - Henri II determined that his son and daughter in law use the English Arms from the moment of Mary Tudor's death.
The English Council would have pressed Elizabeth to marry even more than they actually did if Mary and Francis had a child - had she not done so then to guarantee a Protestant Succession i suspect the council would have insisted on Catherine Grey being named heir (however Elizabeth didn't like her or her pretensions even before she disgraced herself with Seymour) in time I suspect she might have opted for Darnley (I don't doubt his powerful mother would have willingly accepted Protestantism to win her son a throne that's if she hadn't already sneeked him off to the French court to try and catch the eye of the widowed Queen).

Assuming Mary Stuart has a son in say 1560 - then I suspect the Scots would be in open rebellion very quickly - they tolerated Mary's moderate catholicism when she returned but only just. I suspect that the birth of a son to Mary and Francis would push them into open rebellion and with the Franco-Scot succession vested in one son Elizabeth would interfer more. Interestingly is what happens if that child succeeds to the French Throne in 1561 as 1 year old. The Guise's are going to want Mary in France in order that they can govern France through her for her infant son, Catherine de Medici is going to push for Mary to return home, enabling Catherine to govern for the infant King. Mary would not be able to leave France without leaving her son behind her. If Mary does stay in France as Queen Regent then the Guise's are going to be more powerful which will mean an even harsher situation for French Protestants. The French religious wars of the 1560's would have been tougher and would have made it difficult for Mary to press her English claims or defend her Scots crown. It would also be hard to see her surviving as Queen of Scots if she was presiding over the murder of French protestants. I suspect she would be deposed and replaced with the Earl of Arran. And there's also the issue of whether she marries again - she was highly susceptible to men and was quite happy to believe that it was her duty to marry. I can see a scandalous second marriage losing her the regency and forcing her back to Scotland...and in those circumstances the Scots might force her to name any children by a second marriage her heir in Scotland.
 
Given the fact that that scenario was likely on Elizabeth's succession in 1558 - Henri II determined that his son and daughter in law use the English Arms from the moment of Mary Tudor's death.
The English Council would have pressed Elizabeth to marry even more than they actually did if Mary and Francis had a child - had she not done so then to guarantee a Protestant Succession i suspect the council would have insisted on Catherine Grey being named heir (however Elizabeth didn't like her or her pretensions even before she disgraced herself with Seymour) in time I suspect she might have opted for Darnley (I don't doubt his powerful mother would have willingly accepted Protestantism to win her son a throne that's if she hadn't already sneeked him off to the French court to try and catch the eye of the widowed Queen).

Elizabeth I doesn't need to worry about Mary taking the Crown, she wasn't in the Line of Succession, as under the Will of Herny VIII Mary's mother's line was cut out (do, i think, in part because of her being the Queen of Scotland) so under the Will of Herny VIII (which was the Succession law of the day) it goes to the line of of Herny VIII younger sister, Mary, the line of the Greys is unlikely to take over, one the oldest sister was Tryed and executed for high treason, the second sister Catherine Grey married without the queen's consent and Elizabeth made the children of that marriage Iligimant, and Catherine Grey was dead in 1603, as was the youngest sister Lady Mary Grey. so that leaves the Crown in the heads of the line of Eleanor Clifford, Countess of Cumberland, and her heir Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven. any way even if Elizabeth I to brake the Will still, there is the child of Margaret Tudor second marriage, Margaret Douglas and her heir Arbella Stuart
 
Elizabeth and her council preferred to ignore and forget about her father's will. Mary Stuart was widely considered the legal heir across much of Europe and the nervousness of Elizabeth's dealings with her throughout her life and the way in which Elizabeth's council acted towards her is a clear demonstration that they regarded her as a strong candidate (probably the strongest).
On Mary Tudor's death in 1558 - the King of France proclaimed that due to Elizabeth's lack of legitimacy his daugther in law was the rightful Queen - he insisted that Mary and the Dauphin Francis used the English Royal Arms. Even during peace negotiations between France and England - when demanding Calais back Elizabeth's negotiators were told by the french negotiators that they wondered if they should deliver Calais to the Dauphine instead as she was the rightful Queen.
I suspect if Elizabeth had died of smallpox in 1563 the Council would have used Henry's will and named Catherine Grey (Mary Grey was born with some form of deformity and rarely figured). Had Elizabeth wanted to avoid a French succession she could have declared Catherine Grey's children legitimate at any time she chose - announcing that a witness had come forward or that a document had been found and named the elder son her heir.
However Elizabeth herself clearly felt that the succession should follow primogeniture and given her own popularity had she wished it she could have forced Parliament to allow her to name a successor in her will as her father did.
With Mary Stuart's death in OTL it suited Elizabeth and the Council to follow primogeniture because it meant Elizabeth was a) succeeded by a reigning monarch and b) a monarch who was male and already had children and c) a monarch who was a protestant.
Henry's will and his final Act of Succession were simply overlooked - locked in a box and forgotten.

If we assume Mary Stuart gives birth to a male heir by Francis II - the future King Henri III shall we say and stays in France as Queen Regent and doesn't remarry - then Elizabeth's choices are in many ways much more open its highly likely that the Scots will spend the 1560's in open rebellion against their Queen possibly trying to put the Earl of Arran on the throne (he is the next heir to the Scots throne) politically its in Elizabeth interests to encourage rebellion though she is unlikely to support any attempt to depose Mary (though she wouldn't assist her to restore order in Scotland). A France riven by faction and by religious wars is a) unlikely to be able to support the Queen Regents claim to the English throne and b) Also unable to enforce her rule in Scotland.
More importantly Spain would be much more willing to support England and her heretic Queen to prevent France acquiring it.
Even under that scenario - Elizabeth may still have favoured Mary's claims and the claims of her son although Union of the three countries would have been difficult not just on religious grounds but also in terms of the great political differences in the way England, Scotland and France were governed.
 
Who is Anne Stanley ??? I am assuming we're looking at a Brandon/Clifford descent, which leaves us with marriage to Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby. His eldest son, Ferdinando, 5th Earl dies 1594 with one daughter, but she would appear to be named Elizabeth. In 1601, she marries Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon, who is already IIRC carrying the Pole Plantagenet succession. Thus, their offspring would unite the neo-Tudor Brandon/Clifford line with the neo-Plantagenet Pole/Hastings line.

Is this Elizabeth, died 20 January 1633, also known as Anne ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
My favorite in real history was the War of The Roses. So my favorite in Alternate History would have to be one where it went the other way.
 
Top