Francis the II of France Recovers from His Illness 1560

To the best of my knowledge, Mary still kept reformed advisors, her own half-brother chief among them and things did not seem to hit the fan until her marriage with Lord Darnley.

The same is my impression as well. Of course, she was more or less forced to do all of the above because Catholic faction in Scotland was relatively weak (BTW, did she have that foolish quarrel with John Knox during this period or later?) but as long as she was reasonably inactive, leaving governing to Earl Murray, she was OK. Marriage to Darnley was a "masterstroke": it p---ed off Elizabeth, it p---ed off the Scottish Protestants and she got herself as a husband an idiot with mania grandiosity. The funny thing that his claims to a throne found, IIRC, at least some traction among the Scottish protestants: the women were considered the brainless creatures incapable of acting on their own (AFAIK, Knox and other protestants had been making exception for Elizabeth).


Which was bad because religion aside, the guy was a vain fool, but it was a relationship of love than politics.

For royalty to marry by love is, in most cases, a luxury and in the case of Mary it was a luxury she could not afford. Which tells quite a lot about her IQ.
...
With Francis, she might not have that kind of bad luck, which is why I'm more optimistic with her still around than anything.[/QUOTE]

Well, if Francis is alive then she is still Queen of France and her main and probably the only political function is to peddle the influence of her uncles. Which means political strengthening of the ultra-Catholic party comparing to OTL. Arguably, after assassination of Duke Francis de Guise Catherine may still outmaneuver her in promotion of the middle course but that course failed in OTL and would fail in this scenario. Even without Mary and Guises Catherine had been pushed into the ultra-Catholic corner and ended being blamed for the St. Bartholomew Night.

In the terms of a personal leadership, I don't see any reason to assume that Francis would grow up in a much more formidable figure than Charles IX or Henry III so the differences would be mostly in the details.
 
Elizabeth was intelligent (she also spoke several languages as well as Mary, danced well etc) because she'd been in a snakepit for most of her life. She knew to keep her mouth shut when she had to. She was, in the words of her half-sister "a good actress". Mary had never had the advantage of that. There's a huge difference between learning to be a consort and learning to be a monarch (ask Elizabeth II or Maria Theresia - they were both also given a mostly "traditional female" education). Then she gets to a country that's different in every way from the one she grew up in - religion, politics, etc - and she has no idea how to maneuvre, because someone else has been doing the lifting for her - first her mom, then her uncles in France, then her half-brother. You want to prevent that, just avoid her being sent away from Scotland as a child. She might learn more from Marie de Guise than the French court ever taught her about ruling.

All of the above is hardly a convincing argument as far as her intellect is involved. If she was intelligent enough, she would be able to adopt. Not sure how example of Elizabeth II is relevant (AFAIK, the modern British monarchs do not rule the country and can be relatively easily replaced with a properly dressed mannequin) and MT, with her "female education" had been doing quite well in surviving regardless the very difficult circumstances.

Let's use the different example. Empress Elizabeth of Russia brought into the country her nephew, Peter Ulrich of Holstein, and then his bride to be, of Anhalt-Zerbst. Both had been of approximately the same age and both had been raised in Germany. In Russia neither of them got too much of a meaningful education so the conditions were even (with Peter having an advantage of being a heir to the throne). Now, as an emperor Peter proved to be a failure due to the same fundamental problem as Mary: he BELIEVED in his right to govern (he was actually not a nincompoop: during his reign he managed to pass a number of the important and popular laws and, if music is of any importance, he was playing a fiddle). His wife did not like music and was not even very good with the languages (with a life-long serious effort to master Russian, she had a questionable fame of managing to make 4 mistakes in 3 letters word) but by the time of Elizabeth's death she managed to became very popular among the Guards (whom her husband openly despised), the top aristocracy (whom he was constantly offending) and Russian clergy (whom Peter offended by declaring his plan to make all religions equal). As a result, she ended to be Catherine the Great (even with available son) and he ended up being assassinated.

That's the difference between highly intelligent and not too bright persons.
 
All of the above is hardly a convincing argument as far as her intellect is involved. If she was intelligent enough, she would be able to adopt. Not sure how example of Elizabeth II is relevant (AFAIK, the modern British monarchs do not rule the country and can be relatively easily replaced with a properly dressed mannequin) and MT, with her "female education" had been doing quite well in surviving regardless the very difficult circumstances.

Let's use the different example. Empress Elizabeth of Russia brought into the country her nephew, Peter Ulrich of Holstein, and then his bride to be, of Anhalt-Zerbst. Both had been of approximately the same age and both had been raised in Germany. In Russia neither of them got too much of a meaningful education so the conditions were even (with Peter having an advantage of being a heir to the throne). Now, as an emperor Peter proved to be a failure due to the same fundamental problem as Mary: he BELIEVED in his right to govern.

That's the difference between highly intelligent and not too bright persons.

Except you cannot compare the two, Peter was an absolute monarch, Russia had no real traditional checks on the monarch's power that Scotland or England did, Peter believed in his right to govern because it is not like the Zemsky Sobor, if such an institution still existed, or a Duma could stop him. Besides he made much more fatal mistakes than Mary ever did, Mary never inherited a costly conflict only to make a white peace after gains where made, nor did she piss off everyone to then be assassinated.

Mary did not seem to have that problem, she quickly dropped her feud with John Knox, and really did not bother to do anything risky governance-wise. As for marrying Lord Darnley, it is not like she enabled him to do anything, she refused to make him co-sovereign when he asked, and she came to dislike him anyway, which I would say her marriage to her was her only real mistake.

But, I would not put Mary being forced into a marriage by a conspiracy of her own lords, and the resulting conflict later as something that is her fault. Especially since her Protestant half-brother and basically every other person of political importance in Scotland signed off on it as well. I still think calling her a bimbo is unjustified.

Moving on, let's assume Francis still living at least butterflies the Vassy and St Batholomew's massacres, I would say there at least be a religious stalemate provided Catherine d'Medici is still alive. Wars of Religion aside, would Francis consider looking the other way with the Dutch Revolt, and Huguenots going off to help them? After all Catholic or no, the Hapsburgs are a problem and depend on what we want to do with butterflies either the Duke of Alba or Philip II's unstable son is leading the army there. There's still the issue of Elizabeth's succession, and if she plans to aim for better relations with France for the sake of an anti-Hapsburg alliance, especially if Phillip is not doing himself any favors with diplomacy. Then again, Elizabeth could always remain neutral in her affairs favoring neither party.
 
Except you cannot compare the two, Peter was an absolute monarch, Russia had no real traditional checks on the monarch's power

Actually, there were: between 1725 and 1825 most of the Russian rulers had been either installed or deposed by the military coups. But you are seemingly missing a fundamental point because comparison is not with Mary. Both Peter and Catherine had been brought up and operating within exactly the same political framework and Peter ended up being overthrown by Catherine because she was intelligent enough to adjust to the system while he was expecting that the system will adjust to him just because he was a legal ruler. That's how you can distinguish the smart person from not too smart. The same goes for the systems with the parliamentary "checks": Gustav IV of Sweden had been forced to abdicate and go to the exile while Jean Baptist Bernadotte (who was a complete stranger to the system) founded a dynasty which still reigns in Sweden.

The rest are just excuses.



that Scotland or England did, Peter believed in his right to govern because it is not like the Zemsky Sobor, if such an institution still existed, or a Duma could stop him. Besides he made much more fatal mistakes than Mary ever did, Mary never inherited a costly conflict only to make a white peace after gains where made, nor did she piss off everyone to then be assassinated.

Sorry, but you really don't know subject well enough. After his death Catherine did not repudiate the peace and was quite cozy with Old Fritz and nobody blamed her for that. Peter's fatal mistake in this context was a declared intention to send the Guards to participate in a planned war against Denmark: the Guards had been quite happy in St-Petersburg and had not intention to go to any war. Conflict itself was, for Russia, a typical "cabinet war" and Russian nobility was not excessively happy paying for it (and nobody really needed Eastern Prussia, anyway) plus, by the time of Peter's accession, Russian-Austrian relations had been already fundamentally spoiled making further fighting rather absurd.


Moving on, let's assume Francis still living at least butterflies the Vassy and St Batholomew's massacres,
How exactly would it butterfly the Vassy other than in not having any accommodation in the 1st place? The Guises are still in power and the Protestants are still mobilizing for fight. As for St. Batholomew, please explain how events which lead to it would be substantially different, why would he find himself in a stronger position than Charles IX, why would he be more tolerant to the Huguenots and why Huguenots and Catholis would hate each other less than in OTL?

I would say there at least be a religious stalemate provided Catherine d'Medici is still alive. Wars of Religion aside, would Francis consider looking the other way with the Dutch Revolt, and Huguenots going off to help them?

Why would he be any different from Charles IX?
 
Moving on, let's assume Francis still living at least butterflies the Vassy and St Batholomew's massacres,

Realistically, the massacres would be butterflied only in the sense that they would happen at different days/places than OTL. With a POD of 1560 you can't butterfly away religious warfare.
 
Actually, there were: between 1725 and 1825 most of the Russian rulers had been either installed or deposed by the military coups. But you are seemingly missing a fundamental point because comparison is not with Mary. Both Peter and Catherine had been brought up and operating within exactly the same political framework and Peter ended up being overthrown by Catherine because she was intelligent enough to adjust to the system while he was expecting that the system will adjust to him just because he was a legal ruler. That's how you can distinguish the smart person from not too smart. The same goes for the systems with the parliamentary "checks": Gustav IV of Sweden had been forced to abdicate and go to the exile while Jean Baptist Bernadotte (who was a complete stranger to the system) founded a dynasty which still reigns in Sweden.

The rest are just excuses.

Sorry, but you really don't know subject well enough. After his death Catherine did not repudiate the peace and was quite cozy with Old Fritz and nobody blamed her for that. Peter's fatal mistake in this context was a declared intention to send the Guards to participate in a planned war against Denmark: the Guards had been quite happy in St-Petersburg and had not intention to go to any war. Conflict itself was, for Russia, a typical "cabinet war" and Russian nobility was not excessively happy paying for it (and nobody really needed Eastern Prussia, anyway) plus, by the time of Peter's accession, Russian-Austrian relations had been already fundamentally spoiled making further fighting rather absurd.

I'm well aware Catherine did not go to war, but you are one making the comparisons of Mary and Peter. So, you have to excuse me if I'm not too knowledgeable, and I feel the comparison of their situations or even grouping them is not at all justified.

The military does not count as a formal check on power that a parliament or another legislative body is. If we are going by that logic then the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Ming Dynasty were basically not autocracies because rulers could not use their full by powers by the "check" of factions either willing to play kingmaker, if they do not get their way, or obstruct government by corruption. Russia was still an autocracy with no formal checks, Peter could do what he wished with his right to govern, Mary knew she was limited by parliament and did not stir the pot too much, it is not like she was her was grandson Charles.

Mary's fall was not due to a foolish attempt to flaunt her own power in the face of everyone else, or by angering the wrong people especially since she started to dislike Lord Darnely as well, but a conspiracy made behind her back, with the possibility of the conspirators being bribed or threatened. A conspiracy she could not predict nor realize it would go south the way it did, even then that fall, boiled down to one battle.

Her marriage having unforeseen consequences is in no way similar to ending a long war on a white peace or trying to expand in relatively distant Denmark. What I'm trying to argue, and I do not know if is getting lost in all of this, is that Mary could at least be a moderating influence with a surviving Francis II. Her fall in Scotland was both unpredictable and irrelevant to this question since Mary won't have to worry about marriage again, more so if she has a son with Francis, which means a completely different situation for her. She knows she cannot do much in Scotland that could upset the religious balance, and she basically did not do so for most of OTL. She is his wife and could have a role unless you think she is bad at that too. If a union between France, Scotland, and possibly later down England is ever going to have a shot at working, Francis II would have to realize that a comprise would have to be made especially since Scotland helping Scotland relies on England not getting involved, which would make his marriage to Mary pointless.

How exactly would it butterfly the Vassy other than in not having any accommodation in the 1st place? The Guises are still in power and the Protestants are still mobilizing for fight. As for St. Batholomew, please explain how events which lead to it would be substantially different, why would he find himself in a stronger position than Charles IX, why would he be more tolerant to the Huguenots and why Huguenots and Catholis would hate each other less than in OTL?

The Events of St Bartholomew came about from the marriage of Henry III of Navarre and by extension the peace of the third war of religion in France, the first of which started in 1562. Vassy itself happened because of an apparent lag in the implementation of the edict of January, Vassy happened in March. It could be possible for an earlier edict, depending on how one wants to play with butterflies, and I believe those specific events can be avoided, not that a working religious peace can be made in a short amount of time, but that a slightly less bloody situation can be made out of it.

Spanish Florida could be butterflied away or delayed, so that a Protestant colony can be formed allowing Protestants to head to an ATL Florida, as an opportunity to release tensions. There are still plenty of events that could negatively impact Spain, to benefit France's domestic situation with religion. As for why he would be different from Charles IX, I do not see why he or his situation with Spain would be the same, you could have Philip II's unstable son in the Netherlands instead of the Duke of Alba, considering butterflies can allow it. The Ottoman siege of Malta could still be up in the air but Francis surviving be would after the Ottoman victory at Djerba. The Ottomans are still a threat to the Hapsburgs as a whole period.

Don't mind my insistence on pursuing this topic, It is giving me some ideas on what to do with Western Europe for my own timeline. Granted my timeline's POD, with a more self-contained POD, is earlier than Francis's death, and believe that anything goes after the fact at least event wise.
 
OK let’s just have everyone agree to disagree as to Mary’s status as “smart” and move onto the meat of the scenario. Does surviving his 1560 illness mean Francis II of France is now undergoing puberty and thus will be able to father a child on his wife, or are we going to get a fruitless marriage that ultimately gets annulled sometime in the 1570’s, with Mary marrying elsewhere and proving fruitful, while Francis makes another barren marriage, potentially with an Austrian Archduchess? Personally, because all three of his brothers seem to have undergone later puberty themselves, I could see him later fathering at least 1 child with Mary. Maybe a daughter around the late 1560’s (1566-1569) with maybe a son later in the 1570’s. Low fertility seems to be a recurring feature of Catherine de Medici’s children (only Elisabeth and Claude produced any healthy children, and even then at the cost of their own health in both instances) so two children and maybe a miscarriage at some point seems a likely progression, leaving a singular heir to Scotland in the form of the Dauphin of France, who would also be the heir to Scotland.

If that happened, might we see a revolution in Scotland, either under the Earl of Lennox or Earl of Hamilton, leading them to the throne in an unstable position, causing war with France, or might we see an independent Scotland that eventually drops the idea of fealty to their King once it becomes obvious Mary and her descendants view Scotland as merely a place to withdraw funds and take holidays once in a while.

Speaking of independence in Scotland, does that lead to an early Republic, similar in theory to England under Cromwell, or do they go the way of monarchy? Maybe it’s even an elective monarchy under the descendants of the Stuart line, where there are rules about having to be Scottish born and own x amount of land to qualify.
 
I'm well aware Catherine did not go to war, but you are one making the comparisons of Mary and Peter. So, you have to excuse me if I'm not too knowledgeable, and I feel the comparison of their situations or even grouping them is not at all justified.

Actually, I was making comparison between Peter and Catherine to have a "level field" in the terms of the circumstances and to be able to compare actions of an averagely intelligent person (Peter) with those of one who is VERY intelligent (Catherine).

The military does not count as a formal check on power that a parliament or another legislative body is.

The "formal check" does not matter when there is a "factual" one and by itself a legislative body is powerless unless everybody is agreeing to play by the rules. If this is not the case, that "body" needs a military power to back it up as was the case in the English Civil War. Example of what may happen when it does not have such a backup was 199? when Russian President Yeltsin used tanks against his "legislative body".
 
Does surviving his 1560 illness mean Francis II of France is now undergoing puberty and thus will be able to father a child on his wife, or are we going to get a fruitless marriage that ultimately gets annulled sometime in the 1570’s, with Mary marrying elsewhere and proving fruitful, while Francis makes another barren marriage, potentially with an Austrian Archduchess? Personally, because all three of his brothers seem to have undergone later puberty themselves, I could see him later fathering at least 1 child with Mary. Maybe a daughter around the late 1560’s (1566-1569) with maybe a son later in the 1570’s. Low fertility seems to be a recurring feature of Catherine de Medici’s children (only Elisabeth and Claude produced any healthy children, and even then at the cost of their own health in both instances) so two children and maybe a miscarriage at some point seems a likely progression, leaving a singular heir to Scotland in the form of the Dauphin of France, who would also be the heir to Scotland.

It all depends on what this son does and how does he grow up in the climate of the Reformation, and the fact that his two lands are still religiously divided with the Protestants in power in Scotland and Catholics in France, with the outcome of France still up in the air.

If that happened, might we see a revolution in Scotland, either under the Earl of Lennox or Earl of Hamilton, leading them to the throne in an unstable position, causing war with France, or might we see an independent Scotland that eventually drops the idea of fealty to their King once it becomes obvious Mary and her descendants view Scotland as merely a place to withdraw funds and take holidays once in a while.

Speaking of independence in Scotland, does that lead to an early Republic, similar in theory to England under Cromwell, or do they go the way of monarchy? Maybe it’s even an elective monarchy under the descendants of the Stuart line, where there are rules about having to be Scottish born and own x amount of land to qualify.

It really depends on how Scotland is treated which is not a sure thing, Mary had lost the war for the Reformation in Scotland. Mathew Stewart, Lord Darnley's father is the foremost the Catholic nobleman in Scotland, while James Hamilton had switched sides 3 times from Protestant to Catholic and back.

What liberties is one taking with the situation in Europe from a 1560 POD? What France does with Scotland, and if the union even lasts I'd say relies on this question being answered. The Hapsburgs are still dealing with crises on both branches, Spain seems increasingly unlikely to go for toleration which is going to cause problems in the Netherlands. Not helping them is either the harsh Duke of Alba could leading the Army there as in OTL or before an accident in 1562 Philip II's unstable son Don Carlos could be leading the forces there in his place. The Ottomans are still strong and are causing headaches for the Hapsburgs as the Ottoman sieges on Malta and Hungary have not happened yet.

Hapsburgs aside, what happens with England? Does Elizabeth marry someone, be it at home or abroad such as Eric XIV of Sweden? Are Mary and her son left as a possible claimants to the throne, or is someone else chosen instead? Does England still plan to keep its neutrality in affairs on the continent?
 
OK let’s just have everyone agree to disagree as to Mary’s status as “smart” and move onto the meat of the scenario. Does surviving his 1560 illness mean Francis II of France is now undergoing puberty and thus will be able to father a child on his wife, or are we going to get a fruitless marriage that ultimately gets annulled sometime in the 1570’s, with Mary marrying elsewhere and proving fruitful, while Francis makes another barren marriage, potentially with an Austrian Archduchess? Personally, because all three of his brothers seem to have undergone later puberty themselves, I could see him later fathering at least 1 child with Mary. Maybe a daughter around the late 1560’s (1566-1569) with maybe a son later in the 1570’s. Low fertility seems to be a recurring feature of Catherine de Medici’s children (only Elisabeth and Claude produced any healthy children, and even then at the cost of their own health in both instances) so two children and maybe a miscarriage at some point seems a likely progression, leaving a singular heir to Scotland in the form of the Dauphin of France, who would also be the heir to Scotland.

If that happened, might we see a revolution in Scotland, either under the Earl of Lennox or Earl of Hamilton, leading them to the throne in an unstable position, causing war with France, or might we see an independent Scotland that eventually drops the idea of fealty to their King once it becomes obvious Mary and her descendants view Scotland as merely a place to withdraw funds and take holidays once in a while.

Speaking of independence in Scotland, does that lead to an early Republic, similar in theory to England under Cromwell, or do they go the way of monarchy? Maybe it’s even an elective monarchy under the descendants of the Stuart line, where there are rules about having to be Scottish born and own x amount of land to qualify.

I'm not quite sure about there only being children later, since in 1559 before François died there was speculation already that the queen could be with child. Of course, this might've just been wishful thinking, but could be that there's a child in 1560 and then a gap until 1566. Either way, Mary seems to have been relatively fertile, since she marries Darnley in July 1565, and under a year later, James VI comes squalling into the world; Bothwell abducted and "raped" Mary in April 1567, married him in May, and miscarried of his twins that same July (whether or not the twins were conceived in April or halfway through May, I have no idea), but either way, as a courtier later said of Mme de Montespan "her powder lights very quickly".

What would be interesting is if we see a split between France and Scotland - the son keeping France and the daughter going to Scotland (where she has to wed some Hamilton or Moray-Stuart boy to keep the crown). But that's just wishful thinking on my part
 
A surviving Francis II is going to impact on the French Wars of Religion - firstly although he and Mary were under the influence of the Guise as Francis ages he may rebel against them in time - but his reaction to the tumult of Amboise is likely to have freer reign - and you won't have the more conciliatory policy of his mother (who was determined to try and preserve the crown's influence and independence from the overmighty aristocrats on both sides of the religious divide).

The Treaty of Edinburgh had already gone through between Elizabeth and Francis II before a POD in this TL and French troops were being removed from Scotland - it is likely Mary will still refuse to ratify the treaty though.

Problematically for Francis and Mary is the acts of the Scots Parliament in August 1560 - this destroyed the Pope's rights in Scotland, ratified the treaty of Berwick between England and the Lords of the Congregation, the Parliament agreed to pursue a match between Elizabeth and Arran's heir etc - whilst Berwick and the later Parliament did not go as far as the withdraw Scots loyalty to Mary and Francis it was a direct insult to the King and Queen - much will depend on how Francis and Mary react to the strength in Scotland of the Protestant Lords in the next couple of years.
The rival claimants for Mary's throne were - Arran and his numerous children and the Earl of Lennox (still living in England in exile) - neither were forthcoming to try and claim the throne whilst Mary lived - Arran was the recognised and acknowledged heir (his claim was much stronger) but throughout his life he refused to challenge the Queen (and in fact he and his children remained loyal to Mary even after she was forced to abdicate).

If Francis and Mary are faced with a continuing conflict in France and an empty treasury thanks to the long-running conflict with the Hapsburgs then subduing Scotland is going to be expensive and difficult.
If there first child is a girl the Scots have a bit of breathing room - a girl can inherit Scotland but not France - if its a boy then the Scots now face a longer term Franco-Scottish Union which presesnts a real threat to the reformed religion and England.
Elizabeth's problems are twofold in that scenario - she hated to support open rebellion against a lawful monarch though her council will pressure her to support the Protestants if they move to open rebellion, domestically the succession becomes even more a long term issue than in otl.
The birth of the future James VI followed by Mary's ultimate deposition gave the English a viable future heir - male and being raised as protestant - all they needed to do was bypass the disgraced Mary, if James got out of line there were the English alternatives even if the Queen didn't like any of them.
In this tl you have no viable heir from Mary - and any heir chosen by Elizabeth or her council is going to face a challenge from the Franco Scots line.
Pressure will be on Elizabeth to marry - now whilst France is troubled with internal strife she can probably continue the diplomatic dance she did in OTL flirting with powerful alternative husbands to worry the French - those of course will be Catholic alliances which will never wash with the bulk of Elizabeth's council and Parliament.
Arran's heir might come into play in this tl - he was sane at this point - he has a Scots' claim and at this point is Protestant - he is not foreign enough to offend Elizabeth's subjects and isn't royal enough to challenge Elizabeth's domestic supremacy - of course the real issue is Elizabeth's personal distaste for the idea and her clear affection for Dudley. A match with Arran will deeply offend Mary and Francis and is going to be seen as a challenge to Mary's throne.
If Elizabeth decides not to marry in the short term - then Katherine Grey comes into play - the girl married Hertford secretly at some point in December 1560 - any change will have to become before then to prevent that marriage - though Elizabeth might be persuaded to accept it as valid if her council is concerned about a potential Franco Scots heir on the horizon - it gives them a legal alternative (in Statute legally Katherine was Heir Presumptive and there was scholarly support for her claim much to Elizabeth's fury in the 1560s).
 
As husband for either Elizabeth or Katherine Grey I think Darnley has a better chance to be choised than Arran’s heir...
Sure he is Catholic but still a boy, so hopefully controllable and likely his ambitious parents can be persuaded who a conversion of all the family before the wedding is necessary...
Really Darnley and Elizabeth look a very interesting match (she is 12 years older than him and much more powerful)
I think an English born and part Scottish part English boy is much more interesting than the heir of Arran as husband for Elizabeth if she really need to marry
 
Top