Henry VII and Henry VIII dead in 1509

Firstly as has been pointed out by the usual standards Margaret is the legal heir.
Henry VII's accession (by right of conquest) technically extinguished the rights of anyone else - of course might is always right, but at this period there isn't anyone powerful enough and in the right position to challenge Margaret's rights to inherit the throne.
More than likely the nobility and power breakers will be split - some for Margaret, some perhaps for Mary, others pointing to Courtenay, to the Poles and to Buckingham.
In that the council most likely confirms Margaret as heir and her and James travel south at speed.
Secondly as has been pointed out - James rights as Margaret's husband would be well understood at the period and in the context of the time everything Margaret was possessed of was his by convention and law. There is nothing in her marriage treaty to limit his rights in the event of her accession.
However, what is likely is that Margaret's first Parliament will attempt to impose some limits on James as they meet to confirm Margaret's hereditary rights to the dues of a sovereign, largely I suspect they'll ban him from appointing Scots to English positions, prevent him from ammending the succession and confirming that in the event of Margaret's death without issue his rights in England die with her. Suspect these will be hammered out in a bargain with James and Margaret - in return they'll accept him as King by name etc.
For the English they are getting a reasonably good deal - a true Renaissance prince who had proved himself to be a capable ruler.
In terms of alliances - James is already allied with both England and France, England's relationship with Spain was hardly fixed or historic - so there's no guarantee which way James and Margaret will jump.
They are only going to stick with Mary's Spanish match if a) Charles comes to the wicket (in OTL he was reluctant to jump into marriage which is why he married relatively late after a string of broken betrothals) b) they don't need a political match elsewhere in the event they decide to join in the continental wars
Quite frankly its just as likely that Charles will break the match if it no longer suits him politically - on his accession in Spain he was pushed towards Isabella (partially because the Spanish court wanted a Spanish match to contrast with his foreign upbringing) in OTL.
Mary's options have suddenly improved however, she is now heiress presumptive - that means James will want her married where it best suits him if his wife fails to produce an heir.
Mary's attractiveness to Maximilian and Ferdinand and a raft of others has also just shot up - which might mean pressure on Charles to actually pursue the betrothal and marry her - though of course the problem is Charles is 9 to Mary's 13 - and a lot can change before Charles is of legal age to actually turn betrothal into marriage.
 
It's probably worth noting that there's no English royal precedent for Margaret as eldest of the 2 daughters being the primary heir.
The usual rule for titles inheritable by heirs general (as opposed to heirs male) was eldest male and his heirs first, then next eldest male etc, allowing for a single female to inherit. When multiple females were present rather than go to the eldest the title went into abeyance until a single heir or the Crown was petitioned by one of the male heirs to rule on it.
It's part of the reason for Henry VIII's Acts of Succession which then created precedent.
 
It's probably worth noting that there's no English royal precedent for Margaret as eldest of the 2 daughters being the primary heir.
The usual rule for titles inheritable by heirs general (as opposed to heirs male) was eldest male and his heirs first, then next eldest male etc, allowing for a single female to inherit. When multiple females were present rather than go to the eldest the title went into abeyance until a single heir or the Crown was petitioned by one of the male heirs to rule on it.
It's part of the reason for Henry VIII's Acts of Succession which then created precedent.

So does this make the game of thrones look weak then?
 
People need to look at history, the only English King Regent was William III and he only got it by blackmailing Parliament ( pass a bill declaring I'm co-monarch with my wife or I will not help you depose James II ). Therefore James is getting King Consort at best , the rule of what is the wife's is the husbands only apply to non titled folk. Entailed lands and titles might go straight to a son but never a husband without an act of Parliament.
 
It's probably worth noting that there's no English royal precedent for Margaret as eldest of the 2 daughters being the primary heir.
The usual rule for titles inheritable by heirs general (as opposed to heirs male) was eldest male and his heirs first, then next eldest male etc, allowing for a single female to inherit. When multiple females were present rather than go to the eldest the title went into abeyance until a single heir or the Crown was petitioned by one of the male heirs to rule on it.
It's part of the reason for Henry VIII's Acts of Succession which then created precedent.

This has no application to the succession to the throne, as the Crown can never be in abeyance. Baronies can lapse and be split up between heiresses, but the kingdom can't.
 
Very unlikely indeed. The last time was in 1035, and by 1509 England is probably more centralised than it has ever been.
But you see my point about multiple heiresses and there not being an English example of eldest heiress inheriting nobility where several exist without royal sanction.
 
But you see my point about multiple heiresses and there not being an English example of eldest heiress inheriting nobility where several exist without royal sanction.

I see it as far as peerages are concerned.

But peerages are conferred by the Crown, so can revert to it if there is no heir (or no male heir, depending on the terms of the Letters Patent). OTOH the Crown itself has no overlord to whom it can revert. It passes by inheritance, and if there are only daughters where can it go save to the eldest?
 
I see it as far as peerages are concerned.

But peerages are conferred by the Crown, so can revert to it if there is no heir (or no male heir, depending on the terms of the Letters Patent). OTOH the Crown itself has no overlord to whom it can revert. It passes by inheritance, and if there are only daughters where can it go save to the eldest?
Anywhere Parliament says it goes. You have to understand the reluctance to having a female on the throne, especially one under the thumb ( in their eyes ) of a foreigner. Especially in the North, James is not seen in a good light and any excuse would be used to have an alternate. At this period inheritance is not as rigid as later, documents are widely faked, wishes disregarded.
With Queens having a bad reputation and Scots worse, its by no means impossible for Parliament to declare Margret unfit and have a haggle. Whilst the do not want another war, they really do not want a Scot ( I know they accepted James I, but he had the advantage of people knowing for a long time he was probably the heir coupled with the need , that does not exist here , of ensuring a strong protestant was on the throne ).
 
It is however worth bearing in mind that the people who will decide the nobility and gentry have just got out of a long-running dispute over the succession - they might prefer a settled succession even if it means a foreign King for a time - and as Henry VII said when someone remarked to him about the possibility of Margaret's line inheriting - the greater (England) will always swallow the smaller (Scotland) in those circumstances.
 
Anywhere Parliament says it goes. You have to understand the reluctance to having a female on the throne, especially one under the thumb ( in their eyes ) of a foreigner. Especially in the North, James is not seen in a good light and any excuse would be used to have an alternate. At this period inheritance is not as rigid as later, documents are widely faked, wishes disregarded.
With Queens having a bad reputation and Scots worse, its by no means impossible for Parliament to declare Margret unfit and have a haggle. Whilst the do not want another war, they really do not want a Scot ( I know they accepted James I, but he had the advantage of people knowing for a long time he was probably the heir coupled with the need , that does not exist here , of ensuring a strong protestant was on the throne ).
.


What Parliament?

Only the Sovereign can call one, so there has to be a Sovereign first. And Parliament can hardly deny the legitimacy of the Sovereign who has called it, since if he/she is not the lawful Sovereign then they are not a lawful Parliament.

If a Parliament was sitting when Henry VIII's died, his death would automatically dissolve it.
 
.


What Parliament?

Only the Sovereign can call one, so there has to be a Sovereign first. And Parliament can hardly deny the legitimacy of the Sovereign who has called it, since if he/she is not the lawful Sovereign then they are not a lawful Parliament.

If a Parliament was sitting when Henry VIII's died, his death would automatically dissolve it.
You are being a lot more procedural than the time was, it would fudged ( letter found etc ). I'll admit calling it Parliament is more in a de facto than de jure sense, but English nobles will meet in a moot and come to a conclusion. Very few at this time are going to spontaneously declare for, what would be seen as, a Scottish King.
If James declares himself King Regnant then he will have very little support and war, even King Consort will require agreeing to lots of concessions in advance to have a chance at a begrudging acceptance. He's in the same boat as Philip II, his wife can wish but her subjects will not accept and ignore. Push too far and they will rebel, Henry VII will not have left the throne in a stable enough condition for much blind loyalty.
 
You are being a lot more procedural than the time was, it would fudged ( letter found etc ). I'll admit calling it Parliament is more in a de facto than de jure sense, but English nobles will meet in a moot and come to a conclusion. Very few at this time are going to spontaneously declare for, what would be seen as, a Scottish King.
If James declares himself King Regnant then he will have very little support and war, even King Consort will require agreeing to lots of concessions in advance to have a chance at a begrudging acceptance. He's in the same boat as Philip II, his wife can wish but her subjects will not accept and ignore. Push too far and they will rebel, Henry VII will not have left the throne in a stable enough condition for much blind loyalty.

And their alternatives are?

If they proclaim Mary, that means a royal minority at as time when the last (disastrous) one is still well within living memory. Expect civil war over who should be her guardian, and then over who should be her husband.

If they proclaim any of the Lancastrian or Yorkist Pretenders waiting in the wings, whoever they[1] choose will be ganged up on by the supporters of all the rest. Civil war again.

My guess. Oxford, from his base at the Tower (with the gunpowder stored and the Royal Mint) grabs Mary for safe keeping. If possible, he also gets the Archbishop of Canterbury (whose prerogative it is to anoint and crown a sovereign) to join him there. He then gets couriers off, by land, sea of both, to Scotland, urging Margaret to get down here asap.


[1] Whoever "they" are. Do we get three or four groups of noblemen meeting in different places and proclaiming different monarchs?
 
Last edited:
I see it as far as peerages are concerned.

But peerages are conferred by the Crown, so can revert to it if there is no heir (or no male heir, depending on the terms of the Letters Patent). OTOH the Crown itself has no overlord to whom it can revert. It passes by inheritance, and if there are only daughters where can it go save to the eldest?
In the absence of a son it would go by the King's Act of Succession as passed by Parliament. That's how the male heir general Mortimer was passed over in favour of the heir male. Though the fudging of that led to Wars of the Roses that noone wants to repeat.
.
What Parliament?

Only the Sovereign can call one, so there has to be a Sovereign first. And Parliament can hardly deny the legitimacy of the Sovereign who has called it, since if he/she is not the lawful Sovereign then they are not a lawful Parliament.

If a Parliament was sitting when Henry VIII's died, his death would automatically dissolve it.
In the absence of the King, either his declared lieutenant/deputy (during the early days of Henry VIII that was Catherine of Aragon) or the Lord High Steward can call Parliament.
Now, since 1421 the LHS generally only served and was appointed during the coronation. So find who appoints the LHS, they can call Parliament and voila. I believe it's the senior male relative to the late king.


The problem we have set up here is that the death of Henry VII leaves no male heir, an unprecedented 2 royal heiresses of who the eldest is married abroad, and no Act of Succession.

What we therefore have is an absent king situation and thus I believe it falls to the king's senior (unattainted) male relative to appoint a Lord High Steward who can call Parliament and thus arrange for a Lord Protector or relevant coronation.

Suffolk's still in the Tower at this point and has a male heir, his unmarried brother Richard who I think is in France at this time. That gives the option of a Yorkist restoration with Richard also being married to Mary.
 
What we therefore have is an absent king situation and thus I believe it falls to the king's senior (unattainted) male relative to appoint a Lord High Steward who can call Parliament and thus arrange for a Lord Protector or relevant coronation.

If a King is merely absent he can deputise someone to act in his name. But here, the King ain't absent - he's dead. So whoever acts has to act in the name of the new Sovereign - whoever that is. Anyone else who tried to call a Parliament would have to do it in the name of (presumably) Queen Margaret.

Incidentally I don't suppose there's any way to guess what the Archbishop of Canterbury's views would be. Could be important as it's his responsibility to anoint and crown the new Monarch. He was also the Lord Chancellor and so had custody of the Great Seal, which would be needed to make a summons of Parliament valid.
 
Last edited:
Top