Henry VII and Henry VIII dead in 1509

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.

Parliament at the time of William and Mary held more power than it did in the 16th century. Royal power had eroded somewhat by that time. James will be King. (I'm not sure the term "King Consort" even existed or would make sense to MEN in the 16th century. Ferdinand wasn't called King Consort, he was called King even though his powers in Castille were limited by a treaty). James has custody of Margaret's heir apparent (Arthur) and he can/will blackmail her into proclaiming him King of England. All he has to do is stay in Scotland. It's not like she can go get pregnant by, say, Thomas Boleyn and declare that bastard King. She needs James more than James needs her. She needs his experience, she needs him to father more children by her, etc. Parliament can try and get James to agree to a limitation, but it's really going to fall to Margaret to want that before it happens. She was ruled more by her heart than her brains (unlike OTL niece Elizabeth), so it's probably going to be James King of both countries because of this. She was in love with the guy.

Also, the crown is not subject to the rules of the nobility (re: entailed lands and titles). And Charles Brandon got to be Lord Lisle on the basis of a betrothal without an act of Parliament, so that rule you're citing is flexible.
 
William Warham was Archbishop and Lord Chancellor - Henry VII trusted him - but he faded a bit on Henry VIII's accession - he will certainly back Margaret and James in my humble opinion.
 
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.

It's an unprecedented situation with regards to the succession. If Margaret already had a son it's likely he'd be declared King since there was precedent on counting women as men in lineage and no male line to dispute it.
While I think it likely that, absent children yet, Margaret would be declared Queen it's not automatic or guaranteed.
Because it is not certain who the new sovereign is this is why I called it an absent king situation.
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.
No idea. The AB was William Wareham who seems a bit under the royal thumb. He'll probably follow whoever seems in charge.
 
Re James as King.
If Margaret is the apparent Queen then James is King only in right of her and not in his own right, therefore he will not have full rights in his own name. How restricted his de jure rights are will depend on negotiations between Parliament, his wife, and himself. Margaret will probably try to declare him her deputy. I suspect a lot of lawyers will be pulling out precedents and the Magna Carta is suddenly a lot more relevant.
 
It's an unprecedented situation with regards to the succession. If Margaret already had a son it's likely he'd be declared King since there was precedent on counting women as men in lineage and no male line to dispute it.
While I think it likely that, absent children yet, Margaret would be declared Queen it's not automatic or guaranteed.
Because it is not certain who the new sovereign is this is why I called it an absent king situation.

No idea. The AB was William Wareham who seems a bit under the royal thumb. He'll probably follow whoever seems in charge.
Which, in London at least, will presumably e Oxford. So we're back to him.

One more thought If Margaret Beaufort is still alive, could she be proclaimed Queen? After all, if women can inherit the crown (as is now virtually unavoidable) then she is ahead of both her granddaughters. And even a very brief reign would give her time to name a successor.
 
Last edited:
Much depends on the timeline - does Henry VII die in April on schedule? When does his son die - before the King or at some point after him - In OTL Margaret Beaufort probably died from old age, grief and over work - she spent much of her last two months organising her son's funeral and her grandson's coronation.
 
Much depends on the timeline - does Henry VII die in April on schedule? When does his son die - before the King or at some point after him - In OTL Margaret Beaufort probably died from old age, grief and over work - she spent much of her last two months organising her son's funeral and her grandson's coronation.

And also on the circumstances of hi death. If it could be concealed for a few days, as Edward VI's was, that would gave time for a courier to be sent post-haste to Scotland, and to ensure that the key positions were held by reliable men who would be loyal to Margaret.
 
Parliament at the time of William and Mary held more power than it did in the 16th century. Royal power had eroded somewhat by that time. James will be King. (I'm not sure the term "King Consort" even existed or would make sense to MEN in the 16th century. Ferdinand wasn't called King Consort, he was called King even though his powers in Castille were limited by a treaty). James has custody of Margaret's heir apparent (Arthur) and he can/will blackmail her into proclaiming him King of England. All he has to do is stay in Scotland. It's not like she can go get pregnant by, say, Thomas Boleyn and declare that bastard King. She needs James more than James needs her. She needs his experience, she needs him to father more children by her, etc. Parliament can try and get James to agree to a limitation, but it's really going to fall to Margaret to want that before it happens. She was ruled more by her heart than her brains (unlike OTL niece Elizabeth), so it's probably going to be James King of both countries because of this. She was in love with the guy.

Also, the crown is not subject to the rules of the nobility (re: entailed lands and titles). And Charles Brandon got to be Lord Lisle on the basis of a betrothal without an act of Parliament, so that rule you're citing is flexible.
I agree the rules are very fluid but remember in this scenario , England has never had a proper Queen Regent. The nearest was the Empress Matilda who was never formally crowned and I doubt she is remembered fondly by many. In the end it was resolved by declaring her son King. So, if Arthur lives, many may push for a regency in his name ( with James but one of the regents ) rather than Margret.
 
I agree the rules are very fluid but remember in this scenario , England has never had a proper Queen Regent. The nearest was the Empress Matilda who was never formally crowned and I doubt she is remembered fondly by many. In the end it was resolved by declaring her son King. So, if Arthur lives, many may push for a regency in his name ( with James but one of the regents ) rather than Margret.

Arthur hasn't been born by this point, he was born in late 1509, Henry VII and Henry VIII will both be dead by the end of APril.
 
Arthur hasn't been born by this point, he was born in late 1509, Henry VII and Henry VIII will both be dead by the end of APril.
Was thinking they would know Margret is pregnant and haggle a deal similar to the posthumous son of a king scenario.
 
Empress Matilda was a bad precedent true but that do not imply who Margaret's claim will be refuted... She is already married to a man who is King in his own right and rule the nearest land to England... Crowning her Queen and let her husband rule England in her name (with a well placed serie of restrictions to the use who James can do of his royal power in England for guaranteeing English's interests) is the best solution for everyone and the most likely to be applied... Plus they can ask who the Prince of Walkes and his sibling will have their principal residences in England and the Royal family (excluding maybe King James) will spent the biggest part of their time in England and not Scotland... An union of England and Scotland will take away forever the Scottish problem and in the time of three generations at the latest (including James and Margaret) the Stewarts will become fully English
 
Empress Matilda was a bad precedent true but that do not imply who Margaret's claim will be refuted... She is already married to a man who is King in his own right and rule the nearest land to England... Crowning her Queen and let her husband rule England in her name (with a well placed serie of restrictions to the use who James can do of his royal power in England for guaranteeing English's interests) is the best solution for everyone and the most likely to be applied... Plus they can ask who the Prince of Walkes and his sibling will have their principal residences in England and the Royal family (excluding maybe King James) will spent the biggest part of their time in England and not Scotland... An union of England and Scotland will take away forever the Scottish problem and in the time of three generations at the latest (including James and Margaret) the Stewarts will become fully English

This does seem reasonable.
 
One more thought If Margaret Beaufort is still alive, could she be proclaimed Queen? After all, if women can inherit the crown (as is now virtually unavoidable) then she is ahead of both her granddaughters. And even a very brief reign would give her time to name a successor.
Debatable whether she is ahead of her grandchildren due to the York Lancaster "disagreement".
Henry's solution was to declare himself King by conquest and marry Edward's eldest daughter giving his sons rights by most routes - senior (Wydeville) York line, senior Lancaster, and senior of latest Conqueror.
Also, technically Margaret Beaufort was skipped in favour of Henry in the Lancastrian succession.
 
Empress Matilda was a bad precedent true but that do not imply who Margaret's claim will be refuted... She is already married to a man who is King in his own right and rule the nearest land to England... Crowning her Queen and let her husband rule England in her name (with a well placed serie of restrictions to the use who James can do of his royal power in England for guaranteeing English's interests) is the best solution for everyone and the most likely to be applied... Plus they can ask who the Prince of Walkes and his sibling will have their principal residences in England and the Royal family (excluding maybe King James) will spent the biggest part of their time in England and not Scotland... An union of England and Scotland will take away forever the Scottish problem and in the time of three generations at the latest (including James and Margaret) the Stewarts will become fully English
As I've previously said I don't disagree that Margaret succeeding is the easiest and best solution.
I only disagree that it's the only and automatic solution.
And that James somehow gains all Margaret's bloodrights.
 
I wonder which sphere of influence England will fall under during Margaret's reign. If James is advising Margaret then it's possible that we'll see England developing a closer relationship with France during the early part of her reign. There'd be a betrothal of the Prince of Wales (Arthur) to a French princess, more than likely either Renee de France or Madeleine de Valois. If we have a Duke of York in the OTL James then Margaret might soften the French influence in England by betrothing said child to a Spanish/Imperial Infanta/Princess or a Portuguese one if there's any available.
 
I wonder which sphere of influence England will fall under during Margaret's reign. If James is advising Margaret then it's possible that we'll see England developing a closer relationship with France during the early part of her reign. There'd be a betrothal of the Prince of Wales (Arthur) to a French princess, more than likely either Renee de France or Madeleine de Valois. If we have a Duke of York in the OTL James then Margaret might soften the French influence in England by betrothing said child to a Spanish/Imperial Infanta/Princess or a Portuguese one if there's any available.

Was James IV particularly pro- French, other than needing her as an ally against England - a consideration now o longer relevant?
 
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.
William's circumstances were different; he ruled a (nominal) republic on the continent, and England was winding down its failed experiment with republicanism.
 
Top