in 1513 a young King Henry VIII made his wife, Catherine of Aragon, Regent of England and went to war in France, she won a victory over the Scots at Flodden, leading to the death of King James IV of Scotland, any ways what if after the Battle of Flodden and the death of James IV Henry VIII dies in France (falls from a horse, gets sick, whatever) what would happen? would Henry's sister just become Regent of Scotland be allowed to become Queen while her country is at war with England? would a 17 year old Mary Tudor? would Catherine hold on as regent?
Henry VIII dies in France in 1513
- Thread starter black angel
- Start date
Margaret was Henry's older sister and thus his heiress if he die without children, Mary Tudor and any heirs of her would be in line only after Margaret and her heirs. If case of Henry's death without children Margaret, who was just become widow and Regent of Scotland for her son, would automatically become Queen regnant of England and her son, James V of Scotland, would became Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales and remain King of Scotland. Obviously this will remove any reason for war between England and Scotland and Catherine will become Queen Dowager and will lose her power.
Beedok that Mary Tudor is not Henry and Catherine's daughter, who is not yet born, but Henry's younger sister with the same name (who OTL will became first Queen of France as third wife of Louis XII then Duchess of Suffolk). Before her in the English line of succession were her older sister Margaret, Queen Dowager and Regent of Scotland and Margaret's son, King James V of Scotland
Last edited:
legally sure, but practically, would English nobles or the People agree to allow the head of state of an enemy nation, they are at war with, who's husband has JUST been killed by the English to become queen (or Queen regent for her son)?
also in OTL at Henry's Death, it was Mary's not Margaret's line laid out in his will after his children, in took 60 years of work to undermine that, and Lady Jane Grey and her supporters tried to use that fact to take power
Yes, because this was the law, Margaret was the rightful and lawful heiress of her brother and was not in her interest searching vengeance on the English people and her succession will remove any reason for continuing the war with Scotland. Refuse her the crown will not help the English/Scottish relationships and will likely caused another civil war in England after all Margaret was not directly involved in the war between her husband and brother
there is the law and there is reality, to wit, if "the law" always won out over Pragmatic considerations, the House of Tudor wouldn't be on the throne, given their claim to it is from bastards who legally gave up any claim to the throne to be legalized.
to have a civil war she'd need supporters in England, given her lack of political skills even in Scotland I don't see that, and my point wasn't fear of her in England but anti-Scotish and Anti-Stewart feeling among the people and the nobles likely high at a time of war
and again through out Henry's reign keeping Margaret's line out was a topic that comes up a lot, so again Law Vs. Reality, and it was something people had thought to do, even more so at this time of war.
Yes but, as you said, Margaret descendants was excluded from Henry's will, a will who ITTL do not exist, and that was not enough for barring Margaret great grandson from inheriting the English Crown when Henry's line will die...
Margaret was English and a daughter of Henry VII an d Elizabeth of York. She was born English and married to the Scottish King for political reasons and her son was a young boy. Anti-Scottish and Anti-Stewart feeling are unlikely to being direct on an English princess just becoming widow and her young son, who is half English, fatherless and can easily enough being grown and educated as English
that suppression of the Will took years of work (and passage of time) on part of the pro-Scotish camp at the court of Elizabeth I, any ways I brought it up because it was a topic surely talked about and thought on by English nobility and the King's court
a nobility and court that'd be no doubt fearful of at lest lose of favor from the new monarch who's husband (or father) they helped kill, and again Scotland has long been close to England's old enemy France, fears would surely abound that the Queen, or her in-laws would draw England close to France
As I said in my last post Margaret was English and remain English for all her life. She was surely not happy when her husband decided to make war on her brother, her son the king was young enough and the other was a newborn baby and they was the only grandsons of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. Margaret was smart enough to know what can put her children in danger or what can make them lose their crown.
Margaret was the oldest sister, the lawful heiress, a widow with tho small son who assured an easy succession without any foreign male consort.
Mary was younger, without children and betrothed to Catherine's nephew
Gah! They were trying to be as bad as the French weren't they? (Oh, if Louis XIV died we'd have Louis XV instead of Louis XV. . .)
it went
James I
James II
James III
James IV (who's little brother was also James)
James V (who's sons were, Robert and James)
Mary I
James VI and I
Charles I
Charles II (eldest illegitimate son, James Scott)
James II & VII (his son, James Francis Edward Stuart)
And recognising Margaret means an immediate Scottish withdrawal from the war. OTOH, rejecting her means there'll be a Scottish royal familywith a claim to the English throne superior to that of the incumbent - a recipe for trouble if ever there was.
Alex Richards
Donor
Plus as an added bonus the formation of a de facto personal union means that Scotland is actually reduced as a threat to England.
Indeed, it's actually more likely that it'll be Scotland descending into civil war to prevent the union as they'd think it would be essentially an English plot to take over the country.
Given the way that the Scottish magnates used to fight over controlling the various young Jimmy Stuarts a civil war would be almost a certainty. In addition, there would not be the time to prepare for a James takeover of the English throne that there was on the death of Elizabeth I. Thus there would be an opportunity for an English magnate to seize it for himself, assuming of course he can fight off his rivals.
With Britian in chaos it would be an opportunity for the French to grab Calais 40 years earlier than on OTL.
Margaret will undoubtedly believe herself to be her brother's heir - this departure point is before her own marital exploits upset said brother (who thought she shamed the family - pot kettle to be honest).
The arguement will be what happens to her son James V (who is 17months old) in terms of his education and upbringing and how the Scots deal with it.
Margaret is of course pregnant at her husbands death which will to a certain extent limit her ability to move south to claim her throne.
Margaret was in otl confirmed as Regent of Scotland within weeks of Flodden but despite her own not insignificant political skills the anti english faction pushed for pro-french Albany to replace her which he eventually did.
If she is proclaimed and recognised as Queen of England then the Scots will move quickly to get ALbany back from France and installed as Regent for James V - to ensure some form of Scots independence - the other issue will be if Margaret can retain control and custody of her son (and her posthumous son born in April 1514) and cross the border into England.
This change will also wipe out her second marriage to Archibald Douglas (which really damaged her reputation in Scotland)
I suspect Albany will retain control of Scotland for James V - the question being will be what happens when James comes of age and how the Scots deal with an English educated and raised King (the reverse of what happened a century later when England had to adapt to a Scots raised and educated King)
The arguement will be what happens to her son James V (who is 17months old) in terms of his education and upbringing and how the Scots deal with it.
Margaret is of course pregnant at her husbands death which will to a certain extent limit her ability to move south to claim her throne.
Margaret was in otl confirmed as Regent of Scotland within weeks of Flodden but despite her own not insignificant political skills the anti english faction pushed for pro-french Albany to replace her which he eventually did.
If she is proclaimed and recognised as Queen of England then the Scots will move quickly to get ALbany back from France and installed as Regent for James V - to ensure some form of Scots independence - the other issue will be if Margaret can retain control and custody of her son (and her posthumous son born in April 1514) and cross the border into England.
This change will also wipe out her second marriage to Archibald Douglas (which really damaged her reputation in Scotland)
I suspect Albany will retain control of Scotland for James V - the question being will be what happens when James comes of age and how the Scots deal with an English educated and raised King (the reverse of what happened a century later when England had to adapt to a Scots raised and educated King)
An unmarried woman trying to seize England on the ball and without permission of the Privy Council is going to end up in the Tower before you can say "Beefeater." She can claim what she likes north of the border. South of it, English magnates call the shots and if they decide they don't want a wee bairn on the throne, the Scots will have to like or lump it.
On the other hand, the Privy are short of alternative candidates, the most obvious one being a French Queen (Mary). The again given the last time a woman tried ruling England there was a civil war, the Privy Council might agree to annull both ladies' claims and find a different legitimate candidate.