James I assasinated in 1606

An interesting fact I came across reading my local newspaper. In 1606 an English captain was approached by a Spaniard who offered him £40,000 to assasinate King James I while he was visiting Royston (a town not to far from me) on a hunting trip. The captain refused and history went on as it did.

Suppose though, that the captain was a bit weaker, takes the Spainard's offer and shoots King James before the year is out. The Prince of Wales, Henry Frederick, ascends to the thrones of England and Scotland at the age of 12.

What then?
 
The British monarchy was not as mature, then, as it is now. In those days, European nobles were not about having people murdered if it suited their interests. King Henry Frederick lasts the year, maybe.
 
The British monarchy was not as mature, then, as it is now. In those days, European nobles were not about having people murdered if it suited their interests. King Henry Frederick lasts the year, maybe.

A minority would totally suit their interests. That means a regency, and there was some stigma against regicide. One has to ask though how strong willed was Henry and the effects of the regency will have on him.
 
Henry Frederick died a natural death in 1612. Prince Charles (born 1600) would have become king as Charles I. There would have been a regency until he was old to rule by himself (at age 16?).

In this scenario events would not have occured nine years before they did in actual history; with Charles ruling without Parliament from 1620 to 1631, and the Civil War starting in 1633. Though at some stage Charles would have ruled for a number of years without Parliament.
 
Depends who was appointed regent really. I can see a weak regent working for England, but if Scotland feels neglected, I can see a pretender rising in Scotland. Likewise, if the regent is too heavy handed, I can see forces in England acting to oust Charles and appoint someone else in his place.

With his death being only three years after the two crowns were brought together, I think that the regent would have to be quite the astute individual to keep the crowns united under one monarch. The English would probably insist on an English regent. Unlike our timeline, where James was a strong monarch who, though he tended to ignore Scotland after he moved South, still had the benefit of having been King of Scotland for three decades beforehand (Even if half that time he was in the age of minority). An English Regent would not have that built in loyalty, and it wouldn't be too difficult for Scottish agitators to portray Charles as a 'foreigner.'

I forget who it was that said "Scotland is always ripe for rebellion" (paraphrasing) but I think that some sort of rising would be inevitable.

Now, if Henry Frederick were appointed regent, that would be interesting, though I don't know how likely that would be . . .
 
Depends who was appointed regent really. I can see a weak regent working for England, but if Scotland feels neglected, I can see a pretender rising in Scotland. Likewise, if the regent is too heavy handed, I can see forces in England acting to oust Charles and appoint someone else in his place.

With his death being only three years after the two crowns were brought together, I think that the regent would have to be quite the astute individual to keep the crowns united under one monarch. The English would probably insist on an English regent. Unlike our timeline, where James was a strong monarch who, though he tended to ignore Scotland after he moved South, still had the benefit of having been King of Scotland for three decades beforehand (Even if half that time he was in the age of minority). An English Regent would not have that built in loyalty, and it wouldn't be too difficult for Scottish agitators to portray Charles as a 'foreigner.'

I forget who it was that said "Scotland is always ripe for rebellion" (paraphrasing) but I think that some sort of rising would be inevitable.

Now, if Henry Frederick were appointed regent, that would be interesting, though I don't know how likely that would be . . .

Henry Frederick has become King Henry IX/I in 1606 at age 12. He would have the regent, not his younger brother Charles (unless Henry dies as per OTL of typhoid in 1612 and Charles becomes a child king himself).
 
If Henry Frederick survives 1612 (and with butterflies I think he would), we might see an English intervention in the 30 Years' War (which I don't think would be butterflied). The young, popular King rallies the nation for Protestantism (and his sister's husband the Elector Palatinate/"Winter King"), and to avenge his father's death at the hand of the Papist Hapsburgs.

The Stuarts seem to continually flirt with Catholicism. Would James I being assassinated by a Spaniard end the bizarre fascination that the Church of Rome apparently held for the Stuarts? Henry IX's intervention in the 30 Years' War would expose him to Protestant Kings who are able to be just as absolutist as any Catholic King (I think the absolutist fascination thread that links Stuarts across generations is linked to the Catholicism fascination thread). That alone should help to take some of the edge off of the Stuarts' flirtation with Catholicism.

A continental intervention probably involve a lot of English-backed privateering against Spanish shipping. Maybe jump-start English colonial ambitions with earlier acquistions of the same territory that Cromwell captured OTL (namely Jamaica).

It should also properly strain Royal-Parliamentary relations. Nothing like expensive wars to mess with relations.
 
Top