James VI & I a Catholic: What does Elizabeth do?

Let's say that Elizabeth decides against sending troops north of the border in 1560 (her OTL intervention was uncharacteristically bold of her, so it shouldn't be too hard to make her adopt a more cautious policy), and as a result the Catholic faction in Scotland manages to defeat the Protestants and save Scotland for Holy Mother Church. Assuming that Elizabeth still doesn't have any children, and that James VI is still next in line to the throne, what effects would having a Catholic heir to the throne have on Elizabethan England? I can see two main ways this might play out:

1.) James is removed from the line of succession in favour of a Protestant. This would have the advantage (from Elizabeth's point of view) of keeping England Protestant after her death. On the other hand, James would now be an obvious magnet for anybody dissatisfied with Elizabeth or whomever her chosen successor is (I'm not sure who the nearest Protestant relative of the Queen's would be, but no doubt someone will say in the comments), and would be very well-placed geographically speaking to make a bid for the throne after Elizabeth dies. Scotland would also make a convenient base for underground Catholic priests as well as a refuge for Catholics seeking to escape Elizabeth's religious policies. This could result in Elizabeth redoubling her persecution in order to try and stamp Catholicism out altogether, or else (perhaps more likely) taking a more conciliatory approach and essentially turning a blind eye as long as the Catholics don't try and cause trouble.

2.) James isn't removed from the line of succession. This would obviously make the re-Catholicisation of England a likely prospect, which Elizabeth would hardly have welcomed. On the other hand, she had gone along with Henry's, Edward's, and Mary's various religious policies, so she was hardly above showing some religious flexibility if it was in her interests to do so. In this scenario, I expect that Elizabethan persecution of Catholics would be considerably less severe than IOTL, both because there wouldn't be much point if the next monarch was going to be a Catholic anyway, and because most Catholics would probably just sit tight and wait for the new king, both at home and abroad (I doubt Regnans in Excelsis would be promulgated in this TL, for example). IOTL England didn't become majority-Protestant until well into Elizabeth's reign; ITTL this might not even occur, both because of the lessened scale of the persecution and because more people would probably be inclined to hedge their bets in order to please James when he becomes king ("See, your Majesty, my local underground priest can vouch that I attended secret Mass every week, what a good co-religionist I am of your Majesty, just something to bear in mind when you're next deciding whom to appoint to important positions in court"). This might also exert a more conservative influence on the Church of England; maybe its doctrine would be based on the Six Articles rather than the Thirty-Nine Articles, for example.

Anyway, that's enough of my thoughts on the matter. Which scenario do you guys think would be more likely, and what would the ramifications be?
 
I think Elizabeth will write to James and urge him to convert to Anglicanism if he wants to be her heir. If he refuses, we get scenario #1.

I don't think Elizabeth's religious policies will change unless the Catholic Church finds some accommodation with her. It regarded her OTL as an illegitimate bastard, and consequently she had a major political incentive to suppress Catholicism.
 
I don't think Elizabeth's religious policies will change unless the Catholic Church finds some accommodation with her. It regarded her OTL as an illegitimate bastard, and consequently she had a major political incentive to suppress Catholicism.

Well, Henry had had his marriage to Anne annulled as well, so Elizabeth was also a bastard according to Anglicanism (not that any of her subjects dared to point this out to her, of course).
 
In 1560, Mary Queen of Scots has an easier reign and Katherine Grey has not disgraced herself yet. When Elizabeth almost died in 1562, they were ready to go with Henry the 8th's will and name Katherine Queen.

Provided Katherine doesn't make a mockery of herself her children are the most likely canidates.
 
But this wasn't just some theoretical notion. The pope issued a bull condemning her and releasing her subjects from any allegiance to her.

Yeah, but that was about her heresy, rather than her bastadry, and wasn't issued until twelve years after she'd made England Protestant. IOW, it's not the case that the Catholic Church was pushing her towards Protestantism by refusing to accept her as a legitimate monarch; instead, the Church refused to recognise her as a legitimate monarch because she'd already embraced Protestantism.

Also, Regnans in Excelsis was promulgated ten years after the POD, so it might not even be issued ITTL.
 
I honestly imagine James would convert if he can do so either without threatening the Scottish throne or while guaranteeing his claim to the English throne. Perhaps he says "London is worth a mass" whilst at it.
 
Yeah, but that was about her heresy, rather than her bastadry, and wasn't issued until twelve years after she'd made England Protestant. IOW, it's not the case that the Catholic Church was pushing her towards Protestantism by refusing to accept her as a legitimate monarch; instead, the Church refused to recognise her as a legitimate monarch because she'd already embraced Protestantism.

Also, Regnans in Excelsis was promulgated ten years after the POD, so it might not even be issued ITTL.

But she is going to be Protestant regardless. By the time of the POD (1560) the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity have already passed. The variable is how she treats Catholics.
 
I honestly imagine James would convert if he can do so either without threatening the Scottish throne or while guaranteeing his claim to the English throne. Perhaps he says "London is worth a mass" whilst at it.

He probably would, although would he be able to do so without threatening his hold on Scotland? ITTL the last attempt to Protestantise Scotland ended in civil war and failure, and I'm not sure James would be eager to repeat this experience.

I guess he could make a public declaration that, whilst he himself is Catholic, he is going to tolerate Protestant worship in his realms. Though this might not be enough to win over England's Protestants, unless perhaps no-one can agree on who should replace him in the succession and enough people think "Well, trying to enthrone any of the Protestant claimants would lead to civil war, I guess a Catholic who tolerates Protestants would be the lesser evil."

But she is going to be Protestant regardless. By the time of the POD (1560) the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity have already passed. The variable is how she treats Catholics.

Well, yes; my point was that Elizabeth will probably be less repressive ITTL in order to avoid giving James a reason for stirring up trouble south of the border.
 
Yeah, but that was about her heresy, rather than her bastadry, and wasn't issued until twelve years after she'd made England Protestant. IOW, it's not the case that the Catholic Church was pushing her towards Protestantism by refusing to accept her as a legitimate monarch; instead, the Church refused to recognise her as a legitimate monarch because she'd already embraced Protestantism.

Also, Regnans in Excelsis was promulgated ten years after the POD, so it might not even be issued ITTL.
The papal hostility will depend mostly from Elizabeth’s relationship with Philip II of Spain (who OTL supported her mostly for preventing French from inhereiting England together with Scotland for the wedding between Marie Stuart and Frančois II (and after his death because Marie was still half French and raised in France so...)
 
You may be looking at York Heirs as replacements for James if he stays a Catholic and he's remove. Case in point...

Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon. (His father actually tried to set himself up as Elizabeth's heir if she died from illness, and has attracted a bit of support before Elizabeth recovered and quashed the discussions.)

Aside from the York...

Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven. (The Stanley family has been under suspicion for Catholic sympathies, but if she gets back the rumors and if they proven fake, she's golden.) The most popular choices would be the Stanleys, but there a great deal of irony comes back to power.

Also, once James goes, hopefully the Protestants can come around and win the day in Scotland.
 
Last edited:
I doubt Liz will embrace Catholicism. In many (Catholic) eyes the legitimate monarch was Mary, QoS or Margaret, Countess of Lennox. Felipe II stayed the papal hands against Liz simply because he didn't like the other option (too French Mary, QoS) IIRC.

The only way that James is gonna be Catholic is if his mom stays queen. So that needs Liz to NOT support the Protestants in Scotland - or some Catholic power to back Mary (France would be the normal idea, but considering that Caterina de Medici didn't like Mary, it's probably not likely) that she doesn't lose her throne. Although, Mary's carryings-on with Bothwell will probably still cause her to lose her throne or end up with a second murdered husband (although likely not with her foreknowledge this time).
 
Actually, a though occurs. Charles II of England and Scotland was a secret Catholic but publicly remained Protestant for political reasons. Maybe James could make a similar claim to Elizabeth -- "Indeed, I totally believe in Protestantism, I just have to act the part of a good Catholic monarch in order to keep my nobles on-side. Once I'm King of England, though, of course there'll be no need for such deception." I'm not sure whether or not that would work, but it might be James' best chance of keeping his place in the succession without getting booted off the throne of Scotland. Then, when he does become King of England, he can either convert to Protestantism or else try and bring the Anglican Church back into union with Rome, as his conscience/political expedience may dictate.
 
Actually, a though occurs. Charles II of England and Scotland was a secret Catholic but publicly remained Protestant for political reasons. Maybe James could make a similar claim to Elizabeth -- "Indeed, I totally believe in Protestantism, I just have to act the part of a good Catholic monarch in order to keep my nobles on-side. Once I'm King of England, though, of course there'll be no need for such deception." I'm not sure whether or not that would work, but it might be James' best chance of keeping his place in the succession without getting booted off the throne of Scotland. Then, when he does become King of England, he can either convert to Protestantism or else try and bring the Anglican Church back into union with Rome, as his conscience/political expedience may dictate.

That would be the mirror of Elizabeth's own actions, keeping a façade of Catholicism during Mary Tudor's reign and then being openly Protestant upon her accession.

I'm not sure if James could achieve a restoration of Catholicism though. To the English he is a foreigner, and by 1603 a lot of time has passed and the Church of England is now more established institutionally. There is still a significant Catholic minority, but most people by this time have no memory of Catholic rule and have heard a lot of propaganda against it. We could see an early English civil war.
 
I'm not sure if James could achieve a restoration of Catholicism though. To the English he is a foreigner, and by 1603 a lot of time has passed and the Church of England is now more established institutionally. There is still a significant Catholic minority, but most people by this time have no memory of Catholic rule and have heard a lot of propaganda against it. We could see an early English civil war.

I expect he'd face at least one serious rebellion over it, although Henry, Edward and Elizabeth had all faced rebellions of their own (ETA: and the Catholic Church in England was pretty well-established at the start of Henry's reign), so with a bit of luck he might be able to pull it off. IOTL he managed to get the Church of Scotland to switch from presbyterian to episcopal government, which in some ways is a bigger switch than that from Anglicanism to Catholicism (whilst being smaller in other ways, of course), so there is some OTL precedent.

Of course, depending on how much we want TTL to parallel OTL, we might have a Protestant *Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the King for being too Papist, and inadvertently swinging public opinion towards reunification with Rome.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth will find herself under a huge amount of pressure to marry, especially after the Smallpox in 1562 points out just how fragile the Succession is.

I don't see James being able to take the throne if everyone knows he is Catholic. The English aren't going to want a foreign Catholic King. They wouldn't even give James II's son by Mary of Modena, the rightful heir, the throne after Anne died in 1714.

I think Katherine Grey has a much better claim here than OTL, at least if she doesn't do anything stupid. Or else a descendant of Edward IV's. Are the Courtenays/De La Poles still around? (I should know but I am only half-awake).
 
I think Katherine Grey has a much better claim here than OTL, at least if she doesn't do anything stupid. Or else a descendant of Edward IV's. Are the Courtenays/De La Poles still around? (I should know but I am only half-awake).

No and no. Only Yorkist claimants are the Hastings clan. I'm not sure if St. Margaret Pole's other offspring is still around though
 
Top