There might have been some grumbling about Mary's marriage to Philip, but by and large the political community accepted it. And there were religious differences by then which wouldn't have existed in 1510.
There was a rebellion which had to be put down and led to Mary being forced to execute Jane Grey. Mary also had to make major concessions to Parliament regarding Philip.
I'd hardly call that being accepted by the political community.
[/QUOTE] Plus, of course, England's nobles were willing to put up with a Scottish king in 1603.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously suggesting that the climate was the same more than a 100 years previously?
[/QUOTE]And, to broaden our examples a bit, the Hapsburgs were able to build up a huge multi-national empire by inheriting different lands. It's not like having a foreign-born ruler was verboten in the 16th century.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what a distant Central Europe comparison has to do with the English experience.
[/QUOTE]Also, I'm not sure how many people would have been Scotland as a big threat to England. Sure, the two countries fought wars, but it's not like England was going to become a Scottish province any time soon. The real enemy during this period was France. If anything, I'd expect that quite a few people would be glad that they could not focus on invading France without having to worry about their northern border.[/QUOTE]
England and Scotland had been in a state of conflict and rivalry for centuries. Henry VII had tried to build a relationship with Scotland as he saw it to be advantageous. It did not last. As James IV found out.
[/QUOTE] Also also, whilst conflict leads to bad blood, the idea of two warring sides uniting and ushering in a new period of peace and prosperity is an attractive one. Henry VII had played it up quite heavily after Bosworth, and I could see a similar dynamic working with England and Scotland.[/QUOTE]
Sure in a fantasy world.
[/QUOTE]Presumably the idea is that, since England's nobles had all inherited their lands and titles, they didn't want to start playing around with the succession laws in case people started tampering with *their* successions...[/QUOTE]
The only people who were going to do that was someone who was not English and did not understand English customs.
Again I keep stressing this but the idea of a defined line of succession simply did not exist. There was a framework but kings had shown willingness to play with it as and when it suited.
[/QUOTE]Edward wasn't the legal heir to the Scottish throne, though. There's a difference between accepting a foreign-born monarch as your lawful King and being bullied by military force into marrying off your Queen.[/QUOTE]
Not really. The end result is the same. Scotland did not want to be ruled by a foreign power in the 1540s. England did not want to be ruled by a foreign power in the 1510s.
[/QUOTE] TBH I think most of the other noblemen would see this guy as a usurper with ideas above his station. If only due to pique that they weren't the one doing the usurping...[/QUOTE]
I am not suggesting Joe Bloggs as a candidate.
There were very senior Yorkist candidates in England, who continued to attract attention and support throughout the reign of Henry VII and Henry VIII. Henry VIII was still targeting Yorkist candidates as late as the 1540s!
These were not upstarts, they had as much claim to the throne as the Tudors. Taking a line from the Tudor strategy, a marriage to Mary Tudor would only strengthen their position.