King Henry VIII Dies in 1510 Without Issue

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.
 
The number of Yorkist candidates could actually work against them -- it would make it harder for any one of them to rally enough support to his side.

And, barring an attack of the stupids, I don't think *James I is going to start any wholesale replacement of English courtiers with Scottish. Such a move actually would result in civil war, and he'd know it.

I think you're overestimating England's antipathy to Scottish rulers. James VI & I had no difficulty being accepted as King.

And, whilst Henry VIII did bend succession laws quite a bit, note that this was largely to avoid the possibility of uncertain succession and, hence, civil war. If anything, this makes it less likely that England's nobility would willingly plunge the country into civil war.

Again seriously? We are making a blanket comparison between 1510 and 1603?
 
The number of Yorkist candidates could actually work against them -- it would make it harder for any one of them to rally enough support to his side.

And, barring an attack of the stupids, I don't think *James I is going to start any wholesale replacement of English courtiers with Scottish. Such a move actually would result in civil war, and he'd know it.

Actually the Yorkists were well organised and had a hierarchy.

Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk was the senior living Yorkist at the time of Henry VIII's death. Henry had him executed in 1513.

Why would the English take the risk of a Scottish King when they could have one of their own?
 
Just wanted to expand a little on Scotland and England

While Henry VII had desired to bring an end to enmity between England and Scotland and hoped to achieve this through an Anglo-Scottish marriage, the peace between England and Scotland had lasted approximately 10 years at the time of Henry VIII's sudden and shocking death in 1510.

There had been centuries of fighting and conflict between the two neighbours.
This resentment would not have dissapeared in such a short time span.

England and Scotland had different political agendas, England had been drawn towards the HRE and Spain, while Scotland allied to France.

The HRE and Spain would desperately urge the English nobility to pursue their own candidate, to avoid England being drawn into the French sphere.

Contrast this to the succession of James I. Scotland and England had been allied for decades, Elizabeth I had most of the senior Scots in her pay and even when she had their former Queen executed, they barely uttered a sound in complaint. Both countries were primarily Protestant and had similar foreign objectives.
 
Actually the Yorkists were well organised and had a hierarchy.

Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk was the senior living Yorkist at the time of Henry VIII's death. Henry had him executed in 1513.

Why would the English take the risk of a Scottish King when they could have one of their own?

It is rather difficult to find a potential heir that Henry VIII didnt execute !! He was very through to say the least !
 
It is rather difficult to find a potential heir that Henry VIII didnt execute !! He was very through to say the least !

Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montagu is still alive :D as he was not executed until 1539, erm :confused: lucky him :confused:.

He is the grandson of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, 1st Earl of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Warwick, who in turn was the younger brother of King Edward IV of England and older brother of Richard III of England.

So in theory the Royal House of York can return with King Henry IX with support from his brother-in-laws, Sir Edward Neville and George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny
 
Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montagu is still alive :D as he was not executed until 1539, erm :confused: lucky him :confused:.

He is the grandson of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, 1st Earl of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Warwick, who in turn was the younger brother of King Edward IV of England and older brother of Richard III of England.

So in theory the Royal House of York can return with King Henry IX with support from his brother-in-laws, Sir Edward Neville and George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny

What can i tell you ? Poor Henry VIII so many people to execute so little time!!
 
Catherine of Aragon is Regent for a period while doctors verify whether or not she is with child. This Regency and waiting period will allow Margaret the necessary time to march south and simultaneously stay the hand of any grasping nobles; we might see Yorkish uprisings but I don't think the Crown would have all that much trouble putting them down. None of the Yorkist nobles are strong enough to go for the jugular, and Buckingham was not liked enough to displace the heiress of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York.

Steps would likely be taken to limit the authority of James of Scots and any Scottish hangers-on that accompanied Margaret south: most likely easily achieved, and I can see Margaret later causing trouble by trying to extricate herself from the marriage. For the meantime however her succession means guaranteed peace with Scotland and a tidy situation where the Scotch King is in England tagging along with the English Queen trying to knock her up. As her father had observed, and as happened IRL, the larger soon absorbs the smaller. The Scottish may well be glad the constant fear of being relegated to the status of an English fief would be abolished forever, given that in future the two crowns would be united, on technically legal terms, in the person of a single monarch.

Margaret might well marry her little sister Mary off internally as a means of securing powerful allies (ie, someone like Buckingham) or abroad to the same end (if she could stomach being outranked by her little sister as Empress or Queen of France). The French may try to cause trouble with the White Rose but Margaret would likely pose a united front with the Trastamaras and Hapsburgs....remember James V himself considered marrying an Archduchess-Infanta, only opting for a French princess thanks to the superior financial terms offered by that avenue (the French having much greater need of a friendly Scotland than the Spanish).
 
In your scenario Velasco would we really see the crowns of both kingdoms fall to one child or would the English nobles demand that Margaret have two children in order to pass the thrones separately. At least given what's been said previously about the animosity between the Scots and the English.

Should Mary become Queen of England who would be the most likely to marry her from among the English nobility? The 3rd Duke of Suffolk has been identified as a possibility for Mary as has 1st Baron Montagu.

And just to give us options which foreign prince might try his hand at courting the young Queen of England? At least assuming that she might look abroad to further legitimize the Tudor hold on the Crown and throne of England or for other reasons. Could we see an Austrian candidate or would Catherine push a Spanish infante on Mary.
 
In your scenario Velasco would we really see the crowns of both kingdoms fall to one child or would the English nobles demand that Margaret have two children in order to pass the thrones separately. At least given what's been said previously about the animosity between the Scots and the English.

Should Mary become Queen of England who would be the most likely to marry her from among the English nobility? The 3rd Duke of Suffolk has been identified as a possibility for Mary as has 1st Baron Montagu.

And just to give us options which foreign prince might try his hand at courting the young Queen of England? At least assuming that she might look abroad to further legitimize the Tudor hold on the Crown and throne of England or for other reasons. Could we see an Austrian candidate or would Catherine push a Spanish infante on Mary.

The division of inheritance was not an English practice, and elsewhere generally practiced when geography made unity difficult or nigh impossible. When Ferdinand wed Isabella there was no conception of their kingdoms being doled out among their heirs on some equitable lines, just as Miguel de la Paz would have inherited Portugal and all the Trastamara patrimony. Wales was never palmed off to a younger son, nor was Ireland post-John; the English saw Scotland as a lost fief, a rightful appendage of their own crown. The Scots consequently saw England as the greatest threat to their independence, status, honour. All of those qualms are dispelled by a joint inheritance. A King by birth Scottish born from an English womb; the grand union of Stewart, York and Lancaster.

I can't see Mary becoming Queen in any hypothesis. At best she is seized and forcibly wed by an usurper - Henry Courtenay would be my pick, though I doubt he had the ambition necessary; otherwise Richard de la Pole, Henry Pole and young Harry Stafford (the usurper in this scenario being his father, not him). The Earl of Surrey suffered from a distinct lack of a prominent Plantagenet ancestry of his own: furthermore, as the widower of her aunt, he'd need a Papal dispensation to wed her legitimately, rather hard to do when she was most likely already espoused to Charles of Castille at this point.
 
The division of inheritance was not an English practice, and elsewhere generally practiced when geography made unity difficult or nigh impossible. When Ferdinand wed Isabella there was no conception of their kingdoms being doled out among their heirs on some equitable lines, just as Miguel de la Paz would have inherited Portugal and all the Trastamara patrimony. Wales was never palmed off to a younger son, nor was Ireland post-John; the English saw Scotland as a lost fief, a rightful appendage of their own crown. The Scots consequently saw England as the greatest threat to their independence, status, honour. All of those qualms are dispelled by a joint inheritance. A King by birth Scottish born from an English womb; the grand union of Stewart, York and Lancaster.

I personally think that the a division would be on the table. No the Hapsburgs didn't do this upfront, but Charles V ended up dividing his Empire between his brother and son, with his brother getting HRE. There were some contracts in which similar terms were discussed. EIV was in discussions for EV to marry Anne of Brittany, their first son was supposed to become King of England and the second son was to get the Duchy of Brittany. England and Scotland were ruled as separate entities after all. The other end of the spectrum is the Hapsburg scenario in which different possessions are governed by Regents and relatives. The Hapsburgs ran into issues when the individual pieces of the empire felt neglected by a single ruler spread too thin. A union between England and Scotland is very logical, but I could see this option being considered if Queen Margaret has two surviving sons.
 
It would be fascinating. Margaret would be the clear heir. While the diplomatic situation in 1510 is already heading downhill towards Flodden, at that point the Treaty of Perpetual Peace is still in effect. The Scots entered into the marriage alliance with the expectation that it would work like a marriage alliance was supposed to, with Margaret's place in the succession preserved.

Efforts to "play" Mary would face tough sledding. To start with, she's still 13 in 1510, and betrothed to Charles of Burgundy. She has the same disability in the eyes of the early sixteenth century polity that Margaret has, being a woman. But because of her youth she would also transparently be a pawn for whatever noble attempted to use her for mischief.

Moreover, in order to make use of Mary the ambitious nobleman in question would have to get custody of her. And say what you will, this is not England in 1465, 1475 or 1485. Princes and princesses of the blood are not just left where they can be taken like last night's stale pizza, but subject to pretty rigorous security. (Per David Starkey, Henry VII situated Prince Henry's quarters at Richmond so that someone could only enter the prince's apartments through the king's--think about that.)

And which nobles would actually have the resources and opportunity to pull off something like this? Buckingham is only a year off the short leash Henry VII had put him on. Edmund de la Pole, for God's sake, is a prisoner with his head just barely still attached, and Richard de la Pole is abroad.

Also, the lynchpin of the succession in 1603 was Cecil. It's interesting to look at what men of government would play a similar role in 1510 and what would do. Crucially at this point, Wolsey is not yet Wolsey. The dominant figure in English statecraft is actually Fox, who was not an enthusiast for armed conflict.

Finally, the most important factor not considered thus far is actually James. The Scottish king is a seasoned and hardy military leader, with substantial resources. He even has good relations with some pivotal members of the English nobility, such as Norfolk, with whom he became close during the ceremonies for the marriage to Margaret. And not only does James have the will to assert Margaret's claim, the other players know that he does, without a doubt. That would scare off other contenders.

I think James and Margaret win. Moreover, I think they win before the other contenders (whoever they might be) can even get properly organized to oppose them.

Beyond that, who can say?

There is so much fascinating about this string of events precisely because the personalities involved are so spectacular and volatile. On one hand, James is an immensely talented king and a dazzling figure. On the other, Margaret.

Margaret Tudor is the ultimate wild card in the scenario. In OTL, she was the pioneer of that great growth area in sixteenth century family law, the Tudor divorce (the shame of the family, Henry called her, before...certain other things...happened.) For most of the time she was married to James in OTL, she was a pregnant teenager in a strange country. Her frightened and upset letters home survive today. Now, let's imagine she's the more self-assured adult woman who so memorably demanded the end of her marriage to Douglas (HE LOVES ME NOT!) and played the home version of Game of Thrones with figures like the Duke of Albany for a career of thirty or so years after James died. And don't forget, any rights James would have in England would accrue through her. I could see her trying to build power in her own right, playing on English resentment of a Scottish king if things do not go especially well under James, until there's some time of explosion at which point it's some bizarre sui generis civil war between husband and wife.

Which sounds pretty crazy. Almost as ASB as the actual reign of Henry VIII.
 
Last edited:
Agree with much of what you say. There does seem to be a sort of jinx on the Stuarts however. None of them seemed to prosper or to make it to old age! If James IV can break this cycle . Then a stable and viable Great Britain becomes far more likely.James V. O.T.L. Was a violent and unstable monarch. This was largely due to a particularly traumatic childhood. If James IV lives this would be butterflied away. No evil Lennox in-laws for example . Plus as prince of Wales young James would a great marital prize. I doubt he would be married to the same ladies as O.T.L.. Therefore different and with luck far more healthy children. No Mary Queen of Scots? Instead perhaps a James VI who is the son of James V rather than his grandson??
 
There might be some potential for James and Margaret to do well. There are some interesting parallels with Ferdinand and Isabella.
 
Agree with much of what you say. There does seem to be a sort of jinx on the Stuarts however. None of them seemed to prosper or to make it to old age! If James IV can break this cycle . Then a stable and viable Great Britain becomes far more likely.James V. O.T.L. Was a violent and unstable monarch. This was largely due to a particularly traumatic childhood. If James IV lives this would be butterflied away. No evil Lennox in-laws for example . Plus as prince of Wales young James would a great marital prize. I doubt he would be married to the same ladies as O.T.L.. Therefore different and with luck far more healthy children. No Mary Queen of Scots? Instead perhaps a James VI who is the son of James V rather than his grandson??

True about the problems of the Stuarts. You see it going forward from this point (James V, Mary) and also going backwards (the death of James III, anyone?). What's fascinating is the extent to which it's a jinx and the extent to which it arises from the multi-generational character of the family and its rulers. One of James IV's great strengths as a monarch was his willingness to lead his army from the front, but that presented a bit of a problem ultimately, didn't it? Likewise James V didn't die from wounds in battle, but probably his death was caused in some way by the war in which he was involved at the time of his death.

Of course if someone was actually to pursue this as a timeline that would become a major theme. Does James IV's early death at Flodden and James V's after Solway Moss just get transferred to different sites and different circumstances, in France or the low countries? Or does the character of the House of Stuart change? One crucial thing that has to be weighed in thinking about this is that this is before the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the marriage with Mary of Guise, the youth of Mary I at the court of Catherine de Medici, or the marriage to Henrietta Maria. So these would not be the francophile Stuarts of the seventeenth century trying their damnedest to run Britain like it was Bourbon France. So they're free of at least that problem.
 
Agree with much of what you say. There does seem to be a sort of jinx on the Stuarts however. None of them seemed to prosper or to make it to old age! If James IV can break this cycle . Then a stable and viable Great Britain becomes far more likely.James V. O.T.L. Was a violent and unstable monarch. This was largely due to a particularly traumatic childhood. If James IV lives this would be butterflied away. No evil Lennox in-laws for example . Plus as prince of Wales young James would a great marital prize. I doubt he would be married to the same ladies as O.T.L.. Therefore different and with luck far more healthy children. No Mary Queen of Scots? Instead perhaps a James VI who is the son of James V rather than his grandson??

Actually I just realized something. If the point of departure here is 1510, then the heir may not even be James V. OTL James V is not born until 1512. Before July 1510 the Scottish heir is an Arthur duke of Rothesay (proof positive that someone was thinking about the events of this timeline, even then), who at that point dies, all other previously born children of James and Margaret being dead by that point. In OTL there is also an Alexander, born in 1514. But there is no reason James and Margaret would not have subsequent children if James survives past OTL's Flodden. After all, Margaret is by this point still in her twenties. After James's death she went on in OTL to bear Margaret Douglas and another daughter in or after 1528. So there's no reason by the time they're done they can't have a brood the size of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's, or for that matter for Margaret to die in a subsequent childbirth, leaving James in an unstable situation with respect to England.
 
Top