Margaret, Queen of Norway, Scotland and England

[horticultureandmelodrama]

Margaret, Princess of Norway became the Queen of Scots at the age of three on the death of her grandfather, Alexander III. Margaret set sail from Norway to her new realm in the autumn of 1290, but took ill during the stormy voyage and died soon after reaching the Orkney Islands around September 26. With her death, the House of Dunkeld came to an end.

PoD

Margaret returns safely and Scotland begins to be governed by Regents. Eager to extend his own influence in Scotland, Edward I of England arranged the Treaty of Birgham (1290), by which Margaret was betrothed to his son the Prince of Wales (later Edward II ), in return for an assurance of Scottish independence (though he would serve as ward for the young queen).

If Margaret lives to attain majority one would see a personal union of England and Scotland in the fourteenth century, with the possibility of closer ties to Norway.

It would also mean Robert the Bruce left in a loop!

 

[Redbeard]

AFAIK this Princess living on will not change the dynastics giving Norway to the Danish Crown in 1380.

But anyway, closer ties across the North Sea opens interesting posssibilities. Tying Scotland closer to a Scandinavian power will IMO work against Scotland uniting with England later. So perhaps Scotland gets included in the Kalmar Union?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Rick Robinson]

So Edward I marries her to his son, future Edward II, and he himself becomes regent. Is his rule so unpopular that either Robert Bruce or William Wallace is able to sustain a revolt, even though Margaret has dynastic legitimacy? Does Bruce have any credible counterclaim?

Edward II was gay, and no reason to suppose that changes, unless Margaret grows up to be one INCREDIBLY hot babe. In OTL he made himself unpopular by excessive preference to the boyfriend, IIRC Piers Gaveston. (A major hazard for gay kings; a male favorite was a far greater threat to leading magnates than a mistress would be.) Also in OTL, his queen, Isabelle of France, joined with *her* lover, Mortimer (?) to imprison Edward, and at least in tradition to put a vivid and gruesome end to him. They then ran the country till Edward III overthrew them and assumed rule.

That particular sequence of events is unlikely, but Edward II was weak and unpopular, and there's likely turbulence of some sort. But assuming he and Margaret have a son, this different Edward III is King of England and Scots.

What he isn't, by any dynastic interpretation, is King of France. As Duke of Guienne, alt-Edward III is still involved in French affairs. An ambitious king may conceivably try to go for the big croissant, but he has no claim. So no Hundred Years' War, at least nothing like the one we know.

Which may also mean no Salic Law. The law of the Salian Franks had been a dead letter for hundreds of years. It was not actually evoked at the time even against Edward III; it first gets mentioned in rejecting the claim of Henry IV. Women (actually girls) were passed over in 1316, 1322, and 1328, but in an ad-hoc way. If the Salic Law never gets dredged up, the way may still be open to a female succession in France.

Now, back to England, Scotland, and Scandinavia. Just what was Margaret's connection to the Norwegian succession? I never see her described as prospective Queen of Norway, so I assume she had a half-brother who inherited the Norwegian throne? But do the Plantagenets end up with any sort of potential claim? If so, it might come to life in 1380 - or the dynastic cards may be reshuffled in some way that the Danish claim in 1380 never arises.

-- Rick

 

[Faeelin]

Hmm. Good call on the Salic Law. But I'm always reminded of how French nobles reacted to weak kings in French history. Perhaps France does get a queen, who, of course, has a male consort, but the King of England leads a league of nobles in France?

 

[Rick Robinson]

Hmm. Good call on the Salic Law. But I'm always reminded of how French nobles reacted to weak kings in French history. Perhaps France does get a queen, who, of course, has a male consort, but the King of England leads a league of nobles in France?

Always a possibility - after all, he IS a French noble, as Duke of Guienne.

In OTL, the next time the question of a female succession arose after the 14th century was in 1589, with the death of Henri III. Absent the Salic Law the succession would pass via Elizabeth de Valois, AKA Mrs. Philip II - no wonder the French balked at that one!

But the dynastic sequence will surely be different in this time line, since the marriage cards have been dealt differently. Suppose a King of France dies leaving a daugher old enough to assert her own claim, and not yet married. Call her Queen Isabelle I. It was always hard for a woman to assert her claim, but if her father had been a strong king she might be able to do it. A French queen regnant would be an interesting scenario.

-- Rick

 

[Redbeard]

The Danish claim to the Norwegian throne came because King Haakon VI of Norway was married to Queen Margrethe I of Denmark, and they together had a son Olav, who formally was King of Denmark, but with his mother as regent. When Haakon died Olav was only five, but nevertheless inherited Norway, but with his mother carrying on as regent. Olav died as a teenager (16 IIRC).

We can of course PoD this marriage out, but it would IMO not have any logic relations to Margaret going to Scotland 90 years before. Anyway a lot of Princesses and Princes married each other back then, and rarely just because of love. So in order to change the relations between England, Scotland and Scandinavia we must PoD the basic powerrelations - then the dynastic consequences to utilise the political opportunities will follow. If say a Scandinavian Union consolidates before Scotland becomes part of UK, then I'm certain that the Scandinavians and the English would be rivals over Scotland. And if Scottish I would perhaps prefer a more distant bully in Scandinavia to a closer English - and then us Scandinavians of course are terribly nice fellows - and much better looking than the English

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Rick Robinson]

We can of course PoD this marriage out, but it would IMO not have any logic relations to Margaret going to Scotland 90 years before.

Well, the key question is, what happens to the Norwegian throne if Margaret lives and has a son by Edward II? Does that make alt-Edward III King of Norway?

If say a Scandinavian Union consolidates before Scotland becomes part of UK, then I'm certain that the Scandinavians and the English would be rivals over Scotland.

That requires a quite different POD. If anything, this time line positions England to muscle into Scandinavian affairs, if alt-Edward III succeeds to the English, Scottish, and Norwegian thrones. All the energy that the English in OTL put into trying to make good Edward III's claim to the French throne (nonexistent in this time line) can go instead to securing Scotland and Norway, and alt-Edward might be tempted to try for a reverse Canute, going after Sweden and/or Denmark.

Even if the Norwegian throne does not pass to Margaret and her son, are the Norwegians going to support Scots rebels AGAINST a Norwegian princess?

-- Rick

 

[Wozza]

Edward II was gay, and no reason to suppose that changes, unless Margaret grows up to be one INCREDIBLY hot babe.

Who is to know as to Edward II's proclivities? Somewhat more pertinenty he had a son anyway!

 

[Rick Robinson]

Who is to know as to Edward II's proclivities? Somewhat more pertinenty he had a son anyway!

On Edward II's preferences, it's been quite a while since I read up on him, and I doubt there's any direct evidence. There's a good deal of indirect evidence. His relationship with Piers Gaveston was very close, and a major source of his political troubles. The way he was reputedly killed - a red-hot poker shoved up his ass - has overtones of gay-bashing to put it mildly. Whether it really happened or not, the spread of the story is indicative of what people thought.

A good many kings generally taken as having been gay nevertheless managed to do their dynastic duty. Some were doubtless happy to screw anything with two legs; others must have had to grimace and get on with it. (True of many straight kings as well, considering some of the charmers they were paired with. Henri II of France only dropped around for the delights of Catherine de Medici's bedchamber when Diane de Poitiers told him to.)

-- Rick

 

[MerryPrankster]

Edward II was gay, and no reason to suppose that changes, unless Margaret grows up to be one INCREDIBLY hot babe.

Who is to know as to Edward II's proclivities? Somewhat more pertinenty he had a son anyway!

He had a son, but did he prefer sleeping with his wife or sleeping with the Piers fellow?

 

[Jason]

He had a son, but did he prefer sleeping with his wife or sleeping with the Piers fellow?

I don't think there is any direct evidence (such as a signed document from Edward II saying "I'm gay and proud") but it was generally accepted at the time that he was. When good old Edward I died, one of his orders to his son (other than 'finish off stuffing the scots for me') was to not hang around with his favourites anymore (and I think Piers was named as one to avoid).

Also the whole idea of his murder by hot poker up the bum was for two reasons
1) No external evidence of the crime
2) It was considered a 'good joke' given his homosexuality.


Documents from his reign and that of his son do make reference to his homosexuality

 

[horticultureandmelodrama]

Does Bruce have any credible counterclaim?

Robert the Bruce claimed the Scottish throne as a great-great-great-great grandson of David I of Scotland. David I died in 1173 while Robert the Bruce was born in 1306. There were 5 monarchs in between. Also Robert the Bruce was embroiled in civil war with John Ballion, who was David I's great-great-great-grandson. Balliol with British support became King both before and in between from British rule.

What he isn't, by any dynastic interpretation, is King of France. As Duke of Guienne, alt-Edward III is still involved in French affairs. An ambitious king may conceivably try to go for the big croissant, but he has no claim. So no Hundred Years' War, at least nothing like the one we know.

Which may also mean no Salic Law. The law of the Salian Franks had been a dead letter for hundreds of years. It was not actually evoked at the time even against Edward III; it first gets mentioned in rejecting the claim of Henry IV. Women (actually girls) were passed over in 1316, 1322, and 1328, but in an ad-hoc way. If the Salic Law never gets dredged up, the way may still be open to a female succession in France.

As I mentioned in a post somewhere down, the Salic law did not govern succession to the throne. It was officially enacted as law when the Spainiards claimed the throne through Elizabeth Valois. It was used thrice as Rick mentions, when the choice was between in infant girl and and a well established powerful man who had a strong claim. French duchies such as Navarre, Lorraine, Burgundy (?), Navarre all went to women or through female lines. But who is the woman in question.

Now, back to England, Scotland, and Scandinavia. Just what was Margaret's connection to the Norwegian succession? I never see her described as prospective Queen of Norway, so I assume she had a half-brother who inherited the Norwegian throne? But do the Plantagenets end up with any sort of potential claim? If so, it might come to life in 1380 - or the dynastic cards may be reshuffled in some way that the Danish claim in 1380 never arises.

Margaret's father Eric II married Isobel Bruce (Roberts sister) which he probably wont if his daughter is Robert's rival. He was succeeded by Haakon V Magnusson, whose connection I'm not too sure about. Magnusson would indicate son of Magnus.

In the OTL, in 1316, Magnus II Ericson (Haakon's grandson through his daughter) was became King of Norway and in 1320 was elected King of Sweden bringing about a Scandavian Union.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Robert the Bruce claimed the Scottish throne as a great-great-great-great grandson of David I of Scotland.

IOW, his hereditary claim wasn't diddly squat, certainly not compared to Margaret's. He might still rebel in the face of English domination, but it's a good old fashioned usurpation, plain and simple.

Salic law ... was officially enacted as law when the Spainiards claimed the throne through Elizabeth Valois ... But who is the woman in question.

Just so. If the French succession still goes as in OTL, they'll certainly reject the Spanish claim, whether they fall back on dusty manuscripts of the Salic Law or not. (Dustier than in OTL, since it wouldn't have been invoked even propagandistically against Henry IV.) But it doesn't take a big butterfly to change the French succession over 300 years, especially when you've eliminated the basis for the Hundred Years' War. Things could play out differently if a king leaves a princess near adulthood, especially if he laid groundwork for her succession.

Margaret's father Eric II married Isobel Bruce (Roberts sister) which he probably won't if his daughter is Robert's rival.

Just so.

-- Rick

 

[horticultureandmelodrama]

If the French succession still goes as in OTL, they'll certainly reject the Spanish claim, whether they fall back on dusty manuscripts of the Salic Law or not. (Dustier than in OTL, since it wouldn't have been invoked even propagandistically against Henry IV.) But it doesn't take a big butterfly to change the French succession over 300 years, especially when you've eliminated the basis for the Hundred Years' War. Things could play out differently if a king leaves a princess near adulthood, especially if he laid groundwork for her succession.

Any likely candidates?

Couple more questions
1) How good were sea ties between Norway and British Isles. Is it feasible for one to be governed by the other?
2) If Norway controls Iceland and Greenland as in OTL and have the advantage of using British ports, then may we see an ealier discovery of the New World and more British influence?

 

[Rick Robinson]

Any likely candidates?

In 2-3 generations the throne would be passing to people who never existed in OTL, due to different marriage permutations. But how about someone resembling Henry VI's queen, Margaret of Anjou, "the she-wolf of France?"

Couple more questions
1) How good were sea ties between Norway and British Isles. Is it feasible for one to be governed by the other?
2) If Norway controls Iceland and Greenland as in OTL and have the advantage of using British ports, then may we see an ealier discovery of the New World and more British influence?

Well, the sea link wasn't good enough for the poor little Maid of Norway. But it wasn't any problem for Canute to govern England, Norway, and Denmark. So I think England could manage Norway, especially if it's not trying to conquer France.

I don't know if the age of discovery is pushed earlier, but maybe Henry VII (or whoever is king at the time) hires Columbus or his counterpart.

-- Rick

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think you are underestimating how a Danish princess as Queen of England would affect dynastic considerations in Scandinavia. It seems highly unlikely that the events you describe would happen the same way in this scenario.

The Danish claim to the Norwegian throne came because King Haakon VI of Norway was married to Queen Margrethe I of Denmark, and they together had a son Olav, who formally was King of Denmark, but with his mother as regent. When Haakon died Olav was only five, but nevertheless inherited Norway, but with his mother carrying on as regent. Olav died as a teenager (16 IIRC).

We can of course PoD this marriage out, but it would IMO not have any logic relations to Margaret going to Scotland 90 years before. Anyway a lot of Princesses and Princes married each other back then, and rarely just because of love. So in order to change the relations between England, Scotland and Scandinavia we must PoD the basic powerrelations - then the dynastic consequences to utilise the political opportunities will follow. If say a Scandinavian Union consolidates before Scotland becomes part of UK, then I'm certain that the Scandinavians and the English would be rivals over Scotland. And if Scottish I would perhaps prefer a more distant bully in Scandinavia to a closer English - and then us Scandinavians of course are terribly nice fellows - and much better looking than the English

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Edward's sexuality is irrelevant, and using the term "gay" is anachronistic, since there was no conception at the time of a fixed sexuality. Many rulers preferred men, including several Ottoman sultans, who all produced large numbers of heirs. Dynastic marriage had nothing to do with love or physical attraction, it was a business transaction, and a homosexual still has the same equipment. For a gay man, procreating is no worse than a straight man having sex with a woman he's not attracted to (well, maybe a little worse). And in any case, I'm sure many a princess would prefer to be barely touched by her gay husband than mauled by a some fat smelly straight guy.

On Edward II's preferences, it's been quite a while since I read up on him, and I doubt there's any direct evidence. There's a good deal of indirect evidence. His relationship with Piers Gaveston was very close, and a major source of his political troubles. The way he was reputedly killed - a red-hot poker shoved up his ass - has overtones of gay-bashing to put it mildly. Whether it really happened or not, the spread of the story is indicative of what people thought.

A good many kings generally taken as having been gay nevertheless managed to do their dynastic duty. Some were doubtless happy to screw anything with two legs; others must have had to grimace and get on with it. (True of many straight kings as well, considering some of the charmers they were paired with. Henri II of France only dropped around for the delights of Catherine de Medici's bedchamber when Diane de Poitiers told him to.)

-- Rick

 

[Rick Robinson]

Edward's sexuality is irrelevant, and using the term "gay" is anachronistic, since there was no conception at the time of a fixed sexuality.

You're right that "gay" is anachronistic; I used it as a handy term. There could be endless discussion of the relationship between cultural attitudes and sexual desire / behavior!

Edward II's sexuality almost certainly was relevant, though, because it was very much bound up with his political problems. Homosexual preferences tended to cause difficulties for medieval and early-modern European kings IF they elevated male lovers as favorites, offending powerful interests at court who saw their own influence undermined. (How this played out in other societies I don't know; it doubtless varied according to how courts were structured.)

Two comparison points. Kings who engaged in homosexuality but did not elevate their partners as favorites had no such problem; Richard I for example. (I know that John Gillingham, at least, has raised questions about his actual preferences.) And queens regnant had to step very carefully about elevating male favorites. A queen with a lesbian lover would have no such worry. It was the power relations, not what went on between the bedcurtains, that led to problems.

Dynastic marriage had nothing to do with love or physical attraction, it was a business transaction, and a homosexual still has the same equipment. For a gay man, procreating is no worse than a straight man having sex with a woman he's not attracted to (well, maybe a little worse). And in any case, I'm sure many a princess would prefer to be barely touched by her gay husband than mauled by a some fat smelly straight guy.

LOL!

Actually, it's amazing to me how often the dynastic job got done between partners with absolutely no attraction. I suppose the woman involved just had to close her eyes and think of England (or wherever). But the man has to, ah, perform, if an heir is to result. Harder to do if you're positively repelled by the woman it is your job to impregnate.

-- Rick