Mary I Succeeds after early death of Henry

Royal_Coat_of_arms_of_Scotland_%281603%E2%80%931651%29.svg
Coat_of_Arms_of_England_%281603-1649%29.svg

OTL coat of arms of James VI. In this TL James V and Mary's child would likely bear a coat of arms similar to these ones.
If James V died in 1542 while Mary died in 1558, then the child(let's name the child James if a boy and Catherine if a girl) would need to wait for 16 years as King/Queen of Scots before getting the English throne. Nobody would like to relinquish his/her power, and Mary would likely assume regency in Scotland. As the situation in which a monarch of one country is also regent of another country has arose, the Earl of Arran, as second in line to the Scottish throne, would likely become the de facto ruler in Scotland.
The Earl would likely have a vested interest in locking his young king/queen up like what happened to Joanna of Castile by declaring him/her insane once the king/queen entered his/her teens, so he could rule in his/her stead alongside Mary of England, and to prevent any heir from being issued from her and thus displacing him down the table, except that Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox, would denounce this as the treason of the f*king bastard, as part of the Arran-Lennox rivalry(as Matthew Stewart believed that the Earl of Arran was illegitimate). As a result, a full Joanna of Castile scenario would not be replicated in its totality in Scotland, and once Mary died, the new monarch would be able to do what he/she wanted as the monarch of both countries.
None of the Scottish monarchs at the time had died normally since James II was killed in a cannon explosion. James II was killed by his cannon, James III ousted by his own son, and James IV died in the Battle of Flodden.
Scots lords would demand the baby queen(let's name her Catherine) to be raised up in Scotland, while the English would ask her to be raised in England and to be sent to Ludlow later. The girl would be crowned at Scone, but whether the Scots would send their queen to England would be unclear this time.

The Prince(ss) of Wales would live most of time in England, spending some time in Scotland when (s)he was older, likely splitting his/hers time between Wales and Scotland or living mostly in the first. Still your scenario is ASB as you are trying to get a butterfly net ignoring direct knock-outs and mixing things who are at the limits of the credible without any logical explanation for it.
Once James married Mary most of his troubles are OVER. He will rule on both countries, mostly from London, together with her and when one of them died (likely MUCH LATER than OTL) their eldest son (or daughter if they are less lucky) will take first a crown then the other.
 
The Prince(ss) of Wales would live most of time in England, spending some time in Scotland when (s)he was older, likely splitting his/hers time between Wales and Scotland or living mostly in the first. Still your scenario is ASB as you are trying to get a butterfly net ignoring direct knock-outs and mixing things who are at the limits of the credible without any logical explanation for it.
Once James married Mary most of his troubles are OVER. He will rule on both countries, mostly from London, together with her and when one of them died (likely MUCH LATER than OTL) their eldest son (or daughter if they are less lucky) will take first a crown then the other.
True. In OTL James' trouble mainly came from England or English-funded hostilities. With a union of crowns, most of them would disappear.
For the implausible scenes I often have in mind, that's because I have a tendency to read historical events in pattern, which would influence much of my scenarios and attribution of certain, heavily Machiavellian ideas to certain people(such as my tendency to compare Anne of Brittany to Mary Queen of Scots, or attributing Ferdinand-Joanna situations to other historical scenes that involved dual monarchs).
When the idea of Mary I and James V came to my mind, my first idea would be that whether another Ferdinand-Joanna situation would emerge if one of them died, but once everything is considered, and after reading many of the arguments here, it would turn out that such a worry is meaningless. After all, neither Mary I nor James V were known for being Machiavellian, the factors that caused so many troubles for James V had been gone, and things would likely run smoothly in such a scenario(aside from the burning of a few Wuttemburg-educated Scottish Lutherans, of course).
 
Last edited:
Top