Queen Arbella I: What if Elizabeth I made Arbella Stuart her heir?

Don't forget his father is a governor for Spanish monarch.......(we're back to the Spaniards! Life is a circle.)

But to be fair, his mom is the eldest Portuguese infanta. So that could always go in an interesting direction should D. Sebastiao die without children - everyone always wants an England-Portugal POD. Here we just get Parma thrown in by the by.:p
 
Without James and his forceful personality and push towards absolutism, its possible, maybe not likely but possible that it wouldn't matter who she married or who her children were.
as you might see another Queen as a justification for parliament further empowering itself and see Robert Cecil or someone running England in her name and a figurehead ceremonial monarchy being established alot earlier than historically?
 
Without James and his forceful personality and push towards absolutism, its possible, maybe not likely but possible that it wouldn't matter who she married or who her children were.
as you might see another Queen as a justification for parliament further empowering itself and see Robert Cecil or someone running England in her name and a figurehead ceremonial monarchy being established alot earlier than historically?

Why would there be a ceremonial monarchy? If Arbella (what's with the weird name, anyone know?) became Queen, chances are good she'd model herself on Liz - just maybe with less makeup and a broken hymen. And while Liz was no absolute monarch, IIRC, the Tudors had more power than the Stuarts did.
 
Anglo-Portuguese union might happen if Ranuccio marries Arabella.

The seriously paranoid council and equally suspicious Elizabeth would have to get past his Hapsburg connections (via his father) and his religion, and his ancestor Pope Paul III. I don't see it happening. Yeah, it's cool, but it's unrealistic. The husband sets the tone, you need to find a protestant fella for Arbella.
 
Anglo-Portuguese union might happen if Ranuccio marries Arabella.

Ranuccio is not marrying Arbella except in a
Spanish Armada succeeds scenario. As to he degree of power she like Elizabeth would rule, not reign, at least in the first part of her reign. Wether she would stuff up and see her actual power seep away is another thing entirely.
 
Why would there be a ceremonial monarchy? If Arbella (what's with the weird name, anyone know?) became Queen, chances are good she'd model herself on Liz - just maybe with less makeup and a broken hymen. And while Liz was no absolute monarch, IIRC, the Tudors had more power than the Stuarts did.

My understanding is that parliament very much wanted one, Monarchs who didn't just kept getting in their way.
And while she'd model herself after Liz that's no guarantee she'd manage it.
It's just interesting too as it could mean no civil war down the line.
 
Parliament may have wanted one, but a wisely educated monarch should be able to avoid providing them with an excuse to rebel. A working compromise is possible with a bit of good will on both sides.
 
My understanding is that parliament very much wanted one, Monarchs who didn't just kept getting in their way.
And while she'd model herself after Liz that's no guarantee she'd manage it.
It's just interesting too as it could mean no civil war down the line.

I would be careful about back projecting the attitudes and opinions of the 1640's 1680's onto the 1600's. Certainly there were some English Parliamentarians who looked with envy at the Dutch States General but there were a small minority in 1600. Most Englishmen wanted a strong Monarch who would rule within the bounds of the law and tradition and would listen to the above of Parliament, in the event of misrule I suspect you'd see a stronger movement to replace Arbella with someone like James of Scotland rather than curtail her rights.
 
The key is actual the men who dominated in the 1590s - so to be honest it is going to be whether Cecil shifts to James from Arbella as the preferred choice - to the Protestant men of Elizabeth's court there were a number of considerations a) the natural Godly order - that a man should govern not a woman - their affection/fear of Elizabeth not withstanding most of her courtiers accepted that a woman's role was not to rule over men b) In James VI there was a natural male successor who was Protestant, already a reigning monarch, and by 1594 a father of a male heir c) James VI was the senior heir general of Henry VII and had the strongest claim morally.

Elizabeth herself simply did not like most of her relations on her father's side - for obvious reasons they were all at some point rival claimants to her own rights to the throne - she really didn't like her Grey cousins at all and certainly had a long-standing aversion to Arbella and James' grandmother Margaret Douglas. As she lay near to death she really just allowed her senior courtiers to make their own decision by not objecting to James VI - her own consistent refusal to name an heir is unlikely to change. If Arbella marries Seymour (which arguably would unite the rival claims from Mary and Margaret Tudor - strengthening their joint hand against James' superior claim) then Elizabeth is likely to be as furious as when Catherine Grey allegedly married Seymour in the 1560s - so you might see the Queen in anger immediately bring the daughter's of Lord Derby to court (they were strictly the legal claimants under Henry VIII's will).
The reason James VI succeeded with minimal problems was because he had the strongest claim morally - he was an easy heir if you like as all the other's were beset by problems.
For Cecil to switch you would need a stronger alliance between him and the family of Bess of Hardwick I think and in otl he had better family connections with the Derby family.

Succession under primogeniture -
Heirs of Margaret Tudor Queen of Scots -
James VI of Scotland, Henry Duke of Rothesay, Prince Charles of Scotland, Princess Elizabeth of Scotland, Lady Arbella Stuart.
Heirs of Mary Tudor Queen of France Duchess of Suffolk
(declared illegitimate by order of Elizabeth I - Edward Seymour and his issue William Seymour, Francis Seymour, Honora Seymour, Anne Seymour, Mary Seymour)
Lady Anne Stanley, Lady Frances Stanley, Lady Elizabeth Stanley, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby and his issue
Succession under the will of Henry VIII
Margaret Countess of Derby (d 1596) Ferdinando 5th Earl of Derby (d1594) Lady Anne Stanley, Lady Frances Stanley, Lady Elizabeth Stanley, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby
 
German Prince
Sorry I have been away, I have been busy binge-watching Victoria (I have fallen in love with Thom Hughes as Prince Albert). The show got me thinking - Germany was Protestant in 16th century. Are there any German Princes our Arbella Stuart can wed? (Preferably a second son as I don't want co-monarchs or an absent Consort).
 
Sorry I have been away, I have been busy binge-watching Victoria (I have fallen in love with Thom Hughes as Prince Albert). The show got me thinking - Germany was Protestant in 16th century. Are there any German Princes our Arbella Stuart can wed? (Preferably a second son as I don't want co-monarchs or an absent Consort).

There's probably a spare Wettin or Palatine Protestant prince lying around that could marry her. But the Palatinate IIRC was Calvinist (sorta like James VI/Church of Scotland) whereas a Wettin would be Lutheran. I'm not sure any of the other major houses - Hohenzollern or Welf - would get a look in.
 
This is a bit OT, but I wonder if James could just decide to marry Arbella outside England to someone not in position to ever think about claiming English throne to get rid of her?
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
The show got me thinking - Germany was Protestant in 16th century. Are there any German Princes our Arbella Stuart can wed? (Preferably a second son as I don't want co-monarchs or an absent Consort).
There is a shitload of them. They are on wiki - take your pick ...
 
Top