Queen Margaret I?

Under modern British law and a strict interpretation of primogeniture, you're right, but there was no firm set of succession law in England at this point.

Exactly; which to my mind makes the idea that Margaret would give up her claims to James so spurious. I can't really see anything in your argument which suggests otherwise - it's not a legal question, but a political one. And by any stretch of the imagination, an adult female is much better on that score than a male infant. If there's one precedent, then it's Empress Maud, who was legally recognised as th sole legitimate heir to Henry I, and was so until she gave her claims away to her (by then fully mature) son - and that was three and a half centuries earlier. So the idea that claims must go straight through females is very iffy to my mind. You already have an international precedent for (pretty good actually) female monarchs - Isabella in Spain being the most prominent and recent. (Albeit with male backing in that case in the shape of Ferdinand) So nor is the idea unthinkable politically like it was in Maud's time. Perhaps not terribly popular, but by no means absurd.

I take your point about the unrealiability of veering away from the Tudors, but if you're in the hypothetical position which mattw101 is proposing, then the de la Pole claim is not just another claim amongst many squabaling clans. It's pre-eminent. He may have terrible trouble keeping his hold on the throne, but he certainly has the initiative over any other contender in the short-term. He has the arms, the foreign backing, and (probably, depending on how fast he goes) the money.

Possibly the crucial thing to my mind is where the French will swing on this - they're in a difficult position of continuing to support a long established ally (Scotland) or continuing to back Richard. If they stay with Richard, then that helps his case greatly.
 
Last edited:
Excellent stuff about Catherine of Aragon's potential child

If she was pregnant when Henry VIII died, then I would think that everything would just kind of go on hold. Catherine is going to probably have popular support, having just won the Battle of Flodden, and being the widow of the Young King Harry.

The most important question about Catherine's child is whether or not it is alive. The next one is what foreign policy course the English wish to take. If Catherine has a living child (whether a boy or girl) then it will be crowned as the next English monarch, and England will be linked rather closely to the continental politics of the Hapsburg-Valois Wars. Catherine's nephew is the Holy Roman Emperor, the new English monarch is his first cousin, they have an alliance not only of blood but of interest, both being opposed to the continental expansion (indeed any expansion) of the French Kingdom.

So basically Catherine is going to be the leader of the anti-French party, her child a living symbol of England's long-time rivalry with the French, her family connections making England's involvement in some kind of anti-French coaltion almost certain.

Now on the other hand, Catherine's kid's heir is going to be the child King of Scotland, James V. James V represents getting Britain out of continental struggle (at least for now), by basically severing any major blood link between the Hapsburg-Valois combatants (Catherine counts as a major blood link).

To be fair to Catherine, I don't think that she would involve England in any continental affairs while her child-monarch is still in its minority. But the living or dying (not to mention the gender) of that child will all force England to take divergent paths.

So I think that Margaret should have a child either boy or girl, who will become the monarchy of England. The opportunity would exist to marry a girl to James, but the blood is just so darn close. Anyway, I really, REALLY want to see Catherine of Aragon as the regent of England, and the long-time advisor to her child.

On the other hand, an early unification of Scotland and England would also be tre cool, especially since James I/V would be raised English, but still have that Steward absolutist streak we all know and love. If you take that route, I can only hope to see a Steward absolutist monarchy firmly built on the solid foundation of a Jesuit-direct Counter-Reformation.
 
There's a precedent for an undetermined pregnancy - when Louis X of France died, his wife was pregnant. In that case, Louis' brother Philip was appointed regent until Louis' wife came to term. Philip was a regent for a monarch who might not even be a monarch. :D

That was pretty clear-cut, though, because the weight of expectation was that if the child was female or was stillborn or died, Philip would inherit, which is what happened - the child was male but died soon after birth, and Philip became King.

That is quite a bit different from these sorts of circumstances where there could be any number of potential monarchs if Catherine's child does not live. There's not really any outstanding potential regent. Could be a good stop-gap measure, though, while people build up their power bases in anticipation of civil war.
 
Last edited:
Exactly; which to my mind makes the idea that Margaret would give up her claims to James so spurious. I can't really see anything in your argument which suggests otherwise - it's not a legal question, but a political one.

I think that's the point to my arguement entirely. Succession law is entirely about politics and we can't read current practice backwards.

At this point in English history, the crown acted more like a piece of civil property than a title bound by a charter. It was subject to disputes (not so much legal as military, but still...) and court proceedings (act of attainder and sucession acts) and wills (Henry VIII changed his a couple of times if I remember correctly, to specifiaclly bar the Scottish claim). About the only attribute it didn't share with property in English law of the time is the fact that it wasn't actually divisible.

It took centuries of working through the ins and outs of primogeniture that the place of women in the inheritance of the English crown was codified and the current cognatic structure was accepted. In 1510, recent precedents were all over the place: the Lancaster claim, which was was almost purely based on complete male-line primogenture; the Yorkist claim, which was was a mix of male-line (through Edmund of Langley) and female-line (through Philippa of Ulster); and the Tudor claims, which were a dog's breakfast of conquest, marriage and a spurious relationship to the Lancasters through Queen Catherine).

What hadn't really been tested and determined yet was whether a claim through the female line could be exercised by the woman herself had to be done through her husband or son. I think much of our current acceptance of a cognatic inheritance lies with the uncontested accession of Mary I and Elizabeth I, and probably to a much lesser extent, Matilda and Isabella of Spain.

Mary I and, especially, Elizabeth laid down a lot of this but that hadn't happened yet in the 1510s. About the only thing that made Mary I the sole ruler was nobody wanted Philip of Spain on the throne. Elizabeth was the last Tudor and unmarrried, so there was no question...but it seems to me that one of the reasons she didn't marry was to avoid having to turn over her throne to her husband.

If James IV of Scotland were alive, you'd have James I/IV, not Margaret I because that's the way it was expected to work. The real question comes if Margaret was a widow. Here you have two competing claims...Marageret's and James I/V's. One is fairly radical in the 1510s and the other is a known quantity, albeit fairly dangerous one, politically speaking. I still feel that the English nobility were a conservative bunch and would opt for the devil they knew. Margaret would undoubtedly have a role to play in the regency, but that would be about it.

Just my thoughts on the matter,

David
 
Last edited:
I think that's the point to my arguement entirely. Succession law is entirely about politics and we can't read current practice backwards.

At this point in English history, the crown acted more like a piece of civil property than a title bound by a charter. It was subject to disputes (not so much legal as military, but still...) and court proceedings (act of attainder and sucession acts) and wills (Henry VIII changed his a couple of times if I remember correctly, to specificlly bar the Scottish claim). About the only attribute it didn't share with property in English law of the time is the fact that it wasn't actually divisible.

Had Henry VIII made a will by the time he died in this ATL?

So to perhaps add to the coolness of having Catherine of Aragon have a living child, Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII, was betrothed to marry Charles V, but the betrothal ultimately fell through. If Catherine is the Regent of England, then I don't think the betrothal will fall through. With Henry VIII dead and the heir to England's throne one of France's chief allies Mary's marriage suddenly becomes far more important. Her male child would stand only third in line to the English throne, and would represent a very tangiable tie between the Houses of Hapsburg and Tudor.

It took centuries of working through the ins and outs of primogeniture that the place of women in the inheritance of the English crown was codified and the current cognatic structure was accepted. In 1510, recent precedents were all over the place: the Lancaster claim, which was was almost purely based on complete male-line primogenture; the Yorkist claim, which was was a mix of male-line (through Edmund of Langley) and female-line (through Philippa of Ulster); and the Tudor claims, which were a dog's breakfast of conquest, marriage and a spurious relationship to the Lancasters through Queen Catherine).

The Tudor claim was descended from the Beaufort claim, the legitimized bastards of John of Gaunt. Henry Tudor assumed the throne on his mother's Beaufort claim and the right of conquest, not in right of his finance. He then married Elizabeth of York, so that his children would have the benefit of Edward III's bloodline.

What hadn't really been tested and determined yet was whether a claim through the female line could be exercised by the woman herself had to be done through her husband or son. I think much of our current acceptance of a cognatic inheritance lies with the uncontested accession of Mary I and Elizabeth I, and probably to a much lesser extent, Matilda and Isabella of Spain.

I agree that Mary and Elizabeth color our perceptions quite a bit. However, if James I/V ascends the throne as an infant, then I don't think that it would be beyond the pale of possibility that Margaret would rule as Queen Regnant.

What would Catherine of Aragon do in a situation where she is widowed? Go back to her father's court in Aragon, eventually ending up in her nephew's court? I can definitely see Catherine remarrying, perhaps ending up as a Viceroy of one of the extensive Hapsburg dominions?

Mary I and, especially, Elizabeth laid down a lot of this but that hadn't happened yet in the 1510s. About the only thing that made Mary I the sole ruler was nobody wanted Philip of Spain on the throne. Elizabeth was the last Tudor and unmarrried, so there was no question...but it seems to me that one of the reasons she didn't marry was to avoid having to turn over her throne to her husband.

If James IV of Scotland were alive, you'd have James I/IV, not Margaret I because that's the way it was expected to work. The real question comes if Margaret was a widow. Here you have two competing claims...Marageret's and James I/V's. One is fairly radical in the 1510s and the other is a known quantity, albeit fairly dangerous one, politically speaking. I still feel that the English nobility were a conservative bunch and would opt for the devil they knew. Margaret would undoubtedly have a role to play in the regency, but that would be about it.

If James I/IV is still alive when Henry VIII Tudor dies, then I think that the English might have, ah, issues, with the ascesion of the Scotish King to the English throne. Margaret could ascend to the throne as the Queen Regnant, with James I/IV only as a consort, with no (legal) powers over government.
 
Had Henry VIII made a will by the time he died in this ATL?

The Tudor claim was descended from the Beaufort claim, the legitimized bastards of John of Gaunt. Henry Tudor assumed the throne on his mother's Beaufort claim and the right of conquest, not in right of his finance. He then married Elizabeth of York, so that his children would have the benefit of Edward III's bloodline.

Welll...that's what he said publically anyway. i can't help thinking the realities of the situation were a bit more complex, with Yorkists seeing her as the rightful heir and him as the conquering usurper. But, you are right, to Henry, the Beaufort claim was the hereditary component...but that only re-inforces the argument that the woman claimant can't actually hold the throne and that her claim passes to her male heir. Margaret Beaufort was alive in 1485 and she had the prior claim in the Beaufort line, yet Henry VII was the one on the throne. Different situation to the minor, James I/V but a precedent none the less.


I agree that Mary and Elizabeth color our perceptions quite a bit. However, if James I/V ascends the throne as an infant, then I don't think that it would be beyond the pale of possibility that Margaret would rule as Queen Regnant.

If James is on the throne, she can't be Queen Regnant; the best she could be is sole Regent, and I find that one more unlkely than her actually being allowed to sit on the throne. At the very least there would be a minority Regency council. Now the make-up of that council would be interesting and probably determine much of the direction England took. I could see Surrey/Norfolk playing a central role but I don't know the players well enough to speculate beyond that.

What would Catherine of Aragon do in a situation where she is widowed? Go back to her father's court in Aragon, eventually ending up in her nephew's court? I can definitely see Catherine remarrying, perhaps ending up as a Viceroy of one of the extensive Hapsburg dominions?

In many ways, that would be the best thing for everybody concerned. It removes her as a player in English politics.

If James I/IV is still alive when Henry VIII Tudor dies, then I think that the English might have, ah, issues, with the ascesion of the Scotish King to the English throne. Margaret could ascend to the throne as the Queen Regnant, with James I/IV only as a consort, with no (legal) powers over government.

A lot of that could depend on the timing of Henry's death as well. I've been assuming all along that James IV dies on schedule at Flodden, so for him to be around, Henry would have to die in mid-1513. As far as I can see, James IV only invaded after Henry invaded France. He decided that the Auld Alliance held more of his allegiance than his ties to his father-in-law and the peace treaties signed in 1502. Henry dying in early 1513, leaves a James that has been at peace with England for about 20 years.

At any rate, the opposition to him might not be a great as we would think looking backward. God knows he was competant and charismatic in the best Stewart tradition. Of all the choices in a early 1513 scenario, I think he would stand out among the contenders...especially if he tried to work through a minority council in England. The dynasty would eventually shift south, but not at such a frantic clip as in OTL in 1603.

David
 
At the very least there would be a minority Regency council. Now the make-up of that council would be interesting and probably determine much of the direction England took. I could see Surrey/Norfolk playing a central role but I don't know the players well enough to speculate beyond that.

Based on the composition of the executors of Henry's will in 1547 (in terms of numbers, cross section of offices etc.), I've come up with a preliminary list of 16 possible members of a council of regency in 1513. Not completely sure of some of them, but seems feasible.

Not sure what part Catherine would play in this exactly, so I've left her out.

Charles Brandon
Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk
Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, Lord High Admiral
Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham
Thomas Darcy, Lord Darcy de Darcy
George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury
William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury
Christopher Bainbridge, Archbishop of York
Richard Fitzjames, Bishop of London
Thomas Wolsey, Lord High Almoner
John Fineux, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench
Thomas Ruthall, Lord Privy Seal, Bishop of Durham*
John Yonge, Master of the Rolls
Thomas Routhall, Secretary of State*
William Compton
Richard Foxe, Bishop of Winchester, Lord Privy Seal

*Despite the almost identical name these two aren't the same person.

It brings up some interesting possibilities. For instance Norfolk and his son (who used the title Earl of Surrey until his father died) are in a pretty powerful position, and I can see a faction building up around them. Would be interesting to see what happened with Buckingham, too.
 
Welll...that's what he said publically anyway. i can't help thinking the realities of the situation were a bit more complex, with Yorkists seeing her as the rightful heir and him as the conquering usurper. But, you are right, to Henry, the Beaufort claim was the hereditary component...but that only re-inforces the argument that the woman claimant can't actually hold the throne and that her claim passes to her male heir. Margaret Beaufort was alive in 1485 and she had the prior claim in the Beaufort line, yet Henry VII was the one on the throne. Different situation to the minor, James I/V but a precedent none the less.

If James is on the throne, she can't be Queen Regnant; the best she could be is sole Regent, and I find that one more unlkely than her actually being allowed to sit on the throne. At the very least there would be a minority Regency council. Now the make-up of that council would be interesting and probably determine much of the direction England took. I could see Surrey/Norfolk playing a central role but I don't know the players well enough to speculate beyond that.

Okay, I definitely agree with you that in event of a post-Flodden death for Henry VIII James I/IV would ascend the throne of England, on his own, with his mother playing some kind of role, but not one that is in any way legally guaranteed.

In this event, the Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor marriage is going to be viewed in a far different light. I think that Brandon would immediately become a key player, since his children with Mary would represent James I/V's English heirs, at least while James I/IV remained childless. Even then, the Brandon-Tudor children will represent the heirs. Since the Stewarts seemed to not have that many kids before dying, this will be important. If James I/IV lives the same amount of time as OTL with the same progeny as OTL (unlikely I know) then the Brandon kids will inherit.

The Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor marriage would then make Charles Brandon (who is definitely going to be a big player in the Regency of young James I/V) a much changed player. He will have a (not necessarily postive) interest in the young King. If he has a son, Charles Brandon will immediately become prehaps the greatest potential threat to James I/V's life and reign.

A lot of that could depend on the timing of Henry's death as well. I've been assuming all along that James IV dies on schedule at Flodden, so for him to be around, Henry would have to die in mid-1513. As far as I can see, James IV only invaded after Henry invaded France. He decided that the Auld Alliance held more of his allegiance than his ties to his father-in-law and the peace treaties signed in 1502. Henry dying in early 1513, leaves a James that has been at peace with England for about 20 years.

At any rate, the opposition to him might not be a great as we would think looking backward. God knows he was competant and charismatic in the best Stewart tradition. Of all the choices in a early 1513 scenario, I think he would stand out among the contenders...especially if he tried to work through a minority council in England. The dynasty would eventually shift south, but not at such a frantic clip as in OTL in 1603.

If we combine a pre-Flodden death, and then the Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor marriage (with the quick production of a living male child from that couple) then I think we have some damnably interesting Regency politics in England.

The Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor match of OTL found a supporter in Archbishop Thomas Wolsey, which if the same happened in ATL could set up a situation where the regency in England for James I is basically opposed to not only James IV, but to the continued living of James I.
 
Okay, I definitely agree with you that in event of a post-Flodden death for Henry VIII James I/IV would ascend the throne of England, on his own, with his mother playing some kind of role, but not one that is in any way legally guaranteed.

In this event, the Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor marriage is going to be viewed in a far different light. I think that Brandon would immediately become a key player, since his children with Mary would represent James I/V's English heirs, at least while James I/IV remained childless. Even then, the Brandon-Tudor children will represent the heirs. Since the Stewarts seemed to not have that many kids before dying, this will be important. If James I/IV lives the same amount of time as OTL with the same progeny as OTL (unlikely I know) then the Brandon kids will inherit.

Well...There's James I/V and then there is Alexander, who was born postumously (in March 1514) and there is nothing saying that he woud die on schedule. That gives two legitmate heirs in the Tudor-Stuart line.

The Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor marriage would then make Charles Brandon (who is definitely going to be a big player in the Regency of young James I/V) a much changed player. He will have a (not necessarily postive) interest in the young King. If he has a son, Charles Brandon will immediately become prehaps the greatest potential threat to James I/V's life and reign..

I wonder about the role that Charles Brandon would play/be allowed to play. The older nobility would regard him as a parvenu, no matter how lofty his title (again contingent on the timing of Henry's death). The smartest thing the Regency council could do would be to leave Mary in France. There's also nothing saying that they wouold be anywhere near as forgiving about the secret marriage as Henry VIII was in OTL. I think it all depends on the role Wolsey plays in the regency. He was Brandon's advocate to the king but he might not be able to convince a regency council that Brandon had not committed some form of treason by inserting himself inot the line of succession.

If we combine a pre-Flodden death, and then the Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor marriage (with the quick production of a living male child from that couple) then I think we have some damnably interesting Regency politics in England.

The Charles Brandon-Mary Tudor match of OTL found a supporter in Archbishop Thomas Wolsey, which if the same happened in ATL could set up a situation where the regency in England for James I is basically opposed to not only James IV, but to the continued living of James I.

Okay..you've lost me here. A pre-Flodden death of Henry VIII would probably result in James I/IV taking the throne in right of his wife, Margaret. To get the regency situation you're describing, you need a post-flodden death of Henry VIII and the accession of James I/V. (too many James).

I think the Regency council would be well aware of the possibility you're describing and work very diligently to make sure they didn't have a repeat of the princes in the Tower. Everybody will be watching everybody else very carefully to make sure they don't upset the apple cart. I just don't see Brandon gaining enough control of the regency council to bump his wife further up the line of succession and I really don't see Wolsey helping this agenda along. In addition, I see Norfolk working very carefully to ensure that his own gravy train didn't end. I can almost guarantee you that he was already trying to figureout which one of his family would be the best match for a future marriage, and letting Brandon screw up his plans wouldn't go down at all well.

Maybe they just send Brandon/Suffolk to be the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland with orders to bring the Anglo-Irish to heel or die trying and then leave him there to rot.

Still, if you want realpolitick... Brandon dies of mysterious causes the day after the secret wedding is announced and Mary Tudor is married to a nice safe foreign prince as soon as is decent. Anybody but Henry Courtenay would be fine, even Brandon would be better than letting that mess out of the bag.

David
 
I agree with David, Brandon's life expectancy is going to shorten dramatically now that Henry is dead!
However, if he does have issue before his "accident" then I can foresee them being tied to the Howards more than the Greys.
 
If James IV of Scotland were alive, you'd have James I/IV, not Margaret I because that's the way it was expected to work.

Uh? You can't conceed that this is an essentially flexible area and then fall back on expectations - expectations would depend entirely on the circumstances of the time.

Really, though, I think you're continuing to ignore several very important factors which would make James ascending the throne very unlikely.

1) Automatic regency. Now this isn't just a regency. This is a regency for a child who, at this point, is just out of the womb. That means the better part of twenty years without any adult monarch and all the shifting and unsteady politics of regency which goes along with that. So close after the Wars of the Roses, and with so many potential claimants about? An incredibly bad position in which to put the country.

Are you seriously saying that - whatever the position of some members of the higher nobility, who might be rather enticed by this prospect - that the court, Margaret etc, would agree to this? In a situation which you yourself agree would have it's outcome in the best political solution, that is a very strange position to take to put it mildly.

But that's assuming James lives. Considering his age, and the fate of Margaret's other children, you would have to say that was perhaps unlikely. And if James does die, then we're back to square one. By far the superior option would be to have Margaret as Queen regnant. If James dies suddenly, and Margaret has no direct heirs, then, no biggy politically. Margaret can work out the succession at leisure later. If it's after the death of James IV, then even better, as Margaret would be free to re-marry and produce more children.

2) The other main point is the position of Scottish-English relations at this point. Depending on when all this happens, England may actually still be at war with Scotland - a traditional enemy, only behind France on that score.

In OTL, Henry VIII was actually so pissed off by the Scots by the time he died (even after the rough wooing and England trouncing the Scots militarily) that he explicitly excluded Margaret's progeny from the succession - despite including provision for pretty much all other relations somehow.

So inviting the child of the man you are/just have been at war with would not go down well from a nationalistic POV. In fact, it would go down like a lead balloon.

It's worth pointing out, btw, that this is very much not like OTL. In OTL, there were decades of lingering expectation that if Elizabeth did not have any children, then the throne would very likely go to James VI by default, after all the other domestic candidates were by that point either dead, or disgraced, or both. That is a quite different situation from one in which a young Henry VIII dies suddenly as part of (presumably) a larger war between England and the Auld Alliance.

What you are proposing here is basically the notion that the kingdom should be placed under the sway of the allies of the people that have just killed the King. Even assuming Henry dies at home in his bed, this would be a very unpopular decision.



Now to me, a charter for decades of potential instability and putting the country under the sway of your number two enemy does not a good political decision make. And as this is, by your own admission, a political, not a legal decision, I'm not really sure what your argument is here.
 
Last edited:
I'll reply in a fuller sense in a bit but what I'm saying is that given the choice between:

a) civil war between multiple claimants, which I think everybody, except maybe Louis would want to avoid
b) a regency for a male child, which was a potential disaster, as you say
c) allowing a widowed woman sit as queen regnant, which had never been done before in England

In this situation that the English nobility would choose b) as the best of a bad set of choices. The regency allows for the male claimant with the most legitiamte claim come to the throne and gives everybody a chance to assess the siutation and catch their breath.

They would buffer the choice by making it a union of crowns and insisting that the king be raised in England, not Scotland, and leave the duke of Albany to run Scotland as a separate regency. Besides, I think there are risk-takers that would feel that the could profit from a regency but not from a civil war.
 
Last edited:
I'll reply in a fuller sense in a bit

Sure. :)

My main beef is that your sole argument seems to be 'a (proper) Queen regnant had never been done before'.

Forgive me, but when you are considering what are neccessarily extreme and unprecedented circumstances, and when the alternatives are so unpalatable, that is not an argument which holds much weight. Precedents aren't set until they become neccessary. And I think this is a very neccessary situation.
 
I think it depends on your view of the medieval mind-set and world-view, which was still very much in force in England. We in the 21st century have a very hard time understanding really how conservative it was. We live in a world where new things are accepted and even sought after. This was most definitely not the case in 1500. "We've never done this before" basically equated to "it should never be done" or, at the very least, "will we be risking divine displeasure if we do it because we're fiddling with the divine plan". The Enlightenment and two centuries of the Scientific Method have pushed us very far from this way of thinking.

As far as I can see, the last time anything similar to the situation we're discussing (when a woman had a recognized claim to the throne in her right and a male heir) was with Matilda. Come to think of it, the situations were almost exactly the same... a recognised heiress with two-year old child.The end result was that her claim passed to her son, Henry II, even though Matilda was alive until 1167. Looking back from our vantage point, nobody would doubt that Matilda had the ability to rule but the whole reign of Stephen was predicated on the assumption that a woman, no matter how capable and how legitmate, could not rule. And this was accepted by at least half the country until Stephen's death.

The crux of our discussion is not whether Margaret has the pre-eminent claim to the throne (I think that is incontrovertable) but whether she had the right to excercise her claim on her own behalf. It's my belief that the default answer to that in England in 1500 was "NO". All precedent to the 1510s in England said that a woman's claim to the throne had to be exercised by either her husband or her son. Sure there were some foreign examples, but nothing in England. Women were not generally considered capable of exercising royal authority or any formal political authority at all. I'm not even sure there had ever been a woman who had served as sole regent by this point. Women could be economic stand-ins for their husbands and children but they did were not considered to have the ability to make weighty political decisions.

The tail-end of this line of thought was the restriction of voting franchises for women until the early 20th century. This would be five centures after this time we're talking about and with the example of five Queens Regnant to show how silly the idea actually was). As I said earlier, the examples of Mary I and Elizabeth I have shaped our view of a woman's ability to riegn. They ascended the thorne because there was no other choice, all the other Tudors were dead and the only other claimant was Mary, Queen of Scots (oh...and Jane Grey). You were going to get a woman in 1553, no matter what. There was no question that a precedent was going to be set on the gender issue there.

I think precedent always holds extreme weight in English politics. This is a people who have never gotten around to accepting that you can write down your consitution, after all. You're right...this is an extreme and unprecedented situation, but extreme political solutions or radical departures from precedents seem to me to be generally a result of violence and civil war or when there are absolutely no other choices.

So the question comes back to roll the dice with a civil war, roll the dice with a minority or roll the dice by letting a woman on the throne, against all the "known and proper" ways of doing things. All of them are risky but which one is least risky.

I hope that makes my argument clearer. I might come back to the Scottish question later.

David
 
Last edited:
As far as I can see, the last time anything similar to the situation we're discussing (when a woman had a recognized claim to the throne in her right and a male heir) was with Matilda. Come to think of it, the situations were almost exactly the same... a recognised heiress with two-year old child.The end result was that her claim passed to her son, Henry II, even though Matilda was alive until 1167. Looking back from our vantage point, nobody would doubt that Matilda had the ability to rule but the whole reign of Stephen was predicated on the assumption that a woman, no matter how capable and how legitmate, could not rule. And this was accepted by at least half the country until Stephen's death.

Matilda was the recognized heir, but she was married to a man (Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, who in 1134 had raided Normandy) who was considered an enemy by most of the Anglo-Norman nobility. So the female heir was married to a man no one wanted to be king. Sounds like of like the situation Margaret is facing a little bit. Stephen was able to become King because he was male, and more importantly, he was liked by (indeed a member of) the Anglo-Norman nobility.

If there is a pre-Flodden death of Henry VIII and James I/V has been born, then I think that he will be crowned as the King of England, bypassing his parents. A regency council may be choatic, but it will be preferable to being ruled by a man that most of the nobility is going to consider a foreign enemy.

I don't know if there was a man who could play a Stephen of Blois type of role, especially since the country probably doesn't want to be plunged into renewed civil war. If James I/IV attempts to exert control over a pre-Flodden regency for his son, then I don't think its beyond the range of possibilty that a different English claimant for the throne gains support. Perhaps a different Englishman for Mary Tudor to marry, another man who has a claim to the English throne.

I have a "Stephen of Blois" around whom the people of England can rally to keep the throne from the Scots, the Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, executed in 1521.

The crux of our discussion is not whether Margaret has the pre-eminent claim to the throne (I think that is incontrovertable) but whether she had the right to excercise her claim on her own behalf. It's my belief that the default answer to that in England in 1500 was "NO". All precedent to the 1510s in England said that a woman's claim to the throne had to be exercised by either her husband or her son. Sure there were some foreign examples, but nothing in England. Women were not generally considered capable of exercising royal authority or any formal political authority at all. I'm not even sure there had ever been a woman who had served as sole regent by this point. Women could be economic stand-ins for their husbands and children but they did were not considered to have the ability to make weighty political decisions.

Alright then, but the POD is Henry VIII's dying in battle in France which then means that James I/V is already born. If that is the case, then in the event of Henry VIII's death, whether pre or post Flodden, James I/V will still be the next English King. Women cannot inherit, and James IV has no right to the English throne (and the English don't want him). So regardless England is facing a long-term regency. The question is simply whether or not James IV is going to be trying to mess around with the regency, or if he's dead.

I agree that Margaret will not reign in her own right. I don't think that the English will accept (or indeed have to accept) James IV as their King. By sticking to semi-salic law James I/V will ascend the English throne if hes already born by the time Henry VIII dies and if Henry VIII has no other children.
 
If there is a pre-Flodden death of Henry VIII and James I/V has been born, then I think that he will be crowned as the King of England, bypassing his parents. A regency council may be choatic, but it will be preferable to being ruled by a man that most of the nobility is going to consider a foreign enemy.

I can agree with that. I've been thinking about the Scottish aspect. I think some of James IV's role will depend on whether Henry dies before the Scots actually set foot in England but I'm coming around to the minority option, whether James IV is alive or not.

Oddly, enough, I think a dead James IV makes the acceptance of the union of the crowns easier on both sides (because both get to deal with a regency) but probably ups the odds of a war due to instability on one side of the border or the other. I wonder would Margaret be allowed to marry the earl of Douglas or not?

To the acceptance of a Scot on the throne in times of war, I think the fact that the Scots were so badly defeated at Flodden tat they couldn't seriously pose a problem to England if they tried. The infallible Wikipedia says

"James was joined in death by nine earls, as well as fourteen Lords of Parliament and several Highland chiefs. His son, Alexander, the Archbishop of St. Andrews, had also been killed, along with other prominent churchmen. In all some 10,000 men, a third or more of the Scottish army, had been killed."

I don't know if there was a man who could play a Stephen of Blois type of role, especially since the country probably doesn't want to be plunged into renewed civil war.If James I/IV attempts to exert control over a pre-Flodden regency for his son, then I don't think its beyond the range of possibilty that a different English claimant for the throne gains support. Perhaps a different Englishman for Mary Tudor to marry, another man who has a claim to the English throne.

In Scotland, there is always the chance of Albany, if James IV is dead.
If you want a lunge for the throne in England at time of Henry's death, maybe Mattw101's de la Pole as head of the House of York, with French backing; maybe Henry Courtenay, earl of Devon, the most legitmate Yorkist claimant, if he's the one that brings the news of Henrys death back and the consensus is "No damn Scots, under any circumstances" (especially if he manages to marry Mary Tudor). Longer term, in England...Maybe Buckingham, although his beef with Henry VII was that Henry paid too much attention to the "New Men" , like Wolsey, and not enough to the old nobility, like himself.

Alright then, but the POD is Henry VIII's dying in battle in France which then means that James I/V is already born. If that is the case, then in the event of Henry VIII's death, whether pre or post Flodden, James I/V will still be the next English King. Women cannot inherit, and James IV has no right to the English throne (and the English don't want him). So regardless England is facing a long-term regency. The question is simply whether or not James IV is going to be trying to mess around with the regency, or if he's dead.

On balance, I think that would be a reasonable outcome. Heh...I still like the possibility of a four-sided civil war from a story telling standpoint but I think that's where you'd end up.

This is really beginning to pique my interest.
 
I think it depends on your view of the medieval mind-set and world-view, which was still very much in force in England.

Uh huh. Is this the same medieval mindset that in England accepted multiple female monarchs only a few decades after the period in which we’re talking about? The same mindset that had already accepted female monarchs across Europe, in places as diverse as Castile, Denmark, Georgia, Poland and Byzantium, anywhere up to several centuries beforehand?

Medieval sexism is wayyyyy over-rated. The medieval mind clearly didn’t much like the idea of women as monarchs, but it didn’t shy away from it when push came to shove, either. It didn’t even mind taking orders from females too much, as the recent case of Margaret of Anjou demonstrates. (there’s your de facto female regent for ya.) I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - an adult, whatever their sex, will always trump a long regency. Political realism always trumps ideology.

Heck, Urraca of Castile was governing as queen regnant (albeit in similarly troubled circumstances to Matilda) four centuries before the period in which we’re talking about. So much for the medieval mindset and it’s irredeemable hostility to women. ;)

Now the one thing we do know that people in this period very much disliked was the prospect of foreign rule, long regencies, and abandoning the established dynasty. What you’re proposing is the ultimate nightmare-fantasy of this period. ;)

The end result was that her claim passed to her son, Henry II,

Matilda’s claims went to Henry only after she had renounced them in his favour. A large part of the reason why she was unable to enforce her claim permanently was to do with her own personality and naivety in politics, rather than her simply being a woman. People forget this, but Matilda actually governed the county as Queen for most of 1141 before Stephen ousted her again, and she may have made it permanent if she hadn’t arsed it up through her own misjudgements in that period.

This is the only precedent we have, and it quite clearly shows that females can inherit solely, and govern. They might not be able to make much of a go of it politically - that’s a separate issue relating to their individual competences - but they certainly can be allowed to give it a go. In fact, Matilda’s case totally backs up my point. When Henry I died, the future Henry II was only two. Nobody, as far as I can tell, even considered the throne passing from Matilda to her son automatically. People actually told Matilda to fight for her claim.

Btw, if we’re going to get into the realms of precedent, then I’d like one for what you’re proposing. I can’t think of a single instance where a claim legally went straight through a living individual, be they male of female, without that person’s say-so. There are instances of what I’m describing, and there were instances of co-rule - It was perfectly normal during this period, for example, for the husband of the heiress to an English earldom to govern alongside her in uxoris, which was often a favoured solution abroad with female monarchs - but I can’t think any instance of what you’re describing. What you're suggesting simply wasn't done, because it brought up all the problems I listed earlier.

You see, the point that you’re (Matthais as well actually) ignoring is that James is not Henry’s heir. That is the next of kin by blood - Margaret. All claim to the throne, while she is alive, rests on the monarch being her, legally attached to her, or explicitly endorsed by her. James V as King is most certainly not the fait accompli you seem to believe it is. James IV as co-monarch with Margaret I can buy, (although I think people would want to avoid it for the reasons I laid out earlier, it's not inconcievable - it has plenty of precedent) but James V as automatic King upon Henry's death is simply not a supportable proposition, legally or politically.
 
Last edited:
There was no choice about a woman reigning in 1553, short of dynastic change. All of the Tudor-related possibilities that anybody considered were women; Mary, Elizabeth, Mary of Scotland, even Jane Grey. Mary’s reign showed the English that women could reign; Elizabeth’s reign showed them that a woman could reign successfully.

There was no automatic passing of the throne in England until 1272. Prior to that whoever could grab the treasury, get crowned and make it stick was king (Henry I and Stephen) but I take your point that Margaret would have to agree for the crown to pass to James V directly.

V-J, you’re right that there were foreign examples of women as Queens Regnant but I don't think the precedents are as clear as you make them out to be. They're pretty few and far between and they're all foreign. Isabella of Spain is probably the best argument for Margaret. On the other hand, while Matilda, Margaret of Anjou and Isabella of France all showed that women have the ability to rule, they also showed that letting women rule gave the chance of bad rule, coups and civil war.

I don’t think I ever said that either James IV or James V was the heir and if I did then I apologise. All I said is that Margaret wouldn’t be the one sitting on the throne. It would either be James IV, as her husband, or James V, as her son. Margaret as regent in the latter case would be a valid traditional way to let her exercise her rule, while still having limits on her ability to act.

You and I probably won’t agree on this one. We do the political calculus differently. You think the English nobility will shy away from a minority because of the chance of instability and civil war and I think they will shy away from a Queen Regnant for exactly the same reason.

It might even suit Margaret herself.

So…maybe the fundamental question is “would Margaret want to be queen?” Is she:
a) a Queen Catherine, who wants to marry her squire and fade into the distance or
b) a Queen Margaret (of Anjou) who wanted to run the show in person
c) an eminence gris who is content to run the show from behind the mask/partnership of a new husband or her son?
I honestly don’t know enough about Margaret or her actions in Scotland after 1513 to make that call. Does anybody on the board know? I suspect c) given that Albany and then Douglas were the regents but if she had the throne in her own right…

Okay then…turning away from my “nightmare-fantasy”, which makes good fiction (and I'm sure Mattw101 will do that aspect justice) to V-J’s “utopia”, which makes god administration (don’t get me wrong, I like the good administration and politics and it can make even better fiction). How does her reign work? In no order…

  • Would her reign buck the absolutist trend started by Henry VII?
  • Do you get a return of the great noble with a territorial base?
  • Would the crown(s) be able to draw on the English base to push royal power in Scotland?
  • Does she act to eliminate any or all potential claimants that could threaten her son?
  • Would she turn to the “new men” like Wolsey and More or depend on the great nobles, Surrey or Buckingham?
  • Where would the young James live? I’m guessing London but…
  • How would the regency in Scotland work, assuming that James IV is not around? Would it still be Albany? Is there a chance for a coup attempt in Scotland?
  • Would a unionist sentiment show up at any point in the near future?
  • How would the issues of the periphery work out (Ireland beyond the Pale, Highland Scotland and the Isles)?
  • How would the Reformation play out? I’m guessing a staunchly catholic England with Wolsey and More stamping out heresy all over the place.
  • How would the continental relations play out in the short term? Pro-France, balance of power, pro-imperial?
  • How would they play out in the long-term?
  • Who would she marry her sister off to, assuming a death of Henry sometime before the death of Ferdinand of Aragon?
  • For that matter, who would Margaret marry, or would she follow the 'Elizabeth model and play all the factions off against one another?
The more I ask these questions, the more interested I get in this timeline.

Thanks to Mattw101 for asking the initial question and thanks to Matthias, V-J and everybody else for a stimulating conversation.

David
 
Last edited:
You see, the point that you’re (Matthais as well actually) ignoring is that James is not Henry’s heir. That is the next of kin by blood - Margaret. All claim to the throne, while she is alive, rests on the monarch being her, legally attached to her, or explicitly endorsed by her.

I don't think that Margaret is in any kind of position like the other female monarchs that you're describing. These other women are usually in country, and/or have significant domestic support. To use English examples: The Empress Maud had her half-brother, Gloucester, who commanded and waged the war against Stephen in her name- in fact it was his capture that necessitated the exchanged of Gloucester and Stephen, and thus restarted the civil war just when it appeared Maud had gained control; Queen Margaret (of Anjou) didn't really do all that well- though she campaigned vigorously for the Lancaster cause ultimately her son was killed and she lost.

Both these women had the backing of large and already formed domestic factions that needed for different reason them to be in charge. In the case of Maud, Gloucester was a bastard and thus couldn't rule, and in the case of Margaret, her husband Henry VI was mentally unstable. So Maud became the figure head for Gloucester's faction and Margaret inherited leadership of the Lancasters by dint of her position as the wife and mother of the House's leading claimants.

James V as King is most certainly not the fait accompli you seem to believe it is. James IV as co-monarch with Margaret I can buy, (although I think people would want to avoid it for the reasons I laid out earlier, it's not inconcievable - it has plenty of precedent) but James V as automatic King upon Henry's death is simply not a supportable proposition, legally or politically.

Margaret however had nothing like the above mentioned factions to fall back on. Henry VIII's ATL death was unexpected and it will cause a great deal of conflict, whether that conflict becomes war or not is an interesting question. I don't think that the English want James IV as their King, or even the consort to their Queen Regnant, so that would seem to rule out their acceptance of Margaret pre-Flodden- in fact it might even mean that the Tudors fall from the throne, as the nobility puts one of the English claimants on the throne. Post-Flodden is anyone's guess, but I think that over a decade of regency politics is going to embolden other claimants to the English throne.
 
Top