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.