Queen Margaret of Scotland: Wider short-term consequences?

Many people have talked about what might have happened if Margaret, the Maid of Norway had survived her trip over to Scotland, become Queen and married the future Edward II of England. One of the most agreed-upon consequences is an earlier union of the crowns. However, I've just been reading about the reigns of Edward I and II, and I've learned that one of the problems Edward II faced during his reign was a mountain of debt accumulated by his father when he fought against the Scots and the French at the same time over a period of 13 years.

What if, in a scenario where Margaret of Norway lives, Edward only ends up fighting Philip IV of France over Gascony? Would the initial stress on Edward II be lessened? And what might some other short-term consequences be? I think, in terms of the Scots, anything could happen. They could be happy with Margaret, or eventually see her as an English puppet and try to get rid of her and Edward. Regardless, I think people like the Bruces and William Wallace might still cause trouble (maybe not of the scale of OTL, but still cause trouble regardless).

Any thoughts?
 
One of the most agreed-upon consequences is an earlier union of the crowns. However, I've just been reading about the reigns of Edward I and II, and I've learned that one of the problems Edward II faced during his reign was a mountain of debt accumulated by his father when he fought against the Scots and the French at the same time over a period of 13 years.

What if, in a scenario where Margaret of Norway lives, Edward only ends up fighting Philip IV of France over Gascony? Would the initial stress on Edward II be lessened? And what might some other short-term consequences be? I think, in terms of the Scots, anything could happen. They could be happy with Margaret, or eventually see her as an English puppet and try to get rid of her and Edward. Regardless, I think people like the Bruces and William Wallace might still cause trouble (maybe not of the scale of OTL, but still cause trouble regardless).

Any thoughts?

The guardians of scotland (the regency for Queen Margaret) had signed a treaty (the Treaty of Birgham) which not only arranged the marriage contract between Margaret and the five-year-old Edward of Caernarvon (Edward II), heir apparent to the English throne, but also contained the provision that although the issue of this marriage would inherit the crowns of both England and Scotland, the latter kingdom should be "separate, apart and free in itself without subjection to the English Kingdom". The intent, clearly, was to keep Scotland as an independent entity.

With only one battle front, the resources won't be as stretched, so Edward I not have to place himself in as much debt, leading presumably to Edward II having a better reign than OTL.

I would also hope that people like Robert the Bruce and William Wallace would swear allegiance to their queen and respect the decisions made.
 
The guardians of scotland (the regency for Queen Margaret) had signed a treaty (the Treaty of Birgham) which not only arranged the marriage contract between Margaret and the five-year-old Edward of Caernarvon (Edward II), heir apparent to the English throne, but also contained the provision that although the issue of this marriage would inherit the crowns of both England and Scotland, the latter kingdom should be "separate, apart and free in itself without subjection to the English Kingdom". The intent, clearly, was to keep Scotland as an independent entity.

With only one battle front, the resources won't be as stretched, so Edward I not have to place himself in as much debt, leading presumably to Edward II having a better reign than OTL.

I would also hope that people like Robert the Bruce and William Wallace would swear allegiance to their queen and respect the decisions made.

Oh, so something like more like the union between Hungary and Croatia, or England and Scotland under James VI/I? That's what I meant when I said "union of the crowns". A proper union like under Queen Anne would be something for future generations to aspire to.

As for the Bruces, given what we know of Robert Bruce and his father and grandfather, they just don't seem the type to just give up and lie down for long under any circumstances.
 
Bumping for interest.

I've thought about this POD again, and I've wondered if, with Scotland taken care of, Edward might direct the time, money and energy he directed towards conquering Scotland IOTL towards completely subduing Ireland instead.

I've also thought about who Edward I might remarry to, if not Margaret of France. After some thought, I believe the best choice would be Anne of Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Austria,_Margravine_of_Brandenburg), eldest granddaughter of King Rudolf of Germany, which would be in keeping with both Edward and Rudolf's anti-French/anti-Philip IV policies.

Any thoughts?
 
Continuing on from my previous post, I'm not too familiar with Irish history between the initial Anglo-Norman conquests in the 1170s' and Edward Bruce's invasion in 1315. Any thoughts on how an invasion by Edward Longshanks to completely subdue Ireland would turn out, especially compared to his efforts in Scotland IOTL?
 
Perhaps Gascony could be inherited by the issue of Margaret of France and Edward I.

I'm not too sure. From Richard I onwards, Aquitaine was always inherited by the eldest son. I'm not too sure, but I think IOTL John of Gaunt was made Duke of Aquitaine at one point and a huge fuss was kicked up.

If there is going to be an English-French match, I could see it hetween a son of Edward I and Anne of Austria and a daughter of Philip IV - he had two elder daughters, also named Margaret and Blanche, and both were betrothed at some point to Ferdinand IV of Castile, but they died in childhood, possibly before Isabella was born.
 
I'm not too sure. From Richard I onwards, Aquitaine was always inherited by the eldest son. I'm not too sure, but I think IOTL John of Gaunt was made Duke of Aquitaine at one point and a huge fuss was kicked up.
I think the fuss was that he was only a possible heir presumptive (Mortimer being the other) and not heir apparent.
If there is going to be an English-French match, I could see it hetween a son of Edward I and Anne of Austria and a daughter of Philip IV - he had two elder daughters, also named Margaret and Blanche, and both were betrothed at some point to Ferdinand IV of Castile, but they died in childhood, possibly before Isabella was born.
Yeah, Edward probably won't marry French himself if he got what he needed with Scotland but it depends on Ireland.
Ireland will be a mixed bag and my gut us that while he declares it a success he doesn't do much to extend control more than a quarter relative to OTL. Assuming he doesn't die over there. Perhaps he marries a Norman-Irish to produce a more local Lieutenant/Chief-Justiciar of Ireland.
 
Top