Succession, if Elizabeth I dies in 1570?

[VVD0D95]

If Elizabeth I died in the 1570s, when Mary Queen of Scots was imprisoned, and James VI of Scotland was a child, who would be the most likely candidate to succeed her? Margaret Clifford, under the third succession act? Or would people rally behind Mary and James? And what consequences could either succession have?

 

[VVD0D95]

Bump?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If Elizabeth I died in the 1570s, when Mary Queen of Scots was imprisoned, and James VI of Scotland was a child, who would be the most likely candidate to succeed her? Margaret Clifford, under the third succession act? Or would people rally behind Mary and James? And what consequences could either succession have?

Well, there would be those who would support Mary or James as the heirs of the senior line of descent from Henry VII. But both would be targetted by England's xenophobic tendencies for their foreign nationality. Charles Stewart, Earl of Lennox might also be considered (since AFAIK he wasn't married yet).

Then, unless Elizabeth has openly passed an Act of Succession superceding her father's, the next in line are the Grey and Clifford girls. Jane is dead, Katherine's married (supposedly) with two sons of dubious legitimacy, Mary is hunchbacked and had no kids OTL (but they can't know this in 1570). Next up would be the Stanleys, but Marge Clifford OTL ended up on Liz's bad side (like her Grey cousins), but many considered them a home-grown alternative to the Stewarts/Stuarts.

And then rises the York descent claim. Liz's death marks the passing of the last of Edward IV's legitimate descent. So, then the next heir isthe heir male of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury. IIRC this was in the Hastings family.

 

[VVD0D95]

Well, there would be those who would support Mary or James as the heirs of the senior line of descent from Henry VII. But both would be targetted by England's xenophobic tendencies for their foreign nationality. Charles Stewart, Earl of Lennox might also be considered (since AFAIK he wasn't married yet).

Then, unless Elizabeth has openly passed an Act of Succession superceding her father's, the next in line are the Grey and Clifford girls. Jane is dead, Katherine's married (supposedly) with two sons of dubious legitimacy, Mary is hunchbacked and had no kids OTL (but they can't know this in 1570). Next up would be the Stanleys, but Marge Clifford OTL ended up on Liz's bad side (like her Grey cousins), but many considered them a home-grown alternative to the Stewarts/Stuarts.

And then rises the York descent claim. Liz's death marks the passing of the last of Edward IV's legitimate descent. So, then the next heir isthe heir male of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury. IIRC this was in the Hastings family.

Interesting, so likely the succession isn't a clear cut thing? And would this lead to political squabbling?

 

[Tyler96]

And then rises the York descent claim. Liz's death marks the passing of the last of Edward IV's legitimate descent. So, then the next heir isthe heir male of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury. IIRC this was in the Hastings family.

Aye, there's Henry Hastings, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon who was floated as a potential heir during Lizzie's bout of smallpox in 1562. But his claim is rather remote and he might've been reluctant about the whole thing IOTL.

With regard to Charles Lennox, he is unmarried at this point. And his father Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox is still alive and Regent in Scotland, and butterflies could keep him (Matthew) alive longer ITTL.


With regards to Mary (Queen of Scots, that is), what was her relationship with Shrewsbury like in 1570? What's he inclined to do?

It's worth noting that Norfolk is still alive and able to cause trouble- he obviously nursed dreams of marrying Mary Queen of Scots IOTL.

Much would depend on the actions of Elizabeth's inner circle- Cecil, Dudley (is Walsingham around yet?)- in the immediate aftermath of her death, and who they're inclined to favour. Numerous court rivalries would doubtless play a role in this process.

 

[VVD0D95]

Aye, there's Henry Hastings, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon who was floated as a potential heir during Lizzie's bout of smallpox in 1562. But his claim is rather remote and he might've been reluctant about the whole thing IOTL.

With regard to Charles Lennox, he is unmarried at this point. And his father Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox is still alive and Regent in Scotland, and butterflies could keep him (Matthew) alive longer ITTL.


With regards to Mary (Queen of Scots, that is), what was her relationship with Shrewsbury like in 1570? What's he inclined to do?

It's worth noting that Norfolk is still alive and able to cause trouble- he obviously nursed dreams of marrying Mary Queen of Scots IOTL.

Much would depend on the actions of Elizabeth's inner circle- Cecil, Dudley (is Walsingham around yet?)- in the immediate aftermath of her death, and who they're inclined to favour. Numerous court rivalries would doubtless play a role in this process.

Hmm, very true. From what I understand, Shrewsbury took his job to guard Mary seriously, and I think helped thwart the numerous attempts to try and free her.

Norfolk was the premier peer of the realm, no doubt who he supports would garner some support as well.

Cecil I believe was firmly for the Stuart succession otl, though that was at the end of her reign.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Hmm, very true. From what I understand, Shrewsbury took his job to guard Mary seriously, and I think helped thwart the numerous attempts to try and free her.

Maybe, but there's still the reason given by his wife, Bess of Hardwick, for their separation a mense et thora, namely that she believed he was beguiled by Mary. Now, IDK how earnest Bess was in citing that reason, but it gives some room to manoeuvre if true.

Shrewsbury's loyal to Liz. But, once Liz is six foot deep, he's loyal to the crown, and if the crown just happens to be on the head of the woman under his charge, I suspect he might be more willing to back Mary/James over another native candidate (all of whom are going to bring their own skeletons (social and religious) to the ball)

 

[VVD0D95]

Maybe, but there's still the reason given by his wife, Bess of Hardwick, for their separation a mense et thora, namely that she believed he was beguiled by Mary. Now, IDK how earnest Bess was in citing that reason, but it gives some room to manoeuvre if true.

Shrewsbury's loyal to Liz. But, once Liz is six foot deep, he's loyal to the crown, and if the crown just happens to be on the head of the woman under his charge, I suspect he might be more willing to back Mary/James over another native candidate (all of whom are going to bring their own skeletons (social and religious) to the ball)

Very true which will add fuel to the flames

 

[VVD0D95]

Norfolk might succeed in his scheme to marry Mary if he can get to her in time, though that might hurt rather than benefit their cause

 

[Thoresby]

Norfolk might succeed in his scheme to marry Mary if he can get to her in time, though that might hurt rather than benefit their cause

Though I never really understood the appeal of that plan. Let's say Mary Stuart is Queen of England and married to Norfolk who by jure uxoris is King (i.e. his best case scenario). As their claim is based on her descent that means her successor is going to be her first born son, James VI of Scotland not any children she might have with Norfolk.

 

[VVD0D95]

Though I never really understood the appeal of that plan. Let's say Mary Stuart is Queen of England and married to Norfolk who by jure uxoris is King (i.e. his best case scenario). As their claim is based on her descent that means her successor is going to be her first born son, James VI of Scotland not any children she might have with Norfolk.

This is very true, plus depending when in the 1570s Elizabeth died, Norfolk might already be dead.

I imagine Norfolk did it more for the position of being King jure uxoris than anything else, though he must have realised what issues this would cause down the line.

So, really, Mary, and perhaps her cousin Charles are the two main Stuart contenders, whilst there are two main English contenders, I do sense Elizabeth's councillors leaning between a local noble and sticking to the actual line of succession.

 

[VVD0D95]

Huntingdon was Lord President of the Council of the North, and it seems he had some support in the north of England, would this be enough for him to successfully stake a claim to the throne and rally support, or would, he back someone with a claim closer to Elizabeth? Would the Scots support James or Mary for the throne? My own take seems they might ignore Mary, and hope she dies off.

 

[VVD0D95]

On further reflection I think the issue could be split between two camps. Those who see Mary as the rightful queen under law and support her: Shrewsbury perhaps Norfolk and Huntingdon. Then there are those who don't want her as queen due to her religion and want to follow the third succession act: Dudley, Cecil and perhaps Walsingham and the bishops.

 

[Just a Rube]

Though I never really understood the appeal of that plan. Let's say Mary Stuart is Queen of England and married to Norfolk who by jure uxoris is King (i.e. his best case scenario). As their claim is based on her descent that means her successor is going to be her first born son, James VI of Scotland not any children she might have with Norfolk.

An argument can be made that a foreigner can't be king of England (OTL James I avoided this by claiming that Scotland was under English "allegiance" since the submission to Edward I, but if the government of England wants to avoid it, they can). While that would also technically exclude Mary, an act of Parliament could get around that and give him what he wants.

Besides, James might die without issue (rendering the problem moot), and if worse comes to worse, Norfolk gets to be king during his lifetime, which isn't such a bad deal.

Assuming Elizabeth is aware of her coming death, she presumably makes some provision (and unlike with Edward VI and Lady Jane Grey, there isn't an obvious heir to be disinherited, so her choice would likely stick). If she doesn't, her council may claim she did anyway, especially if the alternative is a Catholic monarch...

 

[MarkhamS.Pyle]

Huntingdon was Lord President of the Council of the North, and it seems he had some support in the north of England, would this be enough ...?

It certainly did the first Lord President of the Council of the North no harm. (Richard of Gloucester, if you recall, afterwards Richard III.)

 

[Just a Rube]

It certainly did the first Lord President of the Council of the North no harm. (Richard of Gloucester, if you recall, afterwards Richard III.)

Though that was one of the reasons the Tudors had spent the last century getting rid of private armies, so as to prevent a repeat of the Wars of the Roses (and he certainly isn't going to be named Lord Protector, for that very reason).

 

[MarkhamS.Pyle]

Though that was one of the reasons the Tudors had spent the last century getting rid of private armies, so as to prevent a repeat of the Wars of the Roses (and he certainly isn't going to be named Lord Protector, for that very reason).

Well, yes ... and just perhaps no. As I understood the question, it asked if (mass, popular - in a sense -, gentry and civic) support in the North would help Huntingdon get over the hump, irrespective of a world in which livery-and-maintenance and All That had been eradicated. I don't say it suffices; I do think it helps, or at least doesn't hurt. If you look back to the 1497 Cornish Rebellion, and to the Pilgrimage of Grace, and (more recently, in 1570) to the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 and the simultaneous mix of anti-enclosure / anti-Edwardian Reformation uprisings such as Kett's and the Bucks-and-Ox, you can make a case that any of these might have had a chance of success had then been led by a great magnate with a claim to the Crown, during a succession crisis....

 

[VVD0D95]

So the possibility is there but not guaranteed

 

[Shiva]

Some thoughts on this.

One of the reasons that Elizabeth's Court selected James VI of Scotland as her heir was that he was an adult male with a male heir, the fact that he was the King of Scotland and him becoming their King would create a United Britain was just additional gravy as far as they were concerned. The alternate heirs at that point were minor figures in the political arena of Europe, either descended from female lines, or were politically discredited due to the actions of their relatives (like the Greys).

But Elizabeth dying this early opens things up a bit, while Mary of Scots is in hand, she is a prisoner, a political failure in her own Kingdom of Scotland, and a Catholic. Elizabeth's councilors were pretty much solid Protestant at this point, even if in England there was still some hope of a Catholic Revival, if you were ruthless enough to impose such a program.

Right now James VI is a child and in this era children can die very easily, he's under a Scottish Regency, and if he does die then the Scottish Succession becomes a mess since there's a bunch of people with blood claims, but the vast majority of them are from illegitimate bastards of James's grandfather.


The Greys have managed to discredit themselves due to the 'Queen' Jane thing, Katherine's actions with her 'marriage' have left her stained and while she does have sons, sorting out their legitimacy would require the support of Parliament.


Charles Lennox is available in Scotland of course, but his father is the Regent of Scotland and a link like that might be seen as a negative in Elizabeth's court, there does seem to be a preference for a 'home-grown heir' during Elizabeth's reign, something that never happened in RL.


Margaret Clifford, Countess of Derby is a solid choice, her disgrace happened in 1579 (I'm assuming the Date of Death happens in the early 1570's), granted her marriage to Henry Stanley is stormy but she does have two living sons. However the elder son, Ferdinando Stanley winds up being suspected of being a secret Catholic in RL, but in the early 1570's he is his pre-teen years. His brother William Stanley is a child at this point, but in RL he is noted for being a playwright and a possible candidate for being the 'real' William Shakespeare.


But if the Court of Elizabeth desires a male ruler now rather than wait, then Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon is a solid choice. He has Plantagenet blood, he's a Protestant, and while he has no children he is raising the son of his brother to be his heir, so if anything happens there are two other men right behind Henry to take the throne.


In my opinion it's a choice between Margaret Clifford and Henry Hastings, and while Margaret Clifford has more legal weight to her case, Henry Hastings has more advantage due to his gender and a clear line of male heirs behind him. It wouldn't surprise me if commentators in this era would compare this to the dispute between Stephen and Matilda, but in miniature since it will probably play out in the shadows between courtiers and in Parliament, since the loser will not be in a position to get foreign support for an invasion of England to press 'their' rights.

 

[VVD0D95]

Some thoughts on this.

One of the reasons that Elizabeth's Court selected James VI of Scotland as her heir was that he was an adult male with a male heir, the fact that he was the King of Scotland and him becoming their King would create a United Britain was just additional gravy as far as they were concerned. The alternate heirs at that point were minor figures in the political arena of Europe, either descended from female lines, or were politically discredited due to the actions of their relatives (like the Greys).

But Elizabeth dying this early opens things up a bit, while Mary of Scots is in hand, she is a prisoner, a political failure in her own Kingdom of Scotland, and a Catholic. Elizabeth's councilors were pretty much solid Protestant at this point, even if in England there was still some hope of a Catholic Revival, if you were ruthless enough to impose such a program.

Right now James VI is a child and in this era children can die very easily, he's under a Scottish Regency, and if he does die then the Scottish Succession becomes a mess since there's a bunch of people with blood claims, but the vast majority of them are from illegitimate bastards of James's grandfather.


The Greys have managed to discredit themselves due to the 'Queen' Jane thing, Katherine's actions with her 'marriage' have left her stained and while she does have sons, sorting out their legitimacy would require the support of Parliament.


Charles Lennox is available in Scotland of course, but his father is the Regent of Scotland and a link like that might be seen as a negative in Elizabeth's court, there does seem to be a preference for a 'home-grown heir' during Elizabeth's reign, something that never happened in RL.


Margaret Clifford, Countess of Derby is a solid choice, her disgrace happened in 1579 (I'm assuming the Date of Death happens in the early 1570's), granted her marriage to Henry Stanley is stormy but she does have two living sons. However the elder son, Ferdinando Stanley winds up being suspected of being a secret Catholic in RL, but in the early 1570's he is his pre-teen years. His brother William Stanley is a child at this point, but in RL he is noted for being a playwright and a possible candidate for being the 'real' William Shakespeare.


But if the Court of Elizabeth desires a male ruler now rather than wait, then Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon is a solid choice. He has Plantagenet blood, he's a Protestant, and while he has no children he is raising the son of his brother to be his heir, so if anything happens there are two other men right behind Henry to take the throne.


In my opinion it's a choice between Margaret Clifford and Henry Hastings, and while Margaret Clifford has more legal weight to her case, Henry Hastings has more advantage due to his gender and a clear line of male heirs behind him. It wouldn't surprise me if commentators in this era would compare this to the dispute between Stephen and Matilda, but in miniature since it will probably play out in the shadows between courtiers and in Parliament, since the loser will not be in a position to get foreign support for an invasion of England to press 'their' rights.

Oh now that is fascinating. So, you think then that it would be more a case of House of Cards, instead of a War of the Roses 2.0? I imagine Liz would be under a lot of pressure to name an heir as she slips into illness.