Succession, if Elizabeth I dies in 1570?

[Shiva]

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.

The prompt stated that Elizabeth got sick and died in the early 1570's, so let's say in between 1570-1573 is when she died. In order for Elizabeth I to feel comfortable choosing an heir at that point would mean that she is sick enough to believe that she is dying and that there will be no 'second wind' to save her, and that she is aware enough to MAKE such a decision.

As I said before under these circumstances the two candidates that have a real shot at this are Margaret Clifford and Henry Hastings, now Margaret wanted the throne, Henry Hastings is a bit more ambiguous, but if he felt that it was his duty to the realm to become King (or if it was phrased that way to him) then he would pursuit it to the best of his ability.

Of the two my gut is just telling me that Hastings has the better shot since Elizabeth's courtiers pretty much fell over themselves to make James VI the heir in RL, they WANT a King, a male ruler and not another woman. In their minds the realm got lucky with Elizabeth, especially when compared to Mary and Matilda. They don't want to deal with a third Queen Regnant if they can help it. And they most certainty can.

All hail King Henry IX of the House of Hastings!

 

[VVD0D95]

I can see that, and of course the man was devoutly Protestant. I expect that things beteeen him and Scotland might go sour slightly, and that he'll need to either banish Clifford or ensure that she and her family are bought off

 

[Shiva]

I can see that, and of course the man was devoutly Protestant. I expect that things beteeen him and Scotland might go sour slightly, and that he'll need to either banish Clifford or ensure that she and her family are bought off

Margaret and her sons would have to be bought off initially, but if they cause trouble then I have little doubt that they will be 'dealt with' in a more permanent fashion.

However the rise of Henry IX to the throne will have ripples on the international front, more than just causing a rift with Scotland. This will also end the hopes of Philip II of Spain to put a Catholic on the throne of England, after all the only Catholic Claimant left is Mary of Scots who is currently in English custody and will stay there until she dies, or does something stupid that forces the English to 'hasten' her end.

Now this doesn't automatically mean a Spanish invasion of England right away, Philip has to deal with the ongoing Dutch Revolt and doesn't need to antagonize England since that would guarantee that they would send assistance to the Dutch.

And Philip is involved in the latest episode of the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars, in the early 1570's the Habsburgs had managed to wipe out the Ottoman's ENTIRE fleet and seized Tunis, it wasn't until 1574 that the Turks had rebuilt their fleet and were able to take it back. So right now there's an occupied Tunis and looming Ottoman RE-invasion to deal with.

Then there's Portugal, granted Philip is the most likely heir of Sebastien I, Sebastien's death can be easily butterflied and Portugal has always had good relations with England (regardless of religious differences) as a means to keep Spain from just flat out invading and seizing Portugal for themselves.

So right now Philip II is in check, but it's a tenuous check.


France on the other hand is under the rule of Charles IX and would have seen the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre happen and the latest episode of the French Wars of Religion play out, and Charles IX's health is already in decline due to the stresses of his reign (Henry II of France has a LOT to answer for). I'm not sure if his successor, Henry III of France would have been elected to the Polish Throne in this TL, in any case he wouldn't keep Poland for long.

Despite all of this, an Anglo-Franco Alliance would be ideal for England... But I can't see it happening right away, and if Henry III of France dies without issue (which is VERY likely due to him being Gay) then the House of Valois ends and the French throne is up for grabs.


Scotland as I've noted before, is ruled by the Regent of James VI and they will be very unhappy as seeing their 'wee-King' being passed over for the English throne in favor of a minor lord. However this unhappiness will have to take a backseat to reality, and reality is that without good relations with England, Scotland is pretty much fucked since France is still reeling from the Wars of Religion and taking a hard turn towards the 'Old Faith', whereas Scotland is Calvinist at this point. England is the only major Protestant(ish) power that would see keeping Scotland in the Protestant camp as desirable.


The Habsburgs in the Holy Roman Empire are currently busy fighting the Ottoman Empire, plus there are all sorts of religious issues, and just general HRE nastiness brewing beneath the surface that could bubble up if the Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg decides to play games with England. They aren't going to do anything in the immediate rise of Henry IX, they have their own problems.


I could see the Catholic Church seeing this as their excuse to finally start throwing our Interdicts and Excommunications of the 'most vile heretics' that now rule England, but all that will do is just cause bad feelings and spiteful scoffing. The Pope's word isn't worth much across the Channel these days.

 

[VVD0D95]

Margaret and her sons would have to be bought off initially, but if they cause trouble then I have little doubt that they will be 'dealt with' in a more permanent fashion.

However the rise of Henry IX to the throne will have ripples on the international front, more than just causing a rift with Scotland. This will also end the hopes of Philip II of Spain to put a Catholic on the throne of England, after all the only Catholic Claimant left is Mary of Scots who is currently in English custody and will stay there until she dies, or does something stupid that forces the English to 'hasten' her end.

Now this doesn't automatically mean a Spanish invasion of England right away, Philip has to deal with the ongoing Dutch Revolt and doesn't need to antagonize England since that would guarantee that they would send assistance to the Dutch.

And Philip is involved in the latest episode of the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars, in the early 1570's the Habsburgs had managed to wipe out the Ottoman's ENTIRE fleet and seized Tunis, it wasn't until 1574 that the Turks had rebuilt their fleet and were able to take it back. So right now there's an occupied Tunis and looming Ottoman RE-invasion to deal with.

Then there's Portugal, granted Philip is the most likely heir of Sebastien I, Sebastien's death can be easily butterflied and Portugal has always had good relations with England (regardless of religious differences) as a means to keep Spain from just flat out invading and seizing Portugal for themselves.

So right now Philip II is in check, but it's a tenuous check.


France on the other hand is under the rule of Charles IX and would have seen the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre happen and the latest episode of the French Wars of Religion play out, and Charles IX's health is already in decline due to the stresses of his reign (Henry II of France has a LOT to answer for). I'm not sure if his successor, Henry III of France would have been elected to the Polish Throne in this TL, in any case he wouldn't keep Poland for long.

Despite all of this, an Anglo-Franco Alliance would be ideal for England... But I can't see it happening right away, and if Henry III of France dies without issue (which is VERY likely due to him being Gay) then the House of Valois ends and the French throne is up for grabs.


Scotland as I've noted before, is ruled by the Regent of James VI and they will be very unhappy as seeing their 'wee-King' being passed over for the English throne in favor of a minor lord. However this unhappiness will have to take a backseat to reality, and reality is that without good relations with England, Scotland is pretty much fucked since France is still reeling from the Wars of Religion and taking a hard turn towards the 'Old Faith', whereas Scotland is Calvinist at this point. England is the only major Protestant(ish) power that would see keeping Scotland in the Protestant camp as desirable.


The Habsburgs in the Holy Roman Empire are currently busy fighting the Ottoman Empire, plus there are all sorts of religious issues, and just general HRE nastiness brewing beneath the surface that could bubble up if the Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg decides to play games with England. They aren't going to do anything in the immediate rise of Henry IX, they have their own problems.


I could see the Catholic Church seeing this as their excuse to finally start throwing our Interdicts and Excommunications of the 'most vile heretics' that now rule England, but all that will do is just cause bad feelings and spiteful scoffing. The Pope's word isn't worth much across the Channel these days.

All very true. With Henry IX, as he was married but had no issue at the time, would he think of divorcing his wife and perhaps looking to marry abroad, or perhaps even to one of the Stanleys to bring them into camp? Or would he merely be content with seeing his nephew married to one of them?

In regards to France and Scotland, I imagine a three way alliance could perhaps be negotiated to keep Spain in check.

 

[Shiva]

All very true. With Henry IX, as he was married but had no issue at the time, would he think of divorcing his wife and perhaps looking to marry abroad, or perhaps even to one of the Stanleys to bring them into camp? Or would he merely be content with seeing his nephew married to one of them?

In regards to France and Scotland, I imagine a three way alliance could perhaps be negotiated to keep Spain in check.

I'm not seeing anything that indicates that Henry Hastings was unhappy with his wife, even though she never gave him any children. Since he went out of his way to educate his nephew Francis, Lord Hastings as his heir I assume that Henry Hastings assumed that he would never have children of his own body. So all in all I think that Henry will choose to keep Katherine Dudley as his wife, that is if he is ALLOWED to make this personal decision on his own. Now his brother George and France would be his heirs, but I could see the pressure being brought to bear on Henry to have his marriage annulled/divorced and marry again.

But the question is... who?

After all marriage for Kings is about making alliances, and there doesn't seem to be anyone available in Scotland or France that are of sufficient rank for a royal marriage, and Henry Hastings would be VERY sensitive about his new rank, thus for himself and his nephew Francis (who is in the 10-12 range in the early 1570's) it's a legitimate Princess or bust.

This is why, while an Anglo-Franco-Scottish Axis would be ideal for dealing with Spain, it probably wont happen right off the bat due to the internal issues in France, and the initial "What the Hell, England?!" attitude from Scotland.

England might find itself looking at Demark and Sweden and going "Hmm..."


Oh, and a fun historical fact. It was Henry Hastings who was entrusted with the care of Mary of Scots in this era, she's currently HIS prisoner. Another point in his favor for being made King of England, he's got the only remaining Catholic claimant in hand, a person that needs to be 'dealt with' at some point...

I also forgot to mention Ireland, that eternal powderkeg just waiting for the sparks needed to set it off.

 

[VVD0D95]

I'm not seeing anything that indicates that Henry Hastings was unhappy with his wife, even though she never gave him any children. Since he went out of his way to educate his nephew Francis, Lord Hastings as his heir I assume that Henry Hastings assumed that he would never have children of his own body. So all in all I think that Henry will choose to keep Katherine Dudley as his wife, that is if he is ALLOWED to make this personal decision on his own. Now his brother George and France would be his heirs, but I could see the pressure being brought to bear on Henry to have his marriage annulled/divorced and marry again.

But the question is... who?

After all marriage for Kings is about making alliances, and there doesn't seem to be anyone available in Scotland or France that are of sufficient rank for a royal marriage, and Henry Hastings would be VERY sensitive about his new rank, thus for himself and his nephew Francis (who is in the 10-12 range in the early 1570's) it's a legitimate Princess or bust.

This is why, while an Anglo-Franco-Scottish Axis would be ideal for dealing with Spain, it probably wont happen right off the bat due to the internal issues in France, and the initial "What the Hell, England?!" attitude from Scotland.

England might find itself looking at Demark and Sweden and going "Hmm..."


Oh, and a fun historical fact. It was Henry Hastings who was entrusted with the care of Mary of Scots in this era, she's currently HIS prisoner. Another point in his favor for being made King of England, he's got the only remaining Catholic claimant in hand, a person that needs to be 'dealt with' at some point...

I also forgot to mention Ireland, that eternal powderkeg just waiting for the sparks needed to set it off.

Oh that is very true, in order to unite the two claims, could Henry marry Mary, if he is pressurised into divorcing his first wife? If not, I imagine she'd be disappearing soon.

Hmm, regarding Henry's brother, would he become Earl of Huntingdon upon his brother's ascension, or named Prince of Wales as heir presumptive?

 

[Shiva]

Oh that is very true, in order to unite the two claims, could Henry marry Mary, if he is pressurised into divorcing his first wife? If not, I imagine she'd be disappearing soon.

Hmm, regarding Henry's brother, would he become Earl of Huntingdon upon his brother's ascension, or named Prince of Wales as heir presumptive?

Yikes! That'd be a marriage made in hell! In terms of politics there's a logic to it, but I'm not sure it would fly well in England in general, because to divorce Katherine Dudley, Henry IX would need to go through Parliament and they would want some idea of who he would marry as his new Queen, the idea of putting Mary Stuart near the English throne, after everything that's happened in Scotland... I don't think he could sell it.

Even ignoring the politics (and the outraged squawks from Scotland), Mary of Scots is currently in her late twenties, early thirties. In this era that's a bit old to be having children, especially when a brand new dynasty needs to be born from her loins. Especially since her only living child is the King of Scotland and in 1567 she miscarried twins, she may not even BE able to have children after that.

Now if Henry decided to take the risk, and the political flak from that, it would be wise of him to start thinking of a future marriage for the lad he HAS been treating as his heir, Francis Hastings, the eldest son of his brother George, in which case he needs to look abroad.

As for George Hastings... He won't be made Prince of Wales right off the bat, especially if Henry IX is debating taking a new wife. But he WILL be made a Duke, a mere earldom for the brother of the King of England? Nope, he's getting a Dukedom. Maybe not York... Since Huntingdon is in Cambridgeshire... Maybe the Duke of Cambridge if it's available?

 

[VVD0D95]

Yikes! That'd be a marriage made in hell! In terms of politics there's a logic to it, but I'm not sure it would fly well in England in general, because to divorce Katherine Dudley, Henry IX would need to go through Parliament and they would want some idea of who he would marry as his new Queen, the idea of putting Mary Stuart near the English throne, after everything that's happened in Scotland... I don't think he could sell it.

Even ignoring the politics (and the outraged squawks from Scotland), Mary of Scots is currently in her late twenties, early thirties. In this era that's a bit old to be having children, especially when a brand new dynasty needs to be born from her loins. Especially since her only living child is the King of Scotland and in 1567 she miscarried twins, she may not even BE able to have children after that.

Now if Henry decided to take the risk, and the political flak from that, it would be wise of him to start thinking of a future marriage for the lad he HAS been treating as his heir, Francis Hastings, the eldest son of his brother George, in which case he needs to look abroad.

As for George Hastings... He won't be made Prince of Wales right off the bat, especially if Henry IX is debating taking a new wife. But he WILL be made a Duke, a mere earldom for the brother of the King of England? Nope, he's getting a Dukedom. Maybe not York... Since Huntingdon is in Cambridgeshire... Maybe the Duke of Cambridge if it's available?

Hmm, I agree. So, George would be Duke of Cambridge, and his son, likely given a courtesy title such as Earl of Kendal perhaps?

The more I think about it, the more I think that Henry might simply remain married to Katherine and look to ensure a stable succession for his brother and nephew.

 

[JonasResende]

There might be outrage in Parliament at Henry remarrying to Mary Stuart, but I think it's important to remember his wife is a Dudley. There might be those who are uneasy with the idea of having the Dudleys so close to throne. There certainly were those that weren't fans of Elizabeth's friendship with Lord Robert, especially after the Amy Robsart scandal, and with a Dudley queen (with an uncertain succession (uncle to nephew is a lot more fraught than father to son) they might have nightmares about the Dudley coup at Edward's death.

As to the Stanleys, I would say, tie them into the English royal family (Henry might decide on Plantagenet, even though he's a female line descendant, since the Tudors never referred to themselves as "Tudor" but saw themselves as a continuation of the Plantagenets - just as the houses of York and Lancaster before them had been, and :Hastings" becomes simply a way of telling the one from the other) in the next generation, or pass a new Act of Succession to nullify the Henrician one.

As to titles for George Hastings, why not name him duke of York? George I's younger brother was given the title OTL, it may make the succession a little easier, since the style of 'duke of York' is generally given to the king's second son i.e. spare/heir presumptive of the heir apparent (look how many times it happened OTL that the duke of York succeeded: Edward IV, Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V, George VI...). His son can be duke of Cambridge (although Jane Grey was going to make Guilford Dudley 'Duke of Clarence' instead of king, so that in and of itself could provoke fun and games, considering how the last duke of Clarence, their (the Hastings') ancestor ended up).

 

[VVD0D95]

There might be outrage in Parliament at Henry remarrying to Mary Stuart, but I think it's important to remember his wife is a Dudley. There might be those who are uneasy with the idea of having the Dudleys so close to throne. There certainly were those that weren't fans of Elizabeth's friendship with Lord Robert, especially after the Amy Robsart scandal, and with a Dudley queen (with an uncertain succession (uncle to nephew is a lot more fraught than father to son) they might have nightmares about the Dudley coup at Edward's death.

As to the Stanleys, I would say, tie them into the English royal family (Henry might decide on Plantagenet, even though he's a female line descendant, since the Tudors never referred to themselves as "Tudor" but saw themselves as a continuation of the Plantagenets - just as the houses of York and Lancaster before them had been, and :Hastings" becomes simply a way of telling the one from the other) in the next generation, or pass a new Act of Succession to nullify the Henrician one.

As to titles for George Hastings, why not name him duke of York? George I's younger brother was given the title OTL, it may make the succession a little easier, since the style of 'duke of York' is generally given to the king's second son i.e. spare/heir presumptive of the heir apparent (look how many times it happened OTL that the duke of York succeeded: Edward IV, Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V, George VI...). His son can be duke of Cambridge (although Jane Grey was going to make Guilford Dudley 'Duke of Clarence' instead of king, so that in and of itself could provoke fun and games, considering how the last duke of Clarence, their (the Hastings') ancestor ended up).

Hmm this is very true. So, likely Henry IX, of the House of Hastings-as referred to by HIstorians?- his brother George, Duke of York, and then George's son as Duke or Earl of Cambridge, to ensure a proper and clear line of succession? Perhaps with Parliament passing an act to confirm this? Would having a local family on the throne, shift the balance more or less toward Parliament?

 

[Tyler96]

There might be outrage in Parliament at Henry remarrying to Mary Stuart, but I think it's important to remember his wife is a Dudley. There might be those who are uneasy with the idea of having the Dudleys so close to throne. There certainly were those that weren't fans of Elizabeth's friendship with Lord Robert, especially after the Amy Robsart scandal, and with a Dudley queen (with an uncertain succession (uncle to nephew is a lot more fraught than father to son) they might have nightmares about the Dudley coup at Edward's death.

But on the other hand, pissing off Ambrose and Bob Dudley by divorcing their sister could also be a cause of political instability, and Bob might already be slightly miffed that with Elizabeth dead he's lost his favoured status.

And as a completely irrelevant side note, Bob's kerfuffle with Douglas Howard could turn out differently ITTL.

 

[VVD0D95]

But on the other hand, pissing off Ambrose and Bob Dudley by divorcing their sister could also be a cause of political instability, and Bob might already be slightly miffed that with Elizabeth dead he's lost his favoured status.

And as a completely irrelevant side note, Bob's kerfuffle with Douglas Howard could turn out differently ITTL.

Very true, also what kerfuffle was this?

 

[JonasResende]

Very true, also what kerfuffle was this?

Robert Dudley's bigamous marriage with Douglas Howard. His son by her tried to claim the Leicester inheritance after dad died, by getting her to acknowledge that she and Robert had been married. She refused, her son married a girl (who was created Baroness Dudley for life by Charles I), had a couple kids by her, and then absconded to Italy in a bigamous marriage of his own. AFAIK, the duke of Shrewsbury married a descendant of the younger Dudley's bigamous marriage, but they had no children.

 

[Tyler96]

Very true, also what kerfuffle was this?

Over whether he married her and the legitimacy of their son, the explorer Sir Robert Dudley (not to be confused with his short-lived half-brother Robert Dudley Lord Denbigh, from Leicester's marriage to Lettice Knollys). Sir Robert later claimed legitimacy IOTL and unsuccessfully sued for the Earldoms of Warwick and Leicester, after which he skedaddled off to Italy.

 

[VVD0D95]

Oh very interesting, so likely this could play into things with Henry and his family?

 

[mcdnab]

Assuming Elizabeth does not name an heir - then the council and parliament and the church of England are in a mess.
Elizabeth herself did not like her Grey cousins which was why her actions towards Catherine Grey's marriage were so harsh (by some people's view) - time was her saviour in providing James VI as a fellow sovereign, protestant and male with children as an obvious choice. Her pride meant she had a distaste for being succeeded by a subject.
Catherine Grey died in 1568 that leaves her two illegitimate sons.

The council has a choice and none of the candidates below are going to appeal to the largely Protestant and somewhat puritanical council and they will have to move with speed to neutralise Mary Stuart.

Option One - declare Mary Stuart to be unfit (on account of her behaviour in Scotland and her unproven involvement in the murder of her husband Darnley), declare James VI King of England as the nearest relation to her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth - convert the council into a regency one and govern in the name of James as a continuation of Elizabeth's reign. In this scenario an early end to Mary Stuart is highly likely - as many loathed and feared her on the council and would be happy to rid themselves of her though they might worry about James reaction once he came of age.
It is likely pressure will be brought to bring the young King to England especially if as in otl his grandfather Lennox is still assassinated in 71 - thus enabling his to have an Anglican upbringing rather than a Calvinist one.

Option Two: Declare that the third Act of Succession applies and name Catherine Grey's son Edward as King - on the grounds that the marriage was declared invalid at the pleasure of the late Queen - the Archbishop of Canterbury makes a fresh ruling and the Nine year old Edward VII is crowned. To avoid conflict with Scotland - Mary Stuart is kept closely confined - Norfolk and other suspect Catholic peers are arrested. It is going to at least 15 years before James is going to be of age to make a claim and invade England and whilst his mother lives his claim is going to be weak - war with Scotland later perhaps - but a convenient marriage between Seymour and Stuart at some point might fix that.

It is really a simple choice between those two options because the council needs a valid legal excuse to put someone on the throne - the only two that exist are male pref primogeniture (James) or the Third ACt of Succession - Catherine Grey's son with a swift bit of underhand dealing on the legitimacy issue - a sudden wedding witness might conveniently come forward.


All the other candidates are going to be unacceptable to be honest - Hastings claim is exceptionally weak whilst descendants of Henry VII still live. Margaret Clifford is quite suspect - an appalling relationship with her husband her only value is her male children - both are so far distant that explaining their succession to the country and the rest of Europe would make it laughable and in both cases war with Scotland once James was of age is quite likely.

Under the Third Act of Succession

(issue of Catherine Grey if legitimised)
Lady Mary Grey

Lady Margaret Clifford Countess of Derby
Ferdinando Stanley b 1559
William Stanley b 1561

Under male preference primogeniture

Mary Stuart Queen of Scots
James VI of Scotland
Lady Margaret Douglas Countess of Lennox
Charles Stuart

That exhausts the legitimate descendants of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York - and the entire succession to the English Throne (Henry VII's claim was by right of conquest - with the death of his line - there is legally no claimants - only those with a connection to the dynasty the Tudor's replaced)

 

[VVD0D95]

Hmm very true, so from what people have suggested then, it is a toss up, would there be a preference for an English born candidate, rather than a Scot.

 

[JonasResende]

Hmm very true, so from what people have suggested then, it is a toss up, would there be a preference for an English born candidate, rather than a Scot.

Depends if England's in one of those splendid isolation periods where she regards every nations around her with xenophobic suspicions, then it'll be Edward VII Seymour - which in and of itself could have some serious effects, since the Seymours weren't exactly in favor at that point, plus there would be those remembering with resentment the Seymour ascendancy between 1537-1552). If they want to keep the always uneasy peace between England and Scotland, I'd say Queen James might be the best. However, the Scots' lairds aren't possibly going to want to part with him into England (if only for the reason that he could (in theory) be reunited with his Papist mother, or even that they view the Elizabethan/Henrician church of the 1570s with suspicion that James might end up relapsing into Catholicism (can't remember if he was christened as Catholic or Protestant, but considering that Charles IX was his godfather (he was the first British sovereign with two names 'James Charles', I presume Catholic, but raised Protestant). Plus, the Anglican Church was a very different setup to the Scots Kirk, so they might fear if he goes south, his English tutors are going to influence him into making the Kirk more like the Anglican (read Roman) Church...

 

[VVD0D95]

Depends if England's in one of those splendid isolation periods where she regards every nations around her with xenophobic suspicions, then it'll be Edward VII Seymour - which in and of itself could have some serious effects, since the Seymours weren't exactly in favor at that point, plus there would be those remembering with resentment the Seymour ascendancy between 1537-1552). If they want to keep the always uneasy peace between England and Scotland, I'd say Queen James might be the best. However, the Scots' lairds aren't possibly going to want to part with him into England (if only for the reason that he could (in theory) be reunited with his Papist mother, or even that they view the Elizabethan/Henrician church of the 1570s with suspicion that James might end up relapsing into Catholicism (can't remember if he was christened as Catholic or Protestant, but considering that Charles IX was his godfather (he was the first British sovereign with two names 'James Charles', I presume Catholic, but raised Protestant). Plus, the Anglican Church was a very different setup to the Scots Kirk, so they might fear if he goes south, his English tutors are going to influence him into making the Kirk more like the Anglican (read Roman) Church...

That is a concern, though in regards to Seymour, would it be the case that he is retroactively legitimised by Parliament, and thus the third act of succession is properly codified? Or would that merely lead to the creation of tensions with Clifford and Stanley.

 

[mcdnab]

the only impediment was that there was no proof that Catherine Grey's marriage was legal - she lost "a piece of paper", the witness included her sister in law who was dead by the time the marriage emerged, etc - her real offence was that Elizabeth didn't like her very much - and that Seymour's offence was marrying someone close to the throne without consent. Fairly easy to blame it all on Elizabeth being vindictive and finding a witness (the Archbishop says oops we made a mistake) to say it was valid - James VI and I had no problem accepting the marriage was valid once he was safely on the English throne.
As i said it depends entirely on whether the council want a) a child monarch b) a child monarch in their control or c) the protestant unification of England and Scotland.
Seymour wasn't particularly unpopular at court - this is before his second dodgy marriage - though he would be easy enough to control and it is unlikely he would be made sole regent for his son.
So Elizabeth dies February 1570 after a short illness - the Queen aware of her impending death - names her beloved Dudley "protector of the realm" - when asked to name an heir though mumbles about he "who has the most right" - a cabal of the council approach the Earl of Hertford and take custody of his son - with the intention of proclaiming him King as Edward VII - others favour the Scots King.