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.
Yup the dance begins but i tend to think the council will decide on a king in the hand is a better bet in the short term.
I think it is a politically obvious choice for a Protestant Council needing to ensure the realm's security and religion at speed. Mary will protest from her prison and James' grandfather Lennox will rattle the sabre a bit on behalf of his wife and grandson but I don't think at this period there will be much appetite and his position as regent is weak - Seymour is an easier option than naming James in preference to his mother even if it offers personal union - the other options are too unpalatable for the council.
They have legislation to back up the new Edward VII - and the rival (Mary Stuart) is in custody - i don't doubt you'll continue to see plots on Mary's behalf and once she is dead then conflict with Scotland is possible but that's hardly unusual for England and plenty of Scots are in England's pay - two young King's on one island - plenty of marriage options and future ties between their descendants to bring about union or not and a long-standing dynastic claim for England for the Stuarts.
In marital terms - there are plenty of wife options - a council more favourable than Elizabeth to the French and Dutch rebellious protestants - so Catherine of Navarre (b1559) or the elder daughters of William the Silent are options - if he marries later then Anne or Elizabeth of Denmark are options as is Anna of Sweden.
This is very true. I wonder, would his regency therefore see a shift of power from crown to a select group of advisors, forming the main body of government, would he therefore need to take power back when he reached his majority?
Very very true. I can see Elizabeth going for Hastings for the reasons you've mentioned. I can also see some of her councillors cjafing at that and wanting to bring someone who they can control.
Out of everyone present at Elizabeth's court, I really think that it will be Francis Walshingham's advice that will win the day. He's has been at Elizabeth's side for almost since the start of her reign and is her spymaster, and a principal adviser. Whatever he decides is for the best will probably be the key advice that will sway Elizabeth's decision.
The question is... Would Francis prefer Edward Seymour and mold him into a King, or gamble on an adult like Henry Hastings who could keep the kingdom in hand as there are plenty of enemies both within and without that would work to undo everything Elizabeth has striven to make reality, like England's emerging Anglican Church.
If Walshingham is convinced that Henry Hastings can serve as an effective monarch then he'll advise Elizabeth and his peers that this is the man to support, if he isn't sold on Hastings then he'll go with a child who can educated, like Edward Seymour or Ferdinando Stanley.
Very true, hmm I guess it depends on his opinion of Hastings then doesn't it. And of course the plot direction of the story. I am leaning toward Hastings, but I am also tempted to have there be a minor war perhaps to settle the matter.
I think a good place to start would be in 1571-1572 in the aftermath of the Ridolfi plot, this scheme was to have Mary of Scots escape, marry the Duke of Norfolk, overthrow Elizabeth, restore the Catholic Faith, etc. In January of 1572 was when Thomas Howard, the 4th Duke of Norfolk was convicted of treason, I could see Elizabeth becoming ill in this time due to it being the middle of winter, plus it was the Ridolfi plot (that Mary of Scots knew about and accented too) that killed any thought of trying to restore Mary of Scots to the Scottish throne.
This means that while Elizabeth I is beginning to die, Mary of Scots has completely discredited herself to pretty much everyone except die-hard Catholics (and they are becoming thin on the ground).
For Elizabeth to decide the succession at this time would mean that she has to be A) Ill enough to believe that she is dying with little to no hope of recovery and B) Still coherent enough to convey some sort of decision. This is where her chief councilors will come into play, especially Francis Walshingham.
A minor war could break out, but it would be a local affair, but what I see being more important is all of the cloak and daggers happening just out of sight, basically as you said before, more like House of Cards than the Second War of the Roses. It won't be about who's got the better army, it's about who's better at playing the game of thrones.