Succession to the Scottish throne if Alexander II of Scotland dies in 1238

Alexander II of Scotland was born in 1198, the only true born son of William the lion. From his ascension to the throne in 1215 to the birth of his only child Alexander iii in 1241, it seems that his heir by primogeniture was his sister Margaret, who was married to hugh de burgh earl of
Kent.

Now what I'm wondering is this, say Alexanders uncle David, earl of Huntingdon has a legitimate son who is still alive post 1237, and is alive when Alexander tragically dies in 1238, what would happen?

Does the throne go to Margaret and her husband? Does it go to the son of David? Is there a war of succession?

What might the consequences of this all be?
 
There's still an element of tanistry so it will go to David's son as senior prince of the royal house.
At worst the Guardians of Scotland will arbitrate with the involvement of Henry III a distinct possibility depending on how recognised his overlordship is.
 
There's still an element of tanistry so it will go to David's son as senior prince of the royal house.
At worst the Guardians of Scotland will arbitrate with the involvement of Henry III a distinct possibility depending on how recognised his overlordship is.

Oh interesting, who would the guardians be at this point? Would it be the leading families to decide the matter then? Would Hubert de Burgh push his wife's claims, if he thought he was in with a shot?
 
Oh interesting, who would the guardians be at this point? Would it be the leading families to decide the matter then?
The premier lords and bishops. Will definitely include the High Steward Walter and the Bishop of St Andrews. Basically whoever hold the Great Offices of State of Scotland at this point.
Would Hubert de Burgh push his wife's claims, if he thought he was in with a shot?
Certainly, he'd be King.
 
The premier lords and bishops. Will definitely include the High Steward Walter and the Bishop of St Andrews. Basically whoever hold the Great Offices of State of Scotland at this point.

Certainly, he'd be King.

Alright interesting, so Walter, Bishop of St Andrews, William De Lindsay Lord Chancellor, Sir John de Maxwell Chamberlain of Scotland, Gregory Lord Clerk Register, Hervey de Keith Earl Marischal, and likely the great lords such as Angus, Carrick, Bruce, Comyn etc

And this is very true. I can see Henry III leaning toward supporting his old mentor.
 
Alright interesting, so Walter, Bishop of St Andrews, William De Lindsay Lord Chancellor, Sir John de Maxwell Chamberlain of Scotland, Gregory Lord Clerk Register, Hervey de Keith Earl Marischal, and likely the great lords such as Angus, Carrick, Bruce, Comyn etc
Don't forget Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester, who is Lord Constable and trying to claim Galloway. And the High Steward is also Justiciar at this point.
Bruce isn't yet important except for the then current Lord Robert's descent from Huntingdon via his mother.
Looking at Wikipedia it also shows the Bishop of St Andrews was David de Bernham from mid 38 when the previous William de Malviesin, also Lord Chancellor, died so it might be worth double checking your list.

And this is very true. I can see Henry III leaning toward supporting his old mentor.
Unless they haven't reconciled yet. I'm nit sure when that was.
 
I suspect it would be the son of David Earl of Huntingdon (John who died in otl in 1237) claim that would be regarded as the strongest in those circumstances - before Alexander's birth his father William the Lion had tried to suggest his daughter Margaret should succeed him if he had no further children but it wasn't widely accepted as a possibility with the Scots favouring his brother. It would have been highly likely that if John lives a few more years that his claim would be regarded as stronger than Alexander's sister (who also only had one daughter) - during his lifetime John was regarded as Alexander's likely heir
 
Don't forget Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester, who is Lord Constable and trying to claim Galloway. And the High Steward is also Justiciar at this point.
Bruce isn't yet important except for the then current Lord Robert's descent from Huntingdon via his mother.
Looking at Wikipedia it also shows the Bishop of St Andrews was David de Bernham from mid 38 when the previous William de Malviesin, also Lord Chancellor, died so it might be worth double checking your list.


Unless they haven't reconciled yet. I'm nit sure when that was.

Ah that's odd, I've got De Lindsay as Lord Chancellor from 1233-1249

And interesting to see de Quincy out there as Lord Constable, as well.

I suspect it would be the son of David Earl of Huntingdon (John who died in otl in 1237) claim that would be regarded as the strongest in those circumstances - before Alexander's birth his father William the Lion had tried to suggest his daughter Margaret should succeed him if he had no further children but it wasn't widely accepted as a possibility with the Scots favouring his brother. It would have been highly likely that if John lives a few more years that his claim would be regarded as stronger than Alexander's sister (who also only had one daughter) - during his lifetime John was regarded as Alexander's likely heir

Alright, do you think it would be a straight sell then?
 
Ah that's odd, I've got De Lindsay as Lord Chancellor from 1233-1249
It's probably a typo in Wikipedia on my side.
De Malveisin was Chancellor a few decades earlier when he was Bishop of Glasgow. And de Bernham may have briefly been Chamberlain, a term often conflated with Chancellor, after the previous died.
 
It's probably a typo in Wikipedia on my side.
De Malveisin was Chancellor a few decades earlier when he was Bishop of Glasgow. And de Bernham may have briefly been Chamberlain, a term often conflated with Chancellor, after the previous died.

Ah I get you. Hmm it will be interesting to explore which way these men lean, and their reasons for doing so. Should one go with a surviving John of Scotland, or have another of David's legitimate sons: Robert or Henry, be the one staking the claim?
 
Worth noting that Hubert de Burgh and Margaret's only child, a daughter, is possibly already dead (she died in 1237). In which case Hubert will be trying to claim the throne on the basis of a childless marriage that is unlikely to produce any further issue (Margaret is already 44). This is hardly a solid basis on which to claim the throne.

Will David pick up support from his nephew Robert de Bruce and nephew-in-law John Balliol?

What was David's relationship with Henry III like? He was obviously married to Henry's niece Elen ferch Llewelyn (daughter of Henry's bastard sister Joan of Wales). John had been allowed to come into the Earldom of Chester without difficulty, for whatever that's worth.
 
Worth noting that Hubert de Burgh and Margaret's only child, a daughter, is possibly already dead (she died in 1237). In which case Hubert will be trying to claim the throne on the basis of a childless marriage that is unlikely to produce any further issue (Margaret is already 44). This is hardly a solid basis on which to claim the throne.

Will David pick up support from his nephew Robert de Bruce and nephew-in-law John Balliol?

What was David's relationship with Henry III like? He was obviously married to Henry's niece Elen ferch Llewelyn (daughter of Henry's bastard sister Joan of Wales). John had been allowed to come into the Earldom of Chester without difficulty, for whatever that's worth.

This is very true, would you suggest having said daughter survive then?

I imagine that John might have support from de Bruce, and possibly Balliol, if he promises them the right things.

I think John might've had a decent relationship with Henry, though of course sources are limited. If De Burgh and his wife have a daughter or a son from their marriage, I can see Henry supporting them.
 
This is very true, would you suggest having said daughter survive then?

Said daughter was married to Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester. It was this marriage that had resulted in Henry III's displeasure with de Burgh- Gloucester was a royal ward, yet de Burgh hadn't got Henry's permission for the marriage. Though an annulment might possibly happen.

How that would factor into de Burgh claiming Scotland is anyone's guess.

A living son would probably boost his chances (and can be used as marriage bait to secure an ally).

Also, one of Gloucester's OTL children by his second wife was named Bogo. This information is of no relevance, but I found it mildly amusing.
 
So it seems it's going to be a straight shoot between a son of David or Margaret with the nobles likely
Leaning toward Davids son due to him being a male and a direct male descendant of Henry of Scotland rather than a female descendant which could lead Henry III to declare Hubert abd margart rightful rulers assuming they're still on good terms
 
Top