Let's say Edward the first won a decisive victory against the Scottish rebels and decided to incorporate Scotland instead of putting a puppet king on the Scottish throne, what would be the consequences? Would England focus less on continental affairs than otl? Would he decided to declare the ‘Kingdom of britain’ in the hopes of replicating king Arthur, whom he adored.
What if Edward I integrated scotland in the same manner as he integrated wales into the kingdom of england?
- Thread starter The Anglo-Dutch Union
- Start date
Edward I did win decisive victories against the Scots, at Dunbar and Falkirk, he stripped the Scottish King of his symbols of office and carried the Stone of Scone back to England - symbolically robbing Scotland of it's corronation throne - and before Robert the Bruce killed John Comyn in 1306 he had pretty much pacified the Scots for a year, but the reason why he couldn't perminantly tighten his grip on Scotland as he did was Wales was money.
His castle building projects in Wales, his town building work in Gascony, and his war with France meant he did not have the money to undertake a similar castle building project in Scotland, so he was unable to fully conquer Scotland through force of arms.
I've always felt that a united England and Scotland in this time period would have been more likely if Margaret, Maid of Norway had survived, reached adulthood and produced children of her own, because she would have been wed to Edward of Caernarfon, Prince of Wales and heir to the English Throne, thereby uniting the crowns and the countries through marriage, avoiding the bitter disputes of war and continuing the hitherto natural progression of ever-closer relations between England and Scotland that had been seen since the Norman Conquest.
Regardless of how Scotland might have been unified with England, Edward I himself was always going to distracted by European affair becuase his cousin.
Philip IV of France, wanted Edward's land in Gascony and conspired to rob him of them. He decieved his father-in-law (Edmund Crouchback, Edward's brother) into convincing the English King to relinquish his lands in a sign of submission as the Duke of Aquitaine for grace period after which his lands would be restored. Philip had no intention of honoring this arrangement and the second Edward fulfilled his part of it Philip declare the land forfeit because Edward had refused his summon, thereby starting a war between England and France, one which England was woefully unprepared for because it had been distracted with Wales and Scotland and preparing for a crusade, while France had used crusader funds to prepare itself for war with England.
Therefore, a Kingdom of Britain in the 1300's might be possible if Edward of Caernarfon and Margaret, Maid of Norway, saw out the reign of Edward Longshanks without upheavel in Scotland and united the crowns upon the death of the English King, but I consider it pretty impossible for Edward I himself to see such a union in his lifetime.
His castle building projects in Wales, his town building work in Gascony, and his war with France meant he did not have the money to undertake a similar castle building project in Scotland, so he was unable to fully conquer Scotland through force of arms.
I've always felt that a united England and Scotland in this time period would have been more likely if Margaret, Maid of Norway had survived, reached adulthood and produced children of her own, because she would have been wed to Edward of Caernarfon, Prince of Wales and heir to the English Throne, thereby uniting the crowns and the countries through marriage, avoiding the bitter disputes of war and continuing the hitherto natural progression of ever-closer relations between England and Scotland that had been seen since the Norman Conquest.
Regardless of how Scotland might have been unified with England, Edward I himself was always going to distracted by European affair becuase his cousin.
Philip IV of France, wanted Edward's land in Gascony and conspired to rob him of them. He decieved his father-in-law (Edmund Crouchback, Edward's brother) into convincing the English King to relinquish his lands in a sign of submission as the Duke of Aquitaine for grace period after which his lands would be restored. Philip had no intention of honoring this arrangement and the second Edward fulfilled his part of it Philip declare the land forfeit because Edward had refused his summon, thereby starting a war between England and France, one which England was woefully unprepared for because it had been distracted with Wales and Scotland and preparing for a crusade, while France had used crusader funds to prepare itself for war with England.
Therefore, a Kingdom of Britain in the 1300's might be possible if Edward of Caernarfon and Margaret, Maid of Norway, saw out the reign of Edward Longshanks without upheavel in Scotland and united the crowns upon the death of the English King, but I consider it pretty impossible for Edward I himself to see such a union in his lifetime.
Thanks, your POD seems a bit nicer, but how would such a union look?
One that wouldn't have to worry about Scottish raids in their rear whenever it's focus is towards France. There would certainly be uprisings and revolts here and there, I imagine some of the Highland clans will probably have some level of autonomy being so far on the fringes of the Anglo-Scottish union.
The natural step after this may as well be to fully incorporate Ireland under the same crown, allowing English and Scottish nobles the opportunity to carve out their own Marcher Lordships there, or bringing along the Irish clans over into their fold. Eventually, the intermarriage between English, Scottish, and Irish nobles would tie the realm closer together progressively.
Being the co-ruler of Scotland however makes Prince Edward a much more important political role, especially if he comes of age while his father is still alive in England, and even more so if Margaret has given birth to a son to truly secure the succession. Prince Edward would have a need to build political power in the north and with the Scottish nobles, so that right there could butterfly away him every getting involved with Piers Gaveston. King Edward would have an immediate need to groom his son and educate him better than he did.
I think the solution for Gascony would be giving Gascony to the son of Margaret of France.
Would Anglo-Scottish relations be better? Because as far as I can recall relations between the Scottish and English was quite good before the Scottish wars, I don’t know for sure though
With Margaret, Maid of Norway, surviving and becoming Queen of Scots, husband to the Prince of Wales and daughter-in-law to the King of England, the unpleasentness of the Great Cause and Edward trying to assert - what he believed to be - his right as overlord is avoided, and the chances of more cordial relations between England and Scotland increased.
If King Edward does not humiliate his own son as he did John Balliol then the Wars of Scottish Independence might be not happen and the chances of a natural progression to a United Kingdom increased, however the domineering naturing of the Leopard of England means he's probably going to bully his son no matter what and demand some kind of subserviance from the Scots so it still might be difficult to avoid a breakdown in the Anglo-Scottish relationship.
I could imagine, as the 1200's drew to a close, the Scottish Nobels pressuring the younger Edward into standing up to his father and trying to assert his independence after the English King demanded fealty and homage from the Scots, and financial and military support for his projects and wars, only to bring the wrath of the Hammer of Scots upon them, leading to a different Scottish War of Independence where King Edward I of England defeated and humiliated his son, King Edward I of Scotland, leading to a rebellion of Scottish Nobels and overthrow or the younger Edward's reign.
The wild card is Margaret, Maid of Norway, and whether she could work behind the scenes to temper Longshank's overbearing nature and prevent him from been too bluntly tyrannical, and whether she could influence her husband enough to make him a better man and a better ruler.
With both of them being childen when they'd be wed - Margret being 7 and Prince Edward being 6 - chances are that King Edward himself would damage relations between England and Scotland before the young Scottish Monarchs reached an age to exert much influence.
VVD0D95
Banned
I'm not so sure. Edward doesn't have the card he had last time, which is that he didn't choose Margaret as sovereign, she was automatically sovereign due to her claim. One thing to bully someone you chose as King, another to try and bully the rightfully anointed Queen of Scots.
But she's a seven year old girl when she becomes Queen, her husband's a six year old boy and the law of the time recognizes her property as his via marriage. Neither the young Edward or Margaret are going to rule themselves for the first decade of their reign, let alone stand up to the damn-near tyrannical King of England.
It might be the case that John Balliol ends up as Guardian of Scotland and regent for the young King and Queen, and he get humilated by the King of England regularly as he did in OTL and gets convinced to rebel only to be crushed, while Longshanks protrays Balliol as rebelling against the rightful King and Queen of Scots and invades Scotland under the pretext of protecting his son and daughter-in-law and reaffirming their right to the throne, and ast the same time essentially making them puppets to his own rule, at least until they reach adulthood.
This could deliver a different dynamic to the Scottish Wars, with loyal Scots seen as those who side with the young King and Queen leading Balliol and his supporters to be seen as usurpers, and potentially stregthening any union between England and Scotland, but I still think it rather probably that Longshanks himself would mess up a peaceful and natural progression to a United Kingdom.
VVD0D95
Banned
Balliol wouldn't be named sole Guardian of Scotland though, there were to be I think six guardians/ regents for her as confirmed by Alexander III and his Parliament in the 1280s. Furthermore, the Treaty of Birgham confirmed that Margaret would rule in her own right and would be sole monarch of Scotland.
How effective that treaty would have been in establishing the rights of Margaret to rule herself is debatable, given that - despite the treaty saying Scotland would run its own affairs and it's church would be seperate - Longshanks had instructed the Bishop of Durham to run Scotland in Margaret's name.
It might tie his hands a bit, but if Edward was insistant on establishing himself as the overlord of Scotland then, treaties be damned, he'll find a way to do it.
VVD0D95
Banned
Indeed he will, but would he bother doing so here, when his descendant is going to end up ruling Scotland in the future, and he's got pressing concerns in Wales and France to attend to?
It might that Philip IV's betrayal over Gascony leaves Longshanks in a war he's not prepared for and he makes demands of Scotland after four years of basically leaving them alone following Margaret and Edward's corronation. At that point the Scots might be willing to side with the English King and aid him in his war with France or they might refuse and, inevitably, cause war between Scotland and England - in 1294 the Auld Alliance didn't exist, and without the disputes of the Great Cause it may never have come to be - so I dont know really.
I mean, as I've said above, I could easily see how Edward I of England could still destroy positive relations between Scotland and England even with his son on the Scottish Throne and the potential of his descendents potentially having the chance to rule both nation, but also a surviving Margaret does offer the opportunity of better relations and avoidance of war.
VVD0D95
Banned
Indeed, he might destroy it, but here he knows he's got something to lose, mainly the proper consolidation of his son's place in Scotland-bearing in mind the boy wouldn't be ruling in his own right and his power is dependent on a good relationship with his wife- consequently, I don't think he's so thick that he'd push too hard on the matter. He's brutal, but he's not a complete idiot.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Edward I is a bully, but if EII has some sort of power independent of his father through his marriage and is a king in his own right he wont be driven towards sweet talking handsome chaps who pander to his insecurities (though no doubt he will have some highly favoured gentlemen of the court). The Scots wont be keen on funding the English kings wars to secure the English kings personal possessions in France, but if the relationship isnt wrecked, then when EI dies EII becomes effectively King Consort of Scotland and King of England - his wife, if they are on cordial terms, will probably support him though EII was a terrible commander so with luck he sees sense and doesnt pursue an agressive french policy if he can help it, and by the time his son (Alt EIII/EII of Scotland) is mature there's more interplay between the two realms. EIII/EII then becomes fully King of both countries.
No doubt by then most of France is lost but maybe a few scots barons get in on the act with the king over whats left creating common cause - a generation of fighting together against the french would create a shared identity (we may not be the same, but neither of us are like that lot!). With a relatively united island and mroe resources perhaps the British/AngloScottish hold more of France for longer, long enough to give those ares a distinct, non french identity?
There's still separate parliaments, but who knows what intervening years bring - perhaps a grand parliament of both realms sits atop the national parliaments eventually, which would make sense for a king who rules both territories and isnt keen on having to race back and forth for separate sessions all the time.
No doubt by then most of France is lost but maybe a few scots barons get in on the act with the king over whats left creating common cause - a generation of fighting together against the french would create a shared identity (we may not be the same, but neither of us are like that lot!). With a relatively united island and mroe resources perhaps the British/AngloScottish hold more of France for longer, long enough to give those ares a distinct, non french identity?
There's still separate parliaments, but who knows what intervening years bring - perhaps a grand parliament of both realms sits atop the national parliaments eventually, which would make sense for a king who rules both territories and isnt keen on having to race back and forth for separate sessions all the time.
If we imagine Edward I is restrained in this scenario, it seems likely we could get a union between England, Scotland and Ireland very early, and before sectarian divisions or economic divergences have set in. The legal, education and churches will unify. I can see the British Isles being one people as much as the Jutlanders and Zealanders are. And this would be a strong centralized Kingdom long before anywhere else in Europe gets there.
Where does the focus of such a country turn next? Towards claims in France as in OTL? Or West earlier? Heading out towards Iceland and Greenland?
Where does the focus of such a country turn next? Towards claims in France as in OTL? Or West earlier? Heading out towards Iceland and Greenland?
Considering England alone came close, all of Britain could win that war.
Edward The Great much?
Yooo I'm kind of working on a thread about a surviving Margaret, Maid of Norway! I didn't even see this!
VVD0D95
Banned
Also means englsnd and Scotland continue to share a culture rather than dividing up as the wars of independence did