What if Margaret Maid of Norway lived?

Prompt/Idea/Challenge for the People!

In 1286 King Alexander III of Scotland died, leaving his 3 year old granddaughter Margaret as heir, with an agreement that she would be married to Edward, son of Edward I, being made in 1290, however she died not long after arriving in Scotland, creating a succession crisis that among other things would result in the Scottish Wars of Independence and creation of the Auld Alliance with France.

What if she didn't die? What if she lived to marry Edward and have children with him, binding the Scottish and English crowns together in alliance through blood? While the agreement included a clause that Scotland would stay completely independent, in practice it would be very difficult to (even if she alone would be crowned) - the King Consort of Scotland, would also become the King of England, while the Queen of Scotland would become the Queen Consort of England, functionally bringing the two into a Union of Crowns, so both would be dependent on the other.

What effect would all this have? How would Edward and Margaret rule together? What would happen with Gaveston? No marriage with Isabella so would the tensions flare up sooner with France? No Auld Alliance along with a safe northern border with Scotland means England can focus it's forces on France in the event of war (and even possibly have help from the Scottish, could even see a William Wallace fighting with the English against the French). No Scottish Wars of Independance, so far far less bad blood between the English and Scottish - quite the opposite if their monarchs are married and then in the future are ruled by the same person with the blood of both in a (relatively) peaceful process. If they stay together through several monarchs could have a much earlier Kingdom of Britannia/Great Britain.

If it eventually results in a 100 years war full victory for England you could have Scotland, England, and France in a Union of Crowns, or England retaining holding on the continent if they don't manage a full victory but still win. Earlier conquest of Ireland and perhaps even a splitting of it - north Ireland to the Scottish while south Ireland to the English?

Then with it all being much earlier they could be a lot more assimilation between all 4 which could result in a more solid British cultural identity - less English dominance and Irish & Scottish resistance and more equal willing mix (especially between Scots and English) perhaps even resulting in the British culture, and a British language, becoming predominant over the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh ones, where I imagine (though I am in no way a linguist) the British Language would be mainly English but with more Celtic/Gaelic influence than French (and German) then the otherway around as was OTL.

What do you guys think? Thoughts?
 
Prompt/Idea/Challenge for the People!


If it eventually results in a 100 years war full victory for England you could have Scotland, England, and France in a Union of Crowns, or England retaining holding on the continent if they don't manage a full victory but still win. Earlier conquest of Ireland and perhaps even a splitting of it - north Ireland to the Scottish while south Ireland to the English?

Then with it all being much earlier they could be a lot more assimilation between all 4 which could result in a more solid British cultural identity - less English dominance and Irish & Scottish resistance and more equal willing mix (especially between Scots and English) perhaps even resulting in the British culture, and a British language, becoming predominant over the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh ones, where I imagine (though I am in no way a linguist) the British Language would be mainly English but with more Celtic/Gaelic influence than French (and German) then the otherway around as was OTL.

What do you guys think? Thoughts?
Without Isabella,the Kings of England have no claim over the French throne to begin with.Also, Edward II was a pretty incompetent king. There will likely be trouble even without the Scottish war. It might be that there might be some kind of war in Scotland anyway where he still had to enforce his rule over Scottish nobles.
 
Without Isabella,the Kings of England have no claim over the French throne to begin with.Also, Edward II was a pretty incompetent king. There will likely be trouble even without the Scottish war. It might be that there might be some kind of war in Scotland anyway where he still had to enforce his rule over Scottish nobles.

I know, what I mean is that if they win an alt-100 years war they'd own enough of France to claim it anyway - especially if they annihilate the current holder in a war, nobody actually cares about a legitimate family claim when you can enact it by force - the Kingdoms were made in the first place by someone conquering enough of the region to claim to be ruler of it.

If he was that incompetent, how did he rule for decades anyway and why do historians still debate about his effectiveness? He definitely wasn't a great King, but that doesn't mean he was a terrible one. Plus you'd still have Edward I ruling for a while anyway and with no succession crisis and no Edward I unilaterally declaring himself Lord Paramount of Scotland - he doesn't need to his son is still engaged to the Scottish Queen-to-be with her still alive - they'd be no big problem with the nobles, they were the ones who suggested the match with Edward in the first place.

Any problem he has as OTL would be in all of it, not just the Scottish, but a lot of his problems came from his favoritism of Gaveston, the nobles wanted gaveston gone, and the methods they used meant Edward had to try and remove their power to get gaveston back, if Edward is in line to be King of both England and Scotland and is engaged to the Scottish heir he might have a very different upbringing and/or development if he has to spend time in Scotland and with Margaret- it's possible he might never favor Gaveston, and if he doesn't favor Gaveston he never has a problem with the nobles - that whole debacle was literally centered around Gaveston - he wasnt trying to take away the nobles power and fighting them for any reason but getting Gaveston back, and the nobles were fighting him to get Gaveston gone.
 

Marc

Donor
I know, what I mean is that if they win an alt-100 years war they'd own enough of France to claim it anyway - especially if they annihilate the current holder in a war, nobody actually cares about a legitimate family claim when you can enact it by force - the Kingdoms were made in the first place by someone conquering enough of the region to claim to be ruler of it.

If he was that incompetent, how did he rule for decades anyway and why do historians still debate about his effectiveness? He definitely wasn't a great King, but that doesn't mean he was a terrible one. Plus you'd still have Edward I ruling for a while anyway and with no succession crisis and no Edward I unilaterally declaring himself Lord Paramount of Scotland - he doesn't need to his son is still engaged to the Scottish Queen-to-be with her still alive - they'd be no big problem with the nobles, they were the ones who suggested the match with Edward in the first place.

Any problem he has as OTL would be in all of it, not just the Scottish, but a lot of his problems came from his favoritism of Gaveston, the nobles wanted gaveston gone, and the methods they used meant Edward had to try and remove their power to get gaveston back, if Edward is in line to be King of both England and Scotland and is engaged to the Scottish heir he might have a very different upbringing and/or development if he has to spend time in Scotland and with Margaret- it's possible he might never favor Gaveston, and if he doesn't favor Gaveston he never has a problem with the nobles - that whole debacle was literally centered around Gaveston - he wasnt trying to take away the nobles power and fighting them for any reason but getting Gaveston back, and the nobles were fighting him to get Gaveston gone.

Perhaps the greatest handwaving in alternate history is assuming that personalities remain intact even if events change. But that is not the way how life actually works. Circumstances form character.
In your supposing, the children of Edward I are not going to be anything like the historical ones; making assumptions about events that figure his offspring becomes pure fiction, just that.
 
Last edited:
Hard to give a definite answer , OTL Edward I died in 1307 so by that time his son will have been in Scotland as King consort for at least 7 years ( assuming formal marriage when the Maid is 16, could be earlier ) and likely have an heir. So totally different set of Friends/supporters, Gaveston did not reach court till 1300 so Edward of Carnarvon would already be in Scotland so might not be more than a footnote in history. So most likely a peaceful merger of Crowns rather than the hostile relationship of OTL, a lot of lords had lands in both countries and OTL had to choose which ones to keep, here an Anglo-Scottish group still bind the countries together.

So England focuses more on Scotland/Ireland and less on France. However different marriages could still give English/Scottish kings a claim to France but its far to woolly to give even odds. Going forward 2 separate parliaments but possibly a joint Privy council as well as national ones. However just like OTL there will be pressure to merge and Scottish finances will still lead nobles to be bought off. It will also help that without the wars of Independence, anti-English feeling is reduced. Indeed the split might be on the Firth of Forth, south being English supporting with the more Gaelic North far less keen. As the Southern Scots tended to mistrust the Northern ones and vica versa anyway, it would be a natural fault line and later religion could come into it ( Highlanders staying more Catholic whilst the rest go Protestant. )
 
The other thing too is that because the Scottish border is secured and an alliance is in place, if Edward I has any problems coming from France, he is able to give them his undivided attention. I have to imagine Prince Edward, as the new consort of Scotland, would be sent up there in order to be educated in their ways, with a full array of tutors, teachers, and educators that would likely accompany him anyway.

Where there may be contention over is perhaps any haggling over Prince Edward becoming co-ruler instead of merely a consort, in which case, since the co-rulers of Scotland are still not of age, Longshanks selects himself to be the regent of Scotland, for which he would actually have a lot of legal claim to do.
 
Perhaps the greatest handwaving in alternate history is assuming that personalities remain intact even if events change. But that is not the way how life actually works. Circumstances form character.
In your supposing, the children of Edward I are not going to be anything like the historical ones; making assumptions about events that figure his offspring becomes pure fiction, just that.

I know, that what I'm saying, he was supposing that Edward II would be the same incompetent ruler he was in OTL, and I was saying not necessarily as he'd have a different upbringing being he would be in line to be the consort of Scotland and even Co-ruler of it as well as King of England so he's likely to spend a lot of time in Scotland as well as England which means he's likely to grow up very different, and then any children he has will be completely different OTL as they be born at different times to a different woman.

Hard to give a definite answer , OTL Edward I died in 1307 so by that time his son will have been in Scotland as King consort for at least 7 years ( assuming formal marriage when the Maid is 16, could be earlier ) and likely have an heir. So totally different set of Friends/supporters, Gaveston did not reach court till 1300 so Edward of Carnarvon would already be in Scotland so might not be more than a footnote in history. So most likely a peaceful merger of Crowns rather than the hostile relationship of OTL, a lot of lords had lands in both countries and OTL had to choose which ones to keep, here an Anglo-Scottish group still bind the countries together.

So England focuses more on Scotland/Ireland and less on France. However different marriages could still give English/Scottish kings a claim to France but its far to woolly to give even odds. Going forward 2 separate parliaments but possibly a joint Privy council as well as national ones. However just like OTL there will be pressure to merge and Scottish finances will still lead nobles to be bought off. It will also help that without the wars of Independence, anti-English feeling is reduced. Indeed the split might be on the Firth of Forth, south being English supporting with the more Gaelic North far less keen. As the Southern Scots tended to mistrust the Northern ones and vica versa anyway, it would be a natural fault line and later religion could come into it ( Highlanders staying more Catholic whilst the rest go Protestant. )

The other thing too is that because the Scottish border is secured and an alliance is in place, if Edward I has any problems coming from France, he is able to give them his undivided attention. I have to imagine Prince Edward, as the new consort of Scotland, would be sent up there in order to be educated in their ways, with a full array of tutors, teachers, and educators that would likely accompany him anyway.

Where there may be contention over is perhaps any haggling over Prince Edward becoming co-ruler instead of merely a consort, in which case, since the co-rulers of Scotland are still not of age, Longshanks selects himself to be the regent of Scotland, for which he would actually have a lot of legal claim to do.

What I was thinking, and regardless of whether they get a claim to the French throne they still have many holdings in France and as long as that's the case they'll be tension and conflict with France - and if they did manage to end up conquering enough of it they could claim the throne.

That be contention defientely, but I imagine given the attitudes towards sole female rulers they'd eventually have him as co-ruler, which when he ascends to the English throne would make them officially rule both hence why I think the agreement of Scotland maintaining it's independence is in practise unlikely, once Edward II and Margaret rule both England and Scotland both countries would be dependant on each other, on if the union holds for a generation or two we might get a really early Kingdom of Great Britain, and with much less of the tension as much less anti-English/anti-Scottish sentiment.
 

Zen9

Banned
The aristocracy in England is Norman, France is their goal, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are peripheral to their ambitions.
Such a Union of Crowns and achievement in France makes France their centre and the dominant component.

Norman-French a.k.a Anglo-Norman was the majority language of the aristocracy, courts and Parliament. Latin held the Church, leaving the likes of Gaelic, and English and Welsh as languages of the peasants (ordinary people).
 
Last edited:
What I was thinking, and regardless of whether they get a claim to the French throne they still have many holdings in France and as long as that's the case they'll be tension and conflict with France - and if they did manage to end up conquering enough of it they could claim the throne.

I disagree with this. In the late 13th century, early 14th century, the only holding in France that they have is Gascony, and it was very easy to lose it in any war, as shown by the 1294 campaign of Philip IV, where the English was confined to Bordeaux for the entire duration of the conflict, and in the Saint Sardos War, where the English were easily whipped by the French.

OF course, there was the Hundred Years War, but the success of the campaign for the English was helped by the aid of French nobility who recognized Edward III as King of France. You must understand that there must at least be a plausible claim in order to flip allegiances. Without the flip, it would be very difficult to conquer any large territory.

To understand how a valid claim is very important, consider the situation during the time of Henry II. He owned more than half of France, from Normandy to Gascony, to Brittany, to Poitou, etc, but only as vassal to the king of France. His overlord, Louis VII and Philip II, only directly owened a small portion, the Ile-de-France, and were much weaker than the Plantagenet kings. Yet Henry II and Richard I or even King John never claimed the French throne despite being stronger than the French monarchy. Why? Because Louis VII and PHilip II and their descendants to Charles IV were undisputedly king of France, and the English king had no claim whatsoever. And this despite Louis VII and Philip II going to war against the English king very often!
 
The aristocracy in England is Norman, France is their goal, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are peripheral to their ambitions.
Such a Union of Crowns and achievement in France makes France their centre and the dominant component.

Norman-French a.k.a Anglo-Norman was the majority language of the aristocracy, courts and Parliament. Latin held the Church, leaving the likes of Gaelic, and English and Welsh as languages of the peasants (ordinary people).
This isn't entirely true however. While the early Plantagenet kings were focused on their French holdings, they perpetually had difficulty convincing their English vassals to join them in defending their lands on the Continent since most English nobles, even the ones who themselves were Normans, had no possessions of their own. Since the Conquest, the Anglo-Norman barons had mostly become concerned with English affairs alone. Weaker kings like John and Henry III would sometimes receive flat refusals to go across the Channel.

Later on, it was Edward I who concerned himself primarily with affairs in Britain, and while he too had to deal with his share of problems on the Continent, Edward's objective by and large had always been to enforce his authority in the islands, and that included Wales and Scotland. Ironically, he ended up destroying what had been a somewhat cordial relationship with the Scots and drove them into the arms of the French. Edward had ambitions, true, of reclaiming all the lands his father and grandfather had lost in France, but his main priority was Britain.
 
Hard to give a definite answer , OTL Edward I died in 1307 so by that time his son will have been in Scotland as King consort for at least 7 years ( assuming formal marriage when the Maid is 16, could be earlier ) and likely have an heir. So totally different set of Friends/supporters, Gaveston did not reach court till 1300 so Edward of Carnarvon would already be in Scotland so might not be more than a footnote in history. So most likely a peaceful merger of Crowns rather than the hostile relationship of OTL, a lot of lords had lands in both countries and OTL had to choose which ones to keep, here an Anglo-Scottish group still bind the countries together.

So England focuses more on Scotland/Ireland and less on France. However different marriages could still give English/Scottish kings a claim to France but its far to woolly to give even odds. Going forward 2 separate parliaments but possibly a joint Privy council as well as national ones. However just like OTL there will be pressure to merge and Scottish finances will still lead nobles to be bought off. It will also help that without the wars of Independence, anti-English feeling is reduced. Indeed the split might be on the Firth of Forth, south being English supporting with the more Gaelic North far less keen. As the Southern Scots tended to mistrust the Northern ones and vica versa anyway, it would be a natural fault line and later religion could come into it ( Highlanders staying more Catholic whilst the rest go Protestant. )
Formal wedding will happen as soon is possible with a second cerimony only when the bride was 12 and the groom 14, consummation will be delayed until Margaret’s 15th/16th birthday
 
Last edited:
The aristocracy in England is Norman, France is their goal, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are peripheral to their ambitions.
Such a Union of Crowns and achievement in France makes France their centre and the dominant component.

Norman-French a.k.a Anglo-Norman was the majority language of the aristocracy, courts and Parliament. Latin held the Church, leaving the likes of Gaelic, and English and Welsh as languages of the peasants (ordinary people).
They won't focus on France just because they're Anglo-Norman. They'll want to maintain their holdings across the channel but a similarity of language is irrelevant to expansion.
Assuming there's no attempt by the French King to confiscate Gascony-and-Guyenne an early union of England and Scotland means concentration on claims over Wales and Ireland. We might see a recognised Irish Kingdom arise from the Lordship and thus the native Irish Kings might get rebranded as Princes.
 
They won't focus on France just because they're Anglo-Norman. They'll want to maintain their holdings across the channel but a similarity of language is irrelevant to expansion.
Assuming there's no attempt by the French King to confiscate Gascony-and-Guyenne an early union of England and Scotland means concentration on claims over Wales and Ireland. We might see a recognised Irish Kingdom arise from the Lordship and thus the native Irish Kings might get rebranded as Princes.
Agreed, if Scotland was brought under personal union through the heir of Edward and Margaret, Ireland would surely be next. I could see an agreement made between English and Scottish nobility go delineate areas of influence and different holdings, fiefs, towns, and whatnot.
 
Top