WI/AHC: British Succession Divergence

With a POD after the accession of James VI of Scotland as king of England, allow the English and Scots' crowns to split once more, due to diverging successions (AFAIK this was why the Act of Union was passed, since the Scots weren't happy with Georg of Hannover as Queen Anne's successor and were pro-Jacobite). And what might the effects be of this split?
 
My bad, it seems the Scots' succession became problematic once the Act of Settlement was passed, excluding the legitimate line of Stuarts, hence why England forced them into an unbalanced Act of Union. However, if I'm not mistaken, both James III and Charles III swore up and down that once they were crowned king, they would declare the Act of Union null and void due to the illegality of the Parliament sitting when it was passed.

And would the two neighboring kingdoms enjoy an amicable relationship or no, do you think?
 
If the hannoverian a are in England they'd likely either ignore Scotland or push to unite the kingdoms and the Stuart's would want back
On England's throne
 
The only way a split could happen is if the POD was a lot further back and had one of the Kingdoms have a slightly different form of succession.

Like, let's say England was male-preferred, but a woman could inherit if there wasn't a man around who could (basically RL), but Scotland had (at some point) changed their laws to Absolute primogeniture, as in the eldest child (regardless of gender) inherits the Scottish Crown.

A union of England and Scotland could see a split happen if one of the Hannoverian monarchs has a daughter first, and then a son. Then again I don't see how such a manner of succession would (realistically) come about in either Kingdom in that era.
 
Well, if you have Henry still die young and kill off Elizabeth of Bohemia and Charles I before they bear kids the succession would theoretically diverge.

Say Elizabeth dies in childbirth in 1614 and Charles dies of an unspecified illness in ~1628.

The Scottish heirs are the Hamiltons, represented at this point in time by the 3rd Marquess (who was made Duke IOTL) be virtue of their descent from James II. The Hamilton claim was disputed by the Lennox Stuarts (there was a contentious marriage somewhere), but at this point they're represented by James 4th Duke of Lennox, who is only a teenager in the late 1620s.

The English heir would be either Anne Stanley Countess of Castlehaven by virtue of her descent from Mary Tudor (Queen of France) or William Seymour by virtue of his descent from Catherine Grey. Both of those are controversial- Anne's husband Mervyn Tuchet was accused of and executed for 'sexual crimes' IOTL, so if there are rumours floating about people mightn't want him as king; for Seymour his grandparents' marriage had been declared invalid and his father declared a bastard by Elizabeth, and his grandmother Catherine Grey had died in the Tower; William himself had been imprisoned by James I/VI for his clandestine marriage to Arbella Stuart.

There's also Henry Hastings 5th Earl of Huntingdon, by virtue of his descent from George of Clarence, whose uncle the 3rd Earl was floated as a possible successor when Elizabeth was ill in the 1560s.

Of course, if enough of the powerful people find the Anglo-Scottish Union to be beneficial to them they might ignore the succession and strong-arm the kingdoms into staying united, but that could cause troubles down the line.

Also, if James VI/I is left with only one living child he might make some pronouncement on the succession, and Charles might have to make some indication of who his heir is when he takes the throne now that his immediate family is dead. If they want to keep the countries united he could try to marry a leading Scottish candidate and a leading English candidate and say "if Charles I does not have children then these guys are my successors". Whether either James and Charles are invested enough in the Union that they'd want to do this is questionable, as is whether there's age-appropriate and unmarried candidates for such a scheme is also questionable.
 
The only way a split could happen is if the POD was a lot further back and had one of the Kingdoms have a slightly different form of succession.

Like, let's say England was male-preferred, but a woman could inherit if there wasn't a man around who could (basically RL), but Scotland had (at some point) changed their laws to Absolute primogeniture, as in the eldest child (regardless of gender) inherits the Scottish Crown.

A union of England and Scotland could see a split happen if one of the Hannoverian monarchs has a daughter first, and then a son. Then again I don't see how such a manner of succession would (realistically) come about in either Kingdom in that era.

To my knowledge, until Mary, Queen of Scots succeeded (by lieu of there being no other royal males in the house of Stewart), Scotland preferred male-preference primogeniture, in that, even if the late king left a daughter, if he still had a surviving brother, the throne would pass to him. That said, England had a little bit of a less solid foundation, since while the house of Lancaster was descended in the undeniably male line from Edward III when they deposed Richard II, the duke of York claimed precedence when he rebelled, by pushing his descent from the more senior, but female line, descent from Lionel of Antwerp. Then the whole War of the Roses happened and finally Henry VII walked off with the crown after Bosworth. Now you can see the Tudors in one of two lights, but both involve female-line inheritance: if you take the Lancastrian line, Henry VII was only descended through a female line (and a bastard one at that), while Elizabeth of York was clearly the female line inheratrix of the house of York. Thus, no matter how you slice it, the Tudor claim to the throne was female line, which is only slightly removed from allowing a queen to succeed, I guess (Henry VII certainly feared it, since he insisted on Elizabeth being crowned after he was king, to emphasize that he was king, not king-consort).

So, for arguments sake, lets say Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales survives. He only has daughters by whoever he marries. Charles, duke of York and Albany, has sons - however, there would be a generational disparity most likely (since Charles was nearly a full decade younger than Henry). Henry becomes Henry IX of England and Ireland, I of Scotland, but when he dies, his daughter becomes Queen of England and Ireland (in theory), while his brother becomes king of Scots.
 
Who had to inherit under Act of Security?

Based on the fear in the previous century that should Mary, Queen of Scots die without issue the crown would be in a tossup between the Earl of Arran and the Earl of Lennox, the Earl of Arran's male-line descent would be the nearest heirs - since the Act of Security stated that it would nominate the nearest Protestant male line descendant of the Scots kings, so, in 1704, that would have been technically the duchess of Hamilton (who only died in 1716) but had "abdicated" her titles to her son in 1698. Her son, James, died in 1712, but left a 9 year old son, James, 5th Duke of Hamilton, as well as several daughters.
 
The scots succession was limited to some extent to the act passed in the 1370s which was a reaction to the confusion of the last century over the rights of individuals to the throne.

It left the throne to the King's sons by his first and second wife in order and their heirs male - after their extinction it clearly didn't rule out female succession.
"the aforesaid five brothers and their heirs male descending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true and lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning."

So in effect it was a sort of semi-salic succession - all the men and then the senior woman or her descendants - so after the death of James V (the last male descendant) his daughter Mary succeeded without fail.

Technically one supposes that act then would apply to Mary's descendants perhaps as no new Act was passed under Mary or James VI nor was there any succession crisis until the collapse of James II and VII's reign and the failure of the Stuart line.

Like England the Scots' succession at James' deposition was:

James Francis Prince of Wales Duke of Rothesay etc
Mary Princess of Orange
The Princess Anne of Denmark
William Prince of Orange
Marie Louise of Orleans Queen of Spain
Anne Marie of Orleans Duchess of Savoy
The descendants of Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia Electress Palatine

In 1704 at the time of the Act of Security the succession had narrowed considerably with the mutually agreed exclusion of the Catholics in the line of succession - the Act was never intended as more than a threat to the English - there was certainly not a majority for the restoration of the exiled Prince of Wales (unless he accepted the Scots Church)

HRH The Princess Anne of Denmark
The descendants of of Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia Electress Palatine

Their only other option was the aged Duchess of Hamilton (descended from James II) and her son - the Duchess had been Pro-Orange but her son had waivered (in fact he waivered right up to and including the Act of Union vote in the end abstaining)- so not an ideal candidate - he completely missed the opportunity to gain support for an independent Scotland with himself as James VIII.
 
The scots succession was limited to some extent to the act passed in the 1370s which was a reaction to the confusion of the last century over the rights of individuals to the throne.

It left the throne to the King's sons by his first and second wife in order and their heirs male - after their extinction it clearly didn't rule out female succession.
"the aforesaid five brothers and their heirs male descending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true and lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning."

So in effect it was a sort of semi-salic succession - all the men and then the senior woman or her descendants - so after the death of James V (the last male descendant) his daughter Mary succeeded without fail.

Technically one supposes that act then would apply to Mary's descendants perhaps as no new Act was passed under Mary or James VI nor was there any succession crisis until the collapse of James II and VII's reign and the failure of the Stuart line.

Like England the Scots' succession at James' deposition was:

James Francis Prince of Wales Duke of Rothesay etc
Mary Princess of Orange
The Princess Anne of Denmark
William Prince of Orange
Marie Louise of Orleans Queen of Spain
Anne Marie of Orleans Duchess of Savoy
The descendants of Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia Electress Palatine

In 1704 at the time of the Act of Security the succession had narrowed considerably with the mutually agreed exclusion of the Catholics in the line of succession - the Act was never intended as more than a threat to the English - there was certainly not a majority for the restoration of the exiled Prince of Wales (unless he accepted the Scots Church)

HRH The Princess Anne of Denmark
The descendants of of Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia Electress Palatine

Their only other option was the aged Duchess of Hamilton (descended from James II) and her son - the Duchess had been Pro-Orange but her son had waivered (in fact he waivered right up to and including the Act of Union vote in the end abstaining)- so not an ideal candidate - he completely missed the opportunity to gain support for an independent Scotland with himself as James VIII.

So, could the aged duchess of Hamilton succeed as Queen Anne II by default were her son to cast his vote against the Union? Or might the Scots even decide to bugger the English and recall James VIII, as long as he agrees to leave the Kirk as is and his kids get raised by Protestants?
 
So, could the aged duchess of Hamilton succeed as Queen Anne II by default were her son to cast his vote against the Union? Or might the Scots even decide to bugger the English and recall James VIII, as long as he agrees to leave the Kirk as is and his kids get raised by Protestants?
James viii agreeing to that seems very unlikely given his personality
 
James viii agreeing to that seems very unlikely given his personality

Valid point. So How do we get the house of Hamilton to the throne? I guess another option might be during the Commonwealth - Scotland crowned Charles II king in 1649/1650, if Oliver Cromwell manages to establish an actual dynastic succession - perhaps succeeded by his surviving son Oliver or Henry instead of Tumbledown Dick - that could lead to a fracturing of the Union
 
Valid point. So How do we get the house of Hamilton to the throne? I guess another option might be during the Commonwealth - Scotland crowned Charles II king in 1649/1650, if Oliver Cromwell manages to establish an actual dynastic succession - perhaps succeeded by his surviving son Oliver or Henry instead of Tumbledown Dick - that could lead to a fracturing of the Union

Hmm for Cromwell to accept the crown would you not need to completely change his personality?

And I suppose have Mary Queen of Scots die early on before she has issue? Although if its after the union of the crowns? Perhaps James's daughter Elizabeth marries a Hamilton and then their son succeeds in Scotland?
 
Hmm for Cromwell to accept the crown would you not need to completely change his personality?

And I suppose have Mary Queen of Scots die early on before she has issue? Although if its after the union of the crowns? Perhaps James's daughter Elizabeth marries a Hamilton and then their son succeeds in Scotland?

Cromwell doesn't need a crown, he's already more powerful than Charles I ever was, if he can be succeeded by a son who can successfully maintain the Commonwealth as opposed to OTL, then the new Cromwell dynasty stands a chance.

That said, James isn't going to be likely to marry his only daughter off to a Hamilton, not when the possibilities of the king of France, the king of Sweden and the Elector Palatine (among others) are on the cards. And what reason might he have for splitting the union? I think the only way it's going to happen is if there's no control over it - for instance, if the entire Elizabethan line of the Stuarts either goes extinct or is unsuitable (Sophia was the last of the Winter Queen's children, there were over fifty candidates ahead of her that either refused to convert or refused to move to England, I don't think it's too ASB that Sophia's sons either die childless (she only had three surviving grandchildren OTL or are Catholic (one converted, and she was willing to allow her daughter to convert when there was a possibility of Louis XIV/his son taking a second wife).
 
Well, if you have Henry still die young and kill off Elizabeth of Bohemia and Charles I before they bear kids the succession would theoretically diverge.

Say Elizabeth dies in childbirth in 1614 and Charles dies of an unspecified illness in ~1628.

The Scottish heirs are the Hamiltons, represented at this point in time by the 3rd Marquess (who was made Duke IOTL) be virtue of their descent from James II. The Hamilton claim was disputed by the Lennox Stuarts (there was a contentious marriage somewhere), but at this point they're represented by James 4th Duke of Lennox, who is only a teenager in the late 1620s.

The English heir would be either Anne Stanley Countess of Castlehaven by virtue of her descent from Mary Tudor (Queen of France) or William Seymour by virtue of his descent from Catherine Grey. Both of those are controversial- Anne's husband Mervyn Tuchet was accused of and executed for 'sexual crimes' IOTL, so if there are rumours floating about people mightn't want him as king; for Seymour his grandparents' marriage had been declared invalid and his father declared a bastard by Elizabeth, and his grandmother Catherine Grey had died in the Tower; William himself had been imprisoned by James I/VI for his clandestine marriage to Arbella Stuart.

There's also Henry Hastings 5th Earl of Huntingdon, by virtue of his descent from George of Clarence, whose uncle the 3rd Earl was floated as a possible successor when Elizabeth was ill in the 1560s.

Of course, if enough of the powerful people find the Anglo-Scottish Union to be beneficial to them they might ignore the succession and strong-arm the kingdoms into staying united, but that could cause troubles down the line.

Also, if James VI/I is left with only one living child he might make some pronouncement on the succession, and Charles might have to make some indication of who his heir is when he takes the throne now that his immediate family is dead. If they want to keep the countries united he could try to marry a leading Scottish candidate and a leading English candidate and say "if Charles I does not have children then these guys are my successors". Whether either James and Charles are invested enough in the Union that they'd want to do this is questionable, as is whether there's age-appropriate and unmarried candidates for such a scheme is also questionable.

Wouldn't the Lennox's ties to some very Catholic families (like the Howards, and the fact that they still held a French peerage - the Lordship of Aubigny) count against them for the Protestants? I know there was a plan to marry Arbella Stewart to the duke of Lennox at some point, as a way of securing the Union of the Crowns should James VI die childless. The contentious marriage is that of Regent Arran's father - his first wife was divorced after it was found that her first husband had still been alive at the time of the marriage, thus the Hamilton claim was considered invalidated by the Lennoxes who stood next in the queue.

And somehow I have an odd fascination to see what the Seymours would do with the crown of England if it were to end up on their brow.
 
My own view is that the earlier the divergence the easier it will be (I think by the later Stuarts it was just two late because there were a multitude of reasons both sides of the border to keep the two realms together)

Here's one - James VI and Anne of Denmark are less fertile or even less lucky in their children living beyond infancy - in otl they had seven children of which three died in infancy and one in his late teens - leaving them two adult children - given the record it is quite feasible that James VI and I finds himself with literally one heir at some point in the 1610s (say Henry, Elizabeth or Charles) - if it was Elizabeth then her marriage would be very different but say she then dies in childbirth and the child follows her then you have a political crisis in both realms.

Elizabeth I's death effectively threw out the Third Act of Succession or shall we say ignored it (it was never repealed and James was acknowledged - the legal heirs of course were disputed because of Catherine Grey's illegal marriage). The Scots under the original act were supposed to chose the senior descendant of the Royal house which until 1625 would be James Hamilton, 2nd Marquess of Hamilton and 4th Earl of Arran and after him his eldest son - he was close to James VI and served as his rep in the Scots Parliament - he was a natural choice to the King in the 1620s - though he would die a few months before James - his son would have almost certainly been recognized as King of Scots.

The Hamiltons had been acknowledged as heirs (through their descent from James II's daughter Mary) since the death of the last male Stuart Duke of Albany. Their claim was disputed (Mary's son having divorced his first wife thereby some would state his children by his second - the Hamilton Earls of Arran - were illegitimate - the Earls of Lennox were descended from Mary's daughter Elizabeth Hamilton) - the Lennox claimant in 1625 was only 13 so is unlikely to to have been chosen however well connected.

In English terms James I undoubtedly accepted the Seymour descendants of Catherine Grey as legitimate despite William's marriage to the King's cousin Arbella - so I suspect James would favour William Seymour Duke of Somerset as heir in England - (Henry VII - Mary - Frances - Catherine - Edward - William) as opposed to Anne Countess of Castlehaven (Henry VII - Mary - Eleanor -Margaret - Ferdinando - Anne )
 
I was musing on another way of fracturing the union: Charles I seemed convinced that Parliament was out to make Henry of Oatlands king. If they were, under the protectorate of Cromwell, while Scotland were to remain under the senior line descending from Charles II, how might that affect things? Cromwell effectively kept Charles out for most of the Protectorate, so here he'd just need to make sure that IF Charles II is king of Scots, he doesn't get any ideas to march over the border.
 
Top