The most recent idea that entered my head as of late involves keeping Scotland independent from England and making it a decent power in its own right.
For this to happen, the accession of James VI (I) to the English throne in 1603 absolutely has to be avoided. Since Elizabeth I would probably never marry, the next best option I see involves a longer-lived Edward VI Tudor.
Some direct consequences I can see of a longer-lived Edward VI:
Addendum: Another PoD I was toying with in regards to Scottish history was to have James IV win at Flodden Field in 1513, instead of dying there with his nobles. I figure that some more years of James IV, plus a James V who is never propelled to the throne at age 1, could make for a more stable Scotland in the 16th century. Furthermore, with Solway Moss butterflied, James V would probably live longer too, maybe even sire more heirs. Overall, I think averting the demise of James IV might do some good wonders for Scotland.
Of course, it really depends on how big James IV's victory over at Flodden is, as well as on his next step. Does he press further into England? Is Henry VIII pressured to return from France? What happens if James IV manages to take more of northern England? Lots of question marks here, too.
I decided against creating a separate thread for James IV since both of these PoDs intend to accomplish more or less the same thing, i.e. independent Scotland. Besides, butterflies from James winning at Flodden might prevent Edward VI's death anyway. Who knows? Both of these PoD ideas are two sides of the same coin, so I figure it makes more sense to just have one thread here.
For this to happen, the accession of James VI (I) to the English throne in 1603 absolutely has to be avoided. Since Elizabeth I would probably never marry, the next best option I see involves a longer-lived Edward VI Tudor.
Some direct consequences I can see of a longer-lived Edward VI:
- The spread of Protestantism in England would most certainly be accelerated.
- The English would keep Calais. Mary picked a fight with France (IIRC) and lost it, against all odds and expectations, in a surprise attack. But ITTL, Mary never ascends the throne.
- Edward VI would likely be much more inclined to support the Dutch Revolt, which would be far more successful in TTL. As the English hold Calais, they can supply and link up to the rebels rather easily, which leads me to believe that Flanders and Brabant could be retained by the Republic.
- Due to the continuation of the Tudor dynasty, the union between Scotland and England of 1603 is butterflied.
Addendum: Another PoD I was toying with in regards to Scottish history was to have James IV win at Flodden Field in 1513, instead of dying there with his nobles. I figure that some more years of James IV, plus a James V who is never propelled to the throne at age 1, could make for a more stable Scotland in the 16th century. Furthermore, with Solway Moss butterflied, James V would probably live longer too, maybe even sire more heirs. Overall, I think averting the demise of James IV might do some good wonders for Scotland.
Of course, it really depends on how big James IV's victory over at Flodden is, as well as on his next step. Does he press further into England? Is Henry VIII pressured to return from France? What happens if James IV manages to take more of northern England? Lots of question marks here, too.
I decided against creating a separate thread for James IV since both of these PoDs intend to accomplish more or less the same thing, i.e. independent Scotland. Besides, butterflies from James winning at Flodden might prevent Edward VI's death anyway. Who knows? Both of these PoD ideas are two sides of the same coin, so I figure it makes more sense to just have one thread here.
