WI: Assassination of James I Steward failed

James I Steward - if remember at all- is remember for a few things, but the most well known thing about him is that he was murdered on 21 February 1437 by a group of 30+ people led by sir Robert Graham. Despite his death, his bloodline remained on the throne, despite the fact that his son - also named James - was only six years old...

But what if King James was able to escape and reuinte with his supporters - just like otl Queen Joan did - and crush Graham and other conspirators? Had King survived, Scotland should enter 1440's as (relatively) stable country, at the time when England and France are at final years of Hundred Year's Wa. How much Scotland without another regency is able to do?
 
I, knowing a grand total of three Scottish monarchs in Robert, James V and his grandson VI, briefly thought 'It already failed, did it not?', thinking this was one more Gunpowder Plot thread.
It seems to me that Scottish involvement, if it does happen, would only result in a hastier Angevin collapse, meaning Castillon would most likely come some time before 1453.
Other than that, whilst Scotland could theoretically move about in Ireland, if the Gaelic lords spurned English rule that easily, they may not be too happy under a Scottish yoke.
An overseas campaign would not be too feasible, either.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Scotland continues its steady recover after more than a century of poverty. James was introducing financial and security reforms thay pissed off the nobles. If he survives and destroys the conspirators he’ll be in a decent state to continue forward. It’ll be a good thing for Scotland, and avoid a painful regency.
 
Scotland continues its steady recover after more than a century of poverty. James was introducing financial and security reforms thay pissed off the nobles. If he survives and destroys the conspirators he’ll be in a decent state to continue forward. It’ll be a good thing for Scotland, and avoid a painful regency.
Which, given the monarchs of Scotland under the House of Stewart, is a very frequent problem, with kings up and dying, or being forced to abdicate, and therefore more regency.
 
If he destroys the conspirators, he'll be fine, and there'll be, to the benefit of Scotland, no regency. He was doing well with getting Scotland out of its crap economic position, so he can just carry on
 
He was doing well with getting Scotland out of its crap economic position, so he can just carry on
There is still a lot of problems to deal with. Year later, James led a siege of Roxburgh Castle - and it ended in disaster. So it wasn't exactly a time when Crown's authoirty was really high, though it's possible that after his survival, James could use this mass act of threason to his own adventage.


Hopefully James surviving can change all that
He need to live at least for another decade to change it, but it's of course possible. He could easily lead Scotland into into late 1450's/ early 1460's , assuming he could reach his father's and grandfather's potential.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
There is still a lot of problems to deal with. Year later, James led a siege of Roxburgh Castle - and it ended in disaster. So it wasn't exactly a time when Crown's authoirty was really high, though it's possible that after his survival, James could use this mass act of threason to his own adventage.



He need to live at least for another decade to change it, but it's of course possible. He could easily lead Scotland into into late 1450's/ early 1460's , assuming he could reach his father's and grandfather's potential.
I see no reason why he shouldn’t. If he survives the attempt on his life, he will bounce back and his uncle and his cronies will be crushed. And once they’re done, it’d only the Douglass left, and they’re not stupid enough to go against james.
 
There is still a lot of things that could happen to him though - I know it's not common cause for Kings of Scots - but always can die from some natural causes.
But if James I will die few years later, completly destroying old nobility and regency few years shorter should make all the difference, especially since assassination of king usually ain't good for crown's authority in general.

Either way, since king ain't that old yet, and queen is even younger so they could try for yet another kid. OTL James jr (Future James II)had a twin brother, but he died the same day he was born. I think that having James I having another son would have been interesting, judging from his own experience with struggle within family.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
There is still a lot of things that could happen to him though - I know it's not common cause for Kings of Scots - but always can die from some natural causes.
But if James I will die few years later, completly destroying old nobility and regency few years shorter should make all the difference, especially since assassination of king usually ain't good for crown's authority in general.

Either way, since king ain't that old yet, and queen is even younger so they could try for yet another kid. OTL James jr (Future James II)had a twin brother, but he died the same day he was born. I think that having James I having another son would have been interesting, judging from his own experience with struggle within family.
If the oppositions gone I think realistically James I could
Probablt live into his sixties so yes he could
We’ll have more
Kids
 
Top