WI Elizabeth I Dies In 1589

As it says on the tin. What effects would this have? Would James VI still become King of England or would a Grey or a Stanley, or even Arabella Stuart? I think there would be a War of English Succession but James VI's position is England is weak t the time. perhaps the Spanish put forward a candidate and somehow win? What if?
 
1589 was pretty near the peak of support for Arabella's claim: she was introduced at court in 1587, and Elizabeth flirted with naming Arabella her heir between then and 1592. I'd say she'd have a pretty fair shot. She's 14 at this time, so there would be a regency: probably Burleigh as Lord Protector or leader of a Regency Council, and Bess of Hardwick as Arabella's guardian.

The Grey claimant would be Edward Seymour (son of Catherine Grey), styling himself Viscount Beauchamp. He probably has a bit of support, but nowhere near enough to rival the Cecils (Burleigh and his family) if they decide to follow Elizabeth's apparent intent and support Arabella. Seymour's claim is severely weakened by the irregularity of his parents' marriage: they married in illegally and in secret, the only witness died before testifying, nobody could produce the priest until decades later (well after our POD), and the Privy Council had declared the marriage invalid and Seymour a bastard. In Seymour's favor, he's an adult male, and he's already married and produced an heir and a spare.

The Stanley claimant would be Margaret Stanley (nee Clifford), Countess of Derby. In 1579 she was disgraced and banished from court due to unproven treason charges (for trying to have the date of Elizabeth's death divined, and possibly also attempting to poison Elizabeth). Her husband and son still have a fair amount of money and power, but I doubt she'd have much luck if she tried to claim the throne.

James probably would make a play for the English throne, and he might succeed if the Cecils decide to support him, but Arabella's in a much stronger position than IOTL, and James has had much less time to work on building an English support base as unofficial heir presumptive.

It matters a lot exactly when in 1589 Elizabeth were to die. James's OTL marriage to Anne of Denmark was negotiated in August 1589, and the ceremony was held in November. If Elizabeth dies before August, the obvious solution to the succession would be to marry Arabella to James and crown them jointly.
 
1589 was pretty near the peak of support for Arabella's claim: she was introduced at court in 1587, and Elizabeth flirted with naming Arabella her heir between then and 1592. I'd say she'd have a pretty fair shot. She's 14 at this time, so there would be a regency: probably Burleigh as Lord Protector or leader of a Regency Council, and Bess of Hardwick as Arabella's guardian.

The Grey claimant would be Edward Seymour (son of Catherine Grey), styling himself Viscount Beauchamp. He probably has a bit of support, but nowhere near enough to rival the Cecils (Burleigh and his family) if they decide to follow Elizabeth's apparent intent and support Arabella. Seymour's claim is severely weakened by the irregularity of his parents' marriage: they married in illegally and in secret, the only witness died before testifying, nobody could produce the priest until decades later (well after our POD), and the Privy Council had declared the marriage invalid and Seymour a bastard. In Seymour's favor, he's an adult male, and he's already married and produced an heir and a spare.

The Stanley claimant would be Margaret Stanley (nee Clifford), Countess of Derby. In 1579 she was disgraced and banished from court due to unproven treason charges (for trying to have the date of Elizabeth's death divined, and possibly also attempting to poison Elizabeth). Her husband and son still have a fair amount of money and power, but I doubt she'd have much luck if she tried to claim the throne.

James probably would make a play for the English throne, and he might succeed if the Cecils decide to support him, but Arabella's in a much stronger position than IOTL, and James has had much less time to work on building an English support base as unofficial heir presumptive.

It matters a lot exactly when in 1589 Elizabeth were to die. James's OTL marriage to Anne of Denmark was negotiated in August 1589, and the ceremony was held in November. If Elizabeth dies before August, the obvious solution to the succession would be to marry Arabella to James and crown them jointly.
Personally, I want to see it after August so Scotland remains independent.
 
I can see Spain trying to make a play here. Seeing as both of the main potential successors to Elizabeth are Protestant they'll likely try and take the throne, I'd think. By this point they'd re-built the navy incredibly effectively and the Spanish forces in France are in full swing.

I could see a Second Spanish Armada and an attempt to put someone else on the throne - perhaps Lord Neville of Westmorland who had escaped after the Rising of the North and was fighting for the Spanish.
 
I think the most likely Spanish claimant, if there is one, would be Infanta Isabella. Her father is the genealogically senior heir of the Lancaster line (historically, their branch was passed over in favor of the Tudors because of the traditional bar against foreign inheritance), he was the nominated heir of Mary Queen of Scots's claim to the English throne, and he had a papal bull in favor of his claim; and he abdicated his claims to the English throne to her.

Historically, she had little opportunity to claim the English throne apart short of as a legal cover for a Spanish conquest of England (being too Catholic, too foreign, and having too distant a genealogical claim), but there are a number of indications that her claim was taken seriously in England. Most notably, there are some letters from one of the Cecils sucking up to her in the later years of Elizabeth's reign, presumably hedging his bets in case Isabella somehow managed to outmaneuver James.

I don't really see Spain making a strong play for the English throne in this scenario, since they've got their hands full with the Dutch Revolt and their involvement in the French Wars of Religion (in which Isabella was also a claimant to the French throne (as of August 1589) and would later be created Archduchess of the Spanish Netherlands). I suspect Spain would probably prefer to use the succession as a face-saving excuse to make peace, as they did IOTL when James took the English throne.
 
Elizabeth's flirtation with naming Arbella Stuart was in part to ensure James' remained content with his English pension etc.
She did that sort of thing throughout her reign with the varying English based claimants but whether she was ever serious is still a question people pose all the time.
Certainly people in England and on the continent took Arbella seriously as a claimant and it couldn't be ruled out but her claim would be subject to plots and counter claims - from James in Scotland and from the Seymour boys at home.
I incline to the view already suggested that the Spanish are more likely to want a peace treaty once Elizabeth is dead as in OTL when she died in 1603.
Philip's long distant Lancastrian claim was extremely weak.
Elizabeth's view certainly by her later years was probably that she should be succeeded by someone of equal or royal rank rather than a mere subject - ie James VI.
The fact he was male held enormous appeal to English courtiers and politicians tired of being ruled by a "capricious" woman and to many of the more puritan of them it was absolutely against nature to have a woman on the throne (however much they admired their Queen).
To put themselves through another female ruler - dominated by her ambitious and avaricious grandmother might not suit them even to keep their independence.
Opting for James VI even in 1589 gave them additional security given he was the strict heir in terms of primogeniture and he was a protestant.
It also give's them an opportunity for a secure succession and no rival domestic claimants are going to garner much support to mount any kind of coup in the short term.
 
It matters a lot exactly when in 1589 Elizabeth were to die. James's OTL marriage to Anne of Denmark was negotiated in August 1589, and the ceremony was held in November. If Elizabeth died before August, the obvious solution to the succession would be to marry Arabella to James and crown them jointly.
That does seem to nicely square the circle of getting you get an adult royal male successor whilst also taking care of Arbella's quasi-claim to the throne. Aside from the social aspects that mcdnab mentioned the Union of the Crowns is a major bonus since it finally removes Scotland as a nagging danger and makes them pretty much secure behind the Royal Navy. I think even the Cecils would eventually accept that over the chance of their running the regency for a few years and possible armed unpleasantness that her accession might throw up.
 
I agree that James still has a pretty solid shot at England in this scenario. I just think the outcome is in doubt, whereas IOTL James had it completely locked up by 1603. The big things James had going for him IOTL:

  1. Royal rank and an established track record as a reigning monarch.
  2. Elizabeth's apparent tacit support.
  3. The explicit support of almost all of Elizabeth's inner circle (the only exception I know of is Raleigh, who was a peripheral player to begin with and was progressively getting further marginalized).
  4. He's spent a decade buying off every major English power center, as well as gaining widespread international support for his claim in both the Protestant and Catholic worlds.
  5. He's an adult man, addressing concerns over both gender roles and the risk of an unacceptable King Consort.
  6. The succession is secure after him, as he already has an heir and an spare.
  7. He has an army and the will to use it if anyone tries to defy him. The only other potential claimant with their own army was Isabella, and hers was inconveniently stuck across the Channel.
  8. Personal union with Scotland had been at the top of England's diplomatic wish-list at least since Henry VII's reign, and James delivers that on a platter.
  9. There was no single clear rival claimant to James in 1603: Arabella Stuart, Edward Seymour, and Anne Stanley were all marginal political figures at that point, so trying to elevate one above the others would risk splitting opposition to James by inducing the others to make a play for the throne as well.
#1, 5, 7, and 8 still would apply in this scenario, but 2, 4, 6, and 9 would not. #3 is the key, IMO. If Elizabeth's core advisers were to agree to proclaim Arabella, I expect they could rally England solidly behind her and hold off anything James threw at them. The real question is whether they would. A clean male succession, with personal union as a bonus, would be a very powerful reason for them to push Arabella aside and support James. Reasons they might not:

  1. James hasn't yet had a chance to assure the Cecils and the other major power groups that he's keep them in place. Arabella would need to keep them in power, since she needs their support to secure the throne and would need a regent for 2-4 years.
  2. If Elizabeth was sincere in favoring Arabella as heir at this point (as you say, there's good reason to doubt she was), then they may feel compelled to follow her lead.
  3. James is Protestant, but he's engaged or married to a Catholic (depending on when Elizabeth dies), and unlike OTL there hasn't been time for fear of him converting to Catholicism to subside.
I can see it going either way. James probably still has the upper hand, but if the goal is to keep England and Scotland separate, this is probably one of the better PODs.
 
Arabella Stuart did have one advantage going for her that James didn't: She was actually born in England, rather than abroad, and there were people in those days who thought that that mattered.
 
I do think James is far less certain of success in 1589 and many councillors might favour the chance to dominate a regency council for Arbella for their own ends.
Questions about her own religious leanings have been raised over the years which might become an issue for some on the council.
The question of her marriage is going to be problematic - like Elizabeth marrying a subject is going to cause problems - marrying abroad a nightmare for the insular English.
From memory and forgive me if i am wrong Anne of Denmark in 1589 was still seen as a Lutheran and had been brought up as one - her Catholic leanings appeared throughout her marriage - but even at her death people were still unsure of her true view. However before her arrival in Scotland she was seen as a Protestant bride.
In 1589 the only rival to James is his cousin Arbella - a fact most of the English Court were well aware of.
If she is proclaimed Queen then I think James will look to invade however unlikely he is to win and perhaps the 1590s will bring the War of the English Succession.
 
From memory and forgive me if i am wrong Anne of Denmark in 1589 was still seen as a Lutheran and had been brought up as one - her Catholic leanings appeared throughout her marriage - but even at her death people were still unsure of her true view. However before her arrival in Scotland she was seen as a Protestant bride.

My recollection, based mainly on Antonia Fraser's book on the Gunpowder Plot, is that Anne was perceived to be Catholic, at least among the English Catholic community in the early 1600s, who had hoped that James might convert or at least would support toleration of Catholicism in England. I'd assumed that was based on some level of open practice of Catholicism on her part, but a quick googling seems to indicate I was mistaken.
 
Top