WI: Elizabeth I doesn't execute Mary Queen of Scots?

Just what it says in the title. Supposedly Elizabeth was very split on the issue of Mary, and after her execution claimed that it was done without her consent. She even imprisoned the executioner. So what if Elizabeth stood by her initial conviction and let Mary live. What would Mary's survival change? Would Elizabeth ever name Mary her heiress? Would she continue to live under house arrest? Would Philip II still launch the Spanish Armada? Hell would Philip use Mary's imprisonment as a pretext for the Armada? Would Mary be released after her son's ascension?
 
Last edited:
Apparently the last straw was invontrevertable evidence Mary was actively plotting with some Catholic lords to depose Elizabeth and take the throne. If we assume the PoD is, therefore, that Mary develops a lick of sense at a fortuitous moment and distances herself from the plotters, then she might well be able to survive for longer.

As is, Catholic Mary was never going to be named Elizabeth's heir, but it's theoretically possible that Elizabeth might be able to negotiate some form of agreement involving Scotland as well that confirms James as heir presumptive and pensions Mary off to some dowery estate for a quiet, and carefully watched, retirement in return for aid against any prospective Spanish invasion.
 
Apparently the last straw was invontrevertable evidence Mary was actively plotting with some Catholic lords to depose Elizabeth and take the throne. If we assume the PoD is, therefore, that Mary develops a lick of sense at a fortuitous moment and distances herself from the plotters, then she might well be able to survive for longer.

As is, Catholic Mary was never going to be named Elizabeth's heir, but it's theoretically possible that Elizabeth might be able to negotiate some form of agreement involving Scotland as well that confirms James as heir presumptive and pensions Mary off to some dowery estate for a quiet, and carefully watched, retirement in return for aid against any prospective Spanish invasion.

I think Mary could marry Darnley, that could make a perfect peace settlement with Elisabeth, but first Mary should get rid of David Rizzio..
 
OK that makes no sense. This isn't a DBLW, Mary DID marry Darnley and it ended up really pissing Elizabeth off.

Among others, which lead to what wound up with Mary imprisoned.

Mary's political judgment makes the other Mary Elizabeth had to contend with look like a genius.
 
The simple fact is that allowing Mary Queen of Scots to live threatens the stability of Elizabeth's throne, because there's always going to be the risk of some jilted Catholic lord making a dynastic marriage or a political alliance with her and rising up against Elizabeth, and you can bet that the French will crashing the party once that happens.
 
Among others, which lead to what wound up with Mary imprisoned.

Mary's political judgment makes the other Mary Elizabeth had to contend with look like a genius.

To be fair, she was pretty much just a pawn in a string of plots that would have probably kept going until her death. Even if she survived to have a natural death and had children, they'd still be claimants that could be used for political gain.
 
Apparently the last straw was invontrevertable evidence Mary was actively plotting with some Catholic lords to depose Elizabeth and take the throne. If we assume the PoD is, therefore, that Mary develops a lick of sense at a fortuitous moment and distances herself from the plotters, then she might well be able to survive for longer.

As is, Catholic Mary was never going to be named Elizabeth's heir, but it's theoretically possible that Elizabeth might be able to negotiate some form of agreement involving Scotland as well that confirms James as heir presumptive and pensions Mary off to some dowery estate for a quiet, and carefully watched, retirement in return for aid against any prospective Spanish invasion.

I thought that part of her reply was doctored to make her look worse.
 
To be fair, she was pretty much just a pawn in a string of plots that would have probably kept going until her death. Even if she survived to have a natural death and had children, they'd still be claimants that could be used for political gain.

I'm certainly not going to say she was dealt a good hand, but she didn't play it very well.

So being used as a pawn is only confirming her weaknesses as a queen, not excusing them.
 
To be fair, she was pretty much just a pawn in a string of plots that would have probably kept going until her death. Even if she survived to have a natural death and had children, they'd still be claimants that could be used for political gain.

True. Mary suffered from a lot of bad advise and advisers, especially when compared to Elizabeth's advisers. Also Mary was 43 when she was executed, so very little chance that she would have any more children.

I thought that part of her reply was doctored to make her look worse.

Also true. I'm pretty sre the entire plot was manufactured by Francis Walsingham to give Elizabeth and the Privy Council a reason to execute Mary Queen of Scots.
 
I'm certainly not going to say she was dealt a good hand, but she didn't play it very well.

So being used as a pawn is only confirming her weaknesses as a queen, not excusing them.

I think Mary's main problems was how she was raised and how her childhood was when compared to Elizabeth. Mary was raised to be Queen Consort of France her hole life, to always defer to her husband. Elizabeth, on the other hand, didn't get the same education there. Elizabeth had to be independent and didn't have anyone to lean on. This, combined with Mary's bad advisers and equally bad choices led to her downfall.
 
I think Mary's main problems was how she was raised and how her childhood was when compared to Elizabeth. Mary was raised to be Queen Consort of France her hole life, to always defer to her husband. Elizabeth, on the other hand, didn't get the same education there. Elizabeth had to be independent and didn't have anyone to lean on. This, combined with Mary's bad advisers and equally bad choices led to her downfall.

Elizabeth's upbringing in no way shape or form prepared her to be a ruling Queen, but she managed to deal with it.

So blaming Mary's upbringing is poppycock.

And blaming her advisers while Mary is doing things like favoring Rizzio and making decisions like marrying Darnley contrary to their views . . .

"The buck stops here." comes to mind.

Mary may have been a much wronged woman, but plenty of rulers have been wronged by those out to abuse the situation for their own advantage.

Unfortunately for herself, if not necessarily for Scotland, Mary was not up to controlling the situation.
 
I was trying to say Mary should marry Dudley, the suitor of Elisabeth and get rid of David Rizzio.

Oh. That makes a LOT more sense. The main problems with the match was his religion and low rank. Mary's first husband was King of France. I can't see her marrying a new noble who may or may not be screwing Elizabeth.
 
Oh. That makes a LOT more sense. The main problems with the match was his religion and low rank. Mary's first husband was King of France. I can't see her marrying a new noble who may or may not be screwing Elizabeth.

Darnley wasn't exactly of the highest rank - connected to the royal houses of both England and Scotland if memory serves, but not himself of any great standing.

So I think putting rank as a barrier would be kinda funny.
 
Darnley wasn't exactly of the highest rank - connected to the royal houses of both England and Scotland if memory serves, but not himself of any great standing.

So I think putting rank as a barrier would be kinda funny.

Yes but Darnley was high in both lines of succession and a marriage between the two would have strengthened their joint claim (it ended up giving James I & VI a double claim to England). After all his mother was Elizabeth's first cousin and his father was an established noble in Scotland. He was no Francois II but much higher status then Robert Dudley. Plus theirs the Elizabeth part. Marrying Dudley would be a renaissance version of sloppy seconds. Finally the marriage to Darnley did help neutralize the next strongest claim to England, after Mary herself, so it wasn't a total wash, at least it didn't seem like one at the time.
 
Yes but Darnley was high in both lines of succession and a marriage between the two would have strengthened their joint claim (it ended up giving James I & VI a double claim to England). After all his mother was Elizabeth's first cousin and his father was an established noble in Scotland. He was no Francois II but much higher status then Robert Dudley. Plus theirs the Elizabeth part. Marrying Dudley would be a renaissance version of sloppy seconds. Finally the marriage to Darnley did help neutralize the next strongest claim to England, after Mary herself, so it wasn't a total wash, at least it didn't seem like one at the time.

And yet this is one of the better examples of an area Mary's judgment just plain sucked.

Darnley may have been high in both lines of succession, he might have had some status (eldest son of an earl), but its not a particularly strong choice - and worrying about her claim to England before securing herself in Scotland says a lot bad about Mary's priorities.

As for sloppy seconds, we don't know Dudley and Elizabeth were in bed together, and given how hard it would be to hide that sort of thing, I'm inclined to doubt it.

So that leaves Dudley as a pretty reasonable looking choice, or at least not completely unreasonable.

I'm not sure how much Mary should have known Darnley was, to put it charitably, an immature boy - but she certainly could have at least picked someone who would have won her supporters, and I'm really not sure how Darnley was supposed to do that.
 
And yet this is one of the better examples of an area Mary's judgment just plain sucked.

Darnley may have been high in both lines of succession, he might have had some status (eldest son of an earl), but its not a particularly strong choice - and worrying about her claim to England before securing herself in Scotland says a lot bad about Mary's priorities.

As for sloppy seconds, we don't know Dudley and Elizabeth were in bed together, and given how hard it would be to hide that sort of thing, I'm inclined to doubt it.

So that leaves Dudley as a pretty reasonable looking choice, or at least not completely unreasonable.

I'm not sure how much Mary should have known Darnley was, to put it charitably, an immature boy - but she certainly could have at least picked someone who would have won her supporters, and I'm really not sure how Darnley was supposed to do that.


Oh no doubt. Mary's second and third marriages are perfect examples of her bad life choices.

Mary's main problem was her obsession with England. It was all consuming and let to her ignoring the needs and threats in her own country.

True there's no proof of a sexual relationship between the two there was lots of rumors, especially after Dudley's wife turned up dead. And back then rumors didn't need proof to be believed by many people.

The only real problem for a Dudley match was religion. I don't think any Protestant was ever seriously considered by Mary. So if he was willing to convert then the problem would go away but if not.... well you see where I'm going with this.

I think Mary overestimated Darnley's worth, big time. And it ended up costing her the Scottish throne and any chance she had at the English throne.
 
IIRC, there was a point at which Elizabeth did at least half consider marrying Dudley to Mary.

But even then that sentance makes no sense- Rizzio was murdered by Darnley during Mary's pregnancy.
 
Top