WI Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot succeeds

So here is my question. WI the plot succeded. Say for excample parliment convenes on July 28th. SO the originol plan is set in motion and the conspiroters are able to detonate the gunpowder. What happens now that parliment which has just convened had been blown up and the King dies. Now what happens to english history. What do the conspiroters do now?
 
Interesting idea. I assume that you will make the POD being that the conspirators doesn't inform the Catholic members of parliament, believing that for consenting to Anglican rule, they are just as much traitors as the rest of Parliament, and that consequently, the plot is never made know to the authorities?

The question now to consider is how successful the conspirators are in starting the popular revolt in the midlands, and if they can get princess Elizabeth installed as Queen (in which case she'll be Elizabeth II)... I dunno about the midlands, but those Scottish Catholics may be interested. Additionally, James I had claimed the throne of France and Elizabeth's foreign policy was basically a coldly calculated plan to piss off the Spanish as much as possible. Both Spain and France are staunchly Catholic, so I'd assume that kings Philip III of Spain and Henry IV of France will be more than happy to exploit this opportunity to pacify a hated enemy. They might throw in their support for the conspirators plot and help give their cause legitimacy.

If they are successful with that, then European and American religious history will be more than radically rewritten thereafter.
 
Considering that in OTL they told people in the Midlands the plot had succeeded, and failed to start an insurrection I don't see why the plotters should succeed here. You are also going to need the POD to be earlier. Parliament was postponed from October to November because of plague. And by November the powder had split. So I expect Charles to be brought up in Scotland as a fiercely Protestant, absolute king.
 
Yes, things will be worse for the Catholics in England. Begrudging acceptance alternating with mild persecution will turn into outright persecution.

Needless to say, France and Spain will be pissed.
 
Yeah, albeit sorry, I wasn't clear - I was thinking if thise would not 'rouse' some radical protestants in Europe.. Which state was the most hostile to catholics?

Largest one I could think of is Sweden, though given the circumstances of the Reformation there'd be practically none left.
 
If the conspiritors get Prince Henry and Prince Charles as well as King James, and if they succeed in kidnapping Princess Elizabeth, then there's a significant potential succession crisis in both England and Scotland. Elizabeth is unquestionably James's heir once the death of both Princes is confirmed, but she's being held hostage by a band of traitors. They may kill her when it becomes clear their situation is hopeless, or they may be able to spirit her away overseas (probably to Spain or France, either of which may be interested in using her as the figurehead of a Catholic government-in-exile); in either case, another heir is needed.

For potential candidates, search the forums for discussions of alternative heirs to Elizabeth I, as this is only two years later. Two of the candidates would have been killed in the explosion: Edward Seymour is in the House of Lords, so he'd be killed and his claim passes to his son William, and likewise with Henry Hastings Earl of Huntingdon, whose claim passes to his sister Catherine (wife of then Sir Philip Stanhope, who later became 1st Earl of Chesterfield).

The English candidates are Lady Anne Stanley, Lady Arabella Stuart, William Seymour Earl of Herford, and Lady Catherine Hastings. There's also some descendants of Henry VIII's bastards running around, who may try to put in a word for themselves (Colonel Sir Edmund Carey (who would become Baron Hunsdon upon the death of his brother), descendant of Mary Boleyn, is probably the geneologically senior illegitimate descendant of Henry VIII once you remove people who would have been killed in the explosion).

The Scottish candidates are Lady Arabella Stuart, Ludovic Stewart Duke of Lennox, and whichever member of the House of Arran is best able to stand in as regent for the confined lunatic James Hamiliton 3rd Earl of Arran.

My money is on Anne Stanley in England (best legal claim and nobody really has as stronger political position) and Ludovic Stewart in Scotland (by far the strongest political position). Unless Arabella Stuart manages to claim both thrones (very unlikely in Scotland, where she was not even able to claim her father's titles because she was seen as too English), personal union between England and Scotland is dead for the time being.
 
Considering that Charles is about 6, its unlikely he'd be taken to see Parliament being opened. He'd be with a nanny or something further away and so would survive the explosion and become a post of Edward VI style king, with distinct Presbyterian undertones because of his fathers death. Wouldn't the Catholic powers keep out of it? Nobody likes to support mass murderers and regicides. I can see a more equal union emerging. England would be torn apart by religious wars leaving Scotland as leader of Britain
 
Huntingdon's claims would pass to his brother George (not his sister Catherine) - George died in 1604 and was succeeded by his teenaged grandson Henry 5th Earl of Huntingdon - ironically Henry married in 1601 Lady Elizabeth Stanley (youngest daughter of the Fernando Stanley Earl of Derby)....
thus they both had a claim (him through his descent from George Duke of Clarence and her through her descent from Mary Tudor Queen of France and Duchess of Suffolk)


If the conspiritors get Prince Henry and Prince Charles as well as King James, and if they succeed in kidnapping Princess Elizabeth, then there's a significant potential succession crisis in both England and Scotland. Elizabeth is unquestionably James's heir once the death of both Princes is confirmed, but she's being held hostage by a band of traitors. They may kill her when it becomes clear their situation is hopeless, or they may be able to spirit her away overseas (probably to Spain or France, either of which may be interested in using her as the figurehead of a Catholic government-in-exile); in either case, another heir is needed.

For potential candidates, search the forums for discussions of alternative heirs to Elizabeth I, as this is only two years later. Two of the candidates would have been killed in the explosion: Edward Seymour is in the House of Lords, so he'd be killed and his claim passes to his son William, and likewise with Henry Hastings Earl of Huntingdon, whose claim passes to his sister Catherine (wife of then Sir Philip Stanhope, who later became 1st Earl of Chesterfield).

The English candidates are Lady Anne Stanley, Lady Arabella Stuart, William Seymour Earl of Herford, and Lady Catherine Hastings. There's also some descendants of Henry VIII's bastards running around, who may try to put in a word for themselves (Colonel Sir Edmund Carey (who would become Baron Hunsdon upon the death of his brother), descendant of Mary Boleyn, is probably the geneologically senior illegitimate descendant of Henry VIII once you remove people who would have been killed in the explosion).

The Scottish candidates are Lady Arabella Stuart, Ludovic Stewart Duke of Lennox, and whichever member of the House of Arran is best able to stand in as regent for the confined lunatic James Hamiliton 3rd Earl of Arran.

My money is on Anne Stanley in England (best legal claim and nobody really has as stronger political position) and Ludovic Stewart in Scotland (by far the strongest political position). Unless Arabella Stuart manages to claim both thrones (very unlikely in Scotland, where she was not even able to claim her father's titles because she was seen as too English), personal union between England and Scotland is dead for the time being.
 
Huntingdon's claims would pass to his brother George (not his sister Catherine) - George died in 1604 and was succeeded by his teenaged grandson Henry 5th Earl of Huntingdon - ironically Henry married in 1601 Lady Elizabeth Stanley (youngest daughter of the Fernando Stanley Earl of Derby)....
thus they both had a claim (him through his descent from George Duke of Clarence and her through her descent from Mary Tudor Queen of France and Duchess of Suffolk)

I was referring to Henry, 5th Earl of Huntingdon, not Henry, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon (I believe you are correct about the claims of the 3rd Earl). The 5th Earl would be a member of the House of Lords, and so would probably have been killed in the bombing.

Wikipedia claims that his first child (Alice Hastings) was born in 1606, so Henry 5th Earl's claim might past to her as a posthumous child (depending when in 1606 she's born) or to his sister Catherine. The Earldom would go to his uncle Henry (son of George Hastings, 4th Earl of Huntingdon, brother of the 5th Earl's father), I think.

Of course, an unborn baby whose claim derived from a branch of the royal family that was overthrown 120 years previously is likely to be a complete non-entity in a succession debate where there are several adult candidates with much less distant claims. If the 5th Earl were to survive the bombing (absent on that day for some reason) and the succession question went to a convention parliament, I could see him emerging as a dark horse candidate if there's a deadlock between the three major candidates (Anne, Arabella, and William). Catherine Hastings (if Henry 5th Earl is dead) might be viable in that role, too, but an unborn Alice Hastings not so much (despite her claim on her mother's side, which is strictly junior to Anne Stanley's claim because Anne is the older sister of Alice's mother).

But it is interesting how people with secondary claims to the throne seem to pair off. Arabella Stuart and William Seymour wind up marrying IOTL, too.
 
Sorry I was at date cross-purposes to clarify the Hastings heir in 1605 would be Sir George Hastings (brother of the 5th Earl) or possibly the 5th Earl's first born daughter Elizabeth *assuming she was born around 1605*
It is worth bearing in mind that the 5th Earl wasn't quite 20 in 1605 and may not have attended Parliament.

Hastings Family:

Francis 2nd Earl married Catherine Pole
Sons of the 2nd Earl:
Henry 3rd Earl died 1595 without issue succeeded by brother
George 4th Earl died 1604
Eldest son of 4th Earl:
Francis Lord Hastings died 1595
grandsons of the 4th Earl:
Henry 5th Earl succeeded in 1604
His first child might have been his daughter Elizabeth (claimed date of 1605) Alice was the second in 1606.
his two brothers were George and Edward
George would have succeeded as 6th Earl if Hastings was in Parliament.
 
I agree with the likelyhood that Prince Charles would not have been at the opening of Parliment, and it would be likely that he would have survived the explosion.

The conspiritors had no luck rousing support in OTL, even when they told people the attack had worked, England had been Anglican for too long by then (almost 50 years since the last catholic monarch and almost 70 from the Reformation).

My guess is that the Catholics would be persicuted in a way they had not been since Edward and would be either driven out or forced totally underground.

Charles would be raised a staunch Protestant and would have hated of catholics drilled into him, particularly if he was raised North of the boarder for safety.

For me this would mean he was more in touch with Parliment when he reached his majority, and would not annoy the Scots with a new prayer book, as I would see him as a weak king always ensuring that he didn't annoy anyone enough to try to assinate him.
 
His first child might have been his daughter Elizabeth (claimed date of 1605)
[snip]
George would have succeeded as 6th Earl if Hastings was in Parliament.

I stand corrected. I misread the 5th Earl's wikipedia article, which has his children out of chronological order, and which incorrectly states he was the only son of Francis Hastings (although Francis's article correctly lists George and Edward).
 
Top