WI: James IV survives Flodden Field

[Dr. Waterhouse]

There's no evidence it was even considered.

I think uniting the monarchies ran far more to Henry VIII's tastes when it was the future Edward VI who was to be the groom. He wasn't quite as forward-thinking as his father in imagining that a united Britain would inevitably be anglo-centric, and that that was what mattered. Instead, preserving a male line of Tudors and giving them the biggest realm possible was his preoccupation.

 

[Dr. Waterhouse]

Yeah I mean was Scotland ever a real threat to England? Because I doubt it. France used Scotland to distract England and had done so for centuries. It just mattered more during the hundred years' war. Not to mention every time Scotland attacked England it lost its King, with the monarch being killed, dieing soon after or being captured.

As for a more powerful England, I can't see any real change in English power with a union with Scotland. Though we might see a different religious policy. For instance, if Mary married James V I doubt we would see Henry pushing so hard for a divorce from Catherine. After all, from an English POV, Mary's marriage would eventually give Scotland to England.

Honestly now, did I say Scotland was a threat in the sense you mean it? No, and for good reason none of those Scottish kings ever fought their way to London. But Scotland does not have to win its conflicts with England to force England to keep sufficient forces back from its campaigns on the continent to improve the chances of the French.

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

Not set in stone, but there's a substantial difference between "events could work out differently" and "were it not for this perversely irrational/unlikely event that happened OTL, things would work out like X".

And the attitude that Britain's Protestantism is the latter bothers me, given the lack of hostility to it happening OTL

Anyhow, it definitely would. Especially if someone who finds this to be a big deal takes either throne - Mary (Henrysdaughter) would count if she's like OTL.

I don't know about wars of Religion - it might just be more Yet Another Stuart King Dies Prematurely. Could go there if they have a significant block of supporters, however (either as royalists or Catholics - though which one it is may matter in the long run).

Well, to be fair, England going Protestant, while not destined to happen, was a bit of a stroke of good luck for the Protestant supporters...that and the fact that all of Catherine of Aragon's children were either stillborn or died before they even made it to a month old, sans Mary Tudor of course, though thats not to say that there weren't other possible ways that England could go Potestant. (Probably would take a lot more research than I can actually handle currently though.)

What do you mean if it the block of supporters depends on what kind in the long run? Do you mean something akin to the Politiques and the Catholic League that France had during the later 16th century?

 

[Elfwine]

Well, to be fair, England going Protestant, while not destined to happen, was a bit of a stroke of good luck for the Protestant supporters...that and the fact that all of Catherine of Aragon's children were either stillborn or died before they even made it to a month old, sans Mary Tudor of course, though thats not to say that there weren't other possible ways that England could go Potestant. (Probably would take a lot more research than I can actually handle currently though.)

Because only Catherine of Aragon not having a son would allow it. I could not disagree more.

If you want that to be enough to keep English Catholicism in any given timeline I won't argue - it was a thing that could have happened, and strong efforts in Henry's time would probably keep things as they were (Englishmen being conservative on such matters in this era). But when discussing in general, I bitterly oppose the idea that it was mere fortune at work. That treats it as if the English blindly followed the king, rather than having their own feelings on the subject, if nothing worse.

What do you mean if it the block of supporters depends on what kind in the long run? Do you mean something akin to the Politiques and the Catholic League that France had during the later 16th century?

Possibly (I'm not as familiar with that as I'd like). But what I was thinking is that if they're royalists, they're gonna support the monarchy even if they don't agree completely with religious policy - but those who are pro-Stuart because the Stuarts are pro-Catholic will find any attempt at compromise, however reasonable, considerably less desirable. And be less concerned with supporting the Stuarts in areas that strengthen the monarchy but aren't necessarily good for Catholicism.

So the former is a much more sturdy basis for the monarchy to secure the situation of ruling Scotland than the latter - in the short run, James IV or maybe his son, the two concerns may not diverge at all - but at some point they will. Unless the Stuarts associate the monarchy with diehard Catholicism, which has its own consequences.

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

Yeah, I can very well imagine what consequence ultra-catholicism will bring to Scotland...bad idea, that...

Also for those who are looking to see a Stuart on the English throne...no. My objective is to keep the two Kingdoms separate with what may possibly be the latest PoD possible (to be fair, the latest would probably be during the early Elizabethian-years, but I digress)

In any case, even if the annulment occurs, it might be possible for England to remain Catholic though it will get exponentially harder, and is sure to give a lot of grief, ala Mary I's reign.