WI James VI of Scotland was born a girl?

IIRC the early part of his reign was very unstable, and I would think it quite likely that the male contender would seize the throne, rather than see a queen succeed a queen.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
At first, the Earl of Moray would probably claim the throne in his own right (as a bastard son of James V) rather than as regent to Mary's infant child as per OTL. Maybe he manages to hold the throne, or maybe he gets overthrown by either the Earl of Arran or the Earl of Lennox.
 
At first, the Earl of Moray would probably claim the throne in his own right (as a bastard son of James V) rather than as regent to Mary's infant child as per OTL. Maybe he manages to hold the throne, or maybe he gets overthrown by either the Earl of Arran or the Earl of Lennox.

Being a bastard doesnt he need Papal dispensation in order to succeed?
 
Why wouldn't the Scottish nobles accept an infant female as they did with the young James IOTL?

Also, there is the problem that if you exclude *Mary (or Elizabeth/Margaret/whatever...) from the throne of Scotland but she is raised to be the heir of Elizabeth I then the Scottish nobles create a giant problem, with new Queen of England with a strong claim to their realm. Would even Elizabeth I accept such situation? Probably if you get rid of her in Scotland you also would need to avoid any possibility of her getting the throne in England as well.
 
Honestly I think if Mary only had a daughter, one of two things would happen:

- Mary would be tolerated a bit more and forced into a third marriage, á la Bothwell, so as to secure the succession.

or

- Whoever has the upper hand at court at the time of her birth seizes custody of the child and arranges her marriage to their advantage - so if the Hamiltons, she'd be betrothed from birth to one of their own, etc.

As for England, Elizabeth might well be more inclined to acknowledge young native-born Arabella as her heiress.
 
Being a bastard doesnt he need Papal dispensation in order to succeed?

Scotland was already a Protestant country (albeit one with a significant Catholic minority), enough so that Mary didn't try to undo the Scottish Reformation upon her return to Scotland, despite her personal Catholicism. If Moray could gain and hold the support of most of the Protestant aristocracy, the Pope could go fly a kite.

Why wouldn't the Scottish nobles accept an infant female as they did with the young James IOTL?

They might, but then again they might not. At this point, there was a recent example of an infant girl being crowned, leading to a period of power struggle over the regency, followed by two messily unsuitable marriages once she grew up and took the throne for herself, culminating in most of the nobility banding together to overthrow her. If Moray tried to convince his followers that crowning him (an adult male high noble, and the son of King James V) would be more likely to bring stability than crowning another baby girl, he'd probably have a pretty easy sell.
 
As for England, Elizabeth might well be more inclined to acknowledge young native-born Arabella as her heiress.

Arabella wasn't born until 1675, nine years after the birth of James VI/*Mary II. As of the time of the birth of Mary's child, and as of her OTL overthrow less than a year later, the heir to the English throne along that branch of the family (Margaret Tudor's descendants by her second marriage) was still Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox (father of both Lord Darnley (Mary's second husband and the father of James VI/*Mary II) and Arabella's OTL father Charles Stuart).

ITTL, Elizabeth might be more inclined to support someone from the Lennox line as her heir than OTL, but there will be a ton of butterflies. *Arabella might be born earlier or later or not at all, or be born male, and her father might survive long enough for her to be raised in Scotland.
 
ITTL, Elizabeth might be more inclined to support someone from the Lennox line as her heir than OTL, but there will be a ton of butterflies. *Arabella might be born earlier or later or not at all, or be born male, and her father might survive long enough for her to be raised in Scotland.

Also ITTL Elizabeth might more willing to arrange Catherine Grey's marriage and declare her as heir.
 
Given that none of the claimants to the throne had made attempts to usurp Mary I's throne during her infancy I doubt that the Scots would do anything different to what happened with James VI.

In terms of the succession after the infant Queen.

The acknowledged heirs were the descendants of James II's daughter Mary Stewart
James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran (d 1575) - who had been regent for Mary at one point. He switched sides frequently and i have no doubt he will again pressure for a marriage between one of his sons and the new infant Queen.
(his eldest son the 3rd Earl went mad)
His rival was the new Queen's grandfather - Matthew Stuart Earl of Lennox - (his line descended from the 1st Earl of Arran's sister Elizabeth disputed the validity of the 1st Earl of Arran's divorce and second marriage) - he had spent much of his later life in England - he had returned to Scotland in 1564 during the marriage of his son Lord Darnley to Mary I. (His wife and younger son Charles remained in England) in OTL he became Regent in 1570 but was killed a year later.
 
Catherine Grey had already produced her two sons by this point and her marriage declared invalid - in fact she would die in 1568.

Assuming Mary's depositions occurs at the same time as it did in otl and assuming the lords proclaim an infant Mary II then Elizabeth's reaction will be much as what it was in OTL....

Also ITTL Elizabeth might more willing to arrange Catherine Grey's marriage and declare her as heir.
 
I think the answer proposed above - that Mary would be forced into a third marriage to produce a male heir - is probably the most plausible. Who is an interesting question though. Bothwell was pretty popular amongst the Scots nobility until he more or less kidnapped Mary - if he wooed her in a more conventional sense then the marriage might meet with more support. Bothwell has the advantage of not being a Hamilton, a Douglas, a Lennox Stewart or a Gordon - while the Hamiltons are the most plausible providers of an alternative groom, putting Arran in Mary's marital bed likely leads to civil war between them and the Douglases and Lennox Stewarts; the Douglases provoke a similar reaction from the Hamiltons; the Lennox Stewarts have already blotted their copy-book with Darnley and the Gordons are Catholic. There are alternatives but many of them suffer from their Catholicism or having power-bases remote from the centre of Scotland. Getting a foreign prince is problematic as it involves other powers having an interest in Scottish affairs, and also affects the European balance of power. But it does avoid internal conflict - I don't know about European royal families in the mid-16th century well enough to make a suggestion.

The same considerations are in play with a infant female heir but they are even worse as you have 15 - 20 years of intrigue, conflict and potential civil war before Mary II marries and bears children.
 
Top