WI Maid of Norway lives and is crowned Queen of Scotland?

[Don_Giorgio]

Hi again... After a long absense due to work issues i am back!!!! Now lets proceed to my question...

During King Alexnder's III reign Scotland had seen a period of peace and economic stability. Alexander had maintained a positive relationship with the kings of England, and had successfully fended off continuing English claims to sovereignty. In 1286 Alexander died after falling from his horse; none of his children survived him. The Scottish lords declared Alexander's 4 yo granddaughter Margaret Queen. Due to her young age, the Scottish lords set up an interim government to administer Scotland until Margaret came of age. King Edward I of England took advantage of the instability by arranging the Treaty of Birgham with the lords, betrothing Margaret to his son, Edward of Carnaerfon (future Edward II), on the understanding that Scotland would preserve its status as a separate Kingdom. Margaret, however, fell ill and died at only seven years of age (1290) on her way from her native Norway to Scotland and chaos ensued with multiples claimants to the Scottish Throne emerging...
WI Margaret never got sick or recovered from her illness crowned as Queen and married Edward?
How is this affecting History? No War of Scottish Independence? Or there would be a civil war among scottish nobles? Any potential offspring of Margaret and Edward would have inherited both Crowns? What do u think?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Margaret, Queen of Norway, Scotland and England
horticultureandmelodrama




The Maid of Norway survives.
Promethean
in which
Justin Pickard

In Perpetual Beta
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1000 or more


One possibility.





I'd actually thought this had been discussed more.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Well the nobles might have as well elected her to the Scottish throne but wouldnt they be infuriated if she was betrothed to future Edward II? They would view it as an attempt by Edward I to set foot in England... Is a civil war plausible between Baliols Bruces or any other claimant to the Throne?

 

[leonardocruzbr]

Well the nobles might have as well elected her to the Scottish throne but wouldnt they be infuriated if she was betrothed to future Edward II? They would view it as an attempt by Edward I to set foot in England... Is a civil war plausible between Baliols Bruces or any other claimant to the Throne?

Considering that in OTL they had not only agreed to the match, but after she died, asked Edward I to mediate and basically pick who would be the King of Scotland? And that this happened during a time that relations between Scotland and England were friendly? I don't think so.

 

[The Professor]

If the future Edward II of England becomes King of Scotland through his marriage to Margaret what would happen with the inheritance of their children?
If they have more than one son would there be pressure to separate the thrones (of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) among the brothers?
If so could we see the development of one being elected Emperor of Britain?

 

[Don_Giorgio]

If the future Edward II of England becomes King of Scotland through his marriage to Margaret what would happen with the inheritance of their children?
If they have more than one son would there be pressure to separate the thrones (of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) among the brothers?
If so could we see the development of one being elected Emperor of Britain?

Edward II was unpopular in England... If he becomes King of Scots too maybe he gets the same amount of unpopularity there too and OTL repeats itself in both Kingdoms now...

 

[leonardocruzbr]

If the future Edward II of England becomes King of Scotland through his marriage to Margaret what would happen with the inheritance of their children?
If they have more than one son would there be pressure to separate the thrones (of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) among the brothers?
If so could we see the development of one being elected Emperor of Britain?

There might be a debate for splitting the thrones of England and Scotland, and maybe of Norway (which any son of Margaret would have a claim after her father, Eric II of Norway, dies without sons in 1299), although I find it unlikely to actually occur. There's no way Ireland and/or Wales would become separate kingdoms, though. I could easily see England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales (and maybe Norway) been inherited by the oldest son, although there is no way he will be called Emperor.

 

[leonardocruzbr]

Edward II was unpopular in England... If he becomes King of Scots too maybe he gets the same amount of unpopularity there too and OTL repeats itself in both Kingdoms now...

His unpopularity at Scotland would start far earlier than Edward II's OTL unpopularity in England, as they'll probably be married c.1300, while Edward I of England is still alive (and he'll probably life far longer than in OTL, as he won't be campaigning at Scotland to get sick and die), and Edward II will then be crowned as King Edward I of Scotland. And I don't doubt he would waste any time giving titles, officies and land to Pier Gaveston, irritating both the scots, Margaret, and his father, Edward I of England, who in OTL exiled Gaveston from England for this same reason. And in OTL, Longsshanks was found of his daughters, and Margaret, who in TTL he would have helped raise, was also family, been her maternal granduncle.

But he'll be King of Scotland only by right of marriage, and I can see Margaret conspiring with the Scottish nobles to remove him from power. Actually, if she inherits some of her ancestors character from both maternal and paternal lines, she might just seize power (the scots nobles would probably prefer a reigning Queen, strange as it might be at the time, to been ruled by Edward of Carnarvon) and execute Gaveston. Of course, her direct involvement, specially if publicly known, might led to their distancing - and if there's already at least one son born, this might result in them living separately, and no more children been produced.

By consequence of his problems in Scotland, when Edward of Carnarvon ascend to the english throne, the english barons would likely already know and be ready for his ways... He might have them rebelling far earlier than in OTL...

 

[Don_Giorgio]

His unpopularity at Scotland would start far earlier than Edward II's OTL unpopularity in England, as they'll probably be married c.1300, while Edward I of England is still alive (and he'll probably life far longer than in OTL, as he won't be campaigning at Scotland to get sick and die), and Edward II will then be crowned as King Edward I of Scotland. And I don't doubt he would waste any time giving titles, officies and land to Pier Gaveston, irritating both the scots, Margaret, and his father, Edward I of England, who in OTL exiled Gaveston from England for this same reason. And in OTL, Longsshanks was found of his daughters, and Margaret, who in TTL he would have helped raise, was also family, been her maternal granduncle.

But he'll be King of Scotland only by right of marriage, and I can see Margaret conspiring with the Scottish nobles to remove him from power. Actually, if she inherits some of her ancestors character from both maternal and paternal lines, she might just seize power (the scots nobles would probably prefer a reigning Queen, strange as it might be at the time, to been ruled by Edward of Carnarvon) and execute Gaveston. Of course, her direct involvement, specially if publicly known, might led to their distancing - and if there's already at least one son born, this might result in them living separately, and no more children been produced.

By consequence of his problems in Scotland, when Edward of Carnarvon ascend to the english throne, the english barons would likely already know and be ready for his ways... He might have them rebelling far earlier than in OTL...

Edward of Carnarvon would be King of the Scots only by "jure uxoris" so if he turns really a pain in the ass for the Scottish people nobility could have him deposed or assassinated fairly easily and marry off Margaret to someone of their ranks (Bruces or Baliols) or some foreign prince (a French perhaps?)... But that would have raised the wrath of Edward I and propably he would invaded Scotland... Now if this happens around 1310s and the King is around his 70s i doubt he would have lived past this campaign and his death would have caused instability in England since both his remaining sons would be around 10-12 yo... Scots and Margaret would have the upper hand in this conflict then... And it gets even more complicated if Edward and Margaret have offspring by then...

 

[Fletch]

Considering that in OTL they had not only agreed to the match, but after she died, asked Edward I to mediate and basically pick who would be the King of Scotland? And that this happened during a time that relations between Scotland and England were friendly? I don't think so.

Relations were friendly, and had been for some time. They just never counted on Edward II of England being a total ratfucker. His actions caused the poor relations between the Scots and the English.

 

[leonardocruzbr]

Edward of Carnarvon would be King of the Scots only by "jure uxoris" so if he turns really a pain in the ass for the Scottish people nobility could have him deposed or assassinated fairly easily and marry off Margaret to someone of their ranks (Bruces or Baliols) or some foreign prince (a French perhaps?)... But that would have raised the wrath of Edward I and propably he would invaded Scotland... Now if this happens around 1310s and the King is around his 70s i doubt he would have lived past this campaign and his death would have caused instability in England since both his remaining sons would be around 10-12 yo... Scots and Margaret would have the upper hand in this conflict then... And it gets even more complicated if Edward and Margaret have offspring by then...

Assassinating would be a bit extreme, what with Edward of Carnarvon been the heir of England, and killing him off would incite the far wealthier and military more powerful English against them. Besides, it's not necessary, as simply deposing him would solve the problem, leaving power with Margaret, the Council of Bishops and Earls (forming a Regency council), or both.

Carnarvon and Margaret would have probably been married circa 1301 (when Margaret is 18 of age) or 1302 (when Edward of Carnarvon is 18 of age). And if in OTL the english barons were so annoyed that they killed Gaveston in 1312, the TTL scottish lords would most likely not wait five years as the english barons did. So, they would likely rebel circa 1305-1306, or even before, and execute Gaveston. And I don't think they would leve a "jure uxoris" King ruling after that.

While an assassination would means war with England, just deposing him could be solved diplomatically, specially as Margaret would have been raised around Longshanks, and would have learned how to push her granduncle's bottoms. Besides that, don't think the great Edward I would have liked his son's ruling style even a bit. After all, if he would rule England like he had attempted at Scotland ...

And by that time, I think it's likely *one* child has either been born or been conceived, and if it lives, it will be the heir. Of course, if it's a son, it'll be the next king of both England and Scotland, maybe as Edward II of Scotland and Edward III of England. But if it's a daughter, there will be pressure both in London and in Edinburgh for a son to be born...

 

[leonardocruzbr]

Relations were friendly, and had been for some time. They just never counted on Edward II of England being a total ratfucker. His actions caused the poor relations between the Scots and the English.

I'm not quite sure what do you mean with that. Do you mean that, in TTL Edward II of England would have caused the poor relations between the Scots and the English? Because in OTL, they were started by Edward I, not by his son.

 

[Fletch]

I'm not quite sure what do you mean with that. Do you mean that, in TTL Edward II of England would have caused the poor relations between the Scots and the English? Because in OTL, they were started by Edward I, not by his son.

The post I quoted, unless its the result of a typo stated that when the Scots nobles chose Edward I as a mediator, relations between Scotland and England were poor. This was not the case, or Edward would not have been chosen. It was the general bastardness of Edward I that caused the poor relations of England and Scotland.

 

[leonardocruzbr]

The post I quoted, unless its the result of a typo stated that when the Scots nobles chose Edward I as a mediator, relations between Scotland and England were poor. This was not the case, or Edward would not have been chosen. It was the general bastardness of Edward I that caused the poor relations of England and Scotland.

I see. Then the problem was actually a typo, because you said "Edward II of England being a total ratfucker", when you meant Edward I. And he really was too ambitious and eager in his dealings with Scotland.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

I see. Then the problem was actually a typo, because you said "Edward II of England being a total ratfucker", when you meant Edward I. And he really was too ambitious and eager in his dealings with Scotland.

If i am not mistaken Edward I himself had a vague claim to the Scottish throne through female line... If hr got tired of Scots deposing his son rebelling etc. he could force upon them his own claim...