WI: Surviving Albany Stewarts

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Kellan Sullivan, Jul 19, 2017.

  1. Kellan Sullivan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    James V dies leaving a infant daughter, Mary, by his wife, Marie de Guise. He has no surviving sons.

    His cousin, John, duke of Albany died in 1536. However, John (either through having kids by his first wife, Anne de la Tour d'Auvergne (aunt of Catherine de Medicis) which according to his wiki he had a legitimate daughter who died in her teens; or through remarriage) has kids of his own. My understanding of it is that John's son(s) stand in the Scots' succession ahead of their cousin Mary. John's son succeeds as James VI (more likely Alexander IV, since the Albanys didn't even name their illegitimate sons James), and new king Jamie/Alex has some sisters to provide for.

    Where do these sisters marry? (Obviously this might depend on their mother, but let's assume it's one of James V's cast offs, like Marie of Bourbon or one of her sisters) And would Mary of Scots (James V's daughter) still be a good catch for the French dauphin in this scenario? Or might one of the new king's sisters fit the bill better? And Mary gets sent to London as was intended by the English
     
    Wendell likes this.
  2. Kellan Sullivan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    bumping back to first page
     
    Batman16 and fluttersky like this.
  3. Kynan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Ok so, the children of Albany come AFTER Mary. But, depending on the age of Albany's son, he's either going to be her Regent (or one of them as politics demands) or her husband. I can definitely see a son of Albany being betrothed to Mary for a time, if just to keep it all in the Stewart line.
     
  4. Kellan Sullivan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    I was under the impression that Mary only succeeded OTL because there were no other male-line Stewarts floating around, and that had Albany or one of James V's brothers survived, said person would've succeeded Jamie instead. Esp since it wasn't as though James lived long enough after her birth to still put through the legislation to say "his sons, Mary, then Albany, then Hamilton/Lennox"
     
  5. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    That's probably because of a conflict between (cognatic*) primogeniture and Scottish tanistry (where the eldest male of the royal dynasty is heir regardless of lineage).

    *Agnatic having been thrown out due to Margaret the Maid and/or subsumed into tanistry.
     
  6. DrakeRlugia Pop Punk Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    Missouri
    Mary succeeded because she was the eldest child of her father, and she had no brothers. Scottish succession was almost always fraught with issues, and during the 15th centuries they typically dealt with long regencies and numerous child kings—the Kings of the Scots had numerous issues staying alive, though most of them at least managed to beget a son before being killed in battle, or in the case of James I, being assassinated.

    Scotland had followed primogeniture from the reign of David I, passing from father to son. In rare cases it might pass from brother to brother, but after that time there was no case of male seniority—any other Stewarts would come behind Mary in the line of succession. Scotland had accepted female succession when Margaret the Maid was briefly hailed as queen, and Robert II was a successor through the female line, that of his mother. After all, the Scots had a plausible male successor in the Earl of Arran (yes, he was a Hamilton, but who's mother had been a Scottish Princess), but he still placed behind Mary in the succession. The Lennox Stewarts are an interesting case in that they are a junior branch of the Stewart dynasty, but descend from Alexander Stewart, the 4th High Stewart of Scotland and not Robert II, the first Stewart King. From the time of Robert II, entailments had been passed regarding the succession: at the time, none of his sons had heirs, so it was necessary to have a system be devised to define the precise circumstances under which his sons could succeed to the throne. None of these entailment's took precedence over primogeniture, though, and Scotland essentially had a semi-salic succession.

    James V clearly lamented the birth of his daughter, with his famous saying, but she still succeeded him despite that. Now, is it possible that with a surviving line of Albany that he could be a viable successor to James V? Totally. But given their numerous French connections and their oft exile to that country, some Scots might be suspicious of them—Scotland seemed to swing in between massive love to the old Auld Alliance, and disdain for it—especially in this period. Albany had also served as Regent during James V's minority, but it wasn't a great successor. There's a chance the Scottish nobility might prefer Mary, even if a female, who was born in Scotland, versus Albany's French born and raised son.

    I'd personally say Mary still becomes queen. But Albany's son (assuming Albany still dies in 1536) would definitely be her heir until she marries and has children, and he'd have the strongest claim to the Regency in this situation, too. Given Marie de Guise's preference for the French, I could definitely see her inviting Albany's son out of exile. Given the Albany's powerful French connections, they could probably arrange a marriage between Mary and the son or grandson, the Count of Auvergne and Lauragarais to effect a reconciliation between the Senior and Albany Stewart lines.
     
  7. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Actually it is legally debatable -

    There is a mixture of tradition - male preference primogeniture, proximity of the blood etc that would all play a role - the entails passed carried legal weight.

    Alexander III had passed a law to allow his granddaughter to succeed - she was the only viable candidate at the time (Though he did indeed hope for further issue by his second wife) - her death meant of course a crisis between the rival claims of Balliol (superior in primogeniture) and Bruce (superior by proximity of blood) - Alexander also inserted clauses which mean that seniority of blood took precedence - so if he had any issue by his second wife (even a daughter) they would succeed as nearer in the blood (being his children) in preference to Margaret (who was a generation removed from him).

    The best legal advice at the time from Paris was that Scotland had no formal law on the matter and should follow Roman law which considered proximity of blood the higher claim. Which also reflected the situation when William I had tried to persuade the Scots to accept his daughter (it was before his son's birth) they instead insisted his brother and his son came first then Margaret.

    Robert I's first parliamentary act of succession of April 1315 which recognised Robert's younger adult brother Edward Bruce and his direct male descendants as heirs presumptive to the throne in the event of Robert I's death without sons, ahead of Robert's daughter, Marjorie Bruce, and her direct descendants to whom the throne would only 'revert' after the passing of Edward and his sons, grandsons etc.

    Restated in 1318 after Edward's death without legitimate issue.

    "but that when a king dies, the nearest male in the direct line of descent, or if a male was not available the nearest female in the same line, or if that line is entirely lacking then the nearest male in the collateral line, ought to succeed the
    king in the kingdom, with concern for the right line by blood by which the right to rule applied to the dead king, the succession to whom will hopefully be achieved without challenge or any kind of obstacle."

    In 1326 a fresh entail named Robert I's grandson Robert Stewart as heir to Robert's infant son David.

    David himself attempted throughout his reign to remove Robert as his heir - by the children of his full sister (who were closer in the blood to him) and later by an English Prince of his choosing.

    He failed and was succeeded by Robert II the first Stewart King - He would pass a new act which effectively dictated that the male heirs took priority over female heirs.
    The succession would pass to the "the sons of the king, of his first and second wives, now born, and their heirs male only, shall succeed one after another, in turn."

    It did not exclude women explicitly and ended "the aforesaid five brothers and their heirs male descending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true and lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning."

    The Stewarts and the Bruce's couldn't follow the trend of barring female line succession because they themselves relied on it for their claim to the throne - the fact was that the Stewarts were fertile through the late 14 and early 15th century and no further amendments or laws were passed.

    Assuming a surviving Albany male line - then in the 1540s they have an exceptionally strong claim to succeed in preference to Mary under the 1373 entail which specifically states the male line first. Mary could of course defend her claim using proximity of the blood and the 1318 entail - which placed a female direct heir higher than a collateral line.

    So some choices - James V lives long enough to pass a new entail ensuring in the failure of his male line his female descendants took priority, the Albany Stewarts are loyal and lack ambition and support Mary's claim based on her being the senior heir general, or the Albany Stewarts claim the throne as heir males and plunge the Kingdom into a succession crisis as followed Alexander III's death - or the then Duke has an appropriate male heir who is married to the infant Mary - or the Duke himself arranges to marry her - uniting both lines and ending any dispute.

    The Earl of Arran was placed in the succession only after Mary's succession (he was regarded as next in line in default of the Stewart line) - he was not considered a potential alternate male heir at the time of Mary's accession.

    The Lennox Stewarts claim was also through James II's daughter (they argued Arran's claim was invalid due to a dubious marriage)


     
  8. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Robert, Duke of Albany had a son at the time of his father's ascension to the throne, the nine year old Murdoch Stewart.
     
  9. Kellan Sullivan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Okay, then this sort of pops my soap-bubble idea. I was under the impression that Mary's cousin would succeed, and Mary, although the king's daughter would not be queen of Scots. I was just sort of wondering about where Albany's (grand)daughters (born c. 1530s/ might be married off? Into France? Maybe France's clients in Italy? Or "wasted" amongst the Scots aristocracy? Since no offense, Scotland - besides a tenuous relationship to France symbolised by Marie de Guise, and then Mary's betrothal to the dauphin - was pretty diplomatically isolated at this time, no?
     
    Alex Zetsu likes this.
  10. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    not necessarily as i said a male Albany Stewart would have a very strong claim under the 1373 Act to succeed in preference to Mary - Mary would have had to rely on imperial tradition of proximity of blood and the earlier entails to claim her father's throne - personally i think it likely that the Albany's would accept the regency and an arranged match with Mary if possible - possible joint sovereigns etc.
     
  11. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    That would be quite interesting I think, and with how respected the Duke was at the time, could perhaps prevent some of the intermittent tension that was present during Mary's minority.
     
  12. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    it would have a major impact on both Anglo-Scots and Franco-Scots relations as well. Henry VIII south of the border probably wants a Mary succession with no Albany so war still likely - also any Albany-Mary match is likely to cause a major impact on the Scots Reformation if both are Catholic as is likely. In that kind of scenario I can see the dowager Marie and Cardinal Beatty cutting a deal to ensure Albany is giving the regency and his infant son is betrothed to Mary for the moment - uniting the two lines. It's likely that a grandson of John Stewart would be pretty much of age to Mary so a match would make sense.


    John Stewart Duke of Albany
    b1481 d1536
    m 1505
    Anne, Countess of Auvergne and Lauraguais
    b1496 d1524

    issue:

    1) Alexander Stewart
    Count of Auvergne and Lauraguais
    Duke of Albany
    b1512
     
  13. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    I can see that, would make things very interesting. Hmm @Kellan Sullivan, what sort of things were you thinking for this?

    And would it be an infant son or grandson of the Duke of Albany himself?
     
  14. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Infant grandson i would think of John Stewart and Anne of Auvergne (they had one girl in otl born around 1512 who died in her teens - so just swap the sex) - you just need to find their son a wife of rank sometime in the mid to late 1530s.
     
  15. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Hmm this is true, I imagine then that said child could be a member of Scottish nobilty? Perhaps Janet Hamilton, daughter of the 1st Earl of Arran?
     
  16. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    depends on when he marries Albany spent a lot of time in France for obvious reasons and the young "Albany" is going to inherit his mother's lands quite early. Interestingly his mother shared her inheritance with her sister Madeleine (who was the mother of Catherine de Medici who in OTL inherited the lot - hence why she was considered as a bride for the Duke of Orleans) - Catherine might be considered (as a match she was born in 1519) in order to reunite the Auvergne inheritance - the age difference isn't too bad - if you want a very interesting development.
     
  17. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Oh now that would be something, which also leads to an interesting query about who the Duke of Orleans himself marries if Catherine is wed to her cousin.
     
  18. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Well the marriage was in part political as well as about money - Catherine was largely at the point of her marriage in the control of the Pope who wanted French support - hence the match - but Albany senior himself was there to try and get his niece to marry James V (although that might have been in part to persuade Francis I to honour his promise of a French bride for James).

    Certainly Henri might not marry as early as in otl (given his brother the dauphin is still alive at this point) - also Catherine married to her cousin might have children sooner than she did in OTL and they might be healthier.
     
  19. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Aye this is very true, and could likely benefit both countries a bit more.
     
  20. mcdnab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    I know and Mary ends up with the same mother in law!