Foreign policy of Mary Stuart as queen?

[GauchoBadger]

So, assume Elizabeth I's reign were to end sometime around the 1560's or so, maybe through her dying of plague in 1563, maybe through her being assassinated by an angry catholic, whatever it is. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots becomes queen of England afterwards.
What might Mary's reign look like in terms of foreign policy? OTL Mary didn't have much room to maneuver other than as a pawn, but she was somewhat fond of the French from what i remember. Might she try to steer England into an alliance with France against the Habsburgs? Or might her diplomacy be more similar to Elizabeth's (as in, maintaining strict neutrality in regards to continental matters until the situation became critical with the domineering Spanish, in control of Portugal and allied with rebels in northern France, intending to invade)? What might this mean for the Dutch rebels, for example?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

So, assume Elizabeth I's reign were to end sometime around the 1560's or so, maybe through her dying of plague in 1563, maybe through her being assassinated by an angry catholic, whatever it is. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots becomes queen of England afterwards.
What might Mary's reign look like in terms of foreign policy? OTL Mary didn't have much room to maneuver other than as a pawn, but she was somewhat fond of the French from what i remember. Might she try to steer England into an alliance with France against the Habsburgs? Or might her diplomacy be more similar to Elizabeth's (as in, maintaining strict neutrality in regards to continental matters until the situation became critical with the domineering Spanish, in control of Portugal and allied with rebels in northern France, intending to invade)? What might this mean for the Dutch rebels, for example?

Wouldn't Katherine Grey be queen if Liz died in the 1560s?

 

[The Professor]

Wouldn't Katherine Grey be queen if Liz died in the 1560s?

I think so yes. TTL she won't have fallen out over her marriage yet, and there's no Protestant James gaining goodwill with the English lords.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Wouldn't Katherine Grey be queen if Liz died in the 1560s?

That sounds plausible, but might her be Jane Grey'd away by Mary?

 

[BBadolato]

Mary as Queen of both Scotland and England would be a damn nightmare, especially if it is before Francis gets sick and dies. England is not firmly on one side of the Reformation yet, Ireland is basically anything goes outside of the Dublin since only Henry VIII recently tried to expand royal power, and Scotland has recently come out in favor of the Reformation and it would limit Mary's power there as it did historically. Throw in Mary being married to Francis of France and add in the Huguenots, and this a union that while powerful in theory would be an utter headache to maintain.

Diplomacy wise things only went south with Spain because of both Spain's poor handling of the Dutch Revolt, and Elizabeth getting excommunicated.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

What would be interesting would be Mary getting deposed in Scotland but succeeds in England

 

[ArchMonarchist]

So, assume Elizabeth I's reign were to end sometime around the 1560's or so, maybe through her dying of plague in 1563, maybe through her being assassinated by an angry catholic, whatever it is. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots becomes queen of England afterwards.
What might Mary's reign look like in terms of foreign policy? OTL Mary didn't have much room to maneuver other than as a pawn, but she was somewhat fond of the French from what i remember. Might she try to steer England into an alliance with France against the Habsburgs? Or might her diplomacy be more similar to Elizabeth's (as in, maintaining strict neutrality in regards to continental matters until the situation became critical with the domineering Spanish, in control of Portugal and allied with rebels in northern France, intending to invade)? What might this mean for the Dutch rebels, for example?

I love this subject! I'm actually writing a Stuart-wank TL now, so this has been on my mind a lot lately.

IMO, Mary Stuart's foreign policy is going to be pro-French but hemmed in by religious and political realities. By the 1560s, England is firmly majority protestant, but it still has a substantial Catholic minority (around 30%). Furthermore, Mary Stuart is a foreign Catholic. Any attempts by her to raise the high taxes needed for war could - early in her reign, at least - lead to some unrest. If Mary Stuart became Queen of England in the 1560s, I can see some aspects of her early foreign policy including:
1. An immediate end to the English invasion of France that began in 1562 in defense of the Huguenots.
2. Refusal to intervene for Philip in the Low Countries due to her alliance with France, and the massive unpopularity of Philip II in England.
3. The frequent use of marriage negotiations as a bargaining tool, à la Elizabeth I but on steroids since now Mary Stuart brings all of Britain on a platter to her husband.
4. No recognition or aid for the Protestants in the Netherlands. The fact that this will benefit the Hapsburgs indirectly is moderated by the end of support for French Protestants benefitting the French. Both Catholic powers see Mary Stuart as a workable ally, just not when it comes to wars with each other.
5. Mary Stuart realizes (as would anyone with two brain cells to rub together) that ner newly minted personal union needs a strong navy to be a fortress with open trading channels. Additionally, a strong navy increases her prestige without the controversy of raising a standing army. In the long term, the development of this navy will likely create anxiety in the French and Spanish that will disrupt her attempted peaceful coexistence.
6. Mary was no conqueror, nor was she driven to establish her religion on others by force unless they rebelled against her, so I can imagine her doing in England what she did in Scotland: Focusing primarily on increasing her own domestic influence, working politically and diplomatically to promote moderate Catholicism, and seeking good relations with both France and Spain. With no Protestant-Catholic divide to motivate war with Spain, no colonial empire to defend, and no bad blood with the French, Mary simply won't need an aggressive foreign policy. She can simply stand back and watch as the Hapsburg and Valois bleed themselves dry on the continent, hoping that they both pay more attention to the Reformation than to her.

 

[kasumigenx]

If her first marriage succeeds the claim of Edward III unites with the French crown itself.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

By the 1560s, England is firmly majority protestant, but it still has a substantial Catholic minority (around 30%)

Uh not as I understand it. England was still neither fully Catholic nor firmly Protestant. They've just had four years of a Catholic monarch (Mary I) as late as 1558, Elizabeth dies early enough in the 1560s (say 1560/1561) and Mary's got a Catholic base to work with. The problem will come in when turning England from pro-Spanish (which it was under Mary and the first years of Elizabeth) to pro-French.

Refusal to intervene for Philip in the Low Countries due to her alliance with France, and the massive unpopularity of Philip II in England.

Felipe was unpopular in England because he was a foreigner, which is pretty much the same as Mary. And one of the main reasons Felipe is remembered so poorly is because of the Armada (which OTL, he only sent after Mary was executed). Here, in lieu of being able to marry Mary himself (due to him being married to Élisabeth de Valois), Felip e likely offers D. Carlos for Mary. If only to a) get his hated son-heir out of Spain and b) keep Mary from marrying another damned Frenchman. Considering that Elizabeth I was playing the option of marriages to Habsburg archdukes (like Ferdinand II of Inner Austria Karl of Steyr) until as late as the 1560s/1570s, Mary should have no problem wedding a Habsburg archduke. It'll be a damn sight better than what she got OTL.

The frequent use of marriage negotiations as a bargaining tool, à la Elizabeth I but on steroids since now Mary Stuart brings all of Britain on a platter to her husband.

Except Mary wasn't Elizabeth with regards to marriage. Elizabeth had a bad (some might say the worst) experience of marriages: dad beheads mom, and even if Liz didn't remember that, she did remember Katherine Howard's fate; she remembered Kathryn Parr's; as well as her own sister's. Not to mention her own problems with Seymour, Married to a man whose attentions were elsewhere, or who brutalized her.

Mary didn't have that experience. She was petted and cossetted from birth. She was passionate and while certainly intelligent, her heart was not made of brains (like Elizabeth's was). The Habsburg archduke is the likeliest option - although other options like Denmark or Sweden might present themselves.

Mary Stuart realizes (as would anyone with two brain cells to rub together) that ner newly minted personal union needs a strong navy to be a fortress with open trading channels. Additionally, a strong navy increases her prestige without the controversy of raising a standing army. In the long term, the development of this navy will likely create anxiety in the French and Spanish that will disrupt her attempted peaceful coexistence.

Elizabeth didn't, and I doubt anyone would question her "brain capacity". When the Armada arrived, most of the English ships were merchantmen and privately owned vessels draggooned into royal service. The royal navy of Henry VIII's reign was like that Philip Philips song: gone gone gone.

 

[BBadolato]

I love this subject! I'm actually writing a Stuart-wank TL now, so this has been on my mind a lot lately.

IMO, Mary Stuart's foreign policy is going to be pro-French but hemmed in by religious and political realities. By the 1560s, England is firmly majority protestant, but it still has a substantial Catholic minority (around 30%). Furthermore, Mary Stuart is a foreign Catholic. Any attempts by her to raise the high taxes needed for war could - early in her reign, at least - lead to some unrest. If Mary Stuart became Queen of England in the 1560s, I can see some aspects of her early foreign policy including:
1. An immediate end to the English invasion of France that began in 1562 in defense of the Huguenots.
2. Refusal to intervene for Philip in the Low Countries due to her alliance with France, and the massive unpopularity of Philip II in England.
3. The frequent use of marriage negotiations as a bargaining tool, à la Elizabeth I but on steroids since now Mary Stuart brings all of Britain on a platter to her husband.
4. No recognition or aid for the Protestants in the Netherlands. The fact that this will benefit the Hapsburgs indirectly is moderated by the end of support for French Protestants benefitting the French. Both Catholic powers see Mary Stuart as a workable ally, just not when it comes to wars with each other.
5. Mary Stuart realizes (as would anyone with two brain cells to rub together) that ner newly minted personal union needs a strong navy to be a fortress with open trading channels. Additionally, a strong navy increases her prestige without the controversy of raising a standing army. In the long term, the development of this navy will likely create anxiety in the French and Spanish that will disrupt her attempted peaceful coexistence.
6. Mary was no conqueror, nor was she driven to establish her religion on others by force unless they rebelled against her, so I can imagine her doing in England what she did in Scotland: Focusing primarily on increasing her own domestic influence, working politically and diplomatically to promote moderate Catholicism, and seeking good relations with both France and Spain. With no Protestant-Catholic divide to motivate war with Spain, no colonial empire to defend, and no bad blood with the French, Mary simply won't need an aggressive foreign policy. She can simply stand back and watch as the Hapsburg and Valois bleed themselves dry on the continent, hoping that they both pay more attention to the Reformation than to her.

Your giving Mary post Francis II far too much credit, she was basically hemmed in by the Protestant Scottish Parliament. Now that she is coming into England, I don't see anything more than this being an administrative hell. Anything that gives slightest whiff of Mary trying to bring back Catholicism, is going run into problems with both Scotland and England, and she might be forced to at least aid towards the Netherlands. I feel any foreign policy is going to really rely on who she is going to marry, and both Parliaments are going to want to force the issue. The biggest elephant in the room is what happens with the Reformation and resulting political and demographic issues, Scotland is largely Reformist, England mostly Anglican, and Ireland both Catholic and largely making its own rules outside of the Pale.

 

[piratedude]

The biggest elephant in the room is what happens with the Reformation and resulting political and demographic issues, Scotland is largely Reformist, England mostly Anglican, and Ireland both Catholic and largely making its own rules outside of the Pale.

Imagine the clusterf*ck if she marries a Lutheran, lol

 

[ArchMonarchist]

Except Mary wasn't Elizabeth with regards to marriage. Elizabeth had a bad (some might say the worst) experience of marriages: dad beheads mom, and even if Liz didn't remember that, she did remember Katherine Howard's fate; she remembered Kathryn Parr's; as well as her own sister's. Not to mention her own problems with Seymour, Married to a man whose attentions were elsewhere, or who brutalized her.

Mary didn't have that experience. She was petted and cossetted from birth. She was passionate and while certainly intelligent, her heart was not made of brains (like Elizabeth's was). The Habsburg archduke is the likeliest option - although other options like Denmark or Sweden might present themselves

Pardon me. I didn't express what I meant to say clearly at all. To be clear I most certainly believe that Mary Stuart will get married. However, I just believe that she is going to negotiate her marriage to death, seeking to secure the best possible terms since she no longer has a meddlesome, much more powerful neighbor breathing down her neck. She can afford to wait, and now no-one can turn her down out of fear of antagonizing Elizabeth too much.

Felipe was unpopular in England because he was a foreigner, which is pretty much the same as Mary. And one of the main reasons Felipe is remembered so poorly is because of the Armada (which OTL, he only sent after Mary was executed). Here, in lieu of being able to marry Mary himself (due to him being married to Élisabeth de Valois), Felip e likely offers D. Carlos for Mary. If only to a) get his hated son-heir out of Spain and b) keep Mary from marrying another damned Frenchman. Considering that Elizabeth I was playing the option of marriages to Habsburg archdukes (like Ferdinand II of Inner Austria Karl of Steyr) until as late as the 1560s/1570s, Mary should have no problem wedding a Habsburg archduke. It'll be a damn sight better than what she got OTL.

Hm. I thought that Philip was unpopular in England long before the Armada because Englishmen blamed him for the Protestant burnings, his harsh repressions of Dutch protestants, and his stranglehold on New World trade, as well as just general xenophobia. Of course, he didn't push for the burnings at all, but you know what they say about an oft-repeated lie . . .

In any case, helping Hapsburg Spain crush Protestants to whom England is highly connected to in commercial terms seems like an easy recipe for unpopularity, which you don't seem to be refuting necessarily. It would also be viewed askance by France. I can see a firmly catholic but non-proselytizing Catholic like Mary Stuart just trying to avoid it altogether.

Elizabeth didn't, and I doubt anyone would question her "brain capacity". When the Armada arrived, most of the English ships were merchantmen and privately owned vessels draggooned into royal service. The royal navy of Henry VIII's reign was like that Philip Philips song: gone gone gone.

But Elizabeth never ruled all of Britain in a personal union. Mary would have no land frontier to defend, unlike Elizbeth did OTL.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Wouldn't Katherine Grey be queen if Liz died in the 1560s?

Maybe, but if the POD involves Elizabeth dying of plague, you could easily have Katherine die off in the same outbreak as well.

Mary as Queen of both Scotland and England would be a damn nightmare, especially if it is before Francis gets sick and dies. England is not firmly on one side of the Reformation yet, Ireland is basically anything goes outside of the Dublin since only Henry VIII recently tried to expand royal power, and Scotland has recently come out in favor of the Reformation and it would limit Mary's power there as it did historically. Throw in Mary being married to Francis of France and add in the Huguenots, and this a union that while powerful in theory would be an utter headache to maintain.

England was still majority-Catholic at this point, and Elizabeth's religious policies had been very controversial (the Act of Supremacy only passed the Lords by a margin of 19-21; given that the people voting against it were voting against the clearly-stated religious beliefs of the queen, that's a very slender margin). If Mary decides to bring England back to the Catholic fold, she'd have a lot of support and a high chance of success. Scotland would be more difficult, as the Reformation there was less of a top-down affair; one possible outcome would be for Mary to use the resources of England to reimpose Catholicism north of the border. Admittedly such a move would probably be against her character, as she seems to have been disinclined to force her religion on people, but depending on who she marries her husband might push for it.

By the 1560s, England is firmly majority protestant, but it still has a substantial Catholic minority (around 30%)

The biggest elephant in the room is what happens with the Reformation and resulting political and demographic issues, Scotland is largely Reformist, England mostly Anglican, and Ireland both Catholic and largely making its own rules outside of the Pale.

Eh, the notion that England was mostly Protestant this early on is based on outdated historiography, which in turn was largely based on Protestant propaganda which portrayed the Catholic Church as a hated foreign body which was eagerly rejected by the English people as soon as they got the opportunity. Modern historians, as far as I've seen, don't generally think that England became majority-Protestant until several decades into Elizabeth's reign, and that was mostly because Elizabeth herself lived long enough for all the previous clergy to die or retire and get replaced with Protestants.

6. Mary was no conqueror, nor was she driven to establish her religion on others by force unless they rebelled against her, so I can imagine her doing in England what she did in Scotland: Focusing primarily on increasing her own domestic influence, working politically and diplomatically to promote moderate Catholicism, and seeking good relations with both France and Spain. With no Protestant-Catholic divide to motivate war with Spain, no colonial empire to defend, and no bad blood with the French, Mary simply won't need an aggressive foreign policy. She can simply stand back and watch as the Hapsburg and Valois bleed themselves dry on the continent, hoping that they both pay more attention to the Reformation than to her.

I wonder if Mary might try and bring in a reformed Catholicism, in communion with Rome but with some concessions (like vernacular liturgy) to get more moderate reformists on-side.

 

[ArchMonarchist]

Uh not as I understand it. England was still neither fully Catholic nor firmly Protestant. They've just had four years of a Catholic monarch (Mary I) as late as 1558, Elizabeth dies early enough in the 1560s (say 1560/1561) and Mary's got a Catholic base to work with. The problem will come in when turning England from pro-Spanish (which it was under Mary and the first years of Elizabeth) to pro-French.

Eh, the notion that England was mostly Protestant this early on is based on outdated historiography, which in turn was largely based on Protestant propaganda which portrayed the Catholic Church as a hated foreign body which was eagerly rejected by the English people as soon as they got the opportunity. Modern historians, as far as I've seen, don't generally think that England became majority-Protestant until several decades into Elizabeth's reign, and that was mostly because Elizabeth herself lived long enough for all the previous clergy to die or retire and get replaced with Protestants.

I went back, did the most cursory research, and - of course - you both are entirely correct. I incorrectly extrapolated from Cecil's quote given in the1580s. My bad on that one!

 

[Kynan]

Mary, up until she met and was swept away by Darnley, was definitely of the mindset that she was a catch who deserved a foreign King of her own rank in order to maintain independence and dignity. Here, now Elizabeth is out of the picture, I could even see her ending up with Charles IX, or it will at least be considered. If Charles Stuart doesn't charm her, which might not happen if she doesn't feel boxed in by Elizabeth in terms of marriage options, she's probably going to make a grand match that is probably unpopular.

 

[isabella]

Mary, up until she met and was swept away by Darnley, was definitely of the mindset that she was a catch who deserved a foreign King of her own rank in order to maintain independence and dignity. Here, now Elizabeth is out of the picture, I could even see her ending up with Charles IX, or it will at least be considered. If Charles Stuart doesn't charm her, which might not happen if she doesn't feel boxed in by Elizabeth in terms of marriage options, she's probably going to make a grand match that is probably unpopular.

The age difference with Charles IX is too big for that match being seriously considered plus Catherine de’Medici do not wanted her as daughter-in-law (or she would have been engaged to Charles just after Francis’ death and married him as soon was possible) and is unlikely who Mary will take it in consideration after inheriting England.
Charles, Prince of Asturias or Archduke Charles are much more likely husbands for her in this situation

 

[Geoffrey1016]

Here I need to divide my post into two posts:
First, here's a map of Europe at the time:

What might Mary's reign look like in terms of foreign policy? OTL Mary didn't have much room to maneuver other than as a pawn, but she was somewhat fond of the French from what i remember. Might she try to steer England into an alliance with France against the Habsburgs? Or might her diplomacy be more similar to Elizabeth's (as in, maintaining strict neutrality in regards to continental matters until the situation became critical with the domineering Spanish, in control of Portugal and allied with rebels in northern France, intending to invade)? What might this mean for the Dutch rebels, for example?

She would be an ambiguous force on the issue of Huguenots: She would condemn atrocities against peaceful Huguenots but nevertheless oppose the activities of the Huguenot army.
She would likely support France, but would not steer too much towards France since English Parliament would water down some of her activities. By the time Habsburgs were making unholy alliances with the Catholic League so pro-French or pro-Habsburg would be meaningless here. On the issue of Dutch rebels, as it involved William the Silent, who was religiously fluid, as well as the Duke of Anjou, it might be complex, but Mary would not fund the militant Calvinists in Holland.

Wouldn't Katherine Grey be queen if Liz died in the 1560s?

There's a controversy here. Henry VIII's will was signed with a dry stamp, instead of with his own hand, thus possibly invalidating the will. The law against foreign ownership of English land might or might not prevent Mary from being queen of both Scotland and England.

That sounds plausible, but might her be Jane Grey'd away by Mary?

Possibly neutralized in some ways.

If her first marriage succeeds the claim of Edward III unites with the French crown itself.

Kinda true, although the senior-line of descent from Louis IX and Charles VII the Victorious would pass through Henri of Navarre, who was descended from Louis IX in most senior line and who was also a descendant of one of Charles VII's daughters(Mary was descended from Charles VII's sister, Catherine, while Francois was descended from Charles' cousin, the Duke of Orleans).
And if Mary had a daughter with her first husband, the Guises would likely offer to make her Queen of France(Guises in OTL tried to revoke the Salic Law), although the Estate-General would say "Non" to this, for the young girl would grow up in Scotland(and possibly England) even though she was a French princess, and while the girl would likely be brought up as a religious moderate(as Mary was), Huguenots would not accept anyone but Henri of Navarre. And neither Scottish Parliament nor English Parliament would not like their heiress moving to France, never returning again, after the Scottish experience of 1548-1560(which is possible as travelling between Edinburgh and Paris was more difficult than travelling between Edinburgh and London).

 

[Geoffrey1016]

Maybe, but if the POD involves Elizabeth dying of plague, you could easily have Katherine die off in the same outbreak as well.

England was still majority-Catholic at this point, and Elizabeth's religious policies had been very controversial (the Act of Supremacy only passed the Lords by a margin of 19-21; given that the people voting against it were voting against the clearly-stated religious beliefs of the queen, that's a very slender margin). If Mary decides to bring England back to the Catholic fold, she'd have a lot of support and a high chance of success. Scotland would be more difficult, as the Reformation there was less of a top-down affair; one possible outcome would be for Mary to use the resources of England to reimpose Catholicism north of the border. Admittedly such a move would probably be against her character, as she seems to have been disinclined to force her religion on people, but depending on who she marries her husband might push for it.

Eh, the notion that England was mostly Protestant this early on is based on outdated historiography, which in turn was largely based on Protestant propaganda which portrayed the Catholic Church as a hated foreign body which was eagerly rejected by the English people as soon as they got the opportunity. Modern historians, as far as I've seen, don't generally think that England became majority-Protestant until several decades into Elizabeth's reign, and that was mostly because Elizabeth herself lived long enough for all the previous clergy to die or retire and get replaced with Protestants.

At the time Wales, Ireland and Northern England would likely be firmly Catholic, and Scottish Highlands and Northeast was dominated by the Earl of Huntly, a crafty politician who supported the Lords of Congregation in 1560 but was nevertheless firmly Catholic(the PoD happened before he refused Mary her entry to the castle). Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow would likely be mixed, while London and the modern-day Home Counties would be strongly Protestant. In such a scenario, it would be extremely dangerous if Mary was going to hold her coronation in Westminster Abbey with the newly-appointed Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury(likely a Scottish bishop educated in the Scots College of Paris, as most English bishops had sworn the Oath of Supremacy and thus were unfit for a Catholic service), as Protestants would try to block her and the Archbishop from access to the Abbey.
Back in Scotland, John Knox would start ranting again, as the laws passed by the Reformation Parliament in Scotland and Elizabeth I's first Parliament would be replaced by Mary's own version of religious compromise as new Parliaments were summoned. Knox would try to influence the Burgh Commissioners(in Scotland) or the MPs(in England) to vote against the new religious settlement, but as OTL, a compromise would still be reached.

The age difference with Charles IX is too big for that match being seriously considered plus Catherine de’Medici do not wanted her as daughter-in-law (or she would have been engaged to Charles just after Francis’ death and married him as soon was possible) and is unlikely who Mary will take it in consideration after inheriting England.
Charles, Prince of Asturias or Archduke Charles are much more likely husbands for her in this situation

Archduke Charles would be a probable choice, but the Archduke's territory was far away from either Edinburgh or London and neither Styria, Slovene lands, nor Scotland or England could afford having an absentee monarch. An additional danger would be the Archduke's support for active counter-reformation policies, which would endanger Mary's plan for general religious peace.
Marrying either John Hamilton, son of the Earl of Arran, or Lord Darnley would be politically dangerous. Don Carlos was simply not a viable candidate.
If extinguished of any viable marriage plans by either the Scottish or English Parliament, Mary and/or the Scottish/English Parliament could simply declare Charles, second son of the Earl of Lennox, as the heir to the throne of both realms, or legitimize Lord James, Earl of Moray, and make him her heir. In such scenarios, if Mary died as OTL, either Arbella Stuart would succeed the throne at the age of 11, or Elizabeth Stewart, Countess of Moray, would succeed the throne at the age of 22. Mary's OTL lifespan was actually slightly longer than that of an average member of the House of Guise, and longer than most Stewarts, so an 1587 death would still be likely even if Mary died naturally on her bed in the Holyroodhouse or Windsor Castle.
In a TL in which Francois II and Mary had a daughter(which is my favourite scenario), Mary or the Guises might try to make a match between the girl and Henri of Navarre, thus unifying the claims of Valois and the claims of Edward III with the claims of Joan II of Navarre, but the Scottish/English Parliament or the Estates of Bearn would not approve this marriage, as Mary's realms and Henri of Navarre's realms would be too distant from each other and hard to access(as Bearn and Navarre were landlocked, and opponents of Henri of Navarre could block the path from the seaport to Lower Navarre).

 

[FouDuRoy]

In a TL in which Francois II and Mary had a daughter(which is my favourite scenario), Mary or the Guises might try to make a match between the girl and Henri of Navarre, thus unifying the claims of Valois and the claims of Edward III with the claims of Joan II of Navarre, but the Scottish/English Parliament or the Estates of Bearn would not approve this marriage, as Mary's realms and Henri of Navarre's realms would be too distant from each other and hard to access(as Bearn and Navarre were landlocked, and opponents of Henri of Navarre could block the path from the seaport to Lower Navarre).

In such a scenario, Charles IX would be François II' unchallenged successor.
Sure the Guises tried to revoke Salic Law in OTL but only when Henri de Navarre became the presumptive salic successor.
Also, the Guises were not quite popular among French nobility. They were essentially seen as foreigners (as part of the House of Lorraine).
They later became highly popular (and more among commoners than among nobility) but only because they posed as the champions of Catholicism against the perspective of a Protestant king.
At the time of François II's death, there were three Catholic salic successors (four with Antoine de Bourbon if he is in a period when he is Catholic). There was absolutely no reason to revoke salic law only to please to a family of foreigners.
And if the purpose was to unify France, Scotland and England, Mary could still marry Charles IX in order to have a son with him. The age gap was only eight years: it is not shoking at all.
This marriage did not occur in OTL but, if we assume Elizabeth is dead and Mary is queen of England, the situation is entirely different and, though she did not like Mary, Catherine de Medici was clever enough to see the importance of such an alliance.
Of course, Mary could still choose someone else. There is little doubt that Philip II would offer Don Carlos.

 

[Geoffrey1016]

There is little doubt that Philip II would offer Don Carlos.

And it would be a disaster. The same applied for Archduke Charles, who would certainly destroy the fragile religious balance.