Mary Queen of Brits?

[A Random Person]

During a plague outbreak in England, Princess Elizabeth passes away. (There is the OTL belief that she actually did and the people who were in charge of her tried to replace her and the only person they could find with the distinctive red hair was a small boy. Which would explain the unwillingness to marry and the virginity. The cross dressing wouldn't be too odd as it is common in English theater.)

Upon the death of Mary I in 1556, one of two things happen --

1) The imposter is found out and Mary I of Scotland takes the throne as Mary II of England or Mary I of Great Britain.

2) Elizabeth died as a child and the cover-up did not happen, Mary I of Scotland takes the throne of England.

Does England remain catholic now? What butterflies are there?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

During a plague outbreak in England, Princess Elizabeth passes away. (There is the OTL belief that she actually did and the people who were in charge of her tried to replace her and the only person they could find with the distinctive red hair was a small boy. Which would explain the unwillingness to marry and the virginity. The cross dressing wouldn't be too odd as it is common in English theater.)

Upon the death of Mary I in 1556, one of two things happen --

1) The imposter is found out and Mary I of Scotland takes the throne as Mary II of England or Mary I of Great Britain.

2) Elizabeth died as a child and the cover-up did not happen, Mary I of Scotland takes the throne of England.

Does England remain catholic now? What butterflies are there?

Wow very conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no proof that Elizabeth died and was replaced by an impostor. That sounds like a story spread by those who wanted her replaced with Mary Queen of Scots. But I'll bight and go with Elizabeth dieing early. Mary would be the heir by blood but by Henry VIII's will the descendents of Margaret Tudor Queen of Scots were excluded in favor of the descendents of Mary Tudor Queen of France. So the heir would actually be either Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk or Lady Catherine Grey. Mary Queen of Scots might be a Catholic but she was also very French so I'm not sure if Mary I would want to, in effect, pass the English throne to France. OH BTW, Mary I died in 1558 not 1556.

 

[isabella]

Wow very conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no proof that Elizabeth died and was replaced by an impostor. That sounds like a story spread by those who wanted her replaced with Mary Queen of Scots. But I'll bight and go with Elizabeth dieing early. Mary would be the heir by blood but by Henry VIII's will the descendents of Margaret Tudor Queen of Scots were excluded in favor of the descendents of Mary Tudor Queen of France. So the heir would actually be either Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk or Lady Catherine Grey. Mary Queen of Scots might be a Catholic but she was also very French so I'm not sure if Mary I would want to, in effect, pass the English throne to France. OH BTW, Mary I died in 1558 not 1556.

I think who Mary of England (without Elizabeth) will see Mary of Scotland and France as her legitimate heiress... much better a Catholic full royal princess tied to the French than a Protestant English lady sister (or worse mother) of the woman who tried to stole her throne...

 

[JedidiahStott]

Frances died in 1559, after marrying a "lowly" Adrian Stokes. She would have very little time and no power base.

Catherine was between husbands, her first Herbert spouse having managed to have their marriage annulled when Catherine's sister Jane's grab for the throne went horribly wrong, and not having yet married her second husband. She was free, and might still have support from the powerful Herberts. Possible

The other possibility is Lady Margaret Stanley, granddaughter of Mary Tudor by her third daughter, married to the heir to the Earldom of Derby. Free, and with a strong powerbase. Possible. Depending on the exact timing, she might have the great advantage of a living male child.

It is unlikely that Mary Stuart would be in a position to advance her claim. It's not just matter of having a legal claim, back then you needed swords to back up your claim. Mary Stuart is married to the King of France. Any claim from that quarter is the one claim certain to be resisted by every Englishman. And speed is the essence in a coup d'etat. Francis would have to assemble an army and ship it across the Channel (Edit: or, use Scottish forces, still a long way from London, and with the powerful Northern Earls in the way. Including the Cliffords and Stanleys) . By the time he did that, one or other of the claimants would be sitting on the throne.

Depends on who wants to gamble his head for a throne. In any case, the actual, female, claimants will probably be little more than pawns

 

[Elfwine]

And a minor note - Mary (if she became ruler) would be Queen Mary of Scotland and Mary II of England, but it would only be a personal union - not "Great Britain", which originated OTL with her son.

A ruler having to split their attention between two distinct realms. Fun times.

 

[JedidiahStott]

Although James VI and I sometimes used the terms Great Britain and Britain, his reign (and those of his son and grandsons) was a personal union. England and Scotland retained each their own Parliament, laws, Privy Council until the Act of Union in the sixth of Ann.

However, if by some improbable chance Mary Stuart did succeed to the throne of England vice Eliz I, it is even more improbable, to ASB level that she would have married / been allowed to marry Darnley. So James VI and I is butterflied away . Though of course there might have been a different *James VI and I, probably not called that (*Henry IX ?)

Butterfly Alert ! : Mary's father-in-law Henri II died of a somewhat improbable accident, jousting. A succession failure would mean Henri's activities would be very different, meaning he would be unlikely to be at the same time and place as OTL. And, very likely, thus avoids that accident.

But, Francis probably still dies of an ear infection as OTL, in 1560. Even if *Henri were to take up his daughter-in-law's (and thus his son's) claim to the English throne, he has very little time to make good the claim. Between Nov 1558 (death of Mary Tudor) and Dec 1560 (death of Francis). Not very long. And once Francis is dead, osp, Henri will have very little interest in pushing the claim of his dead son's widow. No longer any use to him.

 

[Elfwine]

There was at least an attempt to make it more than that on James's part, Mary presumably wouldn't - Mary might flat out ignore Scotland.

 

[JedidiahStott]

She might, she would have had little to make her fond of it. But ignoring it would likely not be possible because of the religious question. (assuming Mary remains Roman Catholic) . Wee Johnnie Knox is still going to be thundering forth, and a Presbyterian Scotland and a Roman Catholic England is not going to end well.

 

[Elfwine]

She might, she would have had little to make her fond of it. But ignoring it would likely not be possible because of the religious question. (assuming Mary remains Roman Catholic) . Wee Johnnie Knox is still going to be thundering forth, and a Presbyterian Scotland and a Roman Catholic England is not going to end well.

No doubt. But given how much effort she spent on aiming for the English throne while ruler of Scotland, for it to be that bad or worse in terms of neglecting Scottish affairs wouldn't be impossible or even terribly unlikely.

 

[JedidiahStott]

The difference though would be that OTL was Protestant England and Protestant Scotland. Whereas this would be Protestant Scotland and Roman England. Much nastier.

Of course it is possible that Mary herself might convert to Protestantism (or be forced to); or that she might manage to enforce Roman Catholicism on Scotland. Neither seems likely, but both are possible. Or we might see an earlier version of the Civil War, alongside the French Frondes. At which point the butterflies become such a swarm as to block the sun and leave all in darkness.

A good deal might depend on whom she married (assuming Francis dies as OTL). It certainly wouldn't be Darnley.

It does all cause one to reflect most soberly, how much depended on that red-haired girl, and how much we owe to God who surely guarded her. Could anyone other than Great Harry's daughter have so sailed the ship of state through those perilous seas. It must indeed make the blood run cold, of those who love our dear Church, to think how strait was the passage twixt Rome and Geneva.

 

[Elfwine]

The difference though would be that OTL was Protestant England and Protestant Scotland. Whereas this would be Protestant Scotland and Roman England. Much nastier.

Yes, but "trying to stomp out Protestantism" - not just Scottish, I think - is not the same as trying to do all the various royal duties involved.

It does all cause one to reflect most soberly, how much depended on that red-haired girl, and how much we owe to God who surely guarded her. Could anyone other than Great Harry's daughter have so sailed the ship of state through those perilous seas. It must indeed make the blood run cold, of those who love our dear Church, to think how strait was the passage twixt Rome and Geneva.

That's a poetic way to put it.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

She might, she would have had little to make her fond of it. But ignoring it would likely not be possible because of the religious question. (assuming Mary remains Roman Catholic) . Wee Johnnie Knox is still going to be thundering forth, and a Presbyterian Scotland and a Roman Catholic England is not going to end well.

Without Elizabeth there's not guarantee that Scotland would go protestant. The only reason the Protestants won in Soctland was because of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne. Read the article on Mary of Guise in Wikipedia. According to it Queen Regent Mary, with the support of professional French troops, would have won if not for the arrival of an English Fleet in early 1560. This fleets arrival triggered the signing of a treaty between the Protestant lords and Elizabeth, pledging to expel the French from Scotland. Without Elizabeth there is a big chance that the Franco-Scottish troops would triumph over those of the Protestant lords.

There was at least an attempt to make it more than that on James's part, Mary presumably wouldn't - Mary might flat out ignore Scotland.

To be fair to Mary, after James I, all joint monarchs ignored Scotland.

Butterfly Alert ! : Mary's father-in-law Henri II died of a somewhat improbable accident, jousting. A succession failure would mean Henri's activities would be very different, meaning he would be unlikely to be at the same time and place as OTL. And, very likely, thus avoids that accident.

But, Francis probably still dies of an ear infection as OTL, in 1560. Even if *Henri were to take up his daughter-in-law's (and thus his son's) claim to the English throne, he has very little time to make good the claim. Between Nov 1558 (death of Mary Tudor) and Dec 1560 (death of Francis). Not very long. And once Francis is dead, osp, Henri will have very little interest in pushing the claim of his dead son's widow. No longer any use to him.

I agree with Henri II's death. It was really a one in a million chance that the lance would go threw his helmet and cause his death. However, I disagree with Francis II. Like you said, with Elizabeth dieing there's little chance that Henri would be unlikely to be at the same time and place OTL, so the same can be said of Francis II. He died of an ear infection, not something like the tuberculosis or the plague, so even if he still gets the same ear infection there's no guarentee that he'll die. look at A More Personal Union, for instance. In it Francis II lived until 1567. Henri II's children weren't the healthiest of the bunch but he could definitely live longer. Also, if Francis II dies while his father is still alive there's a fairly large chance that he'll try to marry Mary off to the future Charles IX, the next in line after Francis. So, with Henri II alive, France will definitely continue to support the Queen of Scots, both in Scotland and in enforcing her claim to England.

 

[JedidiahStott]

Scotland could have remained Roman. But I would not care to bet money on it. In the Wars of Religion one battle did not win a war, and the Scots are an obstinate contrary folk, not easily forced against their conscience (cf John Knox, infra). At the least, it would be a devil of a fight . And a fight mirrored inn England too. But Scotland would be more likely to be won by the Protestants in the long run, just because of the far away and out of mind factor mentioned below.

But your point about the remarriage of a widowed Mary, her father-in-law living, is a good one. It would have required a Papal dispensation though. I'm not sure where the French Kings stood in the Pope's graces at the time.

 

[Elfwine]

To be fair to Mary, after James I, all joint monarchs ignored Scotland.

To be honest about Mary, Mary was not in a position she could ignore Scotland OTL, and isn't really in a position where she can afford to be rejected by both her realms TTL.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

To be honest about Mary, Mary was not in a position she could ignore Scotland OTL, and isn't really in a position where she can afford to be rejected by both her realms TTL.

That was her main problem. She had been educated to be Queen-Consort of France, not Queen Regnant of Scotland and potentially England. She was completely out of her depth.

 

[Elfwine]

That was her main problem. She had been educated to be Queen-Consort of France, not Queen Regnant of Scotland and potentially England. She was completely out of her depth.

And was remarkably inept at dealing with that.

Some people can handle being in a tough spot. Mary, bless her heart, was someone who clung to the nearest strong looking man (and I mean this emotionally, not physically) - thus her excruciatingly dumb decision with Rizzio.

That wasn't a decision you can explain based merely on inexperience. That was someone going against the norm for reasons that made sense in her head.