I would like to have opinions on the form that a regency takes on England at the very beginning of the 17th century. Based on a POD where James VI is killed during the Gowrie Conspiracy in August 1600, I imagined a sequence of events that would bring young Henry Stuart to England to flee his mother into the custody of the Lord of Mar and was proclaimed King of England on the death of Elizabeth I. Although I can very well see the important role of Robert Cecil in the rise and regency of Henry IX, what paths can this period take and with whom?
What would a regency look like after Elizabeth I's death?
- Thread starter SunZi
- Start date
I didn't think that far. We enter here in the more general scenario of the reign of Henry (IX) Stuart after his majority and many particular adventures.
VVD0D95
Banned
I think assuming Henry gets the throne is a step too far. James was attractive for being a man, Protestant and an adult. Henry is only two of those things. No one wants a regency.
If anything Arbella Stuart may well be considered for the throne here
Who are the supporters of Arabella Stuart? I read that she was the favorite candidate of the Catholics? You doubt the rise of Henry Stuart, does it have to go through a coup made by Cecil?
Given the nature of the times would they really choose another woman though? Three female rulers in a row
VVD0D95
Banned
Whoever believes she might be a better bet than a nine year old child.
A female ruler who is an adult over a male who is a child.
Maybe they'd accept her on condition of naming Henry her heir if she didn't have a surviving son of her own with Seymore? Although, would Scotland be any more comfortable with a regency than England?
The choice of stability can be understood although the innate problem with Elisabeth, namely her marriage, will arise again with Arabella Stuart and intensify in view of her most important wish to unite which would give rise to greater instability, with the formation of cliques and factions for this or that candidate. Especially since Robert Cecil, by his position in the English state apparatus and his support for Henry Stuart (I assume that he will support him but nothing suggests such a choice in truth) may want to impose with the support of factions adversaries to the "cathophilia" (supposed or real) of Arabella Stuart.
The business of the marriage with Seymour in the last months of the reign of Elizabeth I and the reactions which they arouse can precisely push the queen to choose the young Henry, by planning a regency, than Arabella who can appear to her more intriguing and unstable?
Arbella is a woman in her 20s who would, unlike her predecessor, not throw up when someone mentions marriage within a 10 foot radius of her. There's still going to be a king, and a very big chance of an heir soon after. Marrying one of the male claimants further back in line could unify multiple claims and increase support. Or they can just marry someone without a claim to keep the other claimants' parties calm.
I don't recall anything actually happening when those rumours arose?
Also, to go back to the case for Henry Frederick, by the time Elisabeth dies in 1603 Henry would already have spent +/-3 years under a Scottish regency. And this "foreign" (to the English) influence over him definitely isn't going to help his case.
Isn’t there another claimant who is all three of those things, though admittedly with his legitimacy being a major demerit?
The legitimacy thing could be a problem, but he would be the senior heir under Henry VIII’s will. In any case he could (and likely wanted) marry Arbella (if we are talking about the older brother of her OTL husband). If we are talking about Katherine Grey’s son, well he could always marry Arbella to his eldest son, who is six years younger than her (and that is an age difference still acceptable)
Last edited: