Another Elizabeth I's successor question

chr92 · Jul 20, 2013

A slightly different date from pericles' 'WI Queen Elizabeth Dies in 1589'
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=285931 .

WI she died in 1584, before either of the two Plots centred on Mary? James hadn't yet managed to buy Elizabeth's preferment, and not being yet a father and a successful politician probably wouldn't seem as good a bet as in 1603. Yet, in '84/5 he was obviously considered the best. Could Mary be simply passed over in the succession, or would her claim have to be considered seriously? Is there any chance she could, indeed, have become queen of England? If she could be passed over, what would James do with her? I'm pretty sure James would have left Scotland immediately and headed for the London fleshpots, so would anyone care to speculate how his absence would have changed Scotland? It would probably have changed James quite a bit, too.

Considering how young Arabella was, would maniakes' excellent suggestion of marrying her to James be considered too long to wait for a heir? If so, would a Danish match still be considered desirable, or could James look higher?

Could Margaret Stanley be bypassed for *her* son? It seems odd that looking for a true born Englishman ends up with King Ferdinando I, but maybe he'd have been crowned as Henry or something. Does anyone have an idea of what kind of king he would have been?

If Queen Elizabeth died of septicamea, or poisoning (deliberate or not), would the Catholics have been accused? Any particular Catholics? Or would witchcraft have been blamed?

funnyhat · Jul 23, 2013

Even before the plots, Elizabeth kept Mary in custody. I don't think Elizabeth ever wanted her to take part in the succession. I think things would have still gone pretty much as they did in OTL, just two decades earlier. Arbella Stuart would have the advantage of being born in England, but would be too young, while James would have just become an adult.

Emperor Constantine · Jul 23, 2013

I think James would become King either way. However, the question is what would happen to Mary? Personally I think she would be freed, given some estates in England and Scotland and "encouraged" to formally renounce her rights in favor of her son, then retire to her new estates. Occasionally she would appear at Court but by and large she would fade into obscurity. Mary would be 42 at the time of Elizabeth's death so there would be very little chance of her having another Kid, so James would be her only heir. I can't see her plotting against James the same way she did against Elizabeth.

Maniakes · Jul 23, 2013

If poisoning is at all suspected as the cause of Elizabeth's death, then a lot of people are going to suspect Mary of having a hand in it. She just too obviously stands too benefit from it (as it takes her from prisoner to potential claimant to the throne), and a lot of people are going to want to think the worst of her due to her Catholicism.

Arabella's only a few years away from being marriageable, and James is only 15, so I expect they would go for it: it would shore up James's claim, remove one of his stronger potential rivals, and improve the legal argument for skipping Mary.

Succession beyond James is a potential problem. OTL, he had plenty of kids when he took the throne, Arabella was confirmed as next in line after them, and Edward Seymour and his children were legitimized and placed in line after Arabella. A similar settlement seems likely ITTL, provided Arabella (or Arabella's grandmother on her behalf) and Seymour agree to play ball.

Alex Richards · Jul 23, 2013

Knowing Bess of Hardwick, if it gets her granddaughter on the throne she'll agree to it. Her family were even keeping Mary prisoner at Chatsworth at the time IIRC.

chr92 · Jul 25, 2013

Thank you very much! That's all good stuff.

funnyhat · Jul 25, 2013

Maniakes said:
Arabella's only a few years away from being marriageable, and James is only 15, so I expect they would go for it: it would shore up James's claim, remove one of his stronger potential rivals, and improve the legal argument for skipping Mary.

James was born in 1566, so he would be 18 at this point.

Maniakes · Jul 25, 2013

You are correct: James would be 18, not 15. Not entirely sure where I got mixed up.

Arabella would be about 9, so it'd be 3 years until she'd be old enough to marry (I think the age of consent for marriage with parental permission was 14 for boys and 12 for girls), and a few years beyond that before they could think about working on children, so James would be waiting until at least 21 to marry and until his mid-20s to start trying to beget an heir if he married Arabella. OTL, he was 23 when he married Anne of Denmark.