A place for images, links, and discussion relevant to the Tudor period. The Tudor period is defined as from the beginning of Henry VII's reign in 1485 to the end of Elizabeth I's reign in 1603. All history (economic, social, religious etc) and discussion of all types of people (monarchs, nobles, commoners) welcome. Submissions pertaining to the Wars of the Roses may be accepted or removed at the discretion of the mods.
Question
In this scenario, Margaret Tudor still marries King James IV of Scotland in 1503, but between 1503 and 1513, her brother Prince Henry, Duke of York (later King Henry VIII with the death of King Henry VII in 1509) dies without leaving any heirs. As the eldest remaining child and daughter of King Henry VII, Margaret is crowned "Queen Margaret I of England" between 1509 and 1513, while married to King James IV of Scotland, a descendant of Joan Beaufort in his own right. What would her reign look like?
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
The Staffords mount a rebellion and a civil war akin to the Anarchy between Matilda and Stephen breaks out.
Yup lol was gonna say exactly this
The only issue I can see with this is that the Staffords were largely allied with the Tudor faction, having supported Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond to become King Henry VII, as well as allied with his mother, Margaret Beaufort. If Prince Henry, Duke of York died before King Henry VII died in 1509, there is no way that Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Staffords would risk incurring Henry VIII's wrath by rebelling. Why would they?
When King Henry VIII succeeded his father, Lord Buckingham was richly rewarded:
If Margaret Beaufort also rewarded Buckingham and the Staffords as Queen, this would almost assuredly cement Buckingham's loyalty to her, and prevent any rebellions. Margaret may even go as far as to promise Buckingham a marriage between his son and heir - Henry Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford - and one of her daughters, which would also mean elevating Henry Stafford to either "1st Earl of Stafford" or "1st Duke of Stafford", pleasing Buckingham.
Chaotic. Margaret was just like Henry.
I would even say that going up to Scotland at such a young age made her even more chaotic than Henry because, well....Scotland was Scotland. 🤷🏻
I think it depends on 2 things:
Is Henry VII still alive when Prince Henry dies?
And does Margaret have a living son?
If both of those things are the case, I think everyone accepts the status quo. Memories of the Wars of the Roses were still fresh.
King James would probably be told to go home to Scotland, but his son would remain in England with his mother.
And the two crowns would be united 2 generations earlier than they actually were.
Short and bloody, because just about everyone with even a tenuous claim to the throne would launch a rebellion against her.
Much would depend on James and Margaret's relationship, which according to tradition was strong. If they felt they were on the same side and wanted the same thing, they could have made it work if they had powerful ministers supporting them. The idea of a Scottish king in the English throne jure uxoris was not as unpalatable as a French or Spanish one, since there was no question of England being subsumed by Scotland. It's a scenario a man like Wolsey could have pulled off.
It would depend on when Henry VIII died. He married CofA in 1509, so let’s say he passed in late Fall/early winter of 1510, then CofA was pregnant. The country and Court would have waited anxiously upon the birth of the baby. She gave birth to a baby boy, Henry, January 1, 1511, who at birth would be King Henry IX. Then when the baby unfortunately passed away, the crown would have gone to Margaret up in Scotland, an agreement being first son KofE, second son KofS, or unification of both countries under one monarch. Although I could see it possible going to Margaret’s sister Mary, who wouldn’t marry the King of France until 1514. If Mary was bethrothed to marry another royal that is.
This just hurts my head to try and think about.
Short and bloody, because just about everyone with even a tenuous claim to the throne would launch a rebellion against her.
Would this be Margaret, Queen Consort of Scots Tudor born 1489-1541? She married George Douglas Laird van Pittendreich in 1513?
I'm not sure about whatever marriage you're referring to, but I'm referring to Margaret Tudor, who married King James IV of* Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Tudor
Just looked into and it is who I was thinking. I've been looking into my ancestry and I got down to my 14th great grandparents. According to the records my 14th great grandfather Archibald Douglas married her in 1514.
I'm not sure how this is relevant to this thread, as this thread is a hypothetical scenario in which Margaret Tudor, now Queen, may have never married Archibald Douglas.