A King For The Queen: Elizabeth Marries

[westvirginiarebel]

WI Elizabeth had been married? What happens to James?

[steampoweredwolf]

I think the most important issue is not if she had married, but if she had had any heirs. If she married, but had no surviving children, the throne would still have gone to James.

Now with a living heir…much more interesting prospect. The Tudor dynasty would continue and there would be no personal union with Scotland. I’d see Anglo-Scottish relations as rocky, but civil as the two protestant nations would be forced to work together against Catholic France and Spain.

As for who Elizabeth could have married, Robert Dudley was probably the most likely domestic candidate, but she could also have considered Eric XIV of Sweden. Could a child of that union have ruled much of Protestant Northern Europe, creating a great power to rival Hapsburg Spain?

[aolbain]

Dec 18, 2015 10:52:34 GMT steampoweredwolf said:

I think the most important issue is not if she had married, but if she had had any heirs. If she married, but had no surviving children, the throne would still have gone to James.

Now with a living heir…much more interesting prospect. The Tudor dynasty would continue and there would be no personal union with Scotland. I’d see Anglo-Scottish relations as rocky, but civil as the two protestant nations would be forced to work together against Catholic France and Spain.

As for who Elizabeth could have married, Robert Dudley was probably the most likely domestic candidate, but she could also have considered Eric XIV of Sweden. Could a child of that union have ruled much of Protestant Northern Europe, creating a great power to rival Hapsburg Spain?

The problem with the Swedish route is that Erik got insane and then deposed. If you want a Scandinavian alliance I think Johan of Sweden or Magnus of Denmark are better choices. That also avoids (at least from the outset) the complications of two married regents with separate realms.