What if...different lines of succession

[afleitch]

I had fun with this one. What would happen (with all other things being equal) if various monarch’s had died at a different time, or different heirs took the throne? Who would now reign etc.

I'll start with what I know - Scotland.

The de Balliol’s defeat the de Brus’

With Alexander III’s death, the throne of Scotland passed to the young Margaret of Norway who was betrothed to the future Edward II. She however died on the journey to Scotland. Scotland had two competing claimants to the throne; John de Balliol and Robert de Brus (the grandfather of –that- one). John’s genealogical claim was in fact stronger. John was crowned King in 1292. Had the Balliol’s been able to secure their claim, then his son Edward would have ascended the throne in 1314 and reigned until 1367. He died (after a life in which he was nothing more than an English pawn) leaving no heir. The line jumps back to his mother, Dervorguilla of Galloway. However she had no other male issue. It was Robert de Brus III as Robert I (who in this timeline never became king) who introduced a semi-salic law of succession so this could not apply here. The line then jumps to Margaret of Huntingdon; again no issue. Then to her fathers line; David Earl of Huntingdon, the youngest borther of King William the Lion. Again, no issue. And so it continues.

So the likelihood is that the de Bruce’s would have challenged for the throne in 1367. By this point, Robert de Brus great-grandson (as ‘the’ Robert de Brus would be dead) would reign as David II, just as he did in reality.

No more James

James I was assassinated in 1437. His infant son became James II. James’ immediate heir was Walter, Earl of Atholl who coincidently was one of the assassins! He was executed one month later. But what if the infant James II was also killed? There would have been a succession crisis again on the basis of the legitimacy of many of James I children. The next heir was likely to be Margaret Stewart, the Dauphine of France who would have reigned until 1444. She died without children. The throne would have then passed to Isabella who was married to the Duke of Brittany who would have reigned until 1494. While the Earls of Menteith would have had a claim on the throne at this time, it is likely that the claim would have passed to the Dukes of Brittany.

James V dies in 1537

By 1537, James V was the only surviving male heir to Robert II. Mary had yet to be born. He was the last of his line. Had James V died in this year the senior representative of Robert II’s legitimate line were the Earls of Menteith, at this point William Graham. However the support was clearly behind James Hamilton the grandson of James II’s eldest daughter. Indeed, he was considered the heir presumptive until the birth of Mary. With no James (and no Mary). James Hamilton would have ruled until his death in 1575. His son James would have ruled until 1609 but without issue. His brother would be next in line but he had already died; therefore his son James Hamilton, Marquess of Hamilton would have reigned until 1625. The line then passes into the Dukes of Hamilton meaning that today, the current Duke; Alexander Douglas-Hamilton would now be King.

Had Mary died in infancy or without producing an heir or indeed had the same happened to James VI, the throne would have been passed down the same branch via the Earl of Arran.

Charles and James killed during Civil War

This one has multiple scenarios.

What if the sons had died with the father? After Charles I was beheaded his son was crowned King of Scotland. He was succeeded after the Restoration by his brother James. What if both sons had been killed? Had Charles I oldest daughter Mary survived she is likely to have been championed as heir and of course she later became Queen with William anyway. The Hamiltons (again) would have also had a claim to the Scottish throne however this would be difficult to contest due to the personal union with England. Charles youngest son Henry Stuart was considered as a potential titular king by the Republican forces prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth. Whether Mary or Henry reigned, in either event both died in 1660. The only surviving child of Charles after 1660 was Henrietta, the Duchess of Orleans who had fled in 1647 at the age of three.

At this time of course, England and Scotland have shared their king. There is a possibility that the English may have sought to revisit Henry VIII’s will (the Grays etc). I’m going to make the assumption that they did (for curiousity) Henrietta would have reigned in Scotland until her death in 1670. Her daughter was Queen Consort of Spain, Marie Louise to Charles II of Spain but produced no heirs. Marie Louise would have reigned until 1689. At this point Scotland’s destiny would be in Spain’s hands. Charles II of Spain could have maintained control of Scotland at this point. Barring this, the Stewart succession would have continued to Anne Marie, Henrietta’s younger daughter. She had married Victor II of Savoy. She would have reigned from 1689-1728. The throne would have then passed to her surviving son, Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia. He would have been king until 1773. Scotland would have then been bound to Sardinia and Savoy. Victor Amadeus III would have reigned from 1773-1796 and Charles Emmauel IV until 1802. The succession would also have followed the path it would have done without the ‘Glorious Revolution’ – indeed at this point Charles was recognised as the official Jacobite Pretender.

The current pretender is Franz, Duke of Bavaria.