Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Maid of Norway marries Edward.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Maid of Norway marries Edward.

    The Maid of Norway survives her trip in 1290, marries the future Edward II and forms a union of Scotland and England 3 centuries before the actual act of union occured. No famous Wallace, no King Robert Bruce, no Stuarts? No hundred years war?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret,_Maid_of_Norway
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • #2
    My knowledge of the time is still scattered, but Scotland accepting Edward II as rightful king would be centered around the English making enough consessions to keep the barons happy. Edward II seems to have been a twit, a fact that in the end killed him.

    The 100 Years War would still be fought, at least the early stages, because the English line had weaker claims to the french throne but still had them, along with a goodly chunk of France. Now if The maid has kids with Edward, we might not get an Edward III or anyone else and even though the English army was better organized and had the Welsh longbowman, the virtues of the king, in administration and marshall were absoletely critical for the English armies to triumph, or do the Dunkirk.
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm should be surprised by the lack of responses, but this is actually a biggee. No problems with Scotland (as far as the English are concerned) means a likely reduction of taxes in Wales and Ireland, and the alleviations of problems there. Edward 1 was already having close to a civil war on his hands in England, and only Wallace's historic victory at Stirling Bridge diverted attention. A Scottish 1 year later, and England may have been unable to respond to Scotland bid for independence.

      Secondly, Edward 1 would be able to concentrate on his lands in Gascony, and expanding his building program there. This would definitely have changed the political landscape of NW Europe at least.

      A peaceful Britain could prosper earlier. Already a land of merchants, longbowmen could have been replaced by traders and began a trading empire that much earlier? A British Empire 1415-1914 instead of 1815-1914?
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        A peaceful Britain could prosper earlier. Already a land of merchants, longbowmen could have been replaced by traders and began a trading empire that much earlier?
        Wot and miss all the fun warring in France?

        Comment


        • #5
          Nick,

          There would have been a Wallace, and other "problems". Scotland is not England. The "nobility" usually had lands in both England and Scotland, so they will sit on the fence until they see a winner. It was the Scot "commoners" that threw out the English.

          Secondly, who is to say Edward II would have produced an heir with the Maid? There is some evidence that the French she wolf he married did not use King Eddie as a sperm donor. There were a number of British Kings over the years that were not that into the ladies (hint), but Eddie II was one of the more feminine of the bunch. At least he did not die of a red hot poker up the anus like one did.

          I don't see Edward the First dropping the tax rate down. There was always a reason to spend.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            Nick,

            There would have been a Wallace, and other "problems". Scotland is not England. The "nobility" usually had lands in both England and Scotland, so they will sit on the fence until they see a winner. It was the Scot "commoners" that threw out the English.

            Secondly, who is to say Edward II would have produced an heir with the Maid? There is some evidence that the French she wolf he married did not use King Eddie as a sperm donor. There were a number of British Kings over the years that were not that into the ladies (hint), but Eddie II was one of the more feminine of the bunch. At least he did not die of a red hot poker up the anus like one did.

            I don't see Edward the First dropping the tax rate down. There was always a reason to spend.

            Pruitt
            No king (inc Ed 2) died of the red hot poker imo. It is almost certainly a myth.

            The reason for my question is from reading this :



            A great argument for all his actions was his desperate need to respected as King. His father had problems with the aristocracy as did, of course, his grandad King John. Edward I wanted to be treated as king with all the rights and responsibilities that entailed. He didn't ask for monies from parliament unless he needed it. With Scotlands future looking secure with the impending marriage of the Maid and Edward II (to be) most Scots appeared happy up to a point. Of course Scotland was a real mix at that time with Irish, Scandanavians and the recently arrived Normans to add to the blend, and it was not the united country we see today (as much as any nation can be).

            The cost of Edwards war with Scotland was astronomical and the funds saved here could have fielded several armies in France, or built more towns there as he was wont to do. The political landscape could have been immensely changed by a stronger UK, and a greater presence in France.

            As for the Scottish nobles, many have certainly gotten bad and unfair press since a certain very enjoyable Hollywood film hit the screens in 95.
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • #7
              One of the causes of the hundred years war was the French support for Scotland.

              If no dispute with the Scots, no despute with France and Edward III goes on Crusade with the French.
              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                One of the causes of the hundred years war was the French support for Scotland.

                If no dispute with the Scots, no despute with France and Edward III goes on Crusade with the French.
                Highly possible. Maybe even Edward 1 on crusade. English and French royal families were highly (over ) related at the time (aren't they always ) and an early Anglo-French superstate with one leader for both is again a possibility.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nick, I definitely, need to go out and get that book........this is one of my favorite areas of history....
                  "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."- Sir Winston Churchill, about R.A.F. fighter pilots."
                  "It is well that war is so terrible, else we grow to fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robbielynne View Post
                    Nick, I definitely, need to go out and get that book........this is one of my favorite areas of history....
                    I have this to read next



                    then I'll have this

                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      I have this to read next



                      then I'll have this


                      Ian Mortimer is an excellent writer...I just read his book about Roger Mortimer and queen Isabella...
                      "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."- Sir Winston Churchill, about R.A.F. fighter pilots."
                      "It is well that war is so terrible, else we grow to fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Which King took a poker up the rear?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
                          Which King took a poker up the rear?
                          Legend is that it was Edward II, but who was almost certainly suffocated - can't leave a mark on the body you see.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                            Legend is that it was Edward II, but who was almost certainly suffocated - can't leave a mark on the body you see.
                            According to Mortimer's 'Perfect King' (the book you have refered to above) Edward II was not murdered but lived the rest of his life in secret in Europe.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              According to Mortimer's 'Perfect King' (the book you have refered to above) Edward II was not murdered but lived the rest of his life in secret in Europe.
                              there is alot of tantalizing evidence that supports this claim of Edward II living as a hermit/recluse in Italy....Ian Mortimer makes a good case of it being true...
                              "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."- Sir Winston Churchill, about R.A.F. fighter pilots."
                              "It is well that war is so terrible, else we grow to fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X