WI Alexander III of Scotland lived?

In 1286 Alexander III was traveling from Edinburgh Castle to Fife in order to visit his Queen (against the advice of his advisers (seriously, why does nobody take the advice of the people whose job it is to give advice?)), weather conditions were treacherous his horse lost it's footing in the dark and it went over a rocky embankment taking the unfortunate King along with it. He broke his neck, and with all his heirs dead, excluding his two year old grand-daughter, Margaret.
Unfortunately, she died while on her way to Scotland to be crowned.
one thing lead to another and before you know it, Edward I of England has sacked Berwick.

Now, what if Alexander III had taken his advisers' advice and remained warm and dry in Edinburgh for the night?
 
In 1286 Alexander III was traveling from Edinburgh Castle to Fife in order to visit his Queen (against the advice of his advisers (seriously, why does nobody take the advice of the people whose job it is to give advice?)), weather conditions were treacherous his horse lost it's footing in the dark and it went over a rocky embankment taking the unfortunate King along with it. He broke his neck, and with all his heirs dead, excluding his two year old grand-daughter, Margaret.
Unfortunately, she died while on her way to Scotland to be crowned.
one thing lead to another and before you know it, Edward I of England has sacked Berwick.

Now, what if Alexander III had taken his advisers' advice and remained warm and dry in Edinburgh for the night?

Short Answer: Scottish and English History are completly changed and so even 50 years after this POD Scotland and England would be unrecognisable.

Long Answer: No Wars of Independence meaning that Scotland shall stay quite prosperous. It also means Balliol will not be King, but neither will Bruce. The Comyns will not be slaughtered so Buchan (where I come from) shall be far more prosperous and important. Edward II won't be killed with a poker up the bum either.

To be honest I'm amazed nobody has done a tineline about this before...
 
As one whose ancestors hailed from Bemerside, I've often wondered about this. No prominence for William Wallace, no crown for Robert Bruce and no excuse for Longshanks to invade. An altogether better circumstance for Scotland, at least in the short term. I expect that Scottish would have become its own variant of English with its own literature and culture. I also expect that later English history would be radically different, particularly if the Auld Alliance with France came about and remained strong and no Union with England
 
Well, Alexander's new wife (Yolande de Dreux) had six children from her second husband, so the odds are that she would probably deliver a heir to the king.
I wonder if with no problems in Scotland Edward I would be able to get more involved in his conflic with the French king during the 1290's.
 
I expect that Scottish would have become its own variant of English with its own literature and culture
It did that anyway - ever heard of John Henrysoun, Gavin Dunbar, Gavin Kennedy, Robert Burns or Hamish Henderson?
I also expect that later English history would be radically different, particularly if the Auld Alliance with France came about and remained strong and no Union with England
Without the death of Alexander III, European - not just British history - is unrecognisable to us.

Longshanks would have had more time to spend on his activities in France, but whatever happened, it wouldn't be OTL France. Whether he won, lost or got himself killed (which is my preferred option) the map of Europe would be far different.
 
OTOH who's to say that Edward just uses an other excuse to intervene in Scotland? IIRC Longshanks actively pursued to increase the already dominant position of England on the British Isles.
For France he'd need a more valid reason like his grandson Edward III, OTOH he did have old Plantagenet/Angevin and even Norman claims (but no claim on the French throne).
 
It did that anyway - ever heard of John Henrysoun, Gavin Dunbar, Gavin Kennedy, Robert Burns or Hamish Henderson?

Without the death of Alexander III, European - not just British history - is unrecognisable to us.

Longshanks would have had more time to spend on his activities in France, but whatever happened, it wouldn't be OTL France. Whether he won, lost or got himself killed (which is my preferred option) the map of Europe would be far different.

Aye Laddie I'm aware of them, and I have raised a glass or two on Bobby's birthday and partaken of the sacred Haggis but IOTL even Burns was never given anything like the appreciation that say Wordsworth or Byron was. What I really was thinking of was not so much a regional dialect as much as a stand-alone language as different from English as Dutch is from German.

Of course that would mean as well that the British Empire if it forms at all ATL would be forced to do without the thousands of engineers, soldiers and administrators that made it run as well as it did. :D
 
Aye Laddie I'm aware of them, and I have raised a glass or two on Bobby's birthday and partaken of the sacred Haggis but IOTL even Burns was never given anything like the appreciation that say Wordsworth or Byron was. What I really was thinking of was not so much a regional dialect as much as a stand-alone language as different from English as Dutch is from German.

Of course that would mean as well that the British Empire if it forms at all ATL would be forced to do without the thousands of engineers, soldiers and administrators that made it run as well as it did. :D

It would manage as well as it did in OTL. Do you think all those engineers, soldiers and administrators did what they did for the glory of the British Empire? Although the numbers might be reduced there would always be opportunities for those willing to leave the haggis and the heather far behind, especially as they'd be speaking a version of English.
 
There are other people much more qualified than me to talk about medieval Scots politics, but I do know a thing or two about the history of the Scots language, so...
 
There are other people much more qualified than me to talk about medieval Scots politics, but I do know a thing or two about the history of the Scots language, so...
Haud yer wheesht Laddie.

Ah'body claimis tae ken a fair muckle amoont o thei Scottis tonge, bit dae ye ken lallans weil?
 
The Scots language at that time was called "Inglis" ("Scottis" meant Gaelic, which in the written form was actually Early Modern Irish, but that is a story for another time) but that didn't mean it wasn't already recognised as being distinct. The court-dialects of the two kingdoms were similar - the whole area of Saxondom was of course divided into numerous impenetrable vernaculars - but Scots was generally considered a broadly-comprehensible foreign language by the English, certainly from the time of the Elizabethans. It was a change in the usage of the names for these languages, not the spoken language of anybody in Scotland, which brought about this crystallisation of attitudes.

It was only with the Reformation, the Book of Discipline, and the Union that people started deliberately writing in literary English as the proper language of officialdom and high culture in Scotland. And they never altogether stopped writing in various types Scots.

It's not a question of Scots coming to be seen as seperate but of continuing to be seen as such.

even Burns was never given anything like the appreciation that say Wordsworth or Byron was.

What does that signify, though? Scots-language literature obviously has a smaller market than English literature, because we're the smaller country. The important thing is its popularity and usage in Scotland.

Anyway, some Scots who not only wrote in English but had a profound influence on English literature also wrote in Scots.

What I really was thinking of was not so much a regional dialect as much as a stand-alone language as different from English as Dutch is from German.

There isn't any neat way of saying how alike two forms of speech actually are, but Scots certainly was as distinct from English as Dutch from German by the only really relevant criterion: people said it was foreign.

The reality of the age before telegraphy and public schools was that people from Edinburgh had no idea what the hell people from the north-east were saying, people from London had no idea what people from Yorkshire were saying, and people along both sides of the border understood each-other readily enough.
 
OTOH who's to say that Edward just uses an other excuse to intervene in Scotland? IIRC Longshanks actively pursued to increase the already dominant position of England on the British Isles.
For France he'd need a more valid reason like his grandson Edward III, OTOH he did have old Plantagenet/Angevin and even Norman claims (but no claim on the French throne).

Prior to Alexander's death England and Scotland had very good relations with Alexander being Edward I brother in law. This is why Edward was trusted by the Guardians of Scotland to rule on who should be the new King of Scots. This is often forgotten when viewed through the prism of subsequent events

If Alexander had survived it's likely that relations between Scotland and England would have remained friendly and hence the Auld Alliance would never have existed. Assuming the continued intermarriage between the 2 royal families it is indeed possible that you would have seen a far earlier union of the crowns.
 
What about Ireland? What was going on there at the period? Could we see a greater Plantagenet involvement there without the problems in Scotland?
 
Prior to Alexander's death England and Scotland had very good relations with Alexander being Edward I brother in law. This is why Edward was trusted by the Guardians of Scotland to rule on who should be the new King of Scots. This is often forgotten when viewed through the prism of subsequent events

If Alexander had survived it's likely that relations between Scotland and England would have remained friendly and hence the Auld Alliance would never have existed. Assuming the continued intermarriage between the 2 royal families it is indeed possible that you would have seen a far earlier union of the crowns.

Likely, but that doesn't exclude an ambition of dominating the British Isles, however this will affect the means used to achieve this.
Good relations are important, but at the end of day they won't be allowed to hurt the national interests.
 
Likely, but that doesn't exclude an ambition of dominating the British Isles, however this will affect the means used to achieve this.
Good relations are important, but at the end of day they won't be allowed to hurt the national interests.

It can be argued that Edward only became interested in Scotland after Alexander's death, and that to Edward he was more interested in France than England. Remember teh Treaty of Birham was actually quite favourable to Scotland.
 
National interests? Sorry, Longshanks was only into Plantagenet interests.

Your right in that era dynastic interests were more important. France obviously was important, but the rest of the British Isles is England's ''backyard'' and trying to improve their position on the British Isles and in France, by whatever means, is also in their dynastic interests.
 
Last edited:
Top