Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

[Furienna]

And to think that her father went into all that trouble just to have a son.

[Baroness of Books]

Elizabeth's problems started really young, and that's not even considering the death of her mother and deprivations in childhood and to her household. She was accused at approximately age 14 to have plotted with Sir Thomas Seymour to marry him without permission of the Council and stories were circulating about her indiscreet behavior with Sir Thomas when living with Sir Thomas and Queen Katherine Parr. Her beloved governess Kat Ashley and her purser were removed from her household and thrown in the Tower of London for questioning at that time, and Lady Tyrell was placed in Elizabeth's household to act as spy for her husband who wanted to implicate Elizabeth. She wrote to the Council to quash rumors that she was pregnant with Sir Thomas' child and to have her servants released, which was accomplished on both counts. I've always been fascinated by the fact that Elizabeth had the composure, wit and strength of character in one so young to have survived the first of many trials and tribulations in her life, which basically could have led to her death if incriminated. And for some reason, this particular incident in Elizabeth's life for me shows how formidable she was when only a teenager. A fascinating person and arguably the greatest monarch in British history, IMO.

[AustinTexas1961]

I just finished re-watching "Elizabeth: The Golden Age." I've also read quite a number of books on QE1. Was there ever a "secret" contingency plan to succeed her, in the event of assassination (or war .....as in the case of the Invasion of the Spanish Armada). I get the sense that she had no great liking of the Scottish King James VI. If she had succumbed to an assassin or some disease, was it always James as the heir. I've read that as much as she (seemed) detested the son of Mary Stuart, she liked her own Tudor relatives even less. I imagine she tolerated, somewhat, James I, as he lived at a distance in Scotland. Her own Tudor relatives proved to be problematic in a variety of ways. Any thoughts on this matter?

[Vasillisos Markos]

I don't know that there was a contingency plan in place but I believe that with Elizabeth's death, the crown would go to the next closest relative which would have been James VI of Scotland. Henry VIII had no surviving brother or a brother who had descendants. His oldest sister, Margaret, married into the Scottish royal family and his sister Mary had descendants. But Mary's claim was subordinate to her sister Margaret's claim and thus Margaret's heirs could claim the throne.

Henry VII-Henry VIII-Edward-Mary-Elizabeth

Henry VII-Margaret-James V-Mary Queen of Scots-James VI

[Iluvbertie]

The only problem with that was Henry VIII's will - which clearly put the younger sister's claim ahead of the elder - because Margaret had married into the Scottish royal family. Henry clearly didn't want the thrones merged. Probably because the leading claimant from Mary (the younger sister) was another woman while from Margaret Henry's will and legislation (Third Succession Act Third Succession Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was overlooked in favour of James.

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear Iluvbertie,

I was not aware of Henry's will. Thanks for pointing this out.

I wonder why he would not want the thrones merged? One would think Henry would think this to be the elimination of much headache and woe on England's northern border. I read the link but did not see where it said Henry wanted Mary's heirs to be dominant over Margaret's. Where can his will be found?

[PrincessKaimi]

Henry's will was not a single document of the sort a private person would execute.

It was endorsed and enacted by an Act of Parliament (two Acts of Succession). In 1543 Henry presented his will to Parliament, who enacted it as the Second Act of Succession (or Succession Act of 1543). It is likely there were many copies made.

I have no idea where any originals of that document might be (British Library?).

I don't see anything in the Act itself about dominance of one set of heirs over Margaret or anyone else.

[Iluvbertie]

Henry VIII of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this is says 'Finally, if Elizabeth's line became extinct, the crown was to be inherited by the descendants of Henry VIII's deceased younger sister, Mary. The descendants of Henry's sister Margaret Tudor—the royal family of Scotland—were therefore excluded from succession according to this act. This final provision failed when James VI of Scotland subsequently became James I of England upon Elizabeth's death.'

Unfortunately the Wikipedia article on the Third Succession Act - doesn't include the details of what was to happen in the case of all three of the children dying without issue but his will and this legislation do - they both stated that the throne was to bypass Margaret's line and pass to Mary's - why I don't know but it was the fact.

In fact it is Mary's descendents who were actually regarded by many people as the heirs/heiresses presumptive until very late in Elizabeth's reign. I think this fact gets overlooked in the story because of the trouble Mary Queen of Scots gave Elizabeth and the fact that Mary was the logical heir coming from the elder sister but...in fact legally the heirs were the descendents of Mary.

In 1603 the Succession Act was changed to have James as the King Succession to the Crown Act 1603 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but interestingly enough it was done by James and not by Elizabeth.

[PrincessKaimi]

I understand that the Scots line was to be excluded - but exclusion doesn't mean dominance (probably the hope, though).

Thanks for the information on the Third Act - I realized after reading a bit further that Wikipedia is sorely lacking in detail about that Act.

Weren't Mary's progeny also the offspring of King Henry VIII's very good friend, Charles Brandon?

So, if I'm getting it right, the plan would be that Queen Elizabeth's proper successor would have been Mary, Queen of Scots...had Elizabeth not taken the actions she did?

[Iluvbertie]

Yes Mary's progeny were the descendents of Charles Brandon.

Until very late in her reign the recognised heir was, in fact, Mary's line not the Scots line. They kept very quiet and went about their business. At the time of her death the claimant just kept on doing his own thing, kept his head down - and kept it, allowing James to become King.

Had Elizabeth died earlier or had that line decided to challenge James the country would have descended into civil war because Henry's will and the Act of Succession didn't follow normal inheritance laws.

When I used the term 'dominance' I really meant that Mary's line was to be above Margaret's - like William's line will dominate Harry's line in the future.

Elizabeth basically did nothing - she never named an heir officially and just allowed people to make their own ideas. Fortunately for the country the leading claimant from this line at the time of Elizabeth's death - William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby - decided to accept James as the King. His mother was heiress presumptive until she died in 1598 and then his older brother. He never put forward his own claim and supported James quite strongly.

[Tiberivs]

Henry did plan to wed his son Edward VI (then the Prince of Wales) to Queen Mary however the Scots refuse to give him the Queen and he began another war against and a very vicious one at that. He also fought previously against his brother in law James IV and nephew James V.

I'm assuming those events contribute to his dislike of the Scottish royal family.

[EmpressRouge]

According to the documentary "Monarchy with David Starkey" (it's streaming on Netflix for those in the States), Henry VIII did exclude Queen Margaret of Scotland's line and favored Mary, Duchess of Suffolk's line after his own. However for Elizabeth, Mary's line included the very people who had tried to usurp her sister Mary I's throne and Elizabeth's own status as heiress with Lady Jane Grey. Thus Elizabeth was not a fan of her father's will and, according to Starkey, ignored/hid the documents which favored Mary's line over Margaret's. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with that theory is that Mary's heirs were acknowledged as the presumptive heirs at the time. As good as Starkey is he does make mistakes.

[Lenora]

Elizabeth Tailboys would have changed the course of English history had the King acknowledged her as his
Revelation unearthed by a historian who has re-examined royal records into the life of Henry VIII's famous mistress Bessie Blount


Read more: Henry VIII had a secret daughter who should have taken the throne before Elizabeth I, historian claims | Mail Online

[IloveCP]

Thank goodness Elizabeth ended up Queen! If it's true,who knows what the "secret daughter" would have done for England.

[Zonk]

Too me this is much ado about nothing.

Unless this daughter was born while Henry was married to her mother (and not married to Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn) it doesn't really matter.

[Baroness of Books]

Exactly. And if anyone was going to inherit the throne, it would have been Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, Henry's son. The problem was that he was also illegitimate and that barred him. If he was denied because his mother wasn't married to Henry, then Elizabeth Tailboys definitely would also have been.

[Esmerelda]

Originally Posted by Baroness of Books

Exactly. And if anyone was going to inherit the throne, it would have been Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, Henry's son. The problem was that he was also illegitimate and that barred him. If he was denied because his mother wasn't married to Henry, then Elizabeth Tailboys definitely would also have been.

Also, didn't this son die during Henry VIII's lifetime?

[Baroness of Books]

Yes, he died of consumption, it was believed, at around age 17.

[Esmerelda]

The 1971 BBC series Elizabeth R is on YouTube. It's absolutely riveting. Here's the first part.

Elizabeth R 1 [1/7] - YouTube

I think Glenda Jackson is the best at portraying Elizabeth, though I was blown away by Geoffrey Rush's Walsingham in Elizabeth (1998). Unfortunately, that film isn't entirely historically accurate.