King Henry VIII and Wives (1491-1547)

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Menarue

From what I have read about Henry he was willing to shower honours on his illegitimate chidren but would never ever make them Kings of England. What he wanted was a legitimate heir,he believed that only a legitimate heir would be safe and continue the monarchy.

He not only believed in the necessity of the heir being legitimate he also had to be male, as he believed that only a King could properly rule the country.

[Grace Angel]

He did briefly entertain the idea of doing something with Fitzroy and the sucession though. He had Fitzroy be given a title ( Duke of Richmond?) I think and married him off to a member of the nobility. I believe there were observers of the time who thought he might use Fitzroy in the sucession if he had to, but that never came to pass. Still, the idea crossed the minds of contemporaries, and it seens Henry too.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Menarue

From what I have read about Henry he was willing to shower honours on his illegitimate chidren but would never ever make them Kings of England. What he wanted was a legitimate heir,he believed that only a legitimate heir would be safe and continue the monarchy.

I agree! I believe that Mary had better chances for being designated heir-presumptive than Fitzroy. Henry VIII wanted a male heir indeed, but I think legitimacy was more important to him. He wanted his children by Anne Boleyn to be legitimate so badly that he broke off with Rome - which is a major decision! Had he not cared about legitimacy, he would have never bothered with establishing a new church in order to marry his mistress.

[Grace Angel]

I think he would have prefered a legitimate heir, yes. I think he wouldn't have used Fitzroy as a possible heir unless he had gotten desperate, but I think he had the possibility at the back of his mind. There was the idea of Mary and Fitzroy marrying- but in the end he was married off young to a noblewoman. As it happened, Henry did get a legitimate son so Fitzroy never was used, and Fitzroy died young anyway.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

There was the idea of Mary and Fitzroy marrying.

Could you please provide a source for this statement? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously considered arranging marriage between brother and sister in a 16th-century-Christian-kingdom

[Grace Angel]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

Could you please provide a source for this statement? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously considered arranging marriage between brother and sister in a 16th-century-Christian-kingdom

I think it was some contemporary of Henry VIII, maybe an ambassador who was speculating who said this. It was never seriously considered, it was just gossip back then. But it did exist as gossip/ speculation. I thought Antonia Fraser's book on Henry's wives mentions it, but I'm not certain. I've read a lot on the Tudors.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

I think it was some contemporary of Henry VIII, maybe an ambassador who was speculating who said this. It was never seriously considered, it was just gossip back then. But it did exist as gossip/ speculation. I thought Antonia Fraser's book on Henry's wives mentions it, but I'm not certain. I've read a lot on the Tudors.

I think I've read it, too, but I must have thought it was a mistake by the author. A pretty audacious idea (and I'm glad that never happened).

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

Could you please provide a source for this statement? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously considered arranging marriage between brother and sister in a 16th-century-Christian-kingdom

Personally, I cannot credit any source for the possibility of a marriage between Mary Tudor and Henry FitzRoy. I doubt it was ever considered, and certainly would not have taken place if Mary had any say in the matter. As the daughter and granddaughter of three powerful monarchs, she was well aware of her high position.

But in other European realms, the issue of what today is considered incestuous marriage was quite common. Philip II of Spain (Mary's widower) married his 4th and last wife, Anne of Austria, who also happened to be his niece.

In fact, the Spanish and Portugese Royal houses were notorious for these marriages. Not brothers and sisters, mind you, but incestuous all the same.

The only notable case of a brother-sister marriage I have found so far was that of John V of Armagnac, and he lived from 1420-1473. He married his sister, Isabelle, for which he claimed to have a dispensation from Pope Callixtus III. They had at least 3 surviving children, and John's dispensation turned out to be a forgery. His children were dis-inherited and declared bastards. He died without legitimate heirs.

[iowabelle]

I think it would have been a very tricky issue to legitimize a bastard son.

To set the chronology straight, Henry Fitzroy died in July 1536, and Edward VI was born in October 1537, so it wasn't a matter of Fitzroy being replaced by Edward VI, Fitzroy was already dead.

[iowabelle]

That couldn't have been a serious idea, could it?

Even though I can't give a footnote for it, I think Henry was concerned very early on about the possibility that he might have committed incest by sleeping with his brother's wife (and thus he deserved punishment from God, so no sons), so this would really have been an outrageous idea.

[Zonk]

While Henry was okay with making Henry FitzRoy a duke, and might have considered him to be a potential King in the making...considering the times of the day and the fact that there were questions regarding the legitimacy of the Tudor throne...to make sure everything was neat and legal....Henry would have perferred a legitimate son.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Henry would have perferred a legitimate son.

Nobody is disputing that. We are discussing who would've Henry VIII preffered as his heir: a legitimate daughter (Mary) or an illegitimate son (Fitzroy). It seems that all agree that Mary would be the winner.

[Grace Angel]

I know Mary would never have accepted it. What's interesting here is that Henry was quite concerned with the legitimacy of his heirs, yet he had Mary and Elizabeth both declared bastards after his marriages to their respective mothers didn't work out. That was of course after he had his son and heir and didn't need to worry about his daughters and the sucession. Also, Catholics could never accept Elizabeth as legitimate given that they thought Henry was never properly divorced from Catharine of Aragon. I believe Edward was always regarded as legitimate by everyone though since he was born after the deaths of both of his father's previous wives.

[Menarue]

That was the point, Henry declared his daughters bastards when he had a son or still had hopes of having a son. Mary was made to curtsy to her sister Elizabeth when all was going well with Henry and Anne and there was still the possibility she, Anne, could be the mother of the future King of England.
Henry wanted and needed a legitimate son, I think that underneath it all he wanted to forget how the Tudor´s came to the throne, and by looking to the future and imagining a long line of legitimate sons and descendants he could do this.

[Grace Angel]

He also wanted an legitimate heir for England and knew that was the only way his country as well as dynasty was secure. Edward was indeed the heir, but he died young after Henry's death and England ended up being the most secure under Elizabeth, a woman and also someone who in some people's eyes was not of legitimate birth. Interesting how history turns out- the two things Henry didn't want in an heir was a female heir of doubtful legitimacy ( in some quarters), yet that
's what saved England.

[iowabelle]

It is rather interesting that it was Elizabeth that turned out to be the successful daughter, rather than Mary. I would think that Elizabeth would have been more traumatized by her mother's fate, and she lacked the inspiration that Mary would have had from a more glorious genealogy.

Maybe it's Elizabeth's more pragmatic attitude that made her a successful queen? I think Mary's reign was probably doomed by the Spanish marriage, and her marital choices were limited by her close ties to the Roman Church.

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

It is rather interesting that it was Elizabeth that turned out to be the successful daughter, rather than Mary. I would think that Elizabeth would have been more traumatized by her mother's fate. Church.

Perhaps she was too young to have it affect her that way. Naturally when she was old enough to learn what had happened she realised that anyone could be accused and executed and she spent a long time in fear that that would be her fate with a spell in the Tower to make it even more real to her.
What relief she must have felt when she finally found herself Queen, and a wonderful Queen she was too.
Edward, if I remember rightly had TB, so must have spent a lot of time being unwell, I believe he was very intelligent and studious but constantly ill.
We have to remember the wonderful education that Elizabeth had which for a girl was very unusual for those times. This must have been given her by her father so perhaps he realised her potential.

[Grace Angel]

I think it simply came down to personality, actually. Elizabeth simply had a stronger personality more suited to ruling. Edward would have made a okay king, I'm sure, but Elizabeth was defintely the most qualified to rule England of Henry's children, given her personality. Mary was simply too rigid and had been through too much in her life to make her a good ruler.

[iowabelle]

I think you're right about Mary, Grace Angel. Rigid and traumatized sums up Mary. Poor Edward died too young to really be sure what he could have been.

[Grace Angel]

Learning was regarded as important for upper class women in Henry VIII's England is my impression. Katharine Parr was also an influence on Elizabeth's education- she was somewhat intellectual and interested in religious questions. Mary was educated by her mother Catharine of Aragon, who followed the ideas of Juan Louis Vives a Spanish intellectual, so Mary wasn't badly educated at all, just not educated as well as Elizabeth.