The Tudors

[Iluvbertie]

Of course any sons from his daugthers wouldn't have continued the Tudor line as the children would belong to the family of their father.

His nephew through his sister, whose lines sits on the throne today, came to the throne as Stuarts, and then, again through a female line we had the Hanoverians and the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas before George V changed the name to Windsor.

 

[Countessmeout]

If Mary had married any of the men she was betrothed to as a child, would Elizabeth have come to the throne right away? Mary would have been on the continent some where, a queen or empress. I gues one of her younger sons could have been heir to England, but would the English rather have an English princess or a foreign prince as their future monarch?

Dauphin- if she wed him she'd have been widowed quite young, as he died at the age of 18. She may have returned back to England, and an English husband be found for her. Or another foreign marriage.

Charles V- he died 11 years after Henry, so she would have been on the continent with him. He was her first cousin, their mothers were sisters.

Francis I or Henry II- the first died before her father died, but if she wed Henry, she would have been queen of France when her father died.

Duke Philip-died less than a year after Henry, so Mary would have been in Germany with him.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Depending on the marriage contract her eldest son would have inherited multiple thrones - as happened in 1603 when James VI of Scotland also inherited England or when George I added Britain to Hannover - thus linking England to another country.

Elizabeth would only have inherited after all her sister's children were dead.

 

[Countessmeout]

Depending on the marriage contract her eldest son would have inherited multiple thrones - as happened in 1603 when James VI of Scotland also inherited England or when George I added Britain to Hannover - thus linking England to another country.

Elizabeth would only have inherited after all her sister's children were dead.

Henry decided the line of succession in his will. If Mary was wed, he may have left her out. She was considered illegitamite to the day she took the throne, she easily could have been kept from succession.

Scotland and Hannover are two different things. Scotland's throne was merged with England, becoming the UK. Hannover and England remained independent of one another, the titles were just held by the same person. George didn't add Britain to Hannover. That is why when William IV died, Hannover passed to Ernest Augustus, Victoria's Uncle and not to her. Hannover had its own succession laws, which did not allow a female to inherit the throne. So while Victoria was queen of the UK, not of Hannover.

If Mary had a few heirs before her father died, Henry could very well have named one of his younger grandsons his heirs. One of the reasons he and others didn't want a female to inherit, was because they didn't want a foreign prince on the throne. So it would perhaps not be unthinkable, Henry would chose to keep Mary out of the line of succession, and Elizabeth would have been queen right after Edward

 

[Ish]

Scotland and Hannover are two different things. Scotland's throne was merged with England, becoming the UK. Hannover and England remained independent of one another, the titles were just held by the same person. George didn't add Britain to Hannover. That is why when William IV died, Hannover passed to Ernest Augustus, Victoria's Uncle and not to her. Hannover had its own succession laws, which did not allow a female to inherit the throne. So while Victoria was queen of the UK, not of Hannover.

Actually, the Scottish and English crowns weren't united formally until 1707, when the Acts of Union were passed. For the 100 years previous, under the reign of the Stuarts and the Commonwealth, the two kingdoms were separate but united by a monarch - much like the union between Britain and the Hanovers later. This can be seen in how the Jacobitism is stronger in Scotland or Ireland, with some (at various times) supporting the return of a Stuart monarchy in Scotland separate from the Hanover and later Windsor monarchy in England.

 

[Tudur rose]

Henry started thinking of a divorce long before Anne came to the scene. She might have fastened the process but was not in any way the reason for it. So yes, if Anne Boleyn dared to resist the King's advances (and in those times, it wasn't really possible), in all probability Henry VIII would have still gotten divorced.

Henry needed a male heir not only for selfish reasons (to prove it wasn't his "fault" he and Catherine weren't able to have a son), but also for very real political ones. The Tudor dynasty was still very new and not at all established one - not unlike the Spanish Monarchy nowadays. A male heir would guarantee succession, a female heir was a headache: you needed to find a suitable husband, make sure she was accepted by all the nobles and especially those with claims to the Throne, made sure she is trained well enough to be able to hold her own in male-dominated world, and so on.

They had a few sons but they died while only days old ... Henry already had a male child illegitimately ... Henry Fitzroy ...so don't think Henry had to prove anything ...

 

[Alison H]

The sensible thing to do would've been to marry Mary off to one of the Yorkist relations - Reginald Pole (before he became a priest), or maybe Edward Courtenay (although possibly too young), or one of the more remote relations like the Earl of Surrey.

If Charles V had left his entire empire to Philip instead of splitting it between Philip and Ferdinand, and then Mary and Philip had had a son, their son would've ended up with England, Wales, Ireland, Aragon & Castile, Portugal, the Netherland & Belgium the Habsburg Austrian Empire, part of Italy and all the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in America!

 

[Tudur rose]

Henry started thinking of a divorce long before Anne came to the scene. She might have fastened the process but was not in any way the reason for it. So yes, if Anne Boleyn dared to resist the King's advances (and in those times, it wasn't really possible), in all probability Henry VIII would have still gotten divorced.

Henry needed a male heir not only for selfish reasons (to prove it wasn't his "fault" he and Catherine weren't able to have a son), but also for very real political ones. The Tudor dynasty was still very new and not at all established one - not unlike the Spanish Monarchy nowadays. A male heir would guarantee succession, a female heir was a headache: you needed to find a suitable husband, make sure she was accepted by all the nobles and especially those with claims to the Throne, made sure she is trained well enough to be able to hold her own in male-dominated world, and so on.

Henry already had a male child .. Henry Fitzroy , illegitimate child . Also Henry and Catherine had at least two sons but they died while only days old .

 

[Countessmeout]

They had a few sons but they died while only days old ... Henry already had a male child illegitimately ... Henry Fitzroy ...so don't think Henry had to prove anything ...

Problem with Fitzroy is he was illegitamite.

When Henry went to divorce Catherine, he wanted it annullled first. He asked it, on the grounds of contination. He claimed Catherine had consumated her marriage with Arthur, so their marriage was not legal (on the same grounds his marriage with Anne should not have been, based on his previous relations with her sister). He believed, or claimed to, that the Gods had not granted them a son, because their marriage was not legal. He was capable of having sons, his illegitamite sons were proof of that, but he would not be granted a legitamite son, as God didn't recognize his union. In his mind he needed to have a legal son, from a marriage, to prove this was true. When Jane bore him a son, he saw it as a sign. God has recognized his new marriage, and blessed him and his wife with a son.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The sensible thing to do would've been to marry Mary off to one of the Yorkist relations - Reginald Pole (before he became a priest), or maybe Edward Courtenay (although possibly too young), or one of the more remote relations like the Earl of Surrey.

If Charles V had left his entire empire to Philip instead of splitting it between Philip and Ferdinand, and then Mary and Philip had had a son, their son would've ended up with England, Wales, Ireland, Aragon & Castile, Portugal, the Netherland & Belgium the Habsburg Austrian Empire, part of Italy and all the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in America!

And the dream of a One World Empire would have been realised.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

If Henry had not killed most of the Plantagenet(sp) heirs and had died in one of his jousts then further war would have probably broken out for the throne; making all Henry VII and Elizabeth of Yorks work pointless.

 

[Ish]

That's an interesting way of putting it...

I don't think Henry (VIII or VII) simply killed the Plantagenet heirs. For starters, to call them Plantagenet heirs is somewhat misleading; Henry himself was of Plantagenet descent, descending from John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster through the Beaufort line. Henry VII did not simply conquer the throne, he had a claim to it through his maternal lineage and put himself forth as the heir to the Lancaster claim when the Lancaster line went extinct.

The War of the Roses did not simply end at Henry VII's ascension, and people who thought that they could better themselves with a different king (either through supporting said king in his claimant or being said king) and thus many Yorkists were killed by one of the Henrys owing to the fact that they participated in rebellions against the king.

 

[Artemisia]

Not to get too off-topic but Henry Tudor (Henry VII) had no claims whatsoever to the English Throne.

True, he was a descendant of John of Gaunt (Edward III's third surviving son), but through an illegitimate line: his ancestor, John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset, was the son of John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford. When John of Gaunt and Katherine eventually married, their children were legitimised by an Act of Parliament. However, a subsequent Act specifically barred them - or any of their descendants - from ever ascending to the Throne of England.

Henry VII based his claims on the rights of conquest and, indirectly, on the fact his wife was the Yorkist heiress.

 

[Ish]

^^^ previous, Henry may have had a very tenuous claim to the throne that was solidified by rights of his conquest and subsequent marriage to Elizabeth York, but prior to that he still had somewhat of a claim - especially once the Yorks eradicated the Lancaster line.

According to David Starkey's Crown and Country, in 1453 Margaret Beaufort was summoned to the court of Henry VI for the purpose of being married to Henry's half-brother, Edmund Tudor:

"But the key issue was the succession to the throne. As we have seen, Queen Margaret [Henry's wife] had just become pregnant after eight years of marriage. But the succession could hardly depend on a single life. The union of Margaret and Edmund would, Henry hoped, strengthen the depleted royal family. It might even, bearing in mind the uncertainties of the times, produce a plausible heir to the Lancastrian throne." (262)

Following the massacre of Tewkesbury Abbey the Yorks claimed that "there [was] no male heir of King Edward the Third but we of the House of York," except there was still Henry Tudor, descended from the Beaufort line and claimant to the Lancastrian throne.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to post this, but I have a question:

If Mary I and Philip II had a son and he became King, would the Princes and Princesses of England be styled as HRH Prince/Princess X of England and Spain? (Just like most of the Princes and Princesses of Greece are styled as "of Greece and Denmark").

 

[Ish]

That's a really interesting question.

I would think that any child of Mary and Philip's would have born two separate titles, one for each kingdom. Thus a son would have been both a Prince of England (with whatever titles granted to him, at the time it was typical for sons to be granted dukedoms at or near birth) and a Prince of Spain, but not necessarily a Prince of England and Spain. We can see this in the titles of Margaret, Maid of Norway - her mother was the daughter of Alexander III of Scotland, and Margaret was the only person of that line to survive Alexander making her a (disputed) Queen of Scotland. At the same time, her father was Eric II of Norway, making her a Norwegian princess.

During Mary's lifetime, any son born to her and Philip would not have been the heir to the Spanish throne (although, later, once Philip's eldest son died this hypothetical son would have), but he would have been the heir to the English throne, so I suspect that the English connection would have been given more prominence, and the Spanish one less so, at least until such time that the hypothetical son would have been King of Spain. Had the child been a daughter, then she most certainly would have inherited England, but not Spain, as Philip had younger sons.

I think in the case of Greece, the Prince(sse)s use the "of Greece and Denmark" styling more to show the royal origins of the Greek throne (which is a relatively new one) than because of any continued connection between the two kingdoms. The Greek royal family does not actually have any right to succeed to the Danish throne, where as Mary and Philip's child would have possibly had succession rights to both the English and Spanish thrones.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

That's a really interesting question.

I would think that any child of Mary and Philip's would have born two separate titles, one for each kingdom. Thus a son would have been both a Prince of England (with whatever titles granted to him, at the time it was typical for sons to be granted dukedoms at or near birth) and a Prince of Spain, but not necessarily a Prince of England and Spain. We can see this in the titles of Margaret, Maid of Norway - her mother was the daughter of Alexander III of Scotland, and Margaret was the only person of that line to survive Alexander making her a (disputed) Queen of Scotland. At the same time, her father was Eric II of Norway, making her a Norwegian princess.

Thanks for the information. So if they had had a son, could he have possibly been granted a Spanish dukedom?

During Mary's lifetime, any son born to her and Philip would not have been the heir to the Spanish throne (although, later, once Philip's eldest son died this hypothetical son would have), but he would have been the heir to the English throne, so I suspect that the English connection would have been given more prominence, and the Spanish one less so, at least until such time that the hypothetical son would have been King of Spain. Had the child been a daughter, then she most certainly would have inherited England, but not Spain, as Philip had younger sons.

I think in the case of Greece, the Prince(sse)s use the "of Greece and Denmark" styling more to show the royal origins of the Greek throne (which is a relatively new one) than because of any continued connection between the two kingdoms. The Greek royal family does not actually have any right to succeed to the Danish throne, where as Mary and Philip's child would have possibly had succession rights to both the English and Spanish thrones.

Ah, I see, thanks for explaining.

 

[Artemisia]

Following the massacre of Tewkesbury Abbey the Yorks claimed that "there [was] no male heir of King Edward the Third but we of the House of York," except there was still Henry Tudor, descended from the Beaufort line and claimant to the Lancastrian throne.

There were in fact several other male heirs through the same Beaufort line alive at the time of Henry Tudor's accession so that claim cannot be accurate. He wasn't also descended from male-only line (female lines excluded) because Henry clearly based his claims on Margaret Beaufort. Among others, the Scottish royal lines (through Joan Beaufort), the Somerset line (through Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset) and the Devon line (through Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon) all had the same claims as Henry Tudor, and all had living male descendants.

This said, Henry Tudor was indeed the most senior-line one, being the son of Margaret Beaufort, herself the only legitimate daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, himself the second son - but eldest who left descendants - of John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset, himself the eldest son of John of Gaunt and Katheryne Swynford).

 

[Ish]

Thanks for the information. So if they had had a son, could he have possibly been granted a Spanish dukedom?

I would assume so, but don't quote me on it. I'm not entirely familiar with the use of Spanish titles from that time. I just know that in England at the time it was common to give princes dukedoms at young ages - Henry VIII himself had been created Duke of York when he was about 3, and his younger brother Edmund was titled Duke of Somerset from birth despite never having been formally created such (he died within a year of his birth).

There were in fact several other male heirs through the same Beaufort line alive at the time of Henry Tudor's accession so that claim cannot be accurate. He wasn't also descended from male-only line (female lines excluded) because Henry clearly based his claims on Margaret Beaufort. Among others, the Scottish royal lines (through Joan Beaufort), the Somerset line (through Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset) and the Devon line (through Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon) all had the same claims as Henry Tudor, and all had living male descendants.

There is a huge amount of propaganda to the whole thing. The Yorks killed the Lancasters then claimed to be the only ones left, but forgot Henry and the Beauforts. Then Henry killed the Yorks and claimed to be the only Lancaster heir left, forgetting the Beauforts as well. Then Henry VIII propped himself up as the only one left from both lines - ignoring his York and Beaufort cousins (when he wasn't killing them).

My point wasn't to say that he was the only one left, but that he had been put forth by Lancastrian supporters as the rightful Lancaster heir prior to his conquest.

Sometimes I think the Hanovers were really smart to put it in writing that the only people who could inherit the throne had to be non-Catholic persons of the line of Sophia of Hanover born from a marriage that the monarch had consented to. It might not have prevented the Risings, but it certainly prevented the many various claims (that and the fact that the Hanovers breed like rabbits).

 

[Artemisia]

I agree, there was a lot of propaganda. At the end of the day, Henry won the Throne in a battle - fair and square. And he wasn't even the first English King of illegitimate descent to have won the Crown - William the Conqueror was there first.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

This is why I tend to be on the side of the "King" who won his crown in a fair war. Although I do think his marrying of Elizabeth helped his claim to the throne, didn't Henry himself say that he should be considered the legitimate king before he married her?


Back to What If's
I believe someone already brought this up, but if Henry had died from his fall in 1536, how likely is it that Elizabeth would ever be allowed to become Queen. She was a baby (kinda) her mother was despised and Mary was loved because of her mother. I see a similar situation like with Lady Jane Grey in 1553.

 

[Ish]

I'm not certain as to exactly when in 1536 the fall happened, so I have two parts to this question.

If it happened earlier in the year then I would say that Henry FitzRoy would have been considered a better contender for the role than Mary. At the time Henry was pushing the act through, and it's highly likely that part of the reason for the push was so that he could name his illegitimate son his heir above his daughters (who were both of questionable legitimacy). If Henry died while FitzRoy was alive I could easily see a repetition of the anarchy that followed Henry I's death.

If Henry died after FitzRoy died then I think Mary would have made a claim to the throne, as would have Elizabeth. Both would have had powerful backers and I think a war likely would have broken out. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else came on the throne - James V of Scotland, the closest male relation, was still alive, and I could see him having pulled a Stephen of Blois here.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Margaret Tudor: Scotland's forgotten queen

BBC History - Margaret Tudor: Scotland's forgotten queen

 

[Baroness of Books]

I recently read "Tudor" by Leanda de Lisle that devoted a good portion of the book to Margaret Tudor and her daughter Margaret Douglas. Henry VIII overlooked his sister and her children in the line of succession because of the Scottish link and the Catholic angle, favoring instead his younger sister's heirs, Lady Jane Grey and her sisters, as possible heirs to the throne. However, Margaret Douglas was a favorite of Henry VIII as well as his daughter, Mary.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I recently read "Tudor" by Leanda de Lisle that devoted a good portion of the book to Margaret Tudor and her daughter Margaret Douglas. Henry VIII overlooked his sister and her children in the line of succession because of the Scottish link and the Catholic angle, favoring instead his younger sister's heirs, Lady Jane Grey and her sisters, as possible heirs to the throne. However, Margaret Douglas was a favorite of Henry VIII as well as his daughter, Mary.

I for one would love to read more on Lady Margaret Douglas and her relationship with her Protestant cousin Elizabeth I.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Tudor kings and queens brought to life again at National Portrait Gallery


Tudor kings and queens brought to life again at National Portrait Gallery - London - News - London Evening Standard

 

[Mbruno]

What if Queen Elizabeth I married and had children, one of whom was a son and one who took the throne after she died. Let's say that he lived to be in his 70's and had several children, including two or three sons.

It would be interesting to see who would have ended up on the throne and would England be the same as it is now. What if she only had daughters? I don't know if anyone could answer these questions because there are a lot of unknowns in it. If would be great if someone wrote a book about this.

The main consequence of Elizabeth I's producing an heir would be that there would be no Stuart dynasty in the English throne and, consequently, no personal union between England and Scotland. The two countries probably would have remained separate until today.

A hypothetical continuation of the Tudor dynasty could have also delayed the transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy in England as the English revolutions of the 17th century would be less likely to happen, but I am not entirely sure about that conjecture.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Scandalous Tudor weddings: 7 women who braved royal wrath by marrying for love


Scandalous Tudor weddings: 7 women who braved royal wrath by marrying for love | History Extra

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Scandalous Tudor weddings: 7 women who braved royal wrath by marrying for love


Scandalous Tudor weddings: 7 women who braved royal wrath by marrying for love | History Extra

Very interesting. Catherine Parr wasn't included but I am not sure she married "down." She was also only the step-mother of the king, rather than the mother. Still, Edward wasn't happy when she remarried.

 

[Curryong]

Catherine Parr led quite a sad life, I think. Twice widowed, more or less forced to marry a bloated, ailing elderly monarch and act as his nurse and companion, then married to Thomas Seymour, a man I believe who would have betrayed her in a moment if he thought it would be to his advantage. Childbirth at Catherine's late age was a lottery and she lost. I don't think anyone knows what happened to her baby, Mary, after her mother's death, do they? There were rumours that she grew up to adulthood and married, though I think these are unsubstantiated.