The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:14 PM
CelestialPrincess's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: North Bay, Canada
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
If England had remained Catholic under the Tudor rule I wonder if the Irish would have been more favourable to be in an union with England, or if there would still have been difficulties?

One of Henry's wives are forgotten in these speculations, I wonder what would have happened if she had became pregnant and had a son or two? Even if Henry didn't like Anne, I doubt he would have divorced her if she had a son. She seems to have been fond of all of Henry's children and would most likely had been a good stepmother to them and perhaps been able to help arrange marriages to both Mary and Elizabeth. I don't know if there were any possible royal Catholic spouses for Mary (who were not closely related to her), but I think it would have been easier to find a Protestant husband for Elizabeth. Anne was related to both Catholic and Protestant royals in Germany, her sister was married to the head of the Protestant Confederation of Germany, and her sister-in-law was the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor.
You always kinda hope that Anne could've some how manage to betroth Mary and the Duke of Baravia. Then maybe history would be different
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-12-2013, 11:30 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,354
I still think the English and the Irish would still be fighting with each other but religion would not be the reason for fighting. Independence from the British throne would still be an issue minus the religion. How about this as a question: Let's say that England had remained Catholic but Ireland became Protestant.

If Anne of Cleaves had had a couple of sons, history would be very different. Henry probably wouldn't divorce her. He probably would take a mistress and basically ignore her once he had the sons (this is what he's wanted since day one).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:04 PM
CelestialPrincess's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: North Bay, Canada
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
I still think the English and the Irish would still be fighting with each other but religion would not be the reason for fighting. Independence from the British throne would still be an issue minus the religion. How about this as a question: Let's say that England had remained Catholic but Ireland became Protestant.

If Anne of Cleaves had had a couple of sons, history would be very different. Henry probably wouldn't divorce her. He probably would take a mistress and basically ignore her once he had the sons (this is what he's wanted since day one).
Except he came to the conclusion that he couldn't even consummate the marriage to her so she couldn't have given birth to sons.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
If I may take a detour, one of the tragic incidents in this family was the failure of Queen Anne, the last of the Stuarts, to have a living heir who could produce another heir. This ended the Stuart line. Queen Anne, unlike earlier Stuarts, was Protestant, so she wouldn't have had the need to bring the Hanovers in as heirs, to assure a Protestant monarchy.
I read where the politicians and public were worried about continuing the ongoing fight over Catholic vs. Protestant heirs, which had dominated the l7th century British monarchy. If Henry VIII had not set up a Protestant Church, would this have ever been a problem?
I think it would have been a problem in any case, as the Protestant/Catholic clash had gone on for a long time.
Think of Mary Stuart, a Catholic, and her son, raised a Protestant, thus the first Protestant Stuart on the throne. The clash over religion was constant during the time preceding her accession to the throne, and afterwards. She was a Catholic queen in an intensely Protestant land. Protestantism did not arise first with Henry VIII, he just enabled it to gain power because of his own needs. I suspect he had no idea what he was doing.

King James I/VI did know what he was doing. He tried to reconcile Protestant and Catholic needs of his various peoples in England and Scotland, and was against the wholesale execution of those who did not agree with him. He hoped to bring peace and harmony in that area of his monarchy. And his insight brought us one of the greatest contributions of the British monarchy, the King James Bible. I have a very soft spot for James. Will not continue to discuss here, as this thread is about Tudors. But he was a Tudor, too, if only on the female line.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-18-2013, 05:32 PM
Meraude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelestialPrincess View Post
Except he came to the conclusion that he couldn't even consummate the marriage to her so she couldn't have given birth to sons.
As this is a "what if" thread and about alternate history, the speculations here is not about what happened in real life, but about what would have happened if..., so the fact that the marriage wasn't consummated doesn't hinder us here to speculate what would have happened if Henry had done his duty and consummated the marriage and that having resulted in a son.

The same is true about post #20, what if queen Elizabeth had married and had children, we do know that it never happened, but that's no reason why we shouldn't speculate about it here if we want to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:13 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
What would happen if Anne Boleyn got tired of waiting for Henry to be free to marry her and she told him to "get lost". Would Henry still pursue the divorce and look to make another his wife? Would it have been Jane Seymour or is Henry's interst in her only emerge if he is tired of Anne?
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:20 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:39 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Okay, here's a question.

Had Jane not entered the picture and Henry FitzRoy hadn't died, do you think he would have been promoted as the heir over Mary and Elizabeth? Or, for that matter, considering Henry VIII's will dictating the succession, do you think that if FitzRoy had still been alive at the time of Henry's death he would have been included in the line (either after Edward, but before Mary or after Elizabeth)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:29 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
If Henry FitzRoy hadn't died, he would have almost certainly be included in the Line of Succession. The Third Succession Act specifically gave Henry VIII to name his own successors, whether from legitimate or illegitimate lines. The last provision was obviously aimed at eventually included FitzRoy but he died before the Act was actually passed.

Would FitzRoy be ahead of his half-sisters (Elizabeth and Mary) in the succession line? I think so. After all, both girls were technically illegitimate (they had both been declared ones by previous acts of parliament), so it would make sense for a more "valuable" male to be ahead of "less able" females.

If there was no Prince Edward, I think Henry FitzRoy would have still been in the succession line but behind Mary and Elizabeth. If Jane Seymour wasn't in the picture, Lady Elizabeth would remain legitimate (assuming Henry didn't behead Anne and all). And even if both girls' status was illegitimate, somehow I think FitzRoy would have been behind them in the succession line, although that's just my personal perception. However, if there was no Edward, Henry would have been forced to marry off Mary and/or Elizabeth quite soon to suitable candidates (most probably, English with rights - albeit remote ones - to the throne in their own right), and hope for a grandson.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-03-2013, 12:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
The thing that I find funny is that by focusing so much on the birth of a son and the continuation of his line, Henry effectively assured that his line would not be continued.

Had Henry married off Mary and Elizabeth it is possible that either of them could have produced children (possibly even a son) and the line would have continued much like it did under Victoria or our Elizabeth. Henry obviously couldn't have known that his one son would die young and never have issue, but he didn't seem to ever strongly pursue marriage for either of his daughters. Mary was 31 when Henry died - well past marrying age - and 37 when she finally married. It reasons that had she married at a younger and more fertile age she might have produced an heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-03-2013, 03:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-03-2013, 04:20 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 350
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-03-2013, 04:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-03-2013, 04:46 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:28 PM
Tudur rose's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post

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 ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:29 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 57
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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:30 PM
Tudur rose's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post

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 .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:46 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudur rose View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-03-2013, 07:10 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tiara history, traditions, protocols, metals and meanings qweqaz Royal Jewels General Discussion 171 11-09-2014 09:52 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]