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
 
  #41  
Old 04-03-2013, 11:10 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,351
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.
__________________

__________________
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
  #42  
Old 04-04-2013, 03:16 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,357
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-04-2013, 02:52 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425

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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-04-2013, 03:37 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,357
^^^ 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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-04-2013, 04:27 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,475
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").
__________________
"She is a little angel and like her name, she brings sunshine even on cloudy days. From the bottom of our hearts, we would like to thank each and every one of you for your lovely best wishes for our daughter. She feels very loved". HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland on her daughter, HRH Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland.
Join my new group!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-04-2013, 05:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,357
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-04-2013, 05:26 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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?


Quote:
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.
__________________
"She is a little angel and like her name, she brings sunshine even on cloudy days. From the bottom of our hearts, we would like to thank each and every one of you for your lovely best wishes for our daughter. She feels very loved". HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland on her daughter, HRH Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland.
Join my new group!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-04-2013, 05:27 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-04-2013, 05:49 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
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).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-04-2013, 06:54 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
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.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-05-2013, 11:21 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,351
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.
__________________
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
  #52  
Old 04-05-2013, 11:30 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,357
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-29-2013, 07:48 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,472
Margaret Tudor: Scotland's forgotten queen

BBC History - Margaret Tudor: Scotland's forgotten queen
__________________
November 2nd, 1938-Birth of H.M.Queen Sofia of Spain
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-29-2013, 02:38 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
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.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-29-2013, 03:45 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
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.
__________________
November 2nd, 1938-Birth of H.M.Queen Sofia of Spain
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-11-2014, 04:24 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,472
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
__________________
November 2nd, 1938-Birth of H.M.Queen Sofia of Spain
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-11-2014, 04:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
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 prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 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]