The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   What If?... a chance to change British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/what-if-a-chance-to-change-british-royal-history-19611.html)

LaPlusBelle 10-22-2008 09:39 PM

What If?... a chance to change British Royal History
 
I'm taking a course in British History right now, and Salic law is fascinating to me. Does anyone know who would be king if Salic law was as strongly used in England as it was in France or the Germanic states?

What if the crown stayed with the family of Stephen of Blois and didn't go to Henry II?

Elspeth 10-22-2008 10:24 PM

Well, Stephen was descended through William the Conqueror's daughter, so I'm not sure he was in a better position than Henry II.

Jo of Palatine 10-23-2008 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 841769)
Well, Stephen was descended through William the Conqueror's daughter, so I'm not sure he was in a better position than Henry II.

Seems they had to "make do" right from the start, as William was illegitimate himself, so wouldn't have had a claim under Salic law either to Normandy...:flowers:

Zonk 01-06-2009 09:16 PM

If ------- A Chance to change British Royal History
 
I was reading the Six Wives of Henry VIII thread, when I had a strange thought/idea. History has shown us that Catherine of Aragon married Henry VIII of England because her previous husband, Prince Arthur had died several months into their marriage. Henry married Catherine, she had Mary and no sons, he met Anne, wanted a divorce, left the Roman Catholic church, etc. Well you know how it ends.

So here's my thought:

What IF Arthur hadn't died so young but instead remained married to Catherine of Aragon, had heirs (maybe a son or two)...what do you think what have been different?

I think several things that did happen might not have happened (or at least the way it happened). Henry would have not married Catherine, instead he might have married another foreign princess. Elizabeth I might have never been born. The colonies in America might have never been founded under Elizabeth's reign, the Act of Settlement, etc. The list could go on and on.

So what do you think. This is just for fun. So there is no right or wrong answer. Feel free to share your What IF as well.

Russophile 01-06-2009 10:14 PM

Who would Henry have married?? Oh! I haven't read on who was eligible?? Maybe Crazy Juana F & I's other daughter??

NotAPretender 01-06-2009 10:21 PM

IIRC, Henry was slated to enter the church, and would likely have risen to the highest ecclesiatical powers; most probably, he would have served on his brother's Privy Council, and perhaps been named Lord Protector in the event of his brother's death during the minority of Arthur's children.

He'd have made a horrible priest, though; he did seem to, ahem, like the ladies. He'd probably have fathered numerous illegitimate children which, if Arthur's children died or if Arthur left only daughters - or, if Henry were such a protector as was Richard III - could have resulted in a War of The Red and White Roses.

Russophile 01-06-2009 10:38 PM

I know he liked the ladies, but it was said he wasn't entirely slutty.
Oh! That means the Anglican Church wouldn't be!

Al_bina 01-06-2009 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 876634)
IIRC, Henry was slated to enter the church, and would likely have risen to the highest ecclesiastical powers; most probably, he would have served on his brother's Privy Council, and perhaps been named Lord Protector in the event of his brother's death during the minority of Arthur's children. ... [snipped]

I could have never imagined Henry VIII becoming a priest of any kind. At the same time, I am sure he would have settled himself into the Vatican scene. It is possible that he would have been surrounded by controversies like Pope Alexander VI (also known as Rodrigo Borgia) and/or even outshone him in respect of women and food.

Iluvbertie 01-07-2009 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 876641)
I know he liked the ladies, but it was said he wasn't entirely slutty.
Oh! That means the Anglican Church wouldn't be!

Not in its present form but there was a growing call for the monarch in England to have a greater say in the Church in England so with the background of the Reformation who knows whether or not Arthur or his heir mightn't have seized the reins of the church anyway and we still have an Anglican Church just not necessarily as it is at present. We certainly wouldn't have had the Elizabethan Compromise, which is one of the greatest decisions ever made in respect of religious worship, I believe.

White Princess 01-07-2009 12:42 AM

The only think I would change is the fact Elizabeth I had no issue. I would liked her to have sons and daughter for her blood reign till nowadays.

madeleine victoria 01-07-2009 10:06 AM

If Arthur did not die and given that he remained married to Catherine of Aragon, I think England will be Catholic too. There will never be Elizabeth I. Although I think the vast colonies will remain until today since Arthur and Catherine love to strategize and think of ways to protect their kingdom and expand their territories, of course with the help of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain.

On the other hand, if Richard won his battle against Henry VII, the line will continue under the Plantagenets/Lancaster Kings. The Tudors will have no chance to rule the kingdom unless they will force a battle again and either Arthur or Henry VIII wins the crown.

Was Anne Boleyn well-loved by her subjects? The people of England? I think not as the same affection held by Catherine of Aragon.

Jacknch 01-07-2009 11:57 AM

I'm not sure whether this relates to this topic, but I saw a documentary on BBC TV about who is the rightful British monarch and it turned out to be an Australian farmer called Michael!

Lady Ann 01-08-2009 04:39 PM

From my point of veiw i don't think Anne B was well liked by a good part of the English People ... they loved and were loyal to Cathrine of Aragon until they were swon to do other wise ..of course this is just my opinion ...from things I have read and seen on TV....

Vecchiolarry 01-08-2009 11:03 PM

Hi,

Catherine of Aragon was indeed greatly loved by the English. Over 27 years, as Queen, she went out dispensing foods, clothes and charity to the needy and was seen at worship; certainly very good public relations for anybody. She was perceived as humble.
When she died, the public mourned her, even though Henry discouraged it. I think even Henry mourned her or certainly was saddened since he had once loved her and she was always loyal to him, even when he repudiated her. And besides, she died in January 1536 and Henry was abandoning Anne Boleyn by then (she died in May 1536).....

Anne Boleyn was not a Queen who went out and distributed alms to the poor and in fact was even booed in public. She was perceived as haughty. And, she was only Queen for about 3 years.
When Anne died, the people turned up just to see her get her 'comeuppence' as it were. Although she died quite dignified and the people begrudgingly admired that 'she died well'....

Catherine of Aragon was one of the finest examples of a Queen England ever had....
Anne Boleyn was not...

Larry

Jeniann 01-13-2009 03:24 PM

To be fair (and I'm a Catherine fan rather than an Anne one) I think under different circumstances Anne Boleyn could've been a popular Queen. It was because people saw her as stealing the crown away from the popular and well-liked Catherine of Aragon they disliked her. Also she was seen as slutty and a home wrecker by a lot of the more traditional and religious types. If Henry had never married Catherine and fallen in love with Anne Boleyn as a single man I think she would've been a popular Queen. She did try to do some charity work and help the poor (though not quite to the extent of CoA, partly because Henry had gotten rid of the Catholic Church which was one of the organizations CoA did charity work through) and if people hadn't seen her as the "other woman" who got rid of Catherine they wouldn't have had a reason to hate her.

It's similar to the Diana/Camilla situation in some ways, not that I want to open that can or worms.

Al_bina 01-13-2009 03:36 PM

It is a paradox that courtiers/family members used royal mistresses to achieve their own goals, but they never really accepted mistresses as the official wives.

Kotroman 01-19-2009 04:13 PM

What about the United Kingdom? It would've never existed if Arthur and Catherine had descendants, because England and Ireland would remain seperate from Scotland. Elizabeth II would be only Elizabeth of Scotland.

Had the House of Hanover established the Salic law, which was used in Hanover istelf, the UK's present monarch would've been a 25-year-old named King Ernest Augustus VI. Among the other members of the royal family would be HRH The Duke of Windsor (if we assume that the Prince of Hanover would've gotten this "special" title upon marrying a Catholic and thus abdicating the throne), HRH The Duchess of Windsor (Caroline of Monaco), HM Queen Monika (step-grandmother of the "king"), and HRH The Duke of York (Prince Christian of Hanover). Pretty interesting, isn't it?

fearghas 01-20-2009 03:48 AM

[quote=Kotroman;881824]What about the United Kingdom? It would've never existed if Arthur and Catherine had descendants, because England and Ireland would remain seperate from Scotland. Elizabeth II would be only Elizabeth of Scotland.

[quote]

Perhaps not. If the Stuarts had remained on the throne of Scotland there would have been no Hanoverians on the island. Perhaps the Duke of Bavaria, Prince Franz would be King of Scotland.

LaPlusBelle 01-22-2009 06:11 PM

[quote=fearghas;881968][quote=Kotroman;881824]What about the United Kingdom? It would've never existed if Arthur and Catherine had descendants, because England and Ireland would remain seperate from Scotland. Elizabeth II would be only Elizabeth of Scotland.

Quote:


Perhaps not. If the Stuarts had remained on the throne of Scotland there would have been no Hanoverians on the island. Perhaps the Duke of Bavaria, Prince Franz would be King of Scotland.
Would that also mean that one day the Crowns of Scotland and Liechtenstein would be merged?

Leslie2006 01-23-2009 01:28 AM

If Mary I's pregnancy had resulted in a child, and the child was a boy, England and Spain would be more closely tied than they are now. However, if Elizabeth I had married the Count of Anjou and had children, James I/VI would have simply remained King of Scotland and Elizabeth's surviving descendants would be on the throne. If Edward VIII had married a suitable woman and fathered a legitimate heir, Elizabeth II would never have been crowned Queen. There would probably be a King Edward IX on the throne instead...with perhaps another George, Prince of Wales and then the whole Charles and Diana thing probably would've never happenend...because...well...Charles would have been George instead.

If the salic law had been changed in Hanover, Queen Victoria would have ruled over Hanover and the UK, thus QEII would be ruling over more territory.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises