The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   The Tudors and a "what if?" alternate history (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/the-tudors-and-a-what-if-alternate-history-31647.html)

Lenora 08-05-2011 07:02 PM

The Tudors and a "what if?" alternate history
 
The Tudors' dynasty has become a dominant branch of interest in the recent cinematography,literature and theatre.Sometimes I wish would be more projects about other dynasties,but Tudors cannot stop fascinating people.
The most prominent start was given by the controversial king Henry VIII who put the Anglican Church ahead,but operated massive exterminations.
It would be interesting to analyse ,what would have happenned if:
1)The king had remained the husband of Catherine of Aragon and proclaimed as heiress Mary Tudor,in this case could the British history have turned differently or if he proclaimed Henry Fitzroy as official heir(if he hadn't died young);
2)Anne Boleyn hadn't been executed,in case of the birth of a son or even if she remained alive,but Elizabeth had been the only child.How could Henry had decided the right heir?
3)The king had died during his second marriage and had Anne Boleyn remained with Elizabeth from a side ,but Mary Tudor party from other side
4)Ann Boleyn hadn't been executed,but sent to prison or monastery
5)Catherine Howard had given birth to a son,would have been more conflicts among heirs?
6)Mary Tudor had given birth to a child ,would the modern British Church be Catholic?
7)In case Mary Tudor had applied the capital punishment to Elizabeth,how would have the English throne established the heir?
8)If Mary Stewart had been intelligent enough to keep her throne,Scotland would have separately existed till nowadays .The other matter if Mary could have taken the English throne from Elizabeth .

Vasillisos Markos 08-05-2011 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenora (Post 1298673)
The Tudors' dynasty has become a dominant branch of interest in the recent cinematography,literature and theatre.Sometimes I wish would be more projects about other dynasties,but Tudors cannot stop fascinating people.
The most prominent start was given by the controversial king Henry VIII who put the Anglican Church ahead,but operated massive exterminations.
It would be interesting to analyse ,what would have happenned if:
1)The king had remained the husband of Catherine of Aragon and proclaimed as heiress Mary Tudor,in this case could the British history have turned differently or if he proclaimed Henry Fitzroy as official heir(if he hadn't died young);

If Henry had remained married to Katherine, the crown would have gone to Mary because I doubt he would have made a bastard heir to the throne.

2)Anne Boleyn hadn't been executed,in case of the birth of a son or even if she remained alive,but Elizabeth had been the only child.How could Henry had decided the right heir?

The same way he did in real life: Mary, as the child from the first marriage and then Elizabeth. Of course, I am assuming no sons were born from any marriage.

3)The king had died during his second marriage and had Anne Boleyn remained with Elizabeth from a side ,but Mary Tudor party from other side

This may have caused a War of the Roses redux. It is foreseeable that there would have been two factions, one supporting Mary and one supporting Elizabeth. But if we assume that Anne Boleyn never made herself popular with the common people, I think Mary would be the Queen over Elizabeth.

4)Ann Boleyn hadn't been executed,but sent to prison or monastery

Too many variables for me to hazard a hypothesis. If we assume that Henry divorced her first, then I think the same scenario played out: first Edward, then Mary, then Elizabeth. I am assuming that Henry married the other four wives.

5)Catherine Howard had given birth to a son,would have been more conflicts among heirs?

Definitely. Again, the order of succession would probably run Edward and his heirs; Howard's son and his heirs; Mary; and Elizabeth.

6)Mary Tudor had given birth to a child ,would the modern British Church be Catholic?

Probably remained Catholic in beliefs but I doubt the politicians and the people wanted to reassert the Pope's authority. Probably no allegiance to Rome.

7)In case Mary Tudor had applied the capital punishment to Elizabeth,how would have the English throne established the heir?

If we are assuming that Mary died without issue, then Mary Queen of Scots would have united the two kingdoms as the next closest heir to the throne.


8)If Mary Stewart had been intelligent enough to keep her throne,Scotland would have separately existed till nowadays .The other matter if Mary could have taken the English throne from Elizabeth .

But are we assuming that Elizabeth and Mary, one or the other, did not have issue? In such a case, then James would have united the two kingdoms upon the death of Elizabeth. Or Mary Stuart if she were still living at Elizabeth's death.

ChristopherWales 08-07-2011 01:32 PM

You might the following information interesting. Margaret Tudor (28 November 1489 18 October 1541) was the elder of the two surviving daughters of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and the elder sister of Henry VIII. In 1503, she married James IV, King of Scots. James died in 1513, and their son became King James V. She married secondly Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus. Through her first and second marriages respectively, Margaret was the grandmother of both Mary, Queen of Scots, and Lord Darnley. Margaret's marriage to James IV foreshadowed the Union of the Crowns - their great-grandson, King James VI of Scotland, the child of Mary and Darnley, became King of England and Ireland on the death of Margaret's fraternal niece, Elizabeth I.g.

In other words the Stewart's of Scotland were a junior branch of the Tudors who originally came from Wales.

HM Queen Catherine 08-07-2011 04:01 PM

I wouldn't say that the Stewarts were a junior branch of the Tudors at all. Dynastic families are based on the male line and not on the female.. therefore, Margaret Tudor married into a dynasty, not the other way around.

The Royal Stewart had existed since 1371, when Robert II came to the throne. He was a contemporary of Edward III. James IV, husband of Margaret Tudor, was the sixth generation of that family to rule Scotland, unlike his counterpart Henry VII.

The Stewarts also did not originate in Wales. They had been a Scots family since before 1177, when the first Hereditary High Steward of Scotland died. That first Stewart, Walter FitzAlan, was the son of a Breton knight.

PrincessKaimi 08-11-2011 01:48 PM

I'm very interested in untangling more of the Scottish succession (and its relationship to the Tudors as well as everything else I can learn about it!)

So...Robert II is the first Stewart King? How did he come to the throne?

HM Queen Catherine 08-12-2011 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi (Post 1301377)
I'm very interested in untangling more of the Scottish succession (and its relationship to the Tudors as well as everything else I can learn about it!)

So...Robert II is the first Stewart King? How did he come to the throne?

Robert II was the grandson of Robert the Bruce, who became King of Scots in 1306. His mother was Marjorie Bruce, who had married Walter Stewart, the Hereditary High Steward of Scotland. Robert was their only child.

Robert II followed his younger half-uncle David II to the throne at the age of 55, when David died without surviving issue (although he had been twice married).

Lenora 08-12-2011 02:06 PM

I wonder what Henry VIII would have done if he had not had any son,if Jane Seymour had given birth to a daughter and all the eventual wives wouldn't have brought him any son or child.He was so much against female accession to the throne ,I couldn't imagine his reaction to the reign of his daughters,he died sure that his son and Tudors would have ruled forever in England.

HM Queen Catherine 08-24-2011 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenora (Post 1301867)
I wonder what Henry VIII would have done if he had not had any son,if Jane Seymour had given birth to a daughter and all the eventual wives wouldn't have brought him any son or child.He was so much against female accession to the throne ,I couldn't imagine his reaction to the reign of his daughters,he died sure that his son and Tudors would have ruled forever in England.

He painted himself into the proverbial corner by killing off most of the other claimants to the throne.. but it is an interesting question. I don't think he would have had much choice, other than leaving his throne to Mary - but the dilemma would remain as to how he could make her legitimate again by law - something he actually never did for either of his daughters.

The only legitimate male claimant he could have left his throne to would have been Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, who was a toddler at the time (b. 1545). As the grandson of Margaret Tudor, he had the prior claim.. because James VI wasn't born until 1566, well after Henry's death.

Neither of the French Queen's daughters had surviving males, and her only son died in 1534, aged seventeen.

Henry VII had no siblings to fall back on either. His closest relatives were his father's siblings.. and of them, two of Edmund's brothers became monks (Thomas and Owen) and Jasper Tudor had no legitimate children.

The closest claimant on Elizabeth of York's side was Henry Courtenay, Marquess of Exeter. And the closest Plantagenet claimant was Geoffrey Pole, son of Margaret of Salisbury..

I think if Henry was that determined not to leave his throne in the hands of a woman, he would have contrived to make Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, his heir. Because really, that was the only option available to him as far as male heirs go..

Drummerboy 09-15-2011 01:51 PM

my memory is a bit hazy, but didn't Henry have an illegitimate son called Fitzroy? he was pretty close to being made an heir because there was something going through parliament which gave henry the option of doing it, if he so wished. i think he died before henry did, but he had another son that could have been made an heir.

Lumutqueen 09-15-2011 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drummerboy (Post 1316718)
my memory is a bit hazy, but didn't Henry have an illegitimate son called Fitzroy? he was pretty close to being made an heir because there was something going through parliament which gave henry the option of doing it, if he so wished. i think he died before henry did, but he had another son that could have been made an heir.

Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the time of Fitzroy's death an Act was going through Parliament which disinherited Henry's daughter Elizabeth as his heir and permitted the King to designate his successor, whether legitimate or not. There is no evidence that Henry intended to proclaim Richmond his heir, but in theory the Act would have permitted him to do so if he wished.

Lenora 10-01-2011 07:24 AM

I do not know why,but I do feel pity for Mary Tudor,the eldest daughter of Henry VIII.Despite the fact of being called "Bloody Mary" due to many executions and cruelties committed during her reign,at her very beginning of life and youth she seemed to be quite nice young lady.Her mother had been called "The People's Queen" and she had good chances to become a good queen in the eyes of her people.Instead,she ordered massive crimes,even the death punishment for innocent lady Jane Grey.But I do not pity her at her later cruel years,I pity the young lady she was,deprived of her beloved mother and neglected by her father,even not able to get married due to her father's egoistic desires.She wanted to be a good queen ,mother and wife.Psychologically,she wanted to revenge,but took the wrong way to do it,from other side her father's crimes inspired her to do the same,just in different purpose,that she considered right for her.
However ,she didn't kill her younger half-sister Elizabeth,in a way she kept her life for some reason,maybe for the future of England.Mary wasn't loved by her younger husband,who needed just a heir and power and sometimes I do believe her fatal diseasys was caused by poison,that someone gave to her(just a theory).She could have been a great queen and even return people to Catholicism in a milder way,but she turned wrong way and lost her life at quite early age.

American Dane 10-01-2011 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenora (Post 1322000)
I do not know why,but I do feel pity for Mary Tudor,the eldest daughter of Henry VIII.Despite the fact of being called "Bloody Mary" due to many executions and cruelties committed during her reign,at her very beginning of life and youth she seemed to be quite nice young lady.Her mother had been called "The People's Queen" and she had good chances to become a good queen in the eyes of her people.Instead,she ordered massive crimes,even the death punishment for innocent lady Jane Grey.But I do not pity her at her later cruel years,I pity the young lady she was,deprived of her beloved mother and neglected by her father,even not able to get married due to her father's egoistic desires.She wanted to be a good queen ,mother and wife.Psychologically,she wanted to revenge,but took the wrong way to do it,from other side her father's crimes inspired her to do the same,just in different purpose,that she considered right for her.
However ,she didn't kill her younger half-sister Elizabeth,in a way she kept her life for some reason,maybe for the future of England.Mary wasn't loved by her younger husband,who needed just a heir and power and sometimes I do believe her fatal diseasys was caused by poison,that someone gave to her(just a theory).She could have been a great queen and even return people to Catholicism in a milder way,but she turned wrong way and lost her life at quite early age.

:previous: It's entirely possible that her diseases were psychosomatic (caused by a mental factor such as internal stress) which would make sense since from the age of 17 years her life was constantly uncertain. Her father stripped her of her title and place in succession, forced her to 'wait' upon her baby half-sister, and indirectly cause the death of her beloved mother.

I, like you, do pity her in her early years and while she deserved her "Bloody Mary" title it was not unheard of for a monarch to call for mass executions of those considered enemies.

She would've have been a great Queen had history not happened and had she lived maybe a few centuries later. She was tough, brilliant, sensitive, etc. but unlike her successor she relied on men when she could've made it on her own.

CelestialPrincess 02-11-2013 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drummerboy (Post 1316718)
my memory is a bit hazy, but didn't Henry have an illegitimate son called Fitzroy? he was pretty close to being made an heir because there was something going through parliament which gave henry the option of doing it, if he so wished. i think he died before henry did, but he had another son that could have been made an heir.

Fitzroy died without an heir from his marriage thus that ended that claim.

vkrish 02-11-2013 01:23 AM

What if..
 
Catherine of Aragon had given birth to a male heir, and even a spare in the first place..
Would Henry VIII stlii have gone for an annulment?
Then the entire Church of England thing would have happend?
If that didnt happend, how would the balance of powers in Europe, ie, England vs France vs Spain remain for the next few centuries?
England would have continued to be under Pope's political influence?

I am more interested in the political aspect of all these things, which, I believe, were solely due to Henry's desperation for a male heir.
I am not thorough with that aspect of history, so I want to know what u guys think..

Artemisia 02-11-2013 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1515551)
Catherine of Aragon had given birth to a male heir, and even a spare in the first place. Would Henry VIII stlii have gone for an annulment?

Catherine did give birth to an heir. Two heirs, in fact (the first and second Dukes of Cornwall); unfortunately, both died in infancy.

If the couple had a surviving, healthy son there is absolutely no way Henry would annul his marriage to the mother of his legitimate son. Besides, despite the unfortunate events in their later lives, Henry was initially quite devoted to Catherine and it was her inability to produce a male heir - an absolute necessity for the newly-founded Tudor dynasty, at least as far as Henry was concerned - I daresay they would have been remembered as a loving, devoted couple. By the standards of the time, Henry had been a remarkably loyal husband with only a couple of affairs to his name during the first 15-18 years of his marriage.

Quote:

Then the entire Church of England thing would have happend?
Probably not. Almost certainly not during Henry VIII's reign. England was not as affecting by the tendencies of reformation as some of other European countries. And ironically, Henry was a devour Catholic; he even got the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope for defending the Catholic Church from the Lutheran "heresy" (incidentally, Catherine of Aragon was also a Defender of the Faith in her own right).

Quote:

If that didnt happend, how would the balance of powers in Europe, ie, England vs France vs Spain remain for the next few centuries?
England would have continued to be under Pope's political influence?
Hard to tell. Religion was not the only motivation in politics. It is likely England would have been closer to other Catholic countries, although simple political rivalry between the other Catholic powers of the time - Spain and France - would ensure no particularly close relations existed. England almost certainly wouldn't have allied with protestant countries, nor would it support French Huguenots.


I often wondered if Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon had a surviving son and as a consequence England remained Catholic, would British Empire ever even come into existence? Henry did begin the foundation process of the Empire (he strengthened the fleet which would eventually make Britain the unchallenged Queen of waves), however the Catholic Church was, how shall we put it, rather more oppressive towards new ideas and developments. Then again, it didn't keep Spain from building one of the greatest Empires in history, so who knows?

Meraude 02-11-2013 04:07 AM

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.

vkrish 02-11-2013 09:24 AM

:previous: Did that marriage actually consummate? AFAIK from "The Tudors", Henry just fished around, never diving into the waters..:lol:. I never understand why he was so frustated with her. She seems an eager, dignified woman, atleast much better than Kate Howard..

cinrit 02-11-2013 11:19 AM

Anne of Cleves, being very innocent and naive, thought that they'd consummated it.:tongue: But Henry, not being at all innocent or naive, said they did not. Because of Henry's dislike for the lady, it's doubtful they even fumbled around a little on their wedding night. On the other hand, Anne of Cleves, even though innocent and naive, proved to be the one wife with loads of street smart. If she had not had, she could easily have ended up without a head, too.

That said, I wouldn't take much of "The Tudors" to heart. For the most part, it was highly inaccurate.

Meraude 02-11-2013 05:28 PM

One can only speculate why Henry took such a dislike for Anne from the beginning, perhaps Henry already had his eye on a new younger bride (Katherine Howard) or if it was something Anne had done or said or because he didn't like her looks or her naivete. Perhaps he would have warmed up to Anne if Katherine Howard hadn't been around, or any other young thing to catch his eye, as I think Anne would have made a good wife for Henry.

nascarlucy 02-11-2013 09:24 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises