What if? Tudor England

[Rani]

I'm very interested in the Tudors. So much tragedy struck that family.  I often wonder how things would be different if circumstances hadn't been what they were.  For example:

1. What if Katherine of Aragon had given birth to Arthur's son?

2. What if Katherine and Henry's son had lived?

3. What if Henry had made Henry Fitzroy his heir?

[amabel]

I'm very interested in the Tudors. So much tragedy struck that family.  I often wonder how things would be different if circumstances hadn't been what they were.  For example:

1. What if Katherine of Aragon had given birth to Arthur's son?

2. What if Katherine and Henry's son had lived?

3. What if Henry had made Henry Fitzroy his heir?

if she had had arthur's son and he lived, he woudl have been king
ditto for Katherine and Henry's son
as for Henry Fitzroy I dont think he woudl ahve been accpeted as King.....

[cinrit]

if she had had arthur's son and he lived, he woudl have been king
ditto for Katherine and Henry's son
as for Henry Fitzroy I dont think he woudl ahve been accpeted as King.....

If Catherine of Aragon had had Arthur's son, who do you think would have been appointed Regent?
What if Arthur's son had died when he was 15 years old, and Henry was already a Cardinal in the Church?

And I agree that Henry Fitzroy would ever have been accepted as King, in all probability.  So assuming that there was only Henry Fitzroy (no Mary, no Elizabeth, no Edward), who would have inherited the throne?  Would there have been only Mary, Queen of Scots?

Cindy

[amabel]

if she had had Arthur's son and he lived, he would have been king
ditto for Katherine and Henry's son
as for Henry Fitzroy I don't think he would have been accepted as King.....

If Catherine of Aragon had had Arthur's son, who do you think would have been appointed Regent?
What if Arthur's son had died when he was 15 years old, and Henry was already a Cardinal in the Church?

And I agree that Henry Fitzroy would ever have been accepted as King, in all probability.  So assuming that there was only Henry Fitzroy (no Mary, no Elizabeth, no Edward), who would have inherited the throne?  Would there have been only Mary, Queen of Scots?

Cindy

If Henry were a cardinal and Arthur or his son died, he'd probably apply for  a dispensation of his vows so that he could marry and be King.
If H VIII had not produced any legitimate children, he might have tried to legitimate Fitzroy.  (but then H Fitz died at what 16 or 18?... I still find it hard to believe even if  there was no other close heir, that the English political nation would have accepted Fitzroy.
after him, there was Mary Q Of Scots and also the Gray grils

[cinrit]

If H VIII had not produced any legitimate children, he might have tried to legitimate Fitzroy.  (but then H Fitz died at what 16 or 18?... I still find it hard to believe even if  there was no other close heir, that the English political nation would have accepted Fitzroy.
after him, there was Mary Q Of Scots and also the Gray grils

I'd forgotten the Grays.  But now that I think of it, didn't Henry VIII purposely exclude Margaret and her heirs in the succession?  I can't remember if he actually stated so or if she was just not mentioned.  He was outraged over her divorce from Archibald Douglas.  I wonder if he ever thought of that when he was attempting to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon? ... of course, he considered it an annulment.

Cindy

[amabel]

If H VIII had not produced any legitimate children, he might have tried to legitimate Fitzroy.  (but then H Fitz died at what 16 or 18?... I still find it hard to believe even if  there was no other close heir, that the English political nation would have accepted Fitzroy.
after him, there was Mary Q Of Scots and also the Gray grils

I'd forgotten the Grays.  But now that I think of it, didn't Henry VIII purposely exclude Margaret and her heirs in the succession?  I can't remember if he actually stated so or if she was just not mentioned.  He was outraged over her divorce from Archibald Douglas.  I wonder if he ever thought of that when he was attempting to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon? ... of course, he considered it an annulment.

Cindy

IIRC he did exclude Margaret's heirs but that was partly perhaps to do wit the fact that they were "foreigners" and the English might not wish to have a "foreign" king set over them.  He was outraged at her seeking an annulment of her marriage (there was no such thing as divorce, they were all annulments for RCs)... but that was because he believed HIS case was a good one  and that he truly wasn't validly married to Catherine, whereas Marg's was merely because she had tired of her husband!!

Some people thought that he was aciting out of turn in willing the crown as if it were his personal possession....but if he had no children excpet Fitzroy, there was only teh Stuart line and the Grey girls.  THe Tudors weren't a very prolific royal family and mostly seemed to breed daughters...

[Lady of Hay]

The first two would have totally changed history in ways that are unimaginable.

As for the third, if Catherine had given Henry a son he would have never acknowledged Henry Fitzroy.  Historians would be debating about his paternity too today along with the Careys and the other questioned yet possible illegitimate children.  It took him six years to finally publicly acknowledge the boy in 1525.  IMO, it was simply desperation on Henry's part at that point because Catherine had failed to give him a son.  

I think that had Henry Fitzroy become Henry's heir and lived, he would have probably had a tough time holding the throne if he was able to keep it at all.  The Tudors themselves were already on shaky ground because their only claim to the throne was through a female line (Elizabeth of York) and an illegitimate one from Henry VII.  There were still at that time some descendants of the Plantagenets left who had claim to the throne that Henry and his father had not wiped out yet.  They would have threatened Henry Fitzroy position.  If you remove the ridiculous laws and take the religious legitimate and illegitimate nonsense out of it anyone who is biologically born from a King and/or Queen or is a direct descendent of either has a claim to that throne no matter how distant even if they are not born in the correct order.

RFs to protect themselves throughout history have excluded other heirs to the throne by making laws that say only their descendants are the heirs as Henry VIII tried to do when he excluded his sister's Scottish descendants but paper burns and subjects ignore the wishes of their dead monarchs.  Mary Tudor's descendants were overlooked while Margaret Tudor's great grandson, James, got the throne.  Now, his descendants are on the throne because laws were made to excluded others and when the Hanovers took over a law was passed that said only the descendants of King James' granddaughter Sophie are the heirs to the throne.  Since, it was agreeable, you have the current RF today.

[cinrit]

I think that had Henry Fitzroy become Henry's heir and lived, he would have probably had a tough time holding the throne if he was able to keep it at all.  The Tudors themselves were already on shaky ground because their only claim to the throne was through a female line (Elizabeth of York) and an illegitimate one from Henry VII.  There were still at that time some descendants of the Plantagenets left who had claim to the throne that Henry and his father had not wiped out yet.

I thought Margaret Pole was the last "legitimate" Plantagenet?  She was executed in her 60's, but I can't remember the details of her supposed treason.  She swore that she was innocent, and the executioner had to chase her around the scaffold in order to behead her.  It's a gruesome scene to even imagine!  :huh2:

(Great thread, Rani!!)

Cindy

[Lady of Hay]

There were still at that time some descendants of the Plantagenets left who had claim to the throne that Henry and his father had not wiped out yet.  

Margaret and her brother Edward were next in line.  Henry VII killed Margaret's brother Edward but she and her family were still alive when Henry Fitzroy was alive.  Margaret had at least four sons, all of whom had a claim.  Margaret and some of her family were killed because of her son Reginald Pole but it was probably fear on Henry's part.

There were other families with Plantagenet descent.  Edward IV had two sisters Anne and Elizabeth who both had children alive at the same time that Henry Fitzroy was alive.  Not forgetting, that Edward IV's daughter Catherine of York had living descendents at the same time as well.  Yes, they were from a female line but so was Henry.  There were families like the Duke of Buckingham who Henry feared because they had connections to Edward III.

Yes, her death was gruesome and totally undeserved.  Margaret was a lady-in-waiting to Catherine of Aragon and took very good care of Princess Mary.  I would say she was a loyal subject considering who she was and what Henry's father had done to her brother.

[Rani]

I just think it would be interesting to consider how different England (and the rest of the world) would be if...

Henry VIII had never been king

Henry VIII had not broken with Rome

Elizabeth I had not been

[cinrit]

I just think it would be interesting to consider how different England (and the rest of the world) would be if...

Henry VIII had never been king

Henry VIII had not broken with Rome

Elizabeth I had not been

If Henry VIII had not broken with Rome, Elizabeth I probably would not have existed, since Henry broke with Rome in order to be able to marry Anne Boleyn.  What would have happened if Henry and Anne had never met? 

Cindy

[Lothwen]

I'm very interested in the Tudors. So much tragedy struck that family.  I often wonder how things would be different if circumstances hadn't been what they were.  For example:

1. What if Katherine of Aragon had given birth to Arthur's son?

2. What if Katherine and Henry's son had lived?

3. What if Henry had made Henry Fitzroy his heir?

Had Henry and Catherine's son lived to maturity, Henry would have never married Anne Boleyn.  He may still have had an affair with Mary, but Anne would have been out of the picture.  England still could have broken with Rome, but it would have been later, and would have been because the monarch was leaning toward Luther's teachings, and not so the king could divorce one woman and marry another

[Alixxx]

If Henry VIII had not broken with Rome, Elizabeth I probably would not have existed, since Henry broke with Rome in order to be able to marry Anne Boleyn.

Cindy

Also, Elizabeth I would not have ruled. Mary (who was Catholic) would have been Queen instead.

[Sandra Dee]

Great idea for a thread, Rani.   :thumbsup:
However, I do not know enough about royalty history, so I'm gonna leave the posting to our much knowledgeable posters.  :nod:

[amabel]

Also, Elizabeth I would not have ruled. Mary (who was Catholic) would have been Queen instead.

I thought this was predicated on Henry's having a son... Since he had no son, he tried to get an annulment of his marriage so that he could father a legitimate son, and thereby ended up breaking with Rome.  If Mary was his sole heir, I think that Henry, being the man he was, would have started off on his attempts to end his marriage to C of Aragon in order to get a legitimate son and therefore, Mary would not have been queen....

[sandy]

Had Mary married and produced a son, perhaps Henry (if he only wanted a male to succeed) could have named this hypothetical grandson King.  She was in her late thirties when she married Philip and then her childbearing years were probably over. Henry could have married her off to  a cousin of royal blood in England and had she married at a younger age she may very well have been able to have children.

[Lady of Hay]

There actually was a suggestion about that when Mary was still very young.  Reginald Pole was a consideration as the grandson of George Plantagenet.  I believe it was Chapuys who suggested it.  Mary and Reginald probably would have had a son and the English people would have excepted Reginald because of his Plantagenet blood.  Henry did not need a son from his own body, anyway.  Since, England had no official Salic Law (only males can inherit), as the eldest legimate heir any children by Mary would have been heirs to the throne without question.  If Henry had allowed Mary to have children early on by the time he died his grandson would have been old enough to rule and England would not have been left with a child King.

[LouisFerdinand]

What if Katherine of Aragon had given birth to Arthur's son?   
The boy might have been named Henry in honor of his grandfather, King Henry VII.   
This Prince Henry would have succeeded to the throne as King Henry VIII. Had a regent been needed, his uncle, Prince Henry, Prince Arthur's brother, might be the regent.

[royalanthropologist]

She would have had an easier time had she given birth to a son. The Tudors were obsessed with sons and yet they had very strong women that were great queens in their own right e.g. Margaret of Scotland, Mary Stuart, Mary Tudor and of course the remarkable Elizabeth I.  Catherine of Aragon was tortured incredibly by both Henry VII and Henry VIII. For example her father in law kept her in absolutely poverty and kept asking for a return of the dowry before she could be allowed to leave England. Her own husband meted out a level of psychological and emotional abuse that has scarcely been experienced by any other royal.

[Curryong]

^^ Katherine giving birth to a healthy son or sons by Arthur presupposes that Arthur would have lived a full and healthy life into adulthood. Historians disagree about Arthur's constitution and he certainly appears to have been less robust than his younger brother. The mid teen years seem to have been fatal to Tudor males. Henry VIII's illegitimate son the Earl of Richmond, of whom he was so proud, succumbed to tuberculosis at 17. Edward VI died, after months of suffering, at 15.

Katherine's babies by Henry VIII all died except for one girl, so who knows if a son by Arthur would have lived to adulthood.

[amabel]

She would have had an easier time had she given birth to a son. The Tudors were obsessed with sons and yet they had very strong women that were great queens in their own right e.g. Margaret of Scotland, Mary Stuart, Mary Tudor and of course the remarkable Elizabeth I.  Catherine of Aragon was tortured incredibly by both Henry VII and Henry VIII. For example her father in law kept her in absolutely poverty and kept asking for a return of the dowry before she could be allowed to leave England. Her own husband meted out a level of psychological and emotional abuse that has scarcely been experienced by any other royal.

Mary Stuart and Mary Tudor great queens>???  are you kidding?  They were disasters,
and of course the Tudors were concerned to have a male heir.  They were a new dynasty of dubious legitimacy and there had never been a woman ruler of England before Except for the Empress Maud, whose reign cuased a civil war and was a horrendous experience for the country.. so that ti was recalled as a time when "Christ and his saints slept".  Henry VIII wanted a legitimate male heir, so that he could avoid such a scenario for Enlgnad.

[sandy]

Mary Tudor could have been a good Queen Consort to another European monarch--especially if her brother Prince Henry had survived and had Henry not declared her illegitimate. She also later had the misfortune to marry a man who did  not love her and cause her personal heartbreak. Mary Stuart married the wrong men and got into scandals involving her 2nd and 3rd husbands.

Henry's sons the Duke of Richmond and King Edward were in frail health and died young. Mary had health problems beginning around the time she was separated from her mother. Elizabeth survived them all.