The Tudors

[Lenora]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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

 

[cinrit]

Anne of Cleves, being very innocent and naive, thought that they'd consummated it. 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]

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]

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.

 

[CelestialPrincess]

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

 

[nascarlucy]

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).

 

[CelestialPrincess]

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.

 

[Mariel]

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.

 

[Meraude]

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.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

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?

 

[Artemisia]

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.

 

[Ish]

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)?

 

[Artemisia]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.