WI: Mary and Elizabeth Predecease Edward
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
Inevitable war with Scotland, as the Stuarts come from the more senior female line. They might be backed by the Church if Jane remains Anglican.
Scenarios in which to have Mary and Elizabeth Predecease Edward.
In 1525, Henry sent Mary to the border of Wales to preside, presumably in name only, over the Council of Wales and the Marches, while there, Mary is afflicted by an unknown illness, similar to the one that affected her mother, Catherine and her mother's first husband (and her paternal uncle), Prince Arthur of Wales.
Sadly unlike her mum, and more like her uncle, Mary died, while in Wales.
Elizabeth was declared illegitimate and deprived of her place in the royal succession, following her mother (Queen Anne) execution on 19th May 1536, at the age of 2 years and 8 months.
Fearing a revolt and support for Elizabth against his son, Henry marries off Elizabeth when she turned 16 in 1549, to Charles Maximilian, the third son of King Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici, younger brother of Francis II.
She dies during child birth, a few weeks before her husband is crowned King Charles IX of France on 5 December 1560.
In 1525, Henry sent Mary to the border of Wales to preside, presumably in name only, over the Council of Wales and the Marches, while there, Mary is afflicted by an unknown illness, similar to the one that affected her mother, Catherine and her mother's first husband (and her paternal uncle), Prince Arthur of Wales.
Sadly unlike her mum, and more like her uncle, Mary died, while in Wales.
Elizabeth was declared illegitimate and deprived of her place in the royal succession, following her mother (Queen Anne) execution on 19th May 1536, at the age of 2 years and 8 months.
Fearing a revolt and support for Elizabth against his son, Henry marries off Elizabeth when she turned 16 in 1549, to Charles Maximilian, the third son of King Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici, younger brother of Francis II.
She dies during child birth, a few weeks before her husband is crowned King Charles IX of France on 5 December 1560.
Queen Frances followed by Queen Jane.
A lot would depend on who Jane developed into. If the PoD took place early enough interested parties might take charge of her as the heiress presumptive.
As pray she has spawn lest her idiot sister take the thrown.
Possible civil war might prevented with Catholics (majority in 1553) split between supporting an English Protestant or a Catholic foriegner and the Stuart faction ending up too small.
War with Scotland and France? France will be descending into civil war and Scotland would be too weak.
A lot would depend on who Jane developed into. If the PoD took place early enough interested parties might take charge of her as the heiress presumptive.
As pray she has spawn lest her idiot sister take the thrown.
Possible civil war might prevented with Catholics (majority in 1553) split between supporting an English Protestant or a Catholic foriegner and the Stuart faction ending up too small.
War with Scotland and France? France will be descending into civil war and Scotland would be too weak.
Well technically the succession went Mary Queen of Scots, her aunt Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox, Lennox's son Henry, Lord Darnley, then Frances, Duchess of Suffolk and the Grey sisters. That being said, the third Succession act/Henry VIII's Will excluded the descendants of Margaret, Queen of Scots, so legally the Duchess of Suffolk would have been the heiress and Queen Regnant.
As for a war, it depends. The Catholics were the majority in England at this time but Mary was a foreigner and the English were notoriously xenophobic. So we could see a war between the Lennoxs (next in line after Mary) and the Suffolks (next in line legally). Of course, Mary and Elizabeth had popular support at the time of their accessions, being the daughters of Henry VIII and the champions of their respective religions, something Margaret and Frances would both lack. So either way it would probably be between Lennox and Suffolk and who would win is anyones guess.
As for a war, it depends. The Catholics were the majority in England at this time but Mary was a foreigner and the English were notoriously xenophobic. So we could see a war between the Lennoxs (next in line after Mary) and the Suffolks (next in line legally). Of course, Mary and Elizabeth had popular support at the time of their accessions, being the daughters of Henry VIII and the champions of their respective religions, something Margaret and Frances would both lack. So either way it would probably be between Lennox and Suffolk and who would win is anyones guess.
VVD0D95
Banned
Very interesting, and that is something I've always found interesting considering their own foreign descent
Is a Scotland under a regency for an 11-year old Queen probably over in France (depending on POD and butterflies) in any position to claim the English throne?
Would an earlier POD also change her marriage, or would Edward allow/be pressured into letting her marry Dudley?
Well, if Mary and Elizabeth die early enough, I imagine there would be floundering around for a replacement champion. In Mary's case that could be the countess of Lennox, but from what I've read of her, and the fact that she was Mary's goddaughter, Frances seems to have worn her reform religion lightly, (her daughters are another story). Elizabeth would find a replacement most likely in the Grey girls - Henrican Catholic.
Zioneer
Banned
So there's no way that Jane Grey could plausibly end up Queen for longer than she did OTL?
Assuming everything follows as in OTL until Henry's death and that is followed by the death of Mary (disease) - then the principal cause of Edward's concern over the succession is gone - Elizabeth remains his heir - now if the Seymour brother's fall out as they did in OTL and if the council can implicate Elizabeth as they tried in OTL then you have the possibility of her execution or imprisonment say which leads to a decline in health and death (another reason for Edward to loathe his uncle).
Northumberland takes over as in OTL and Edward's health begins to fail - Northumberland was close to the Suffolk's and is going to prefer them over the other options.
Frances Grey in this tl has a much stronger claim (she is the heir under statute having outlived her two cousins Elizabeth and Mary) - it is not inconceivable that she couldn't at some point produce a male child (she had three more children in the 1550s by her second husband thought two were stillborn and one died at less than a year old). I can't see her needing the raft of betrothals tying the Brandon, Grey and Dudley's close together as happened in the months preceeding Edward's death in OTL.
English Catholics (who are in the majority) are going to face the same choice they did in 1558 support a protestant Queen who was English and moderate or a foreign-born, foreign-married Queen (Mary Stuart) - the vast majority opted to support Elizabeth.
Margaret Douglas just doesn't have support and her claim whilst Mary of Scots lives is secondary - her and her husband's Catholicism was also a pretty moveable feast - given her character Margaret is far more likely to try and engineer a betrothal between her son and one of the Grey daughter's.
France and Scotland are not in a great position to go to war to put Mary Stuart on the throne at this point and Spain will opt to support Frances Grey to prevent that result just as they did with Elizabeth initially.
Northumberland takes over as in OTL and Edward's health begins to fail - Northumberland was close to the Suffolk's and is going to prefer them over the other options.
Frances Grey in this tl has a much stronger claim (she is the heir under statute having outlived her two cousins Elizabeth and Mary) - it is not inconceivable that she couldn't at some point produce a male child (she had three more children in the 1550s by her second husband thought two were stillborn and one died at less than a year old). I can't see her needing the raft of betrothals tying the Brandon, Grey and Dudley's close together as happened in the months preceeding Edward's death in OTL.
English Catholics (who are in the majority) are going to face the same choice they did in 1558 support a protestant Queen who was English and moderate or a foreign-born, foreign-married Queen (Mary Stuart) - the vast majority opted to support Elizabeth.
Margaret Douglas just doesn't have support and her claim whilst Mary of Scots lives is secondary - her and her husband's Catholicism was also a pretty moveable feast - given her character Margaret is far more likely to try and engineer a betrothal between her son and one of the Grey daughter's.
France and Scotland are not in a great position to go to war to put Mary Stuart on the throne at this point and Spain will opt to support Frances Grey to prevent that result just as they did with Elizabeth initially.
No, she is a likely Queen, though probably after her mother, who would have no reason to defer to her like she did in the OTL.
She might but probably not marry into the Dudley family. Take her a put her into the care of a loving, healthy family say in 1547-8 like the Seymors or the Dudleys and she probably becomes less of a bluestocking.
IRL, when Elizabeth almost died of smallpox in 1562, Henry's will was still well remembered and they were getting ready to proclaim her sister Katherine as queen.
Last edited:
These speculations are all very well, but they almost all rest on the same flawed assumption, that the heir presumptive, in the absence of Edwards bastard sisters was Francis Grey, the problem is, that she was not. By the time of Edwards death, Francis had twice been removed from the succession.
The first time by Heny VIII, then by his son King Edward, this meant that the legal successor, was the heir to the body, of Francis, Queen Jane Dudley.
The first time by Heny VIII, then by his son King Edward, this meant that the legal successor, was the heir to the body, of Francis, Queen Jane Dudley.
That's simply not true. Edward had no right or power to unilaterally change the succession. At no time was Frances, Duchess of Suffolk legally excluded from the throne. Neither the Third Act of Succession nor the Will of Henry VIII bypassed Frances in favor of Jane. Why would it? I mean what would happen if Frances was excluded from the succession then gave birth to a son? Would that son, whose rights would supersede his sisters, be ignored because his mother was herself excluded? I doubt it.
I wouldn't say that. Chances are she succeeds her mother as Queen Regnant at Frances' death. While there is a chance that the Suffolks could have a son that bumps Jane down to 2nd in line, I doubt it. Frances doesn't seem to have had another pregnancy with Suffolk after Mary Grey in 1545, so to me it looks like Jane would have remained heiress presumptive. I will say that chances are high that Princess Jane (as she would be) wouldn't marry a Dudley. I'd guess either a Protestant Prince (maybe one from Denmark or Sweden) or a Plantagenet descendant in England.
On reading this thread I became aware of a very intriguing question, that no one seemed to be questioning, 'Why was Francis Grey passed over for her daughter Jane in OTL?'
So I did some digging.
A visit to the Wikipedia site revealed the following information,
" For unknown reasons, Henry excluded Jane's mother, Frances Grey, from the succession,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey
then I went to a web site called Google and typed in Francis Grey excluded from succession, and found " in 1547 ,as we have seen Henry gratuitously excluded Francis Grey from the succession" in the book by Ives
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=KZCMGgJzO2IC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Francis++Grey+excluded++from+succession&source=bl&ots=mWMKF8HQBF&sig=WpsALtXcoTbPclZUlCMQ35FVcNg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8uI7hnbnJAhUnIqYKHS38A4gQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=Francis%20%20Grey%20excluded%20%20from%20succession&f=false in the book Lady Jane Grey A Tudor Mystery by Eric Ives as well as in other references.
Ives points out that it was Henry who was changing the rules of succession several times, perhaps most noticeably, Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate and not inline to inherit, but in a subsequent clause they were in line to succeed to the throne. Note the fine distinction.
It also meant that he could exclude whom he wanted, and he didn't want to be followed by a woman. this meant that the Brandon boys could inherit but not Francis, but she could have a son, who could be in line.
Its further pointed out, that in giving himself the right to change the rules of succession, Henry gave any future Monarch the right to change the rules ( unless Henry was thpecial). However Edward was, in excluding Francis simply following his father.
The only thing he different from his father in was he attempt to exclude the clunky illegitimacy settlement.
And by the time he died, the Brandon boys were also dead, the only thing left were female heirs. But Jane, not Francis, was now the leading possibility for a legitimate male heir.
Last edited:
Here's the primary document:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol21/no2/pp313-348
Scroll down to "634. Henry VIII.'s Will." This is the key passage:
It does look like Frances is skipped, although her heirs (Jane, Catherine, and Mary Grey) are in the succession ahead of the Stuart lines (descended from Henry's older sister Margaret: the royal Stuarts from her first marriage, and the Lennox/Darnley Stuarts from her second marriage). I'm not sure why, this being the first I'd noticed this clause. I suspect Amelikite's speculation, that Henry hoped for Frances to have a son and thus avoid a female heir from a collateral line, is correct.
The Branden boys are omitted from the will because when it was written in 1546, the first Henry Branden was already dead (died in 1534) and the younger Branden boys didn't have royal blood (their mother was Charles Branden's fourth wife, Catherine Willoughby).
Edward's will is constitutionally awkward. Henry's will was specifically authorized by Parliament in the Third Act of Succession (1543), which clarified the succession through Henry's children and the heirs of their bodies (Edward, then any future legitimate children, then Mary, then Elizabeth, with provisions that Henry could set conditions to automatically disinherit Mary, Elizabeth, and their heirs if they violated the conditions), then gave "The King's Highness" full power to define the succession beyond the point where it was specified by statute, either by will or by letters patent.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924030504322#page/n423/mode/2up
By my reading, it's unclear from the text whether the powers to disinherit Mary and Elizabeth and to set the line of succession after them by will or letters patent was vested in Henry personally or if it would also apply to future monarchs. By plain meaning, the phrase seems like it would apply to any future king, but it's used several times elsewhere in the Act in contexts where it seems to refer to Henry specifically (e.g. "The Lady Mary the King's Highness's daughter").
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol21/no2/pp313-348
Scroll down to "634. Henry VIII.'s Will." This is the key passage:
It does look like Frances is skipped, although her heirs (Jane, Catherine, and Mary Grey) are in the succession ahead of the Stuart lines (descended from Henry's older sister Margaret: the royal Stuarts from her first marriage, and the Lennox/Darnley Stuarts from her second marriage). I'm not sure why, this being the first I'd noticed this clause. I suspect Amelikite's speculation, that Henry hoped for Frances to have a son and thus avoid a female heir from a collateral line, is correct.
The Branden boys are omitted from the will because when it was written in 1546, the first Henry Branden was already dead (died in 1534) and the younger Branden boys didn't have royal blood (their mother was Charles Branden's fourth wife, Catherine Willoughby).
Edward's will is constitutionally awkward. Henry's will was specifically authorized by Parliament in the Third Act of Succession (1543), which clarified the succession through Henry's children and the heirs of their bodies (Edward, then any future legitimate children, then Mary, then Elizabeth, with provisions that Henry could set conditions to automatically disinherit Mary, Elizabeth, and their heirs if they violated the conditions), then gave "The King's Highness" full power to define the succession beyond the point where it was specified by statute, either by will or by letters patent.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924030504322#page/n423/mode/2up
By my reading, it's unclear from the text whether the powers to disinherit Mary and Elizabeth and to set the line of succession after them by will or letters patent was vested in Henry personally or if it would also apply to future monarchs. By plain meaning, the phrase seems like it would apply to any future king, but it's used several times elsewhere in the Act in contexts where it seems to refer to Henry specifically (e.g. "The Lady Mary the King's Highness's daughter").
It is not my claim but that of Professor Ives, and if you failed to notice it from my searches on the internet you are far from being alone.
Interestingly from further reading of excerpts from 'Jane Grey' another explanation offered is that maybe as Henry Grey (Suffolk) was not considered very able, but would have been expected to be crowned King, it was considered enough to exclude Frances.
Regardless the relevance to this thread is that because Edward wanted a male heir and because Frances was excluded in his fathers will, and possibly because Jane was married to Guildford Dudley, there was no chance of Frances inheriting the Throne.
Revolution given that the Queen was her daughter also seems unlikely.
T%hank you for pointing out the different parentage of the Brandons, I remember reading it, sometimes its easy to get muddled.
Arguably it was Henry not Edward who lead England into the legal minefield, it was he who made and declared his eldest daughters illegitimate, and it was his decision to make his daughters although ineligible to inherit, able to succeed.
In the second Act of Succession, it was even made treason to attempt to alter the Act, such was Henry mental morass.
This was followed by the third Act of succession, ("Congratulations your Majesty you have just committed treason against yourself, and if you can just sign this warrant here, We will have you hung, drawn and quartered as quickly as possible.")
It is apparently (Ives again) not stated in the legislation passed through Parliament, that Henry is given the power to change the succession, Henry was King, after all.
Finally as I read it Elizabeth and Cecil simply ignored Henry's will, Elizabeth didn't declare anyone her heir, but the Throne was inherited by Margaret Tudors heir. Mary Tudors heir was not considered.
In this case the main reason why Bloody Mary stayed single even if there were offers for her to marry men like the Duke of Beja is that if she married she would be disinherited or have to renounce her rights in order to marry.
I could see them trying to secure one of the late Edward's intendeds (Juana of Spain or Élisabeth de Valois), if he's from Frances' first marriage, and if from a second, then perhaps one of their sisters (Margot/Victoire) or nieces (Anna/Elisabeth of Austria) for him.