British Hapsburg King?

What sort of PoD would be needed to create a Hapsburg the King of England?

Queen Mary I doesn't die childless but has sons.

what exactly would this mean for europe?

Henry VIII gets killed on campaign in France. One of the reasons he was particularly concerned about having a male heir was that without one, the nearest male relative was Charles I of Spain, later Charles V of Austria, Holy Roman Emperor.

That's why the Pope didn't want to grant Henry a divorce. With the Lutherans and Calvinists running around in the Holy Roman Empire and southern France, the idea of the staunchly Catholic Charles ruling over Austria, Germany, Spain, AND England seemed quite alright to him.

I can't really imagine the English going for it, though, later on. Once the Reformation starts in England, they'd probably reject a Catholic King. I mean, they dragged in Germans, Dutchmen, whoever they could find, rather than have a Catholic King, later on. So, probably, pre-Reformation would be the best bet. Like I said, while Henry's on campaign in France, wasting his dad's built-up Treasury making sure Britain throws away the last of its Norman possessions

How exactly Charlie rules it all is another matter, of course. Historically, Spain was a bit of a millstone around his neck, didn't really help him much. Can't really see England doing much for him, except perhaps exciting yet another covert Franco-Turk alliance. Off to Vienna again for the Sultan...

Charles is his closest relatative? How is this?
I would have thought if Henry died totally without children it would go back up to Henry VII's other children- the oldest of which married the king of Scotland leading to the Stuarts taking over England in 1603 IOTL.

Leej said:

Charles is his closest relatative? How is this?
I would have thought if Henry died totally without children it would go back up to Henry VII's other children- the oldest of which married the king of Scotland leading to the Stuarts taking over England in 1603 IOTL.

Click to expand...

You are correct...sort of. It would go to Henry VII's other children, as long as parliament approved it. I have never quite worked out the relative strength of these forces in Tudor and Stuart England, but the right of succession is not sufficient to mean it would happen...

Grey Wolf

Leej said:

Charles is his closest relatative? How is this?
I would have thought if Henry died totally without children it would go back up to Henry VII's other children- the oldest of which married the king of Scotland leading to the Stuarts taking over England in 1603 IOTL.

Click to expand...

Henry VII's children were as follows:
Arthur, Prince of Wales: 1486-1502
Margaret : 1489-1541
Henry VIII: 1491-1547
Elizabeth: 1492-1495
Mary: 1495-1533
Edmund, Duke of Somerset: 1499-1500
Edward, (died young)
Katherine: d 1503

Much of what follows is taken from http://tudors.crispen.org/6wives/index.html and http://tudors.crispen.org/tudor_tree/index.html and http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/royalty/kingh.html

Arthur was first in line to the throne after Henry VII. His brother Henry was being trained as a priest, the intention being that he would be established as Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus, church and state would be united in one family, the Tudor family. Recall that the Tudor's claim to the throne was weak, resting on Henry VII's father Owen Tudor's marriage to the widowed Queen Katherine of Valois, widow of Henry V.

Now, we have to go back a bit to understand the history: when Henry V died, the throne passed to his son, Henry VI, who was only a child. At the age of nine months be succeeded his father, 1st September, 1422, the government being entrusted to his uncles the Dukes of Gloucester and Bedford, of whom the former was named Protector of the Realm of England, and the latter Regent of France. This latter title arose from Henry V's treaty with France after his wars there, whereby his son would have claim to the throne of France, jointly with that of England.

The guardianship of the young king was intrusted to Richard Beau-champ, Earl of Warwick. Henry was crowned at London in 1429 (aged 7), and at Paris in 1431. The war in France was continued, since the French weren't so keen on the united thrones, and several victories were gained by the English, but in 1429 the extraordinary intervention of the Maid of Orleans compelled them to raise the siege of that city, and the English power in France rapidly declined.

In 1444 the king married Margaret of Anjou, daughter of René, King of Sicily and Duke of Anjou, who by her high spirit, ambition, and audacity, gained a complete ascendancy over her 'meek' and feeble husband. The king had little influence personally on the course of events, and the government was weakened by the quarrels of his uncles. The measures of the ministers, Suffolk and Somerset, excited much popular irritation, and insurrections broke out in 1450; the most serious of which was that headed by Jack Cade. In 1453 the brave Talbot was defeated and killed at Castillon, Bordeaux was soon after taken by the French, and nothing was left in France under English dominion but Calais.

The same year the king fell into a state of mental aberration and incapacity for governing; and about the same time his son Edward was born. Then began the Civil Wars of the Roses, which filled up the remaining years of Henry's reign; and, after various alternations of fortune, victory remained with the Yorkists. The accession of Edward IV. and the exile of Henry (VI) took place in 1461. The war, however, continued; chiefly through the courage and energy of the Queen Margaret, but in 1466 Henry was captured and imprisoned in the Tower. Released by the great Earl of Warwick in 1470, he was again imprisoned by Edward in the following year, and was soon after found dead in the Tower. Whether he was murdered or died a natural death from overpowering grief is uncertain. Henry was a man of sincerely religious character, but without the strength and capacity to rule, and his misfortunes and tragic end may justly be pitied. An endeavour was made by Henry VII. to get him canonized, but unsuccessfully.

As to Henry VII, he was the first sovereign of the Tudor line, was the son of Edmund Tudor (son of Owen Tudor and Katherine Valois, widow of Henry V), Earl of Richmond, and his wife, Margaret Beaufort, a descendant of the eldest son of John of Gaunt, and was born, probably at Pembroke Castle, in 1456. His father dying the same year, he was taken charge of by his uncle, Jasper Tudor; on the accession of Edward IV., in 1461, was attainted and placed under the care of Sir William Herbert; was taken to court on the restoration of Henry VI., and is said to have studied a short time at Eton; and after the victory of Edward IV. at Tewkesbury was taken by his uncle to Brittany. The Duke of Brittany steadily refused to deliver him up when pressed to do so by Edward and by Richard III.

A rising in favour of Henry was planned in 1483, and he made an attempt to invade England in October of that year, but failed, and several of the leaders, the Duke of Buckingham among them, were executed. In August, 1485, he made a second attempt, landed at Milford Haven, and won a decisive victory over Richard III. at the battle of Bosworth, in which Richard was killed. Henry was crowned in October following. In 1486 he married the Princess Elizabeth of York, but although this union was looked on as an alliance of the rival houses of York and Lancaster, Henry showed himself the merciless and unscrupulous enemy of the Yorkists. Numerous insurrections broke out to trouble the peace of his reign. First that under Lord Lovel and the Staffords, which was easily suppressed; next that of Lambert Simnel, who, under the instruction of Richard Simon, a priest of Oxford, personated Edward, Earl of Warwick, and was crowned in Ireland as Edward VI, in May, 1487; was supported by Margaret, duchess of Burgundy; and was defeated and taken prisoner by Henry at the battle of Stoke; then, in 1492, that excited in favour of the so-called Perkin Warbeck, giving himself out as Richard, Duke of York, son of Edward IV. He was acknowledged as such by Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy; attempted unsuccessfully to invade England in 1495; was received in the following year by the king of Scotland, who gave him in marriage Lady Katherine Gordon; again invaded England in 1497, and on the approach of Henry fled to Beaulieu Abbey, and was sent prisoner to London; made his escape, but was retaken, and in 1499 executed.

The rest of Henry's reign was undisturbed, and he could indulge the master passion of his nature, the love of money. He had by popular feeling been compelled more than once to declare war on France, but it did not come to fighting. He gained subsidies by declaring war, and then by secret treaties made peace and got well paid for it. He employed in the latter years of his reign the notorious Empson and Dudley, for the purpose of extorting money on any pretexts from his subjects ; and on the death of his queen in 1503, cast about for a new bride with a rich dowry. Illness came upon him in 1507, and be began to build monasteries and release prisoners for debt. He died at Richmond, April 21, 1509, and was buried in the magnificent chapel erected by himself, at Westminster.

So, what we have is the not very strong claim of the Tudors on the throne. Why, you may ask, did Henry VI, son merely of a commoner - Owen Tudor -who'd managed to marry the widow of the King Henry V - how did this guy manage to become King? Well, 'twas the War of the Roses. Basically, all the other claimants got killed off in battle and assassinations and so on.

Okay, so we come to 1509. All the other claimants have had their lines terminated by the War of the Roses. Arthur's dropped dead, and Henry's been pulled out of religious studies to rule the country. He marries his brother's widow - requiring a Papal dispensation to do so - to cement his claim, and keep friendly with the Spanish. The rule of royalty is, after all, "if you don't have a claim to the throne, marry one!" It makes you look more royal.

Let's suppose Henry VIII is killed at the Battle of the Spurs, before Terouanne, in 1513. At this point, his living siblings are Margaret (24 years old) and Mary (18 years old). That's all. By 1513, Henry VIII's had three children by Katherine, but none of them have survived. At this point, Henry VIII has no illegitimate children - his whoring days come later - but all the bastards he had were women anyway.

Now, Margaret was married to the King of Scotland, and Mary unmarried (historically, she married King Louis of France in 1514 as part of the peace treaty). Margaret and James IV of Scotland had a son, James, born in 1512.

So, what we have is no clear claimant to the throne. Remember, the Salic Law tells us it should go in this order:

1) Deceased/abdicated King's eldest son, second-eldest, etc. If no sons, then,
2) Former King's eldest brother, second eldest, etc. If no brothers, then,
3) Eldest male son of former King's father's brother (ie his cousin).

[Sidebar note: Nowadays, we've changed this to
3) Former King's eldest daughter, second eldest, etc. If no daughters, then,
4) Former King's eldest sister. In no sister, then,
5) Former King's eldest sister's son. Etc.]

Now, 1) and 2) are non-existent, since Henry VIII in 1513 has no sons, no brothers. So, what about Henry VIII's uncles? Did they leave any sons? Well, Henry VII had no other sons who survived to produce children. Henry VII's only sons to survive past infancy were Arthur and Henry. Arthur's dead, so's Henry.

So, we have to go back to Henry VIII's paternal grandfather, Edmund, Earl of Richmond and son of Owen Tudor, and see what sons he produced. The answer is: besides Henry VII, none.

Hell! Okay, who else have we got? Did Edmund have any brothers? Well, yes. There's one fellow, variously named Owen, Thomas or Edward, who went and became a monk; but he died in 1502. Then there's old Jaspor, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of Bedford. Well, he died in 1495. Did he produce a son? Nope. Only a daughter.

So, basically the Tudor line, which was the continuance through the female side of the Lancaster line, is extinct. We're not going to see a revival of the York line, Henries VII and VIII both saw to that.

So, we've got two issues of claim. The first is the practical one: little James of Scotland, son of James IV of Scotland, and Henry VIII's sister Margaret. Obviously, James IV is going to advance a claim for his own son, regardless of the Salic Law.

Equally obviously, the English nobles won't be fond of this idea. We might note also that Scotland went to war with England at this time, with James IV trying to take advantage of France's victories over England. James IV historically died at the Battle of Flodden Field, in September of 1513.

So what you're left with is two widows in England and Scotland. In England, the widowed Queen Katherine of Aragon, childless, and the widowed Queen Margaret of Scotland, with the infant James V of Scotland.

So it all falls to the nobles, and which widow gets the most support. In this, one may expect that the Spanish will press for their widow - Katherine of Aragon. This leads back to the House of Habspurg. We could see, for example, Katherine being married off to a Hapsburg prince, and bearing children to him.

Remember that Katherine of Aragon was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, and they produced no male children. For this reason, the throne passed to the Hapsburgs in Austria. So, the Hapsburgs have a poor claim on England, but, as claims go at this time, as good as young James'.

The nobles of England would then have a choice between a woman with a dubious claim, but with European alliances and family ties which would strengthen England's situation, OR a Scottish King with a claim through the female line. Now, any change in succession must be acceded to by Parliament (in practice if not in law at this particular time).

Historically, the nobles chose the European claimant and the alliances, over the Scots claimant, whenever they could. Of course the Scots will fight; but the English will have Spanish wealth to buy them armies.

Therefore, the most likely result of a death of Henry VIII in 1513 is that the House of Hapbspurg rules in England after a war with Scotland, and some small civil war actions along the way.

That article is full of errors

Henry VI was most certainly the son of HENRY V - Owen Tudor married his widow, or do you think he was secretly knocking off the Queen ???

The Tudors claim to the throne WAS weak, but Henry VIII's itself was not (nor Arthur's obviously) as they inherited the Yorkist line through their father's marriage to Elizabeth of York, oldest daughter (and surviving child) of Edward IV

Henry VIII did not only sire female bastards - his most famous illegitimate offspring was the Duke of Richmond (died in his later teens) who was for a while talked about as a possible heir.

I don't think Salic Law is relevant here - it is the rule of primogeniture. It goes from father to oldest surviving son or their offspring. If no son, then to daughters. If no children then up to the next of the king's brothers and their offpsring. If no brothers of the king then to his sisters and their offspring.

Katherine of Aragon has NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER to the English throne after the death of her husband, and without any surviving children she would either retire to a country palace or more likely a convent, or go home to Spain. Any noble faction trying to use her as a tool for the succession is going to be perceived as foreign agents and annihilated.

Regarding the Scottish connection, when did Margaret die ? She is Queen Regnant of England if she still lives, even if she is only Queen Dowager of Scotland for her son, James V. I would think this would look very interesting for the English - they get to move into the government of Scotland, they can exert influence over James V (I of England) and they have the prospect of co-opting the Stuart line and absorbing Scotland into the English polity.

The prospect of this bringing in a civil war in Scotland are actually masively minimalised by Flodden which has wiped out not only the King but the vast majority of the Scottish aristocracy including the prominent factional leaders. Of course these are replaced by sons and brothers etc but these are men with much less political footing and all are striving to find their place in the new political scene. If into this you thrust the death of Henry VIII and the accession of Margaret as Queen of England, then the time is about as ripe as it could possibly be for England to make a move to merge with Scotland

Grey Wolf

The Salic Law did not apply to England. While no one really WANTED a female ruler, there was no real legal impediment to it in English law. And there was precedence in English history with Matilda, mother of Henry II (though there was a civil war with her cousin Stephen because, again, they didn't really want a female on the throne, but Matilda also had her Angevin husband and combative nature to blame). Also, Mary and Elizabeth and Jane Grey, in our timeline, had much more of a problem with religion, legitimacy, and politics than with being female.

Margaret would have certainly been Henry's heir. In his final will, he did skip over her line in favor of his younger sister Mary (grandmother of Jane Grey) and her line, but if he dies young and unexpectedly, all custom and law would make his eldest sibling, even if "only" a woman, monarch. There were no other Tudor males (though Henry VII may have had one or two illegitimate sons, and Henry VIII also probably had more than Henry Fitzroy running around, but none of them were acknowledged.)

If, however, you REALLY want a Hapsburg on the throne, you could have the English reject James V and marry Mary off to a Hapsburg Archduke. But would the English accept THAT? I don't know. If they did, you can bet there'd be one HELL of a marriage contract to limit his power and influence and make sure the kids were raised English.

BTW, Charles V WAS distantly related to the English royal family. His great-grandmother (I think; there may be another great in the there) was John of Gaunt's daughter by his second marriage; the Tudors were descended from his third. It was through this connection that Philip of Spain claimed England for his daughter after Mary Stuart was executed and he sent off the Armada.

I think that a woman ruler would be welcomed at the time, the nobles had been 'oppressed' by Henry VII so they would welcome a weak woman who they could control.
Margaret was married to Scotland as part of a peace treaty, it could be iffy if she was not.

See http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=richard+blaybourne+archer+king&kgs=0&kls=0

According to a senior scholar of the Middle Ages, an original document found in France (a church document calling for prayers for the king) reveals that Edward IV was conceived not by his supposed royal father, Richard the duke of York, but by an archer named Blaybourne, and that Edward's official father was fighting the French at Pontoise near Paris, while Edward's mother, Lady Cicely Neville, was having an affair with Blaybourne.

I've read about Edward IV's possible illegitimacy before, but it actually doesn't make that much of a difference in terms of succession. Henry VII didn't base his claim on his wife's kingly father (Edward IV) or even, really, his own shaky claim, but through "right of conquest." Now, in reality, his marriage to the Yorkist heiress (following her brothers' deaths) was politically sound, but he very consciously downplayed her "claim" to the throne. So, even if her father wasn't really supposed to be king, Elizabeth II is still queen due to her Tudor descent.