AHC A Continued Tudor Dynasty

[American Empire]

The Tudor Dynasty has to continue to the modern day with a POD after 1553. How would this come about? Discuss!

[Emperor Constantine]

Ah the Tudor Dynasty, there's soooo many possibilities. Lets see
1. Arthur, Prince of Wales survives and has children with Catherine of Aragon.
2. Arthur, Prince of Wales leaved Cathrine of Aragon pregnant with a son.
3. One of the Son's of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.
4. Anne Boleyn has a son
5. Henry VIII has a second son with : Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, or Catherine Parr ( to succeed Edward VI)
6. Edward VI lives and has children.
7.Mary I doesn't get cancer and has a child
8. Elizabeth I marries and has a child.
There's probably more but those are all the one's I can think of !!

[Yorel]

Originally Posted by Emperor Constantine

1. Arthur, Prince of Wales survives and has children with Catherine of Aragon.
2. Arthur, Prince of Wales leaved Cathrine of Aragon pregnant with a son.
3. One of the Son's of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.
4. Anne Boleyn has a son
5. Henry VIII has a second son with : Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, or Catherine Parr ( to succeed Edward VI)
6. Edward VI lives and has children.

A few other scenarios to add to the list:
-Henry VII and Elizabeth of York have another surviving son beside Arthur and Henry.
-Henry VII has one (or more) younger "full" (i.e. same father & mother) brothers. Probably the unlikiest POD to work on as I think chances are very small.
-Henry FitzRoy lives and has children. He's a bastard but Henry VIII had planned to make him his successor at one point if I'm not wrong...

Originally Posted by Emperor Constantine

7.Mary I doesn't get cancer and has a child
8. Elizabeth I marries and has a child.

Technically, these two scenarios would actually put an end to the Tudor dynasty after the death of either Mary or Elizabeth. The children of a queen were generally of her husband's family: think, for example, how the children of Victoria (who was from the House of Hannover) became members of the House of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha (Albert's family). Thus, while Mary or Elizabeth's children would definitely have Tudor blood, they wouldn't be Tudors.

[Emperor Constantine]

Originally Posted by Yorel

A few other scenarios to add to the list:
-Henry VII and Elizabeth of York have another surviving son beside Arthur and Henry.
-Henry VII has one (or more) younger "full" (i.e. same father & mother) brothers. Probably the unlikiest POD to work on as I think chances are very small.
-Henry FitzRoy lives and has children. He's a bastard but Henry VIII had planned to make him his successor at one point if I'm not wrong...

Technically, these two scenarios would actually put an end to the Tudor dynasty after the death of either Mary or Elizabeth. The children of a queen were generally of her husband's family: think, for example, how the children of Victoria (who was from the House of Hannover) became members of the House of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha (Albert's family). Thus, while Mary or Elizabeth's children would definitely have Tudor blood, they wouldn't be Tudors.

I was thinking of something similar to Queen Elizabeth II. The royal house will still be called Windsor when she dies, even though the name should change to her husbands house, I can't remember the name. England wouldn't want their Royal house to have a foreign name, after all they were notoriously xenophobic.

[stateless_englishman]

Originally Posted by Yorel

A few other scenarios to add to the list:
-Henry VII and Elizabeth of York have another surviving son beside Arthur and Henry.

Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset. Lived for a year and died of unknown causes. Or Edward Tudor, who we really don't know much about. He would either have been between Arthur and Henry, or their youngest child (assuming that he actually existed, and isn't just historians getting confused by Edmund Tudor).

Also, Jane Seymour could have survived childbirth and had more sons.

[Velasco]

You can't get Tudors through the female lines, so Mary, Elizabeth, Jane Seymour or any of her sisters are all out.

Likewise Henry Fitzroy's heirs would be FitzRoys, not Tudors.

- You could have Jasper Tudor and his wife having surviving issue. They both had children OTL, but apparently none that survived.

- Henry VII remarries. OTL he courted the hands of Joanna La Loca and then Joanna of Naples, but neither set of negotiations came to anything.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Velasco

You could have Jasper Tudor and his wife having surviving issue. They both had children OTL, but apparently none that survived.

Jasper didn't really have any claim on the throne, though: Henry's best claims were through his wife and through his mother.

[stateless_englishman]

Originally Posted by Velasco

- You could have Jasper Tudor and his wife having surviving issue. They both had children OTL, but apparently none that survived.

But Jasper Tudor's line is not in the succession (or at least, a long way down - I suppose Catherine of Valois was in the line of succession herself, thanks to the intertwined families of Europe), so they would need to marry their cousins in order to maintain the dynasty on the throne - some Jasper-line Tudor could marry Mary, Queen of Scots, for example. Though I suppose that the succession can be changed to nominate whoever you like, as Henry VIII tried to do at times.

[Velasco]

Originally Posted by stateless_englishman

But Jasper Tudor's line is not in the succession (or at least, a long way down - I suppose Catherine of Valois was in the line of succession herself, thanks to the intertwined families of Europe), so they would need to marry their cousins in order to maintain the dynasty on the throne - some Jasper-line Tudor could marry Mary, Queen of Scots, for example. Though I suppose that the succession can be changed to nominate whoever you like, as Henry VIII tried to do at times.

True. I mean, the dynasty would survive, just not on the throne

[American Empire]

I kind of meant after 1553 not before. Sorry. I was half a sleep.

[usertron2020]

For the Tudors to survive on the throne, you would need a POD very far back in time. I don't know the history of this, for all I know it goes back to the Dark Ages. But the Tudor Dynasty was already clearly dying out due to inbreeding by the time of even the Wars of the Roses. So many men from Henry V's time and later dying without issue, without even conception.

Without embracing exogamy, it was already too late for the Tudors.

As to Henry's marriages? None produced a long surviving son, and every wife after Jane Seymour was either infertile or Henry was already by this time shooting blanks.

[custos sophiae]

Originally Posted by Velasco

You can't get Tudors through the female lines, so Mary, Elizabeth, Jane Seymour or any of her sisters are all out.

You could have one of them marry a male Tudor. E.g, Mary, OTL's Queen of Scots, marries a male-line grandson of Jasper Tudor, and her son, James Tudor, inherits from Elizabeth I.

[DrakeRlugia]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

For the Tudors to survive on the throne, you would need a POD very far back in time. I don't know the history of this, for all I know it goes back to the Dark Ages. But the Tudor Dynasty was already clearly dying out due to inbreeding by the time of even the Wars of the Roses. So many men from Henry V's time and later dying without issue, without even conception.

Without embracing exogamy, it was already too late for the Tudors.

As to Henry's marriages? None produced a long surviving son, and every wife after Jane Seymour was either infertile or Henry was already by this time shooting blanks.

It was all him. He got fat and well... yeah, shot blanks. There's a reason he had no more kids after Jane Seymour. She came soon after his accident before he got rid of Anne, but otherwise, poor guy was done.

If you want more Tudors, in 1553, then... well they won't be Tudors. Men took their fathers dynastical name. Elizabeth II and her kids is a modern invention and Philip was pissed about it. Mary could have kids with Philip (sorry, unlikely -- she was already dying when she became Queen). Or Liz marries (again, unlikely. Why? She knew it was her most powerful weapon against her foreign enemies--threaten them with a marriage they don't want). I guess post 1553, make her go ahead with Dudley. He's just a noble, they may keep the Tudor name. But he wasn't liked as a match...

[Bee]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

For the Tudors to survive on the throne, you would need a POD very far back in time. I don't know the history of this, for all I know it goes back to the Dark Ages. But the Tudor Dynasty was already clearly dying out due to inbreeding by the time of even the Wars of the Roses. So many men from Henry V's time and later dying without issue, without even conception.

This is overstating the case -- Margaret Tudor's descendants still exist and one of them is on the throne today. No reason that one of her brothers' lines couldn't also have continued.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Bee

This is overstating the case -- Margaret Tudor's descendants still exist and one of them is on the throne today. No reason that one of her brothers' lines couldn't also have continued.

The reason is that when inbreeding and sterility kick in, it hits the men before the women. So you have women of a royal line still producing children while the men have no offspring of their own. So the line still dies out. If that is how the Salic Law works.

[mcdnab]

Number of reasons for this - less xenophobic than a reaction to two world wars that had lead to anti-german feeling in much of Britain that was still prevalent in the early 1950s.

It was further confused by the debate about what Prince Philip's name actually was.

He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and as such didn't require a surname - the Danish Royal House was that of Oldenburg (though they did not have a surname as such) - before his accession to the Danish Throne Christian IX (Philip's great grandfather) was a prince of Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburg (a junior branch of the Danish royal house so technically Oldenburg).

He chose when he became a naturalised British subject to use the anglicised version of his mother's family (she was born Princess Alice of Battenburg) hence Mountbatten.

The story goes that shortly after the accession of Queen Elizabeth II - Louis Mountbatten made an unfortunate comment that was related to Queen Mary she feeling strongly about her husband's legacy (he'd created the House of Windsor to replace the germanic Saxe Coburg Gotha during the First World War) raised the matter with Churchill who persuaded the Queen to issue letters patent confirming that her descendents would continue to be The House of Windsor (she later issued sep patents confirming that those of her descendants requiring a surname ie not a Prince or Princess of GB etc would use Mountbatten-Windsor)

So far no-one alive actually requires a surname as all her male-line grandchildren are technically Prince or Princess of GB etc - Prince Edward and has wife have chosen to not allow their children to use the royal styles they are legally entitled to do - hence their children use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

It is not unusual - technically the House of Romanov is that Holstein Gottorp given that Peter III was a matrilineal descendant of Peter the Great yet the familly continued to use Romanov.

Originally Posted by Emperor Constantine

I was thinking of something similar to Queen Elizabeth II. The royal house will still be called Windsor when she dies, even though the name should change to her husbands house, I can't remember the name. England wouldn't want their Royal house to have a foreign name, after all they were notoriously xenophobic.

[mcdnab]

Options depend on whether you want a surviving reformation or not.

One possibility is the survival of Edmund Tudor Duke of Somerset (younger son of Henry VII) born in 1499 (he died at 15months in OTL) - if he lives and marries with children it is quite likely that he will be a strong figure at the Tudor court of Henry VIII.

If you want the reformation then it should be fairly simple to have Anne Boleyn carry her stillborn 1536 pregnancy to term.

Or have Edward VI live longer and marry to produce an heir.

Or if less concerned with England remaining Catholic at least in the short term have Henry Duke of Cornwall born in 1511 live.

Of have Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard or Catherine Parr provide the King with a Duke of York although given Henry's heatlh in later years that might be a stretch.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by mcdnab

Of have Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard or Catherine Parr provide the King with a Duke of York although given Henry's heatlh in later years that might be a stretch.

Alternatively, some stud does the honours and is not found out. Admittedly Anne of Cleves would be not a lightly candidate here. However, if Catherine Howard got pregnant by Thomas Culpeper or Francis Dereham without any scandal getting out then Henry would acknowledge the son as his own.

Of course, if there were scandal later, then Henry Junior's patrimony could come under question. The problem here is that any magnate or churchman has is do you back a possible male heir or do you support a woman on the throne?