Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:36 AM
Space Oddity Space Oddity is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose."

An idea that I've had in my head for some time, which has refused to let go. (And I've no doubt my fans--all six of them--are pulling their hair and saying 'Another one, Space Oddity?' But I must go where my muse takes me on these matters. Sorry.) I'll open with a prologue, which is short, to the point, and will reveal just what a tiny, yet massive change has happened in this timeline...
---------------------------------------------------

PROLOGUE

“…early on September 9th, Queen Anne went into labour[1]. Despite Henry’s worries, the birth would prove easy--or as easy as any birth could be in that time--with the child delivered at five in the afternoon. Attending physicians agreed that both child and mother were in good health, much to the King’s relief. But this was hardly the only thing Henry had to celebrate. Anne had proved as good as her word. By evening, the word was spread all over London… Henry had a son…” [2]

----------------------
[1] For those wondering, yes, this is Anne Boleyn in 1533. IOTL, she went into labor on September 7th. But this isn't the POD--just (very) minor butterflies.

[2] And now we see our POD, which was--obviously--a little under nine months ago. Obviously, this will have a serious effect on England--and the world...
__________________
"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose"--It's a boy! Now in Gold!

"ASOIAF--THE KING NOBODY WANTED"--"They're dead, Jon Arryn."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:37 AM
SavoyTruffle SavoyTruffle is offline
The Natural
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southeast Asia's Poland
Posts: 1000 or more
No Elizabethan period. No Union of the Crowns, as it seems. Anne Boleyn keeps her head.

Interesting, will wait for another update.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
Is this really Eurocentrism or just someone being painfully stupid?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:40 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Maybe its from the other thread, but all I can think of is how with news this good, the bad news has to be equally serious.

And not just for no Elizabeth Tudor.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:43 AM
SavoyTruffle SavoyTruffle is offline
The Natural
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southeast Asia's Poland
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
Maybe its from the other thread, but all I can think of is how with news this good, the bad news has to be equally serious.

And not just for no Elizabeth Tudor.
Who knows, the male version of Elizabeth may prove to be as good as she. But with a son secured Mary's life is more endangered, and her father may feel more confident to use her a marital pawn.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
Is this really Eurocentrism or just someone being painfully stupid?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:50 AM
Space Oddity Space Oddity is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
Maybe its from the other thread, but all I can think of is how with news this good, the bad news has to be equally serious.

And not just for no Elizabeth Tudor.
While I might be tipping my hand a bit, allow me to state--there will be an Elizabeth Tudor. She won't be OUR Elizabeth Tudor, exactly--but simply put, there's no way that Henry and Anne are going to name their first daughter anything else.
__________________
"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose"--It's a boy! Now in Gold!

"ASOIAF--THE KING NOBODY WANTED"--"They're dead, Jon Arryn."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:52 AM
SavoyTruffle SavoyTruffle is offline
The Natural
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southeast Asia's Poland
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Oddity View Post
While I might be tipping my hand a bit, allow me to state--there will be an Elizabeth Tudor. She won't be OUR Elizabeth Tudor, exactly--but simply put, there's no way that Henry and Anne are going to name their first daughter anything else.
Ha, so Anne Boleyn, having produced a son, keeps her head and lives to have more than one child.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
Is this really Eurocentrism or just someone being painfully stupid?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:59 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Oddity View Post
While I might be tipping my hand a bit, allow me to state--there will be an Elizabeth Tudor. She won't be OUR Elizabeth Tudor, exactly--but simply put, there's no way that Henry and Anne are going to name their first daughter anything else.
There's a difference between a daughter of Anne and Henry who is named Elizabeth, and the woman who is...

Okay, I'll admit it. Elizabeth is like Galadriel-lite to me. I have a serious case of hero-adoration for her.

Not worship, and I know she had her faults, but she was a wonderful woman.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old June 4th, 2011, 04:59 AM
Space Oddity Space Oddity is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Having produced a more-or-less incontrovertible heir strengthens her hand immeasurably. And as for another child--IOTL, Anne and Henry were married for three years. During this time, she had (at least) three pregnancies--two of which ended in miscarriages.

There are going to be more kids.
__________________
"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose"--It's a boy! Now in Gold!

"ASOIAF--THE KING NOBODY WANTED"--"They're dead, Jon Arryn."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:18 AM
DrakeRlugia DrakeRlugia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to DrakeRlugia Send a message via MSN to DrakeRlugia
There is some discussion that Anne Boleyn was Rheus Negative, meaning her body would reject all Rheus Positive babies following the first pregnancy. Hence the reason for all her miscarriages after Elizabeth. This would only occur though, if Henry was Rheus Positive. We don't know if he was, or if she was even Rheus Negative. Stress was probably the likely reason: she was being badgered to produce a son, and I think even in the comfortable state which a queen would possess, such stress could induce a miscarriage. Anne Boleyn was a daughter of the aristocracy, but not of royalty. Hence she wasn't really prepped for that role. So I could totally see stress being the huge reason she miscarried. Here, she'll certainly carry more children to term. I could see them having 2-3 more children.

Even with a son, is it possible Henry might still tire of her? She was pretty meddlesome in politics. Given her pro-French attitudes, we could see Mary married off to one of François Ier's sons. His ambassadors were pressing for it IOTL, and Anne considered her a rival. I dunno, though. Henry was pretty lazy regarding his daughter's martial states (both of them, although more so Mary than Elizabeth, as Elizabeth was so much younger). Catherine still living when this son is born is also quite interesting. Edward VI was disputably legitimate because both Anne and Catherine were dead. Many are going to see this son as illegitimate, and Mary still the legitimate successor. Hence Mary may not marry after all. It would give a foreign crown too much leverage to attempt to conquer England.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:23 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Wouldn't a daughter of the aristocracy marrying a nonroyal still have been expected to give her husband a son and heir, though?

Not trying to argue, just seeking out how there's a difference.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:30 AM
Space Oddity Space Oddity is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Extra pressure. As Anne knew, producing a son and heir was a life or death matter in her situation. (Hell--the second miscarriage--a boy, by the way--happened after Henry had his jousting accident. Yep, that thing caused a lot of trouble.)

And to answer your queries, DrakeRluga--I know about the Rheus thesis, and actually have my own suspicions about Henry, but I'm going to ignore them for this TL, as they'd stop it dead in its track, and are completely speculative to boot.

As for Mary--you've largely stumbled on the problem--keeping her around court is dangerous. But getting rid of her is not necessarily a viable solution either.
__________________
"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose"--It's a boy! Now in Gold!

"ASOIAF--THE KING NOBODY WANTED"--"They're dead, Jon Arryn."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:33 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Oddity View Post
Extra pressure. As Anne knew, producing a son and heir was a life or death matter in her situation. (Hell--the second miscarriage--a boy, by the way--happened after Henry had his jousting accident. Yep, that thing caused a lot of trouble.)
That would presumably be the case of marriage to Henry, personally, rather than if say his brother was involved (assuming Arthur wasn't nearly as big a prat - pun not intended).

That is, Henry was what made if life and death, not normal royalty rules.

At least, I've never heard of it being normal to threaten one's wife with the block for not producing lots of sons.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:36 AM
DrakeRlugia DrakeRlugia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to DrakeRlugia Send a message via MSN to DrakeRlugia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
Wouldn't a daughter of the aristocracy marrying a nonroyal still have been expected to give her husband a son and heir, though?

Not trying to argue, just seeking out how there's a difference.
Yes, but a royal daughter is born and bred and raised from birth in that world, and often knows how to deal with it. It's hard to explain, but it's like being thrust into a super demanding role. I guess a good comparison would be the present Japanese Crown Princess. She's a commoner, and once she married into the Imperial Family had to learn all the etiquette, and some posit she suffers from depression because of the position. I know it's not quite the same, as they are different cultures. But essentially Anne was placed into a role she didn't quite know how to maneuver. Anne didn't know how to temper herself around Henry. She possessed qualities he valued in a mistress, but not a wife.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:41 AM
DrakeRlugia DrakeRlugia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to DrakeRlugia Send a message via MSN to DrakeRlugia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Oddity View Post
Extra pressure. As Anne knew, producing a son and heir was a life or death matter in her situation. (Hell--the second miscarriage--a boy, by the way--happened after Henry had his jousting accident. Yep, that thing caused a lot of trouble.)

And to answer your queries, DrakeRluga--I know about the Rheus thesis, and actually have my own suspicions about Henry, but I'm going to ignore them for this TL, as they'd stop it dead in its track, and are completely speculative to boot.

As for Mary--you've largely stumbled on the problem--keeping her around court is dangerous. But getting rid of her is not necessarily a viable solution either.
Yeah, I don't think the Rheus thesis is likely, myself. Stress seems much more likely.

As for Mary, she was never at court in the time of Anne Boleyn. She had been sent away to Ludlow in the 1520s, I believe. Then once Elizabeth was born was put into her household, ostensibly to serve Elizabeth. It was Jane who brought her back. Mary would probably remain at Ludlow or some country estate. Anne certainly hated her and wanted her gone, but marriage might not be possible. Elizabeth was betrothed to the Duke of Angoulême in 1534-35, but the French was still sounding out Henry to consider a marriage between Orléans and Mary. They didn't care much about Elizabeth, even though she was the legitimate princess at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:51 AM
Space Oddity Space Oddity is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
That would presumably be the case of marriage to Henry, personally, rather than if say his brother was involved (assuming Arthur wasn't nearly as big a prat - pun not intended).

That is, Henry was what made if life and death, not normal royalty rules.

At least, I've never heard of it being normal to threaten one's wife with the block for not producing lots of sons.
Well, here's the thing--kings don't usually marry women who are closet Protestants who convince them to split with the Pope so they can make the divorce legal. Anne was in an unprecedented position, and one where if the King decided to get rid of her--well, he could do it. From the moment dear little Elizabeth rolled out instead of the anticipated son, the pressure just racheted up--and it got worse with each miscarriage.

Hell, no wonder she handled her execution so well. In some ways, it might have been a relief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakeRlugia View Post
As for Mary, she was never at court in the time of Anne Boleyn. She had been sent away to Ludlow in the 1520s, I believe. Then once Elizabeth was born was put into her household, ostensibly to serve Elizabeth. It was Jane who brought her back. Mary would probably remain at Ludlow or some country estate. Anne certainly hated her and wanted her gone, but marriage might not be possible. Elizabeth was betrothed to the Duke of Angoulême in 1534-35, but the French was still sounding out Henry to consider a marriage between Orléans and Mary. They didn't care much about Elizabeth, even though she was the legitimate princess at the time.
Slip of the tongue on my part. I was thinking more on the fact that Mary, wherever you stick her in England, is going to wind up a lightning rod for discontented Catholics. But if you marry her out--she's the perfect pretext for an invasion...

(Suffice it to say--no way in hell are they going to let her marry a Hapsburg. Especially "heir to all the best bits" Philip...)
__________________
"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose"--It's a boy! Now in Gold!

"ASOIAF--THE KING NOBODY WANTED"--"They're dead, Jon Arryn."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:56 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Oddity View Post
Well, here's the thing--kings don't usually marry women who are closet Protestants who convince them to split with the Pope so they can make the divorce legal. Anne was in an unprecedented position, and one where if the King decided to get rid of her--well, he could do it. From the moment dear little Elizabeth rolled out instead of the anticipated son, the pressure just racheted up--and it got worse with each miscarriage.

Hell, no wonder she handled her execution so well. In some ways, it might have been a relief.
Yeah. And the marriage going from infatuation to...what usually happens (particularly when marrying someone like Henry) could not have helped in the least. Henry was not a supportive husband.

That, unfortunately for Anne, is probably not changing. Its too deeply rooted in his (lack of) character.

It might be tempered by her producing a son, but some men are just not cut out to be devoted spouses.

With or without committing adultery, some men stand by their wives, and some don't.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 4th, 2011, 05:58 AM
DrakeRlugia DrakeRlugia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to DrakeRlugia Send a message via MSN to DrakeRlugia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Oddity View Post
Slip of the tongue on my part. I was thinking more on the fact that Mary, wherever you stick her in England, is going to wind up a lightning rod for discontented Catholics. But if you marry her out--she's the perfect pretext for an invasion...

(Suffice it to say--no way in hell are they going to let her marry a Hapsburg. Especially "heir to all the best bits" Philip...)
Yep... it's a difficult position. England will probably remain in the pro-French camp for awhile longer, as Anne was their consistent champion, and in the 1530s Spain was championing the rights of Catherine of Aragon. Any reappoachment is quite unlikely, so any marriage for Mary would be in the French camp. One sure way to neuter her would be marry her to a Protestant ally who accepts Henry's right over the church of England... but even many Protestants opposed him getting a divorce on flimsy grounds. Not to mention such a marriage would be dysfunctional from the start.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old June 4th, 2011, 10:11 AM
SavoyTruffle SavoyTruffle is offline
The Natural
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southeast Asia's Poland
Posts: 1000 or more
England and France are gonna be geopolitically closer as long as the Habsburgs remain dominant over Europe.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
Is this really Eurocentrism or just someone being painfully stupid?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old June 4th, 2011, 12:21 PM
VictorLaszlo VictorLaszlo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CCAA
Posts: 982
One of Anne Boleyns problems would still be her jealous temper. Girls who were raised to marry princes were tought to accept that it was not only accepted for their husbands to have mistresses, it was even expected from them (if just to show that one woman was not enough for their inexhaustible (physical and thus military and political) potence). But, being unprepared in this aspect, Anne behaved rather like a hysterical 1950s-american-soap-opera-wife-character when learning that Henry had taken a new mistress during her pragnancy than silently accepting it as Queen Catherine and so many other queens had done before and later.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old June 4th, 2011, 02:58 PM
Darth_Kiryan Darth_Kiryan is offline
The Númenorean Sith
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: AUS
Posts: 1000 or more
Wouldn't the most major problem be that it would be hard to secure a marriage for their son being that they are unable to marry within the traditional catholic hierarchy?

AN yes, i know that there are the various German princes....but still, Henry/England would still be isolated at for a while.
__________________
"The choices of one shape the futures of all"

"Even the smallest decision can change the course of the future and enforce radical change"

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.