Henry VIII dies in a jousting accident

While rereading Allison Weir's Court of Henry VIII for reference for a course that I'm in the midst of taking, I came across something rather interesting that I'd since forgotten: on 10 March 1524, Henry VIII suffered an accident while jousting with Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, a contemporary account of which can be found here. Apparently the king had recently received some new armour and wished to test it out. Henry, however, forgot to lower his visor and was struck in the head by Suffolk. So, WI things had gone far worse than this instead? Perhaps the king receives a mortal head wound and dies of septicaemia a few days later à la Henri II of France?

Obviously the effects of this are going to be massive. Just off the top of my head, I can see Henry VIII absolving Suffolk on his deathbed (just as Henri II did in OTL with Gabriel Montgomery), considering the close relationship between the two, but Suffolk would probably retire to his estates in disgrace. Mary will be proclaimed queen immediately, with Katherine of Aragon as regent, though perhaps a regency council will also be set up to advise her, headed by Cardinal Wolsey? I also would imagine that Katherine would ensure that Mary weds Charles V at some point (in fact, the two may have been betrothed at that time, if memory serves), and Charles isn't going to pass up the chance to secure England...

So, what does everyone think? I'm particularly curious as to what a Habsburg England would look like in this scenario?

The Queen hated Cardinal Wolsey for his pro-French stand (they payed him) and he hated her right back, Catharine of Aragon was the daughter of a ruling Queen, and knew how to kick ass and take names, the only time Henry VIII ever signed over his Kingly powers to any one, to wage war in France he famously captured the Duke of Longueville and sent him to England, Catharine sent the King the bloody coat of the King of Scotland who had died in battle against her (she had to be talked out of sending his head) I pity any one who would try to butt heads with a Queen Regent Catharine, as for Queen Mary, much of what she was like as queen was shaped by her parents divorce, growing up differently likely makes her a better queen, one more wedded to the idea of ruling on her own, as her Grandmother (and in TTL mother) did

But would she be allowed to grow up with those notions?

Also, Isabella is hardly an example of "ruling on her own".

I have my doubts on a Habsburg marriage - England's powers-that-be don't want England to be absorbed by someone else's empire.

Also, Mary is sixteen years Charles's junior. Quite an age gap - not impossible for a second marriage, but unlikely for his first.

Elfwine said:

But would she be allowed to grow up with those notions?

Also, Isabella is hardly an example of "ruling on her own".

Click to expand...

no doubt she would take in "a queen needs a king" and would marry but unlikely say Mary Queen of Scots she'd grow up seeing a woman in control

as for a Habsburg, thats what Catharine wanted and tried for in OTL, and was very angry when ever Mary seemed lined up for a French marriage, and in OTL Mary I did her best to fulfill her late mother's wishes with her marriage to Philip II

though, she might marry Ferdinand, or Maximilian II to help France relax and keep England free.

black angel said:

no doubt she would take in "a queen needs a king" and would marry but unlikely say Mary Queen of Scots she'd grow up seeing a woman in control

Click to expand...

Show of hands. Who thinks the mighty lords of England are going to accept Catherine (a woman and a foreigner) as indisputed regent?

Regardless of what Henry VIII's will says.

as for a Habsburg, thats what Catharine wanted and tried for in OTL, and was very angry when ever Mary seemed lined up for a French marriage, and in OTL Mary I did her best to fulfill her late mother's wishes with her marriage to Philip II

though, she might marry Ferdinand, or Maximilian II to help France relax and keep England free.

Click to expand...

And Catherine's wishes are not the be all, end all of this.

Mary was born in 1516, so who is of marriage age in the 1530s?

Elfwine said:

I have my doubts on a Habsburg marriage - England's powers-that-be don't want England to be absorbed by someone else's empire.

Also, Mary is sixteen years Charles's junior. Quite an age gap - not impossible for a second marriage, but unlikely for his first.

Click to expand...

This is true, but the circumstances are rather extenuating here, since England doesn't really want a female ruler either for that matter. Mary and Charles V were betrothed for some time in OTL and especially in this case, Charles won't want to pass up such a prize as England, since it is beneficial for him to surround Francis I as much as possible (his OTL policy). Since Ferdinand already had issue, there also wasn't as great of pressure for Charles to wed immediately. The marriage treaty will probably include provisions similar to that of Mary and Philip in OTL, namely that England (and possibly the Low Countries) will be the inheritance of the second son of their union and that Charles will be prohibited from appointing non-Englishmen to important offices and benefices there.

Elfwine said:

Show of hands. Who thinks the mighty lords of England are going to accept Catherine (a woman and a foreigner) as indisputed regent?

Regardless of what Henry VIII's will says.



And Catherine's wishes are not the be all, end all of this.

Mary was born in 1516, so who is of marriage age in the 1530s?

Click to expand...

I think Reginald Pole marriage will be perfect for her since it unites the Yorkists and the Tudors.

kasumigenx said:

I think Reginald Pole marriage will be perfect for her since it unites the Yorkists and the Tudors.

Click to expand...

Um, her grandfather already did unite the Yorkists and Tudors.

Why marry Pole?



Endymion: When were they betrothed? Not arguing, as my knowledge is incomplete, just trying to pull together information for an informed opinion.

Elfwine said:

Show of hands. Who thinks the mighty lords of England are going to accept Catherine (a woman and a foreigner) as indisputed regent?

Regardless of what Henry VIII's will says.



And Catherine's wishes are not the be all, end all of this.

Mary was born in 1516, so who is of marriage age in the 1530s?

Click to expand...

as I pointed out she's tough, she'd fight for it, Scotland in the 1550s took a woman and a foreigner as regent, and France in 1560s-1580s and do they have the nerve for another bloody civil war? I doubt it the House of Tudor did well in crushing whatever was left of the Yorkists, so who would take the regency from the Queen? not Cardinal Wolsey, the son of a butcher being King in England? no the nobles hated him for getting as far above his place, they wouldn't put him farther still, the Queen is Royal better than a butcher's boy, maybe the Duke of Buckingham? I don't think him politically skilled enough and fear that he'd pull a Richard III would keep him away, and again I have no doubt the Queen would fight for it

the French Princes were her age (the Dauphin was 2 years younger, the future Henry II 3 years younger, Charles Duke of Orléans 6 years younger) her mother's family is an issue, there was a try to marry her to Charles V, though he was 22 to her 6 and he married in OTL when she was 10, and his sons were born shortly there after, his brother Ferdinand was 3 years younger than Charles, and married in 1521 and his son Maximilian II was born 1527 and Ferdinand in 1529, maybe a ruling Queen would marry a younger man/boy, so it'd seem to the English people (and in reality) this prince would not dominate the Queen

black angel said:

as I pointed out she's tough, she'd fight for it, Scotland in the 1550s took a woman and a foreigner as regent, and France in 1560s-1580s and do they have the nerve for another bloody civil war?

Click to expand...

And she can fight for it all she likes, doesn't mean she'll get it.

Scotland and France aren't England. And a bloody civil war? From what?

I doubt it the House of Tudor did well in crushing whatever was left of the Yorkists, so who would take the regency from the Queen? not Cardinal Wolsey, the son of a butcher being King in England? no the nobles hated him for getting as far above his place, they wouldn't put him farther still, the Queen is Royal better than a butcher's boy, maybe the Duke of Buckingham? I don't think him politically skilled enough and fear that he'd pull a Richard III would keep him away, and again I have no doubt the Queen would fight for it

Click to expand...

And what the hell does her fighting for it have to do with whether or not she's going to get it? Who is going to support her?

Catherine was loved, but that doesn't mean people are going to want her as regent over a qualified and highborn male.

There are other candidates than Buckingham and Wosley - for instance, Norfolk - and it's not necessarily going to be a solo regency (past regencies weren't).

I respect Catherine, but I don't see where you're getting the idea she has such a good chance of having any control let alone complete control.

Elfwine said:

And she can fight for it all she likes, doesn't mean she'll get it.

Scotland and France aren't England. And a bloody civil war? From what?



And what the hell does her fighting for it have to do with whether or not she's going to get it? Who is going to support her?

There are other candidates than Buckingham and Wosley - for instance, Norfolk - and it's not necessarily going to be a solo regency.

I respect Catherine, but I don't see where you're getting the idea she has such a good chance of having any control.

Click to expand...

I think she'd get it because the nobility (and public) were terrified of Civil War, in those years after the War of the Roses it was always on every one's mind, and scared the ever loving shit out of them, so if Henry VIII says it's Catherine's, than most will fall in, also on the woman count Henry's own reign started with a female regent, his Grandmother Margaret Beaufort, her death cut it short but no one tried to stop her regency and while some might have thought it would be a short regency it could have lasted till Henry was 21 or as old as 25, and Margaret saw herself as a Queen (always signed her name as Margaret Rex, and walked ahead of her daughter-in-law the Queen) so the idea of female regency isn't that out there for England, and again Catherine was regent while Henry was at war in France and lead the nation in war (personally) against Scotland, no doubt her victory and the death of James IV would be brought up a lot when the regency starts, the nobles have taken orders from her as Monarch before, and will do so again

Elfwine said:

Um, her grandfather already did unite the Yorkists and Tudors.

Why marry Pole?



Endymion: When were they betrothed? Not arguing, as my knowledge is incomplete, just trying to pull together information for an informed opinion.

Click to expand...

but they still have a claim to the English throne and it would eliminate one powerful rival claimant to the English throne.

kasumigenx said:

but they still have a claim to the English throne and it would eliminate one powerful rival claimant to the English throne.

Click to expand...

why not just do what Henry VIII did, just eliminate the Poles?

black angel said:

I think she'd get it because the nobility (and public) were terrified of Civil War, in those years after the War of the Roses it was always on every one's mind, and scared the ever loving shit out of them, so if Henry VIII says it's Catherine's, than most will fall in

Click to expand...

"The accounts of foreign visitors to England give the impression that the country appeared settled and prosperous in the second half of the fifteen century, not torn by war. The architecture of the period reflects a trend of growing prosperity rather than a need to build defensively. Fortifications were no longer added as a matter of course to castles and manor houses, and moats and crenellations had become merely ornamental. Neither does the literature of the age reflect a preoccupation with the evils of civil war. This was because most of the population did not regard the Wars of the Roses as a civil war as such, but as a dispute between noble factions."

- Allison Weir, The Wars of the Roses

So how exactly is it "always on everyone's mind" when all signs indicate quite the opposite?

, also on the woman count Henry's own reign started with a female regent, his Grandmother Margaret Beaufort, her death cut it short but no one tried to stop her regency and while some might have thought it would be a short regency it could have lasted till Henry was 21 or as old as 25, and Margaret saw herself as a Queen (always signed her name as Margaret Rex, and walked ahead of her daughter-in-law the Queen) so the idea of female regency isn't that out there for England, and again Catherine was regent while Henry was at war in France and lead the nation in war (personally) against Scotland, no doubt her victory and the death of James IV would be brought up a lot when the regency starts, the nobles have taken orders from her as Monarch before, and will do so again

Click to expand...

Why does an eighteen year old have a regent?

No, the nobles have taken orders from her in Henry's name, which is not the same thing. And "personally lead"?

Catherine was far away from the fighting vs. Scotland.

Elfwine said:

:

Why does an eighteen year old have a regent?

No, the nobles have taken orders from her in Henry's name, which is not the same thing. And "personally lead"?

Catherine was far away from the fighting vs. Scotland.

Click to expand...

because Maggy wanted to be Queen really really really badly also he was 17 and she died just after his 18th birthday, though that birthday didn't trigger her stepping down

no Catherine was at the Battle of Flodden, not in the fighting itself but at the battlefield in full armor and spoke to the troops before hand, she went north

and she was Regent so she wasn't just passing notes from Henry, they trusted her to rule while the King was away, even maybe for a long time should he like Richard I be made a hostage,

also why if they're willing to take orders from her in Henry's name why not in Mary's?

black angel said:

because Maggy wanted to be Queen really really really badly also he was 17 and she died just after his 18th birthday, though that birthday didn't trigger her stepping down

Click to expand...

"I want!" =/= I get.

"AS Princess of Wales, Katherine ranked second lady at court after the Queen, taking precedence even over the King's mother, the formidable Lady Margaret Beaufort, whose word was law on domestic matters until her death in June 1509."

No mention of her having formal authority as such, however.

Acknowledged - Henry is a few months short of eighteen.

Do you acknowledge that the Wars of the Roses are not on everyone's mind?

no Catherine was at the Battle of Flodden, not in the fighting itself but at the battlefield in full armor and spoke to the troops before hand, she went north

and she was Regent so she wasn't just passing notes from Henry, they trusted her to rule while the King was away, even maybe for a long time should he like Richard I be made a hostage

Click to expand...

Catherine, according to Weir, went to Buckingham to speak to the reserv forces - not at Flodden.

Also according to Weir: "In Dover Castle, he formally invested his wife with the regency, and commanded the Archbishop of Canterbury and the seventy-year old veteran Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, to act as her advisers."

That sounds less like "full authority" and more "named to act in my stead" and even that only to a point, depending on how Surrey and the Archbishop act.

Maybe, just maybe, you should cite some sources for your presentation of events.

also why if they're willing to take orders from her in Henry's name why not in Mary's?

Click to expand...

The difference between an adult male ruler coming home to punish those who defy him and a child (about eight as of her father's death TTL) who has no power of her own.

Elfwine said:

"I want!" =/= I get.

"AS Princess of Wales, Katherine ranked second lady at court after the Queen, taking precedence even over the King's mother, the formidable Lady Margaret Beaufort, whose word was law on domestic matters until her death in June 1509."

No mention of her having formal authority as such, however.

Acknowledged - Henry is a few months short of eighteen.

Do you acknowledge that the Wars of the Roses are not on everyone's mind?



Catherine, according to Weir, went to Buckingham to speak to the reserv forces - not at Flodden.

Also according to Weir: "In Dover Castle, he formally invested his wife with the regency, and commanded the Archbishop of Canterbury and the seventy-year old veteran Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, to act as her advisers."

That sounds less like "full authority" and more "named to act in my stead" and even that only to a point, depending on how Surrey and the Archbishop act.

Maybe, just maybe, you should cite some sources for your presentation of events.

Click to expand...

you're just citing one book, over and over, you get thats one reading of this right? also the hostile attitude is not needed, I can note that I have seen written or said by leading men about their worries and fears of civil war (Henry VIII most of all) Lady Margaret was very much the formal regent, any ways sorry on the Flodden, got a little mixed up, any ways "named to act in my stead" is what a regent is

you have yet to give a reason why you think she wouldn't be regent, past the rather lame "she's a lady" and "she's not English" as I've pointed out A) England had at lest two female regents in living memory by 1524 and B) The Queen had been one of the those regents

you can argue that she wouldn't be able to be regent unlimited, that some council would be set up or formal "advisors" appointed, history does stand with you there, if you can maybe point out to me powerful enemies who could stand against her or reason you think she'd be unacceptable in 1524 when she wasn't in 1513

What about Richard de la Pole: he seems like an interesting candidate.

Perhaps the French would invade to put this guy on the throne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole

black angel said:

you're just citing one book, over and over, you get thats one reading of this right? also the hostile attitude is not needed, I can note that I have seen written or said by leading men about their worries and fears of civil war (Henry VIII most of all) Lady Margaret was very much the formal regent, any ways sorry on the Flodden, got a little mixed up, any ways "named to act in my stead" is what a regent is

Click to expand...

You get that you are citing nothing and offering no reason to believe your assertions except trusting that you're not just trolling?

So yes, the hostile attitude is very much needed until you actually provide some backing to your statements that suggests you know what you're talking about.

Some "leading men" including Henry VIII having such an attitude does not equal it being universal or common, even if true.

I trust Weir's research over your unsourced and unproven statements.

Elfwine said:

You get that you are citing nothing and offering no reason to believe your assertions except trusting that you're not just trolling?

Click to expand...

I don't agree with you so I'm trolling? cool off will you, I'm not getting up and digging out my books because you got a bee in your hair about this, but really, why would they agree to her in 1513 and not 1524? we have shown its not her gender, woman could be regents, clearly, her being Spanish? and the people loved the "Good Queen Catherine" she was wildly popular till she died, something some one as politically smart as her could play on