Is it possible that during Tudor times women could be bared from holding the throne altogether. I mean St Paul did say that he forbids any woman from having authority over a man and so I don't see how a woman could be head of the Church of England. Obviously they just ignored this in OTL but would it be possible for this to be used to bar women from the throne or even because of a general sense of female inferiority?
No women allowed on the English throne
- Thread starter psychic
- Start date
- Status
Rex Mundi
Banned
During Tudor times? I highly doubt it. You're going to need a POD in medieval times, most likely. And it's definitely not going to be a Church of England issue; any Anglicanism recognizable as the same as OTL Anglicanism is going to accommodate English peculiarities, not vice versa.
You can not have an introduction of the Salic Law in England after Richard II's reign and still remember who this would be dangerous for the Plantagenet Dynasty (because they descend from William the Conqueror's granddaughter and Henry I's daughter Matilda). Maybe a more likely option would be forbidden the direct rule of a woman but allow her to pass her rights to her children (and maybe to her husband)
I don't think it would be possible to do this during Tudor Times because the earliest case of Female Succession dated from the Anarchy. When Henry I died in 1135, his heir was his daughter Mathilda, the mother of the future Henry II Plantagenêt. The Barons didn't want her and they went for Stephen of Blois... who was the son of Henry I's sister Adela. Granted, in both case, none of the women mentionned got on the throne (well, Mathilda did but for such a short time it might not considered valuable enough by some legalists) so it might be argued that while women can indeed transmit the rights to the crown, they can't hold the crown themselves.
Furthermore, the Tudors themselves came from a female line technically... The claim of Henry VII was linked to his mother being Margaret Beaufort. And to cement his hold on the throne, Henry married Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV. Thus, I am unsure wether they would consider it safe or not to forbid women to suceed the English throne.
I do see one possibility of such a case: have Edward VI live longer and father several sons. We possibly get a more Radically Anglican Church and a theological interpretation (the one you mentionned with St. Paul) that brings one of Edward's male descendant to forbid women from taking the crown.
Still... The easiest way I see to forbid women from the French throne would be a succession "a la Française": have a continuous male line (preferabilly dating from William the Conqueror) that makes it so customary to have only male heirs that it becomes effective.
Furthermore, the Tudors themselves came from a female line technically... The claim of Henry VII was linked to his mother being Margaret Beaufort. And to cement his hold on the throne, Henry married Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV. Thus, I am unsure wether they would consider it safe or not to forbid women to suceed the English throne.
I do see one possibility of such a case: have Edward VI live longer and father several sons. We possibly get a more Radically Anglican Church and a theological interpretation (the one you mentionned with St. Paul) that brings one of Edward's male descendant to forbid women from taking the crown.
Still... The easiest way I see to forbid women from the French throne would be a succession "a la Française": have a continuous male line (preferabilly dating from William the Conqueror) that makes it so customary to have only male heirs that it becomes effective.
It could have led to multiple succession crises that didn't exist OTL, which might have led to more clashes between noble houses with the line of succession less staked out. One that I can think of would be after Henry VIII, who had no sons or brothers. I'm not sure who the throne would pass to under Salic law, but multiple contenders could potentially be vying for it.
But, as Yorel points out, the change from OTL would have occurred long before Henry VIII's time. Without an alternate, continuous male line England would likely be plagued by pretenders.
But, as Yorel points out, the change from OTL would have occurred long before Henry VIII's time. Without an alternate, continuous male line England would likely be plagued by pretenders.
Being bared from holding the throne does not mean being bared from passing the rights to the throne to someone.
Although most states bared women from reigning, only a few of them bared transmission of the throne through women.
In 1135, one of the bastards of Henry I could have become king of England. After all, Henry of Transtamare was only a bastard of king Alfonso XI. William the conqueror was only a bastard of duke Robert of Normandy.
I think the rights or not of transmission of the throne through women or of women to reign was not the main problem of England. The main issue was rather violence and political murder :
- the war beteween the sons of William the conqueror,
- the war of succession after Henri I's death,
- the rebellions of Henri II's sons against their father,
- the murder of Arthur Plantagenet by his uncle king John,
- the murder of Edward II,
- the murder of Richard II,
- all the overthrowings and murders of the war of the two roses,
- Henry VIII's executions of nobles seen as opponents,
- Charles I's execution.
Don't need to wonder why Shakespeare was an englishman.
Although most states bared women from reigning, only a few of them bared transmission of the throne through women.
In 1135, one of the bastards of Henry I could have become king of England. After all, Henry of Transtamare was only a bastard of king Alfonso XI. William the conqueror was only a bastard of duke Robert of Normandy.
I think the rights or not of transmission of the throne through women or of women to reign was not the main problem of England. The main issue was rather violence and political murder :
- the war beteween the sons of William the conqueror,
- the war of succession after Henri I's death,
- the rebellions of Henri II's sons against their father,
- the murder of Arthur Plantagenet by his uncle king John,
- the murder of Edward II,
- the murder of Richard II,
- all the overthrowings and murders of the war of the two roses,
- Henry VIII's executions of nobles seen as opponents,
- Charles I's execution.
Don't need to wonder why Shakespeare was an englishman.
Don't need to wonder why Shakespeare was an englishman.
Many countries had just as turbulent a transition of the throne in the same era. Being deposed by a rival claimant was an occupational hazard across all of Europe, as were noble rebellions and civil wars in general.
In Medieval times there was a de facto bar - hence Margaret Beaufort could not make a claim to the throne herself, but had to promote that of her son Henry Tudor.
There could quite easily have been one in the Tudor age. Henry VIII had two younger brothers who died in infancy. Had either of them lived and produced male heirs, it is entirely conceivable that Henry, the veritable "patron saint of male chauvinist pigs", would have made a will passing over his daughters in favour of his brother (if still alive) or nephew.
It could even have happened later. I have often suspected that, had Lady Jane Grey been Lord John Grey, Northumberland and Frances might have pulled it off in 1553.
As far as western Europe is concerned I disagree. There were much fewer depositions and executions or murders of kings in the HRE, in France, in Castilla, Aragon, Portugal, Poland, Hungary. There was a real english peculiarity on thaïs matter up to the late 17th century.
Maybe if Stephen outright wins the Anarchy, and bans women from inheriting to improve his claim?
I thought about King Stephen. I could certainly see him doing this as a way of disinheriting Matilda's descendants from the English throne.
There's a difference between banning women from inheriting and banning inheritance through the female line.
He can not. His claim is from his mother and Matilda at her father's death had already two young sons and is pregnant with a third child (who would be another son)...
Stephen can become King but he's not the first in line for the England's throne thus he can not change the rules of succession for barring from the throne people who in any case will have a claim for that throne stronger than his (He's only the son of a sister of Henry I and the future Henry II (age two at his grandfather death, with a younger brother and another who will born shortly) is the first son of Henry's daughter)
Have William Clito usurp the throne first before Stephen after the death of Henry I of England with the help of the French King of course.
This was in fact the "official" English interpretation of Salic law, and, arguably, the accepted law of England prior to the later Tudors.
The Salic Law states "But of Salic land no portion of the inheritance shall come to a woman: but the whole inheritance of the land shall come to the male sex.". Edward III interpreted this as meaning that a woman could not rule herself but could pass the right to a husband or son. That is , he emphasized the "not come to" contrasting it to "not come by" .This was the basis for Edward's claim to the throne of France (the Angevin succession - through Edward's mother Isabella).
Since the claim to the French throne was still official English policy (Henry VIII was King of England Ireland and France) , any other interpretation of the law could have been considered treasonous. (Henry didn't need much grounds for considering things treasonous!)
This was one reason why Henry VIII was so uptight about fathering a son. One of the untested questions in English law was whether the Salic Law also extended to England (which by and large followed the Saxon common law ) . There had never been a test case !
Such an interpretation would have interesting effects once Henry died. Mary would probably be OK (her husband Phillip would rule juro uxoris). But what of Elizabeth ? No husband, no throne!
Unlikely to make any difference to the Anglican church though.
Cook
Banned
The Tudor period seems to be the critical time for this, specifically when the dying Edward VI wrote his ‘Devise for the Succession’ in February 1553. Edward’s first draft named ‘Lady Jane Grey’s heir’s male’ to succeed him to the throne,but under pressure from the Duke of Northumberland he changed this to read ‘Lady Jane Grey and her heir’s male’. If Lady Jane had been married and had a son before Edward dies, he would not have needed to change first draft, and the crown would have passed from male to male, with a period for regency while the child matured.
Alternatively, Henry VIII sticks with his second Act of Succession, which excluded Mary and Elisabeth from the succession and never writes the Third Act. Henry and Edward’s prejudice against women on the throne if even a very remote male family member was available could easily have seen a permanent ban introduced.
Who would have succeeded Henry VIII if his daughters couldn't inherit? He had no brothers or uncles. If inheritance could pass through the female lines, James V of Scotland would have been first in line, but he predeceased Henry. So I guess it would go to 2-year-old Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, OTL King-consort of Scotland.
Last edited:
- Status