"Now Blooms the Tudor Rose."

[ed_montague]

Henry asking Pole wasn't the silly part. The silly part was Pole being so blunt about it.

You know, all things considered Pole ends up in a slightly more sympathetic position (from Henry's eyes) ITTL. Instead of being "that Catholic idiot who disapproved of my divorce," he's "that English martyr who was cruelly used by *spit* Emperor Charles."

 

[phx1138]

Trying to get anyone......SOMEONE.....to agree with his point of view!

Ah. Now that makes sense. (In a stupid kind of way...) Somebody not really sure he's doing the right thing looking for validation. It strikes me that's the act of a weak-willed person. Not the impression you get of Henry, is it? Nor, I suggest, something you want in a king.

 

[Brainbin]

Ah. Now that makes sense. (In a stupid kind of way...) Somebody not really sure he's doing the right thing looking for validation. It strikes me that's the act of a weak-willed person. Not the impression you get of Henry, is it? Nor, I suggest, something you want in a king.

And now you've hit on what appears to be one of the key themes of this timeline: the contrast between the insecurities and impulsiveness of Henry VIII, and the confidence and shrewdness of his son; the very same traits that led his OTL sister, Good Queen Bess, to her Golden Age. (It remains to be seen how successful King Hal will be, though.) You'll see what I mean as you move further along. From what you're quoting, you're still in for one heck of a ride!

 

[phx1138]

And now you've hit on what appears to be one of the key themes of this timeline

Fancy meeting you here.

I'm glad to know I haven't lost my ability to pick up obvious cues.

You'll see what I mean as you move further along. From what you're quoting, you're still in for one heck of a ride!

I look forward to it. (You were quite right to recommend this one.)

Henry's already had several such accidents--and kept up his jousting routine, the same as always. Some people simply do not learn.

Give him some credit. He's king. He can't just ignore practise he might need if he has to go to war, any more than he could ignore swordfighting practise.

Philip is actively pursuing the right to be married bigamously.

Look in the dictionary under chutzpah, you find his picture.

 

[ed_montague]

Look in the dictionary under chutzpah, you find his picture.

"Chutzpah" means incredible audacity and insolence. In American English, one of the closest vernacular equivalents to "chutzpah" is also the word for certain elements of the male reproductive system (i.e. he had a lot of ~ to do that). And considering Philip was trying to pull off a bigamous marriage, it is certain that he had quite a lot of that to go around...

 

[Space Oddity]

Not trying to pull off. He pulled it off. It lost him his place in the Schmalkalidic League for a while, as well as a great deal of respect--but Philip of Hesse had two wives simultaneously. (And incidentally, his argument was that it would be less sinful for him to have a second wife than to keep juggling mistresses, as he had up to that point. And he honestly seems to have believed that. The Reformation is a very odd time in many ways.)

 

[ed_montague]

Not trying to pull off. He pulled it off. It lost him his place in the Schmalkalidic League for a while, as well as a great deal of respect--but Philip of Hesse had two wives simultaneously. (And incidentally, his argument was that it would be less sinful for him to have a second wife than to keep juggling mistresses, as he had up to that point. And he honestly seems to have believed that. The Reformation is a very odd time in many ways.)

Ah. He has a certain...logic...to his argument. That actually sort of makes sense.

 

[phx1138]

Not trying to pull off. He pulled it off. It lost him his place in the Schmalkalidic League for a while, as well as a great deal of respect--but Philip of Hesse had two wives simultaneously. (And incidentally, his argument was that it would be less sinful for him to have a second wife than to keep juggling mistresses, as he had up to that point. And he honestly seems to have believed that. The Reformation is a very odd time in many ways.)

The more I learn about this period, the more confused I get.

 

[Arachnid]

The further irony was the Reformation was in part a reaction to the moral licentiousness of the Catholic Church.

 

[phx1138]

The further irony was the Reformation was in part a reaction to the moral licentiousness of the Catholic Church.

I have a suspicion part of it was because Luther & Co weren't getting a piece of the action.

Another thing crosses my mind: with Henry 9 presumptive, does this mean England doesn't change the law to enable female heirs to become monarchs?

 

[Brainbin]

Another thing crosses my mind: with Henry 9 presumptive, does this mean England doesn't change the law to enable female heirs to become monarchs?

We've been debating that, actually. (Space Oddity hasn't said yet, either way.) My argument is "yes", considering inheritance laws in the rest of Europe. But given English history, they would probably stick with agnatic-cognatic primogeniture, limited to heirs male. (But for other reasons which you'll discover, it's tough to nail down a precise line of succession, at least until a formal law of succession is passed - and there's no reason to do that until the direct line becomes jeopardized).

 

[DrakeRlugia]

I have a suspicion part of it was because Luther & Co weren't getting a piece of the action.

Another thing crosses my mind: with Henry 9 presumptive, does this mean England doesn't change the law to enable female heirs to become monarchs?

The law was never changed in the first place: All Henry VIII merely formally codify the Act of Succession for the first time in English history, and by making the succession a Parliamentary matter rather than a royal one. Even then, it wasn't technically a 'correct' succession as it didn't follow any normal inheritance laws: it completely bypassed his eldest sister (he based the decision upon a 1421 Act that barred foreigners from owning property in England; to Henry, this meant the crown too, in his mind) and also instated his daughters despite supposed 'bastardy.'. Mary I was not the the first Queen Regnant England had; there was also the Empress Matilda, who was less than successful. England, unlike Germany or France, never followed Salic Law. Women were perfectly considered to have inheritance rights. Typically they were passed on to their offspring (see: James VI, his claim came from his grandmother Margaret Tudor), but they were never ever barred from inheriting the crown. There was a lot of uproar over Magaret Tudor's marriage to James IV, for instance, because it would bring the Stewarts into the line of succession.

 

[phx1138]

Queen Regnant England had; there was also the Empress Matilda

I seem to recall that was a disputed issue...

England, unlike Germany or France, never followed Salic Law. Women were perfectly considered to have inheritance rights.

That was, I think, what I had in mind. You draw no distinction between inheritance & succession, then? (I would have.)

for other reasons which you'll discover, it's tough to nail down a precise line of succession

I don't doubt that even for a second, in the circumstances.

there's no reason to do that until the direct line becomes jeopardized

And in these circumstances, I foresee that happening any minute now.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

I seem to recall that was a disputed issue...

Yes, disputed between herself and her cousin, Stephen of Blois. She did however, manage to claim the crown for a few short months before alienating her base of support and being ousted. Still, her line returned to the throne eventually, as Henry II was her son. She was a very early Jane Gey, IMO.

That was, I think, what I had in mind. You draw no distinction between inheritance & succession, then? (I would have.)

No, I draw a distinction, of course. In France, for instance, women cannot inherit the crown and princesses cannot pass on succession rights. Women, however, can inherit property and pass on inheritance rights to these. This applies to feudal property as well.

In England a princess would be considered to have succession rights as well as inheritance rights, because even though a brother will displace her in the line of succession, she's still in it. A good example would be Margaret Tudor, who was heiress essentially until Arthur's birth. Even after he died and Henry VIII succeeded as King, she remained his heiress for many years, with her children having rights to inherit behind her. She was essentially heiress presumative (between Henry VIII's many short lived children with Katherine) until Mary was born.

Much as stated before, unless things become muddled enough, there's no need to regulate the succession.

It's also a bad move IMO, as once Henry VIII did it IOTL, he took the right to determine the succession out of the hands of the crown and put it into the hands of Parliament. Northumberland's botched attempt to make Jane Grey heir comes to mind simply through the king's will, despite the fact an Act of Parliament was more binding.

 

[phx1138]

Yes, disputed between herself and her cousin, Stephen of Blois. She did however, manage to claim the crown for a few short months before alienating her base of support and being ousted. Still, her line returned to the throne eventually, as Henry II was her son. She was a very early Jane Gey, IMO.

That would be the one. Goes to show what you can learn reading mystery novels. (When their set in a 12th Century monastery, that is.)

No, I draw a distinction, of course. In France, for instance, women cannot inherit the crown and princesses cannot pass on succession rights. Women, however, can inherit property and pass on inheritance rights to these. This applies to feudal property as well.

In England a princess would be considered to have succession rights as well as inheritance rights, because even though a brother will displace her in the line of succession, she's still in it.

That's what I was getting at: there was a change in who was entitled to succeed as monarch, wasn't there? Otherwise, Elizabeth wouldn't have been eligible. Which is moot TTL because of the presumptive heir.

I notice another issue, here. I don't see it actually happening, but, in Henry 9's case, he's got an older sister who could inherit all of Henry 8's lands, while he becomes king.

Just a thought, Space Oddity, if you really want to screw things up.

It's also a bad move IMO, as once Henry VIII did it IOTL, he took the right to determine the succession out of the hands of the crown and put it into the hands of Parliament.

Like the situation isn't complicated enough...

Northumberland's botched attempt to make Jane Grey heir comes to mind simply through the king's will, despite the fact an Act of Parliament was more binding.

So that's what bit her. I also had the sense she'd made far fewer allies than she'd have needed. Then again, my grasp of this subject is limited to Helena Bonham-Carter & Famke Janssen.

 

[Brainbin]

I notice another issue, here. I don't see it actually happening, but, in Henry 9's case, he's got an older sister who could inherit all of Henry 8's lands, while he becomes king.

Just a thought, Space Oddity, if you really want to screw things up.

It's probably a good idea to read all the way to the end before you make suggestions

 

[DrakeRlugia]

That's what I was getting at: there was a change in who was entitled to succeed as monarch, wasn't there? Otherwise, Elizabeth wouldn't have been eligible. Which is moot TTL because of the presumptive heir.

The big change I suppose was that Parliament let Henry name who he wished into the succession, regardless of their legitimacy. So Mary and Elizabeth were readded despite illegitimacy (although really, one wonders if Mary would honestly be considered illegitimate, even with her parents marriage annulled... most precedent maintains their legitimacy. Of course, Henry VIII argued they were never married. It's also curious that once Mary became Queen she annulled the divorce between her parents, while Elizabeth didn't lift a finger regarding her own parents marriage despite her own dubious status). That would be the big change: no illegitimate children would have succession rights ITTL, no matter what. No big change from OTL, really...

So that's what bit her. I also had the sense she'd made far fewer allies than she'd have needed. Then again, my grasp of this subject is limited to Helena Bonham-Carter & Famke Janssen.

Indeed, Edward VI died and Northumberland basically wanted to avoid Mary becoming Queen, so made Edward VI draw up a will disinheriting Mary and Elizabeth. It was a wonky article as it bypassed Frances (Janes' mother, who came before her in Henry's Act) and it also specified the crown would go to Jane and her heirs' male (later edited, given Jane had no heirs male). I can understand avoiding France, as Suffolk and Northumberland wanted someone young to dominate. Edward VI intended to have this will pu before Parliament and legitimated, but I still doubt it would've done too much good. The people supported Mary at that time, not poor Jane.

 

[Arachnid]

Actually has there been anything in this TL to legally define the succession, apart from Henry VIII decapitating anyone who doubts the future Henry IX's right to rule.

 

[phx1138]

It's probably a good idea to read all the way to the end before you make suggestions

I've just noticed. As said, however, my ignorance of this era is virtually total.

One thing I just recalled, & maybe somebody can answer it. Presuming I have my priority right, when Mary became queen, why didn't she have Elizabeth executed? There was some suspicion (& my understanding is, a vengeful monarch needed scarcely more), & it would've saved Mary the headaches (so to speak) of not doing it.

for the next five years till his majority.

Unless I'm very much mistaken (& I'm likely to be), at this time, he'd have had his full powers as king at 14.

Strasburg ...hasn't had to pack up and flee to England.

This reminds me of something else. IDK how long it takes, but the flight of rebels from Europe to England contributed to both English scientific progress (free thinkers, freedom of thought, so forth) & ultimately to industrial progress (Calvinist work ethic, so forth). (This may take until well past the point you intend to end TTL, but something to think about.)

I also notice the appearance of the Royal Navy (more or less). Has Henry IX changed the direction of the "wooden walls"? (In the 1550s' war with Spain, OTL saw the largest convoys in history, numbering over 400 ships, as Spain tries to protect her American silver & gold shipments... Lessons that were forgotten, or ignored, in the age of steam....)

One other thing. I haven't said it yet, so let me do it now: I'm liking this a lot. I confess being pretty at sea with the players, but I really like the tone & the snatches of humor.

 

[ed_montague]

Actually has there been anything in this TL to legally define the succession, apart from Henry VIII decapitating anyone who doubts the future Henry IX's right to rule.

With the succession much more secure ITTL, I don't think Henry's rammed through any sort of legislation to legitimize/disinherit any of his offspring, with the sole exception of Catherine and her daughter. "Decapitating anyone who doubts the future Henry IX's right to rule" seems to sum up our experiences in this timeline quite well.

Of course, if Space Oddity were to hurry up and post, we'd have all this sorted out in a jiffy. Hint hint.