AHC: Tudor rule for longer and SIX different Countries and Duchies

An Interesting Challenge for all AH members to post a timeline in which the Tudors (OTL(1485-1603)) rule over six different countries and duchies.

The only thing that needs to be strictly followed is the countries and duchies that the Tudors control in the 21st century and that Tudor rule in England began in 1327 as a second cousin of Edward II took the throne. They are;

England, Scotland, Norway, Russia, Tuscany and Naples (The last two of course means a non-unified Italy)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
An Interesting Challenge for all AH members to post a timeline in which the Tudors (OTL(1485-1603)) rule over six different countries and duchies.

The only thing that needs to be strictly followed is the countries and duchies that the Tudors control in the 21st century and that Tudor rule in England began in 1327 as a second cousin of Edward II took the throne. They are;

England, Scotland, Norway, Russia, Tuscany and Naples (The last two of course means a non-unified Italy)

1. The house of Tudor didn't even exist in 1327 - Owen Tudor was only born in 1400 and it's his grandchildren from the earl of Richmond and Margaret Beaufort who had a claim to the english throne.
2. Tuscany only became a monarchy in 1532. It was mainly acknowledging a fait accompli.
3. Russia similarly was not unified before 1527 and the proclamation of the tsardom.
 
England and Scotland would come together much as they did in OTL, except it is the Scots line that fails, not the English. This could happen if Elizabeth had children and Mary Queen of Scots didn't.

Norway would also have to come about with a personal union leading to full intergration into Greater Britain. This would be most likely in the 19th century as Norway could see the benifits of economic union with the UK (in the same way that Scotland pushed for union in 1706, due to being able to access the markets that England controlled).

Russia is nearly impossible to imagine. I know there is a tileline where Princess Elizibeth marries the Tzar (Edward VI survives his illness), but I can't see anything short of invasion allowing a non-Russian ruling in Moscow.

Naples and Tuscany would mean fighting off Garibaldi in the 1860's, and whilst England had the navy to support this, the British people sided with the Italians so it would have been highly unpopular at home, and may lead to the downfall of the government and/or the monarcy
 
England and Scotland would come together much as they did in OTL, except it is the Scots line that fails, not the English. This could happen if Elizabeth had children and Mary Queen of Scots didn't.

Norway would also have to come about with a personal union leading to full intergration into Greater Britain. This would be most likely in the 19th century as Norway could see the benifits of economic union with the UK (in the same way that Scotland pushed for union in 1706, due to being able to access the markets that England controlled).

Russia is nearly impossible to imagine. I know there is a tileline where Princess Elizibeth marries the Tzar (Edward VI survives his illness), but I can't see anything short of invasion allowing a non-Russian ruling in Moscow.

Naples and Tuscany would mean fighting off Garibaldi in the 1860's, and whilst England had the navy to support this, the British people sided with the Italians so it would have been highly unpopular at home, and may lead to the downfall of the government and/or the monarcy

Er, Elisabeth had NO CLAIM to the Scottish Throne.
What you want instead would be for Mary to have a surviving brother to become King of Scotland, Mary then marries Edward and has a son, then Mary's brother dies and Edward's son is King of Scotland & England (& Ireland).
 
That, and any children of Elizabeth would not have been Tudors!

You'd need Henry 8 to get some more vivacious sperm to get a more enduring Tudor line.

As for the actual scenario, it's big and crazy, but on a scale not too different from other big, crazy dynastic unions that have existed now and then. (Habsburg Spain, Bourbon Spain, Vasa Poland, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha everything, etc. etc.) But other states/dynasties would have distrusted such a dynastic union and done what they could to undermine it. Force the Italians to choose a Bourbon, or something. Or, you could have people on all those thrones who are technically Tudors, but who don't get along and don't form any kind of power bloc. Like the Vasas.
 
Last edited:
Certainly no starting point in the 14th century, I'm afraid.

Here's a scenario...

Edward VI lives, and marries Mary, Queen of Scots. Their son takes the thrones of Scotland and England, but they remain separate kingdoms (as in OTL Union of the Crowns). This individual will also rule Ireland and Wales, so there you have three kingdoms and one principality.

Getting Tudor lines onto those other thrones is much more difficult. I suppose it's possible that a cadet branch of the family might conceivably marry into the ruling houses of Tuscany and Naples, with descendants ending up on those thrones. That's kind of dependent on the Tudors having a much more flexible approach to religion than they did OTL. Perhaps, if Edward VI and Mary's offspring are Catholics, it would make it easier for them to marry back into Europe's Catholic monarchies, but then that's going to create a whole heap of problems in Anglican England and Presbyterian Scotland.

It also rules out the prospect of a Tudor descendant somehow ending up on the throne of Norway: unless, of course, there's some sort of religious divergence in the family at a later date.

Russia? Not a hope in Hell that I can see...
 
Er, Elisabeth had NO CLAIM to the Scottish Throne.
What you want instead would be for Mary to have a surviving brother to become King of Scotland, Mary then marries Edward and has a son, then Mary's brother dies and Edward's son is King of Scotland & England (& Ireland).

You are right, and I am foolish for not having thought that thru properly.

Marrage is the only way to link Scotland and England sucessfully and that would mean that Henry will need to father more than one son, or for Edward to live long enough to father children.

The big trouble with the whole idea is that the Tudors were not big in the baby department, with only 2 males surviving past 30 (Henry VII and Henry VIII) and the women not producing many children.

If we made the POD the Hanoverians or the Stuarts then it may fly better.
 
Top