Anne Boleyn and Others Die of Illness

So someone floated the idea of Anne Boleyn dying early. That made me think of a variation.

Suppose Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII, and Cranmer died in 1533 within a week by dysentery. First Anne dies, and Henry is worried about his new daughter (or appears to be, he's acutally probably still disappointed by the lack of dong). Most of the attention is on the King, who isn't very well himself. Crammer dies, which nearly goes unnoticed due to, you know, the King being sick. Let's say four servants also die and a good 1/4 of the household gets it. Outhouse must be very stinky. I suppose this might make people suspicious of poisoning since while dysentery is possible, people usually don't die of it inside a castle and getting lots of fluids and food.

They usually die of it while travelling, which saps their energy. That's on top of food going in out end of the body and coming out the other. I guess this must be a really bad Salmonella strain.

So... anyone looking for the "poisoner"?

Let's say infant Elisabeth gets picked up by a daughter of an earl and she and her husband use Liz as a replacement of a recently dead newborn. No I don't mean raise her in secret and then try to put a puppet on the throne when she grow up. I literally mean in place of their own. If that sounds outlandish, there are actually modern (although rare) infant kidnappings for just that purpose (perhaps since we don't have orphanages anymore?). Point being, she's like Gwenllian ferch Llywelyn, except her new adoptive parents are doing the best to conceal her origins while Gwenllian knew where she was from.

The others have mentioned that Mary Tudor's marriage would greatly affect the future of England, which is true. However, suppose that she's barren (or her consort is barren and she has no affairs... bottom line no royal children from this line). This means Mary Stuart is heir presumptive.

What happens to England and Europe?
 
Mary's Queen. Elizabeth, if she doesn't die as well......(she's likely to be sent home as the bastard daughter of the Marquis of Pembroke rather than a Princess, because Mary will have that 'second' marriage declared illegal by the still Catholic majority). Europe is going to back Mary. The "kidnapping to replace a dead child" is a little weird, back in the 16th century, an Earl would know who she was and turn her over to Mary as "crown property" (as royal offspring were), hoping for a reward or Liz 'dies' along with her wetnurse, poisoned by whatever killed the wetnurse, but her body is still returned (hoping for a reward). Even a reformer would know that if Elizabeth isn't surrendered to the Queen, she has NO chance of taking the throne, ever because once "chain of custody" (to use a legal form) is broken and there are questions whether or not she lived, that's lost forever. Male pretenders never succeeded, a female pretender won't even get backing, just a packing off to a convent.

If Elizabeth "disappears", the exclusion from the succession will happen ASAP since the nobility will not want a 'bedwarmer baby' (changeling) for a ruler and that's the quickest way to settle that question. Mary's still gonna be queen. Europe is still gonna back Mary. The end result is she takes the throne in 1533, disposes of the bastard her father tried to make his heir (literally or figuratively), picks a groom, actually has a realistic chance of producing a Tudor heir, and the kingdom remains Catholic.....and Cromwell dies for his part in supporting reform.
 
actually has a realistic chance of producing a Tudor heir, and the kingdom remains Catholic.....and Cromwell dies for his part in supporting reform.

Wait hang on.

If the only changes were the deaths of Henry VIII, Crammer, and Anne in quick succession by disease (a bit of a stretch, but within the real of possibility) she would have a realistic chance of produce a Tudor heir (probably >75%), but I said that suppose she didn't produce one. That means that, after several attempts at trying, Queen Mary would have to prepare England for the worst.

Hmmm... Cromwell most defiantly will die for being a architect behind reform. (I mean without Cromwell and Crammer we would have Henry asking Anne to be a mistress and her saying no and the cycle continuing and not getting anywhere until she loses her youth). Would it make a difference if he died of disease while attending a sick Henry? Or does it just change his death date with no effect on England?

I agree most defiantly that Europe is going to back Mary. I wonder if she tries to make an alliance with the Hapsbrugs since their Spanish branch was the premier power of Europe at this time. I think her internal support should be pretty good. People would soon see Mary and Mary ruling Great Britain (the Island, not the nation. GB is the island and Little Brittain is a name for Brittany that wasn't common and fell out of use entirely in the 1700s). butterflies should be interesting since the Spanish can decide to make a rainy day fund and not go bankrupt (OTL they spent money on the Spanish Armada and so didn't have reserve for later)
 
Cromwell will die because his association (despite it being under Henry's instruction) with the rise of Lady Anne Boleyn, the repudiation of Queen Katherine (formerly of Aragon) and because he wasn't smart enough to die like Cranmer (who would die if he survived, as a heretic and be the first person burned because it's so soon after he pronounced the marriage to Mary's mother invalid). He's screwed by association, basically. He was being a good courtier/mercenary and doing his job to his king, but with the death of Henry, Anne, Cranmer and the death/repudiation of Elizabeth, he is done like Wolsey. It's not personal (but it is), it's just 16th century politics.
 
Even if Mary does not produce an heir, her first cousin once removed (Mary) is also Catholic, the daughter of Auntie Mags and will likely be Queen Mary I's heiress. Mary, Queen of Scots won't elope with Darnley after the death of King Francis II of France; she'll wed an English noble (a new 'royal' Duke, perhaps, promoted and selected from families related to the royal bloodlines (both sides of the Roses war).
 
Does no one think all these deaths seem a little too convenient? I heard that medieval people were very suspicious of poisonings (yes, poisonings did happen, but given their crap hygiene, disease deaths happens more even to the well rested and fed. And don't get me started on salmonella when people move around).

I mean, the new monarch and her supporters are not going to question the results, but didn't someone say that if Anne died alone, people would first suspect a poisoner?

Three people, all allies of each other, and all dying of a disease which usually kills travelers and just gives rested people diarrhea doesn't seem strange? (Again, given their understanding of health, just because the majority of dysentery deaths are on the move doesn't mean that deaths on rested people don't happen and in fact they happen even today in places far from hospitals and refrigeration). Or maybe the superstitious medieval people might think that the particular castle was cursed?

The Church will probably just write it off as a coincidence of the Lord thought they did something wrong.

What would the nobles think about this?
 
Does no one think all these deaths seem a little too convenient? I heard that medieval people were very suspicious of poisonings (yes, poisonings did happen, but given their crap hygiene, disease deaths happens more even to the well rested and fed. And don't get me started on salmonella when people move around).

I mean, the new monarch and her supporters are not going to question the results, but didn't someone say that if Anne died alone, people would first suspect a poisoner?

Three people, all allies of each other, and all dying of a disease which usually kills travelers and just gives rested people diarrhea doesn't seem strange? (Again, given their understanding of health, just because the majority of dysentery deaths are on the move doesn't mean that deaths on rested people don't happen and in fact they happen even today in places far from hospitals and refrigeration). Or maybe the superstitious medieval people might think that the particular castle was cursed?

The Church will probably just write it off as a coincidence of the Lord thought they did something wrong.

What would the nobles think about this?

What everyone thinks privately is one thing, they're all going to think God struck down the reformers so that Mary could bring England back to the Church officially because that's politics, baby. And in the 16th century, failing at politics could be very hazardous to one's health. God will be responsible. The nobles will be jockeying for position because they've got an adult Queen. (Granted, she's 17, but she is an adult) Also ruling out poison is the sheer number of people you've killed off from the same thing.

Dysentery depends upon the person and how well they can stay hydrated throughout the 'run' of the disease. And back then, the doctor was more likely to bleed you than hand you a bottle of ale and tell you to keep drinking it instead of the water (nobody drank water back then, anyway). Now, since your POD indicates Elizabeth was around, it's the winter of 1533 when all this happens. So, Mary's Queen, Long Live the Queen. (And Philip isn't an option in this case, he was born in 1527, so Mary will have to find someone else.) Elizabeth, if she isn't dead, is going to live with her widowed Aunt Mary Carey (soon to be remarried) as Anne's bastard and will not be in the succession at all.

Mary at 17 with her mother still living will be a completely different Queen than OTL. The English nobles will all be making sure none of the others gets the Queen (matrimonially), so who she weds might prove interesting. Will she do as her mother bids? The council? Her heart? (At this age, I could see her pulling the same thing her aunt Mary did and wedding for love.)
 
I can see Catherine of Aragon supporting a match with James V of Scotland, to unify the british isles like Isabel and Ferdinand did.
 
And it's close enough to Henry's 'changeover' from Pope to King as head of the church for the country to go back to the 'original' head of the church. Neither Queen Mary I nor her mother will want to be head of the church (although a Roman Catholic church under Katherine might be scarier than anything Mary did OTL......), so they will submit a request to the Holy Father to forgive England now that it's heretical King and his whore have had the judgment of God visited upon them.:cool:
 
Methinks the Butterflies will be...HUGE.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Thomas More live? John Fisher? Even Wolsey, maybe?

Unless I've got my dates wrong...
 
Wolsey died before Henry made Anne the Marquis of Pembroke, so he's dead, but the others won't have the Oath of Succession to take and will survive and advise the new Queen.
 
Wolsey died before Henry made Anne the Marquis of Pembroke, so he's dead, but the others won't have the Oath of Succession to take and will survive and advise the new Queen.

So Thomas More doesn't die and probably doesn't get Canonized either. Any thoughts for what More and Fisher might do? What changes they might bring to a newly re-Catholicized England?

Maybe Cardinal Fisher?

I'm betting it won't be all hearts and flowers in this tl...
 
Fisher was on the track for Cardinal before he was imprisoned. In fact, I think he was made Cardinal just before Henry had him executed. So, Fisher will handle religion, More will be an advisor for the new Queen (probably on her council). And Reginald Pole will return to England.
 
She may have died in the original death scenario.

If, however, she survives: she's a "Good Catholic" girl, so likely she'll remain at court and perhaps find a fellow there. Otherwise, she'll get a pension when she's well aged from the grateful Queen for years of faithful service.
 
Top