DBWI: WI Anne Boleyn hadn't produced a son in 1536?

We all know that Anne Boleyn produced a son in 1536, and we also know that Henry VIII had been slowly losing interest with her after the miscarriages in 1534 and 1535. Would Anne still have been the most painted woman in England?
 
We all know that Anne Boleyn produced a son in 1536, and we also know that Henry VIII had been slowly losing interest with her after the miscarriages in 1534 and 1535. Would Anne still have been the most painted woman in England?

I dunno, TBH. But if she hadn't produced any sons, there might not be so many places named for her in New Wales and Maryland.....

OOC: New Wales is OTL Tenn., Ky., Va., and N.C, basically. "Maryland" is OTL N.Y. + New Jersey.
 
I dunno, TBH. But if she hadn't produced any sons, there might not be so many places named for her in New Wales and Maryland.....

And what about the Boleyn Finishing academy? OTL it was started in 1542 and the first attendants were Anne's many daughters with the princesses of Francis II of France? It was supposedly started due to Princess Elizabeth's behavious with her butler, so maybe Elizabeth runs even mor wild? Or maybe she goes the other way, and becomes a prude?

Also, it would hard to think of The Anglo Empire of the 1600's without King Henry IX and Edward, Duke of York. Where would King Arthur I and his 20 years war with Scotland come from? Where would homosexual marriage be without the scandal of Princess Charlotte in 1589 come from?
 
And what about the Boleyn Finishing academy? OTL it was started in 1542 and the first attendants were Anne's many daughters with the princesses of Francis II of France? It was supposedly started due to Princess Elizabeth's behavious with her butler, so maybe Elizabeth runs even mor wild? Or maybe she goes the other way, and becomes a prude?

Ah, the Boleyn Finishing Academy, one of the finest schools in the British Isles; I do believe one of my ancestors, later the father of the first colonial governor of the Virginia Colony, was a top student there circa 1600 or so.

Also, it would hard to think of The Anglo Empire of the 1600's without King Henry IX and Edward, Duke of York. Where would King Arthur I and his 20 years war with Scotland come from? Where would homosexual marriage be without the scandal of Princess Charlotte in 1589 come from?

Same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere until the 1960s in our world, though; although it can be admitted that the case of Princess Charlotte was indeed prominently discussed just before England legalized it in 1972, this easily could have been postponed with a modern POD. Though I think may can agree that the English, and later British, Empire could have been much different without Henry & Arthur at the wheel. :)
 
Ah, the Boleyn Finishing Academy, one of the finest schools in the British Isles; I do believe one of my ancestors, later the father of the first colonial governor of the Virginia Colony, was a top student there circa 1600 or so.



Same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere until the 1960s in our world, though; although it can be admitted that the case of Princess Charlotte was indeed prominently discussed just before England legalized it in 1972, this easily could have been postponed with a modern POD. Though I think may can agree that the English, and later British, Empire could have been much different without Henry & Arthur at the wheel. :)

1) So that was before the school became exclusively female in 1592? Would your ancestor be Sir Charles Brandon or was it the underlooked Sir Thomas Boleyn? Both could be described as the first, with Charles being official and Thomas being a placeholder that is sometimes considered the 'first' in some textbooks. It really depends on if you agree the Parlimentary decision of 1607.

2) That is what I meant. I mean, she was the first royal ever to publically admit that she was homosexual (though Henry X was apparently pushed to be allowed to live with his lover in 1789 after having 4 children by Olga of Russia, but it was not allowed to be). That alone pushed the movement forward. Too bad it was pushed back by Prince Thomas in 1674, evil old git.

But yeah, the British Empire would probably not contain the counties it does now without Henry IX and Arthur 1, no New England (OOC: OTL Australia and New Zealand), no Scottish/Netherlands/Saxony takeover through 1560-1630 and the takeover of Denmark/Norway/Sweden from 1640-1690. Even though they lost Sweden in 1776, it is still a huge empire.

Would England even still be an empire without them? I mean, I can't see old Yes Bess ruling the country in any strong fashion, what with her many marriages and tons of obviously illegimate children. She'd still be better than Crazy Mary though (so sad that she lost that one child by her husband and then started kidnapping peasant babies. You can't blame her, she was treated badly all through her life). So yeah, it would be difficult.
 
Top