Duke of Richmond and Somerset

Premise: Henry Fitzroy recovers from consumption and in Henry VIIIs Third act of succession 1543 names him ahead of Mary and Elizabeth in the line of succession and Edward VI still assumes the throne when Henry VIII dies.

In Henry VIII opinion Mary and Elizabeth were both bastards at that point so why not name his bastard son ahead of them?

Would Fitzroy have become Edward VI Lord Protector?

If not would Edward VI still tried to put Lady Jane on the Throne when he died or would Fitzroy being barely non catholic be enough?

Scenario I:
Would Edward VI by will still tries to put Lady Jane on the Throne. What would the Consequence of having three claimants: Mary, Fitzroy and Lady Jane be and who would win?

Scenario II:
Edward VI dies without naming anyone as heir, so Fitzroy immediately becomes King does Mary contest (probably right?) does she win or loose?

Scenario III:
Fitzroy is the Lord Protector of Edward VI when he dies and is immediately declared King upon the demise of the crown. Does Mary contest here, with her brother in a much stronger position?


Which side would Elizabeth take in these scenarios?
Would the outcome change in these scenarios if Fitzroy has sons with his wife Mary Howard?
Any more likely scenarios under my premise?

Sorry about another Henry Fitzroy thread, but I'm new and all the others on him were atleast several years old.

Thanks for your responses.
 
Last edited:
Henry Fizroy would NEVER be accepted as King. For one he was a bastard. Not a "legal" bastard like Mary or technically Elizabeth but a true bastard. There was no evidence that Henry EVER planned to name him heir to the throne. However, there was a plan to make him King of Ireland. So that could end up happening. As for a Regency, I think it depends on what Henry does during Henry VIII's reign. Is he a successful general or politician? Is he Catholic or Protestant? Is he closer to his father or his half sisters? I think he would be on the Regency Council but I'm not sure about being Lord Protector. Though he would be the oldest male relative, albeit illegitimate, so he could be Lord Protector. Henry could end up being a close supporter of his sister Mary. I think a lot depends on religion. If he learns Catholic he wouldn't be heir to Edward VI. And looking at his age I think he would be a Catholic supporter.
 
I imagine as a faithful dutiful son FitzRoy would embrace the Reformation and most likely be subsumed into the zeal of Edward's court. I don't see him becoming Lord Protector, but certainly he and his brother-in-law Surrey would be powerful players in Edward's reign.

If he began having children 1535 onwards, he could conceivably have a legitimate son older than Edward. Said son could very easily marry Lady Catherine Grey in the twilight of Edward's reign, securing an English and Protestant succession.

It's not impossible for Edward to name him heir and for the succession to be ratified by a Parliament fearful of Papism and civil war. His sisters would naturally be under his watchful eye and already in custody long before Edward passed.
 
So you do not think he could of succeeded to the throne no matter what, Emperor Constantine? In my scenario he would be the lawful heir presumptive and therefore most likely try for the throne.

And legally a bastards is a bastard is a bastard, Mary was a bastard after the First Succession Act until she re-legitamized upon her accession. Elizabeth after the Second Succession Act was a bastard and was one when she died queen, and only the catholics thought that disbarred her from the throne and that was based on a mostly religious argument not juristic.

One might argue morally there is a difference and that would make it impossible to claim his fathers throne, but if he was the legal heir upon Edward VI death he probably would of tried to become Henry IX.

What would of happened in my different scenarios if he had?
 
I imagine as a faithful dutiful son FitzRoy would embrace the Reformation and most likely be subsumed into the zeal of Edward's court. I don't see him becoming Lord Protector, but certainly he and his brother-in-law Surrey would be powerful players in Edward's reign.

If he began having children 1535 onwards, he could conceivably have a legitimate son older than Edward. Said son could very easily marry Lady Catherine Grey in the twilight of Edward's reign, securing an English and Protestant succession.

It's not impossible for Edward to name him heir and for the succession to be ratified by a Parliament fearful of Papism and civil war. His sisters would naturally be under his watchful eye and already in custody long before Edward passed.

Embracing Henry's reformation isn't the same thing as embarrassing Edwards. I can see him being more English Catholic rather than Edwardian Protestant. Was there any hint during his life that Henry Fizroy had Protestant or reformist sympathies? Also Henry died in 1536, with no children, so I think we'll be waiting a few years for children. Also Henry ordered the marriage not to be consummated, because he believed that too much sexual activity had killed his brother Arthur. So I think the earliest we would see children is 1540. Also do we know if he was close to Mary? If so we could see him siding with her during Edward's reign.

Finally I can't see Parliament or Mary herself allowing him to succeed. When Bastards try to claim thrones it almost never gos well. In fact the only time a bastard became a King that I can think of was John I of Portugal, who succeeded to keep Portugal independent. Though it would be interesting to see who would win between Mary and Henry.
 
So you do not think he could of succeeded to the throne no matter what, Emperor Constantine? In my scenario he would be the lawful heir presumptive and therefore most likely try for the throne.

And legally a bastards is a bastard is a bastard, Mary was a bastard after the First Succession Act until she re-legitamized upon her accession. Elizabeth after the Second Succession Act was a bastard and was one when she died queen, and only the catholics thought that disbarred her from the throne and that was based on a mostly religious argument not juristic.

One might argue morally there is a difference and that would make it impossible to claim his fathers throne, but if he was the legal heir upon Edward VI death he probably would of tried to become Henry IX.

What would of happened in my different scenarios if he had?


What I mean by "legal" bastard is, for Mary and partially Elizabeth, was they were only Bastards legally. No one but Henry thought that Mary was illegitimate, and for Elizabeth her parents were married under England's new Protestant church. Henry had neither of these things. He never married Elizabeth Blount so Henry wouldn't have the same legitimacy as Mary and to a lesser extent Elizabeth. Again I don't think he would ever have been accepted as either heir presumptive or King. I mean Mary and Elizabeth were disinherited for being bastards while Henry Fizroy, who was an actual bastard, was proclaimed heir because of his gender makes no sense. Its a bad double standard and would weaken Henry VIII.

However, for arguments sake, I would say scenario one or two, leaning to a combination with Edward VI naming Henry his heir. Mary would definitely contest. In Mary' mind SHE was the next in line. Edward was legitimate so after him the next LEGITIMATE child of Henry VIII was, that being Mary, then Elizabeth. Mary was very aware of her status as the only child of Henry and Catherine of Aragon, and would never cede her rights to a bastard. So she would fight. As to who would win, well thats up in the air. For one, what religion is Henry? Catholic or Protestant? If he's Protestant I would say it might go the same way as OTL, with Mary I winning. At this point England was majority Catholic, and many felt that Edward VI's reforms went to far. Mary symbolized the old Religion and the familiar religious and political values. If Henry can also symbolize these traditions and values then he might have a chance. Second, one of the reasons Jane Grey failed was because no one knew who she was. She was a random relative put on the throne. On the other hand EVERYONE knew who Mary was. The daughter of Henry VIII and good Queen Catherine, who many in England regarded as a saint. If Henry Fizroy was well known, which is fairly likely as he's Henry VIII's only bastard, then we might see a more split country. Finally, what does Henry himself want? Was it in his personality to try to take the throne or not?
 
Embracing Henry's reformation isn't the same thing as embarrassing Edwards. I can see him being more English Catholic rather than Edwardian Protestant. Was there any hint during his life that Henry Fizroy had Protestant or reformist sympathies? Also Henry died in 1536, with no children, so I think we'll be waiting a few years for children. Also Henry ordered the marriage not to be consummated, because he believed that too much sexual activity had killed his brother Arthur. So I think the earliest we would see children is 1540. Also do we know if he was close to Mary? If so we could see him siding with her during Edward's reign.

Finally I can't see Parliament or Mary herself allowing him to succeed. When Bastards try to claim thrones it almost never gos well. In fact the only time a bastard became a King that I can think of was John I of Portugal, who succeeded to keep Portugal independent. Though it would be interesting to see who would win between Mary and Henry.

Mary's Catholic devotion was tied up, in a huge way, with her and her mother's "cause" and her mother's "martyrdom". FitzRoy would have no reason not to go with the flow and accompany his father's changes. The Seymours, Catherine Parr - these were the people in ascendancy and most likely to impact FitzRoy's personal theology (beyond his father).

Henry was consumptive, hence no cohabitation - I'm assuming if he survives into Edward's reign he's perfectly healthy. Arthur was also sickly by the time he got married.

FitzRoy surviving and antecipating the throne, and being backed up by Edward and/or Parliament, would have plenty of time to ensure Mary was in his hands, quit differently to the Dudleys and Lady Jane Grey. Many who flocked to the banner of good old Harry's daughter's banner would have no need or desire to do so here.

All of Henry VIII's children seem to have been fairly close, by way of being housed and educated together at various points. Obviously Mary's friendships with Edward and Elizabeth were later put under great strain.
 
What I mean by "legal" bastard is, for Mary and partially Elizabeth, was they were only Bastards legally. No one but Henry thought that Mary was illegitimate, and for Elizabeth her parents were married under England's new Protestant church. Henry had neither of these things. He never married Elizabeth Blount so Henry wouldn't have the same legitimacy as Mary and to a lesser extent Elizabeth. Again I don't think he would ever have been accepted as either heir presumptive or King. I mean Mary and Elizabeth were disinherited for being bastards while Henry Fizroy, who was an actual bastard, was proclaimed heir because of his gender makes no sense. Its a bad double standard and would weaken Henry VIII.

So You do not think Henry VIII could of got his third act of succession past parliament if the law would of named Richmond first heir after Edward?

However, for arguments sake, I would say scenario one or two, leaning to a combination with Edward VI naming Henry his heir. Mary would definitely contest. In Mary' mind SHE was the next in line. Edward was legitimate so after him the next LEGITIMATE child of Henry VIII was, that being Mary, then Elizabeth. Mary was very aware of her status as the only child of Henry and Catherine of Aragon, and would never cede her rights to a bastard. So she would fight. As to who would win, well thats up in the air. For one, what religion is Henry? Catholic or Protestant? If he's Protestant I would say it might go the same way as OTL, with Mary I winning. At this point England was majority Catholic, and many felt that Edward VI's reforms went to far. Mary symbolized the old Religion and the familiar religious and political values. If Henry can also symbolize these traditions and values then he might have a chance. Second, one of the reasons Jane Grey failed was because no one knew who she was. She was a random relative put on the throne. On the other hand EVERYONE knew who Mary was. The daughter of Henry VIII and good Queen Catherine, who many in England regarded as a saint. If Henry Fizroy was well known, which is fairly likely as he's Henry VIII's only bastard, then we might see a more split country. Finally, what does Henry himself want? Was it in his personality to try to take the throne or not?

I imagine atleast in this scenario that Richmond was as protestant as Henry VIII, that is catholic except that the King was head of the church.
 
So You do not think Henry VIII could of got his third act of succession past parliament if the law would of named Richmond first heir after Edward?



I imagine atleast in this scenario that Richmond was as protestant as Henry VIII, that is catholic except that the King was head of the church.


Honestly I'm not sure. Fizroy was a bastard so I can see many Lords being reluctant to vote yes on that. The bishops would be out as a yes vote. I think it would be best to place him after Mary and Elizabeth. After all Henry was married to their mothers at the time of their births. Can't say the same for Henry Fizroy.

As for being English Catholic, if Henry is so then I doubt Edward would name him his heir.
 
Honestly I'm not sure. Fizroy was a bastard so I can see many Lords being reluctant to vote yes on that. The bishops would be out as a yes vote. I think it would be best to place him after Mary and Elizabeth. After all Henry was married to their mothers at the time of their births. Can't say the same for Henry Fizroy.

As for being English Catholic, if Henry is so then I doubt Edward would name him his heir.

But would he of tried to name Lady Jane? From what I've read he would of named Elizabeth if he could of, but couldn't just disinherit Mary. Even if he didn't want to if he named Fitzroy, he wouldn't have to disinherit his sisters, he would be reinforcing the law as stated and he would block a catholic monarch -- Mary. Plausible or Not? I don't know a lot about Edward VI personality.
 
Last edited:
But would he of tried to name Lady Jane? From what I've read he would of named Elizabeth if he could of, but couldn't just disinherit Mary. Even if he didn't want to if he named Fitzroy, he wouldn't have to disinherit his sisters, he would be reinforcing the law as stated and he would block a catholic monarch -- Mary. Plausible or Not? I haven't don't know a lot about Edward VI personality.

Come to think of it, I think Edward had to disinherit both because they were both bastards. Originally he was just going to disinherit Mary but was persuaded to do both, because Jane Grey was legitimate. Their (Mary and Elizabeth) legitimacy was the official reason they were disinherited by Edward. So h couldn't use that: replacing one Bastard for another isn't gonna fly. As for blocking a Catholic Monarch, also not gonna fly. Like I said earlier much of the English population were Catholic and thought that Edward went too far in his reforms, so it could trigger MORE support for Mary not less.
 
Come to think of it, I think Edward had to disinherit both because they were both bastards. Originally he was just going to disinherit Mary but was persuaded to do both, because Jane Grey was legitimate. Their (Mary and Elizabeth) legitimacy was the official reason they were disinherited by Edward. So h couldn't use that: replacing one Bastard for another isn't gonna fly. As for blocking a Catholic Monarch, also not gonna fly. Like I said earlier much of the English population were Catholic and thought that Edward went too far in his reforms, so it could trigger MORE support for Mary not less.

So in your opinion even if Fitzroy was the lawful heir at Edwards death Mary would most likely be able to Usurp him?

I believe the reason he tried to disinherit Mary was religious, if he could of just disinherited her he would of. But his excuse to try was she was a bastard, but so was the sister he didn't want to disinherit, so it was both or neither. If he would of had a brother who wasn't catholic and his legal heir presumptive, would he of tried to disinherit him or his sisters? So if I remember correctly Lady Jane's legitimacy wasn't the reason he tried to disinherit Elizabeth.

PS: From what I understand of the time Henry VIII considered Fitzroy a backup heir. It was pretty well known too, that is why there was rumours it could of been poison and not consumption that killed Fitzroy. Henry created him a double duke, with his own childhood title, Richmond, and I believe his own grandfather's Somerset and gave him household fit for a prince of the blood.
 
So in your opinion even if Fitzroy was the lawful heir at Edwards death Mary would most likely be able to Usurp him?

I believe the reason he tried to disinherit Mary was religious, if he could of just disinherited her he would of. But his excuse to try was she was a bastard, but so was the sister he didn't want to disinherit, so it was both or neither. If he would of had a brother who wasn't catholic and his legal heir presumptive, would he of tried to disinherit him or his sisters? So if I remember correctly Lady Jane's legitimacy wasn't the reason he tried to disinherit Elizabeth.

PS: From what I understand of the time Henry VIII considered Fitzroy a backup heir. It was pretty well known too, that is why there was rumours it could of been poison and not consumption that killed Fitzroy. Henry created him a double duke, with his own childhood title, Richmond, and I believe his own grandfather's Somerset and gave him household fit for a prince of the blood.

Exactly. Mary had a very strong sense of legitimacy and of self. She wouldn't go down without a fight.

If Henry is Edwardian Protestant then know he probably wouldn't try to disinherit him. Religion had no place in deciding the line of succession, legitimacy did however. Thats why Edward used his sister's legal bastardy to try to pass over them. Like you said it would be all or nothing, so Edward couldn't disinherit Mary and Elizabeth without removing Henry as well. But Elizabeth was disinherited because of her illegitimacy. At least that's the reason on Wikipedia.

There's no official hint that Henry VIII planned to place the Duke of Richmond in the line of succession. Also Henry VIII never held the Dukedom of Richmond. The main question about the idea of legitimizing Henry is would Henry VIII continue to be interested in Henry after Edward VI's birth. He did seem to lose interest in his children fairly quickly, Elizabeth is an example. So he might disinherit Henry after a LEGITIMATE son is born. Its in Henry's personality to do so.
 
Embracing Henry's reformation isn't the same thing as embarrassing Edwards. I can see him being more English Catholic rather than Edwardian Protestant. Was there any hint during his life that Henry Fizroy had Protestant or reformist sympathies? Also Henry died in 1536, with no children, so I think we'll be waiting a few years for children. Also Henry ordered the marriage not to be consummated, because he believed that too much sexual activity had killed his brother Arthur. So I think the earliest we would see children is 1540. Also do we know if he was close to Mary? If so we could see him siding with her during Edward's reign.

Finally I can't see Parliament or Mary herself allowing him to succeed. When Bastards try to claim thrones it almost never gos well. In fact the only time a bastard became a King that I can think of was John I of Portugal, who succeeded to keep Portugal independent. Though it would be interesting to see who would win between Mary and Henry.

Weren't the Trastamaras bastards?
 
If Henry VIII does place the Duke of Richmond in the succession, it would after Mary and Elizabeth in order to prevent a Richard III style usurpation if Edward VI succeeds as OTL. Any attempt to place Richmond in front of Mary would only mean civil war and bring back the chaos of the Lancaster and York beef over the English throne.
 
If Henry VIII does place the Duke of Richmond in the succession, it would after Mary and Elizabeth in order to prevent a Richard III style usurpation if Edward VI succeeds as OTL. Any attempt to place Richmond in front of Mary would only mean civil war and bring back the chaos of the Lancaster and York beef over the English throne.

Exactly. THIS is the most likely scenario if the Duke survives. However much Henry favors Richmond even he knows that a bastard on the throne would cause more upheaval then a woman on the throne. However, we might see Richmond's descendents getting the throne of England after Elizabeth's death, depending on the, I assume 3rd Duke's relationship with Elizabeth.
 
Interesting
Few thoughts

Henry VIII's will was specific as to his children's rights and had his illegitimate son lived he might have included him but I suspect it is unlikely (and if he did it would have been after Edward, any children by Catherine Parr, Mary and Elizabeth).
Edward VI - had three principal reasons for his device - 1) To exclude his Catholic sister Mary 2) A desire to have a male heir (partially his own religious prejudices against a female ruling men) - the device originally read to the heirs male of Lady Jane it was amended when it became clear he wouldn't live to see her children and 3) to have a Protestant heir.

If Richmond lives and has children then an obvious solution would be for his son to marry the Lady Jane - illegitimate claim on one side and a legitimate claim on the other. That combination would be a stronger one than Jane married to Guildford Dudley. The match would in fact be far more suited to her status as the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and Marquess of Dorset and likely his heir than the younger son of John Dudley.

The question is if that kind of combination would find favour with Dudley, Edward VI and the political elite and of course it depends on whether Richmond is still an Anglo Catholic like his father or closer to the fully Protestant faith of Edward VI and Jane herself.

It is also not necessarily going to be enough to combat the popular appeal of both Mary and Elizabeth - who were united in their view of the lawful order of succession on their brother's death irrespective of their differences over religion.
 
I wonder how a surviving Duke of Richmond alters court politics of the 1530s? Richmond surviving presumably means the ascendancy of the Howard-Boleyn faction continues, given he was married into these dynasties. If Richmond survives, I can see the Howards perhaps doing rather better than IOTL. Anne Boleyn is likely doomed, but still.

Butterflies will obviously result from a surviving Duke of Richmond, though, and I would imagine that English politics will already be looking quite different after about 1538. Should Jane Seymour still die after giving birth to a child (Edward VI is likely to be butterflied, after all) might Henry VIII be tempted to skip straight to a Howard wife without the whole Cleves episode getting in the way? And without Cleves, Thomas Cromwell keeps his head.

This fact is the one that hits me strongly: FitzRoy surviving means that Edward VI as we know him is butterflied: with butterflies flapping for several months around the English court its unlikely Jane Seymour is going to conceive at exactly the same time as she did IOTL. What if the Seymour marriage goes on for several years longer, but produces only girls?

Also, how would Richmond being "King of Ireland" actually work in practice?
 
Premise: Henry Fitzroy recovers from consumption.
....
Thanks for your responses.

Recovering from consumption is difficult, maybe impossible. Either you have him not come down with it in the first place, or you have him survive long enough to have children.

The first puts the PoD rather further back, but should be possible.

The second makes him a very unattractive candidate as king. Someone who's sickly, likely to die soon, and going to leave a very underage heir?
 
Top