Elizabeth I has a younger sister

Yes, another Elizabeth I POD! Wooo-hooo!!!!!! :D so, WI she has a younger sister? Either Jane has another child (obvioulsy doesn't die due to Edward's bith) or some of later Henry's wives gives him one (Anne or some other 4th wife would be most likely canidates).

Sucession and rulers are not changed (Edward, Mary, Liz). How does this affect Liz's rule? dos she face more or less pressure to marry? Obviously succession is not an open question as in OTL as she has living close relatives direct descendants from Henry VIII.

Obviously her sister would be married (to whom?) so does this reduce parliament's pressure on Liz? If she doesn't marry and crown passes to her sister or her kids (not sure exactly what english rules regarding this were, some help?). So James doesn't become king in 1603 and Tudors don't die off.

Thoughts?
 
Cinderella was the right way to go!

Genetics Uber Alles. The Tudors were done. Almost all the male Tudors were either firing blanks or siring children that never made it to age 20. If they did survive, then THOSE children were firing blanks, barren, or died young. The women were scarcely any better. Barren, or children dying young. Even Henry Fitzroy, Henry VIII's bastard son by a commoner, died at age 17.

That's not bad luck, that's (Theme to Deliverance:D) inbreeding. If Elizabeth had a younger sister SHE would be barren or her children would be sterile/barren/birthing or siring children dying young. Gregor Mendel wasn't around to tell these people that exogamy was the way to go if they wanted to save their royal lines.:D
 
Except the Tudors weren't even remotely inbred. Elizabeth I was only two generations removed from mere nobility, Henry VII only being remotely related to the House of Lancaster. While he was related to Elizabeth of York, it was fairly removed and they were not terribly close.

While Henry VIII himself had some bad luck with baring children, in his first marriage, the multiple miscarriages that Catherine endured might come from her part. Apparently she spent a lot of time fasting and in prayer, despite being pregnant, which could cause a miscarriage if she isn't eating properly/the child isn't getting enough nutrition. It's not really any surprise Mary was the only surviving child of that union.

I don't really see where genetics even come in. Of course there was an amount of inbreeding, but ALL royal families were interrelated to some extent, and it certainly wasn't as bad as the Habsburg martial relations of the 16th and 17th century which caused a genetic collapse in the person of Carlos II.

You can't say for sure that Elizabeth's potential sister would be barren. I find it very doubtful; child mortality was often the biggest problem of this era, at any rate. Look at any royal family, it wasn't just the Tudors who were having many children but only a few surviving into adulthood.

If she has a sister, she would be the key to securing Elizabeth's reign. Elizabeth would not marry, but her sister would. She might arrange a match within the kingdom, although she might seek out a foreign match, such as a second royal son if her foreign policy needs it.

If this sister dies before Elizabeth, then her son (or daughter?) would succeed Elizabeth upon her death. But if the sister outlives Elizabeth, then she will succeed to the throne and pass it unto her eldest son, or daughter baring no sons. English succession allowed females to reign, provided there was no son. Following the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, this basically became the norm.
 
If Elizabeth had a sister

If Elizabeth of England had a sister, the poor kid would be kept locked up to ensure that she was not used as a threat to Bess. No way, would Bess allow her to marry; any husband, whether willing or not, would be seen as a rival/alternative to Elizabeth.
If she outlived Elizabeth, she would probably be past childbearing age, so would just keep the seat warm for James VI and I.
 
If Elizabeth of England had a sister, the poor kid would be kept locked up to ensure that she was not used as a threat to Bess. No way, would Bess allow her to marry; any husband, whether willing or not, would be seen as a rival/alternative to Elizabeth.
If she outlived Elizabeth, she would probably be past childbearing age, so would just keep the seat warm for James VI and I.

Unless Queen Mary arranges a marriage for this younger sister herself. If this sister already had a baby son when Elizabeth succeeds what would she do then?
 
Unless Queen Mary arranges a marriage for this younger sister herself. If this sister already had a baby son when Elizabeth succeeds what would she do then?

I could see that happening, maybe into the Catholic Duke of Norfolk's family?

However i do agree if she's not married when Bess comes to the throne she won't be allowed to marry, look how pissy she got when Arabella got married or Katherine Seymour (i think it was Katherine)
 
I know that the OP requested that the succession laws wouldn't be changed, but don't you think that it would be unlikely? Given the fact that Edward VI tried to change the succession to Jane Grey, wouldn't he just declare both Mary and Liz as illegitimate and make his younger sister (either from his mother or other later wife of Henry VIII), who wouldn't have issues of legitimacy, as the new monarch?
 
I have to agree with both that the Tudor succession woes had diddly to do with inbreeding, and that Bess wouldn't let her younger sister marry in case she proves a threat...unless that sister was maybe dramatically younger, and completely pilable, and even then that's doubtful.
 
I'd probably help if this sister was a second child of Anne, if it's any way possible. That way both Elizabeth and this potential second sister are both declared illegitimate. If the two share a mother, they could also grow up quite close, enduring a similar childhood.

While I can see why Bess might restrain her sister from marrying on her own, I don't see why Elizabeth wouldn't use her sister as her own marriage pawn. She might not want to marry, but she can pick a suitable husband that would be an ally of hers at court, and would doubly securing the succession. Dudley comes to mind, Elizabeth tried to arrange his marriage to the Queen of Scots when she realized she couldn't marry him, but her sister would be of good use as well. Of course, Elizabeth was known for being quite jealous. If her sister is less attractive, rather dull/not a threat, then Elizabeth would have little issue in picking out a husband for her that is a close ally or equally unlikely to pose a threat to her.
 
If Anne Boleyn had a second healthy child shortly after Elizabeth then she might be given a little longer to produce a son as this would already put her ahead of Katherine and in a much shorter time.

If the son does appear then why are worried about the king's sister(s)?:D
 
If Anne Boleyn had a second healthy child shortly after Elizabeth then she might be given a little longer to produce a son as this would already put her ahead of Katherine and in a much shorter time.

If the son does appear then why are worried about the king's sister(s)?:D

Yes, this could remove Henry's future marriages to Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, and Katharine Parr; and thus replace Edward completely.
How would no sons at all affect the succession?
Does Lady Jane come back into consideration?

Another option would be to say that this sister (Margaret?) is a daughter of Catherine Howard. Since Catherine was Catholic and had Catholic connections I could see Mary favouring *Margaret over Elizabeth. Hence Elisabeth would likely imprison her on accession, and she'd likely die childless before Elisabeth's own death.
 
Elizabeth I

Depending on her age, Edward VI would probably have made her his heir, rather than Mary or Elizabeth, who were technically illegitimate. If she were only a year or two younger than Edward, she probably would already have been married by the time of his death. In this scenario, Jane Grey never comes to the throne.
 
You have several problems with this - firstly the 1543 succession act is explicit - Edward and his heirs, then any heirs of Henry by his then wife Catherine Parr, then Mary and then Elizabeth.
If you keep the wives in order and Catherine Parr gives birth to a daughter that child is likely to be as Protestant as Edward (given Queen Catherine's personal views) and therefore is likely to succeed her brother as per the 1543 Act. Even more likely that Northumberland would welcome her as he could continue to dominate as the young Queen is going to be a child at her accession.
The Tudor's weren't particularly barren as a dynasty - infant mortality was relatively high and there is some suggestion that the medical treatment received by women of high status was more dangerous to their health than if they'd received none. In fact a probably higher rate of infant mortality affected the later Stuarts such as James II, Queen Mary II and Queen Anne.
There weren't a dearth of Tudors in the 1550's for example - just a dearth of direct heirs and a shortage of males.
In order of succession under the 1543 Act:
The Lady Mary (Mary I)
The Lady Elizabeth (Elizabeth I)
The Lady Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk
The Lady Jane Grey
The Lady Catherine Grey
The Lady Mary Grey
The Lady Margaret Clifford (daughter of Lady Eleanor Brandon, Countess of Cumberland), Countess of Derby
On the Scots side excluded by the 1543 Act
Mary Queen of Scots
Lady Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox
Henry Stuart Lord Darnley
Charles Stuart (B 1555)
 
Top