Elizabeth I Marries Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester

Reigning monarchs do not have surnames nor do their dynastic children. Elizabeth I upon her accession had no surname. She remained part of the Tudor dynasty though.

What you are arguing about seems to be the Dynastic name Elizabeth I possible children would have, which can be much more fluid then a surname. So would Elizabeth's children with Dudley be of the House of Dudley, Dudley-Tudor, or Tudor? Well it probably wound not of been decided until a couple generations later and therefore it is impossible to know.

If Robert Dudley became the royal consort, he would of become the most powerful man in England no question but how powerful? It would of been a completely new situation, a noble man becoming consort to reigning queen was unprecedented in England.

Since, he wasn't of royal blood I find it doubtful he would of become King Consort, and without the royal title I don't see him becoming master of England. It would of been a dangerous balance of power between them wive subservient to her husband, and noble sworn obedience to his liege lady.
 
It would be Dudley - no question about it. There was no such thing as hyphenating surnames nor taking the mother's surname, no matter how prestigious. Indeed, they would generally be known by their fiefs, but Dudley would be the surname if it ever came to it.
 
It would be Dudley - no question about it. There was no such thing as hyphenating surnames nor taking the mother's surname, no matter how prestigious. Indeed, they would generally be known by their fiefs, but Dudley would be the surname if it ever came to it.

House of Leicester?
 
Top