Elizabeth Tudor dies, Don Carlos survives: An Alternate 1559 TL

Sir Arthur de la Pole (brother of the late Cardinal), Lord and Lady Stafford (the lady being Sir Arthur's sister) and their nephew the Earl of Huntingdon were set at liberty from the Tower having had their respective pockets appropriately emptied by the Queen's majesty.

Well, shit. Unless my eyes mistake me, that's a gaggle of plausible heirs of the House of York who just got turned loose.

128891424363699989.jpg
 
Sorry, but I can't see it happening. The Duchess was completely against any marriage, just like Elizabeth I or even worse. One of the reasons for it was that she was the richest heiress of Europe at that time, and she didn't want any man "stealing" her money. You would need to change her character for it, and by the time of the POD I believe it was too late.

I appreciate she was protective of her fortune, but from what I can gather most of her early betrothals fell flat because her brother (and not her) refused to pay the huge dowry that would be expected of a Portuguese infanta. Still, she either fell madly in love with the dashing young Guimarães (remember even Elizabeth's resolved faltered when she aged) or felt the pressure of seeing her family dieing out and the succession going to their Spanish cousins. Maybe both.

A barren womb, crow's feet and increasingly saggy tits can work a world of wonders on a woman's character :p ;)
 
A few issues with this:

Earl of Huntingdon - was initially imprisoned on Mary's accession due to his support for Jane Grey (his heir was married to Northumberland's daughter). Released from the tower in 1554 and one of the gentlemen charged with capturing the Duke of Suffolk (a fact that might not endear him to his new Queen). The fact that he was Cardinal Pole's nephew probably helped him under Mary and he and his son did ok under ELizabeth though his heir attracted some suspicion given his devout protestantism and the fact he was viewed as a possible heir to Elizabeth - but both would have been at liberty on Frances accession in 1559. (He was also given his religion likely to have been a loyal subject of the new Queen who wasn't worth alienating by heavily fining)

The Staffords had faired relatively well under Mary and apart from the rebellion of one of their sons (Thomas executed in 1557) had been left well alone again they were all at liberty in 1559 on the new Queen's accession. (Incidentally they weren't exactly wealthy - Stafford was restored in the blood but not to the lands and estates of his late father the 3rd Duke of Buckingham)

Sir Arthur Pole (de la Pole is a different family) - was actually imprisoned by Elizabeth in the 1560s for conspiring to promote his own or Mary Stuarts claim. (given his known views it isn't unlikely that the council would have imprisoned him on the accession of Queen Frances but equally he and his brothers might have been considered far to much of a threat to release)

Allowing aristocrats to 'buy' their liberty was risky business - you could make them poor enough so that they couldn't rebel or make them so poor they had nothing left to lose and it would alienate many others who would fear the same thing happening to them.

Frances really has no need to brow beat her court into supporting her as she is the senior Protestant heir and has the support of the council.

Financially repairing her treasury would I suspect have been done the same way Elizabeth did - living within her means and avoiding costly foreign conflicts.

The peace with France having been effected, Queen Frances was finally allowed to turn her attention to her own internal affairs. Desperately strapped for cash, she set about filling her coffers once more. As was her royal prerogative, she did not immediately nominate successors to the sees of thirteen bishops who were carried off by the plague in rapid succession; the incomes thereof naturally being appropriated for the Crown. Hefty fines were collected from the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Bath, Sir Thomas White (a wealthy London merchant) and others who had participated in the trial of the Queen's late daughter, Lady Jane Grey. Sir Arthur de la Pole (brother of the late Cardinal), Lord and Lady Stafford (the lady being Sir Arthur's sister) and their nephew the Earl of Huntingdon were set at liberty from the Tower having had their respective pockets appropriately emptied by the Queen's majesty. A number of elevations to the knighthood and peerage also took place, in exchange for generous donations to the Queen's purse: notably Lord Stafford who was made Earl of Buckingham, Lord Admiral Clinton who was made Earl of Lincoln, Lord Howard of Effingham who was made Earl of Effingham, Lord Beauchamp who was made Earl of Hertford, and Sir William St Loe who was made Baron St Loe.
 
I appreciate she was protective of her fortune, but from what I can gather most of her early betrothals fell flat because her brother (and not her) refused to pay the huge dowry that would be expected of a Portuguese infanta. Still, she either fell madly in love with the dashing young Guimarães (remember even Elizabeth's resolved faltered when she aged) or felt the pressure of seeing her family dieing out and the succession going to their Spanish cousins. Maybe both.

A barren womb, crow's feet and increasingly saggy tits can work a world of wonders on a woman's character :p ;)

There wasn't much she could do if Sebastian does indeed dies while Don Carlos is alive. The marriage of Carlos' mother to Philip II included a clause that stated if John III had no male surviving heir then the throne should go his daughter Maria and her descendents. It wasn't applied in 1578 because by that time both Maria and Carlos were dead.
 
Might the De La Pole Family, now released present a chance for a new set of maritable suitors for Princess Catherine? Since the George Hastings, the Earl of Huntingdon has now been freed I think his royal lineage mybe impressive enough to marry a scion of the Tudor Dynasty. Frances could style the royal wedding after Henry VII and Elizabeth of York personal union which united both Lancastrian and Platangenet claims...
 
A few issues with this:

Earl of Huntingdon - was initially imprisoned on Mary's accession due to his support for Jane Grey (his heir was married to Northumberland's daughter). Released from the tower in 1554 and one of the gentlemen charged with capturing the Duke of Suffolk (a fact that might not endear him to his new Queen). The fact that he was Cardinal Pole's nephew probably helped him under Mary and he and his son did ok under ELizabeth though his heir attracted some suspicion given his devout protestantism and the fact he was viewed as a possible heir to Elizabeth - but both would have been at liberty on Frances accession in 1559. (He was also given his religion likely to have been a loyal subject of the new Queen who wasn't worth alienating by heavily fining)

The Staffords had faired relatively well under Mary and apart from the rebellion of one of their sons (Thomas executed in 1557) had been left well alone again they were all at liberty in 1559 on the new Queen's accession. (Incidentally they weren't exactly wealthy - Stafford was restored in the blood but not to the lands and estates of his late father the 3rd Duke of Buckingham)

Sir Arthur Pole (de la Pole is a different family) - was actually imprisoned by Elizabeth in the 1560s for conspiring to promote his own or Mary Stuarts claim. (given his known views it isn't unlikely that the council would have imprisoned him on the accession of Queen Frances but equally he and his brothers might have been considered far to much of a threat to release)

Allowing aristocrats to 'buy' their liberty was risky business - you could make them poor enough so that they couldn't rebel or make them so poor they had nothing left to lose and it would alienate many others who would fear the same thing happening to them.

Frances really has no need to brow beat her court into supporting her as she is the senior Protestant heir and has the support of the council.

Financially repairing her treasury would I suspect have been done the same way Elizabeth did - living within her means and avoiding costly foreign conflicts.

Huntingdon and his relatives (Staffords & de la Pole) were put in the Tower by Sir Thomas Parry upon Frances' accession, when he was moving to secure her throne. Having seen her daughter's fate Frances wouldn't want to be taking any chances and would have been happy to let Parry (a rather bold, rash individual) do what he thought necessary - even to old friends and family associates. Can chalk it down as a rookie mistake on Frances' part. Either way their stay was brief and now Frances is firmly established there's no reason to fear them.

The heavy fining was based on something from Henry VIII (I believe), or perhaps Henry VII, where they fined the Duke of Norfolk (?) a big lump sum and then a 1,000 yearly after that, whilst still treating him well and keeping him at court. Obviously, Frances hasn't done anything so drastic or heavy-handed, certainly nothing that would 'break' them, just enough to alleviate her own debts.

There wasn't much she could do if Sebastian does indeed dies while Don Carlos is alive. The marriage of Carlos' mother to Philip II included a clause that stated if John III had no male surviving heir then the throne should go his daughter Maria and her descendents. It wasn't applied in 1578 because by that time both Maria and Carlos were dead.

There isn't much Maria can do, but her combined wealth and popularity married with Duarte's poses a far more significant threat to Spanish ambitions in Portugal. Would you say the Cortés would have the power to alter line of succession, even invalidate John III's treaties?

Might the De La Pole Family, now released present a chance for a new set of maritable suitors for Princess Catherine? Since the George Hastings, the Earl of Huntingdon has now been freed I think his royal lineage mybe impressive enough to marry a scion of the Tudor Dynasty. Frances could style the royal wedding after Henry VII and Elizabeth of York personal union which united both Lancastrian and Platangenet claims...

Yes, definitely. I'd say the Earl of Huntingdon or Lord Darnley are the two most viable native candidates for the Princess' hand. She might also older men like Howard of Effingham or Earl of Arundel, who had already proved themselves siring children, were experienced in government but not thought to live long (allowing the Queen a promise of future freedom and ensuring the country wouldn't be subjected to decades of domination by a particular family or clan). ;)
 
There isn't much Maria can do, but her combined wealth and popularity married with Duarte's poses a far more significant threat to Spanish ambitions in Portugal. Would you say the Cortés would have the power to alter line of succession, even invalidate John III's treaties?

It depends. When does Sebastian die? Is Spain busy somewhere else? Because considering how Philip II "inherited, bought and conquered" Portugal the odds are that he could do the same ITTL.
 
Fair enough I can buy the Parry error lol.
However can we stick with Pole not de la Pole (they were completely different families) and I would leave Pole in prison if i were you - he was an unreconstructed Catholic and a trouble-maker.

As to the fines - Henry VII in his early reign preferred to keep his peers skint - fining them (not strictly what he was doing) or requiring them to provide bonds for their good behaviour was an easy way of doing it.

It wasn't used a great deal by his successors though as far as I can recall....Henry VIII and his children preferred the assurance of keeping them locked up.

Frances has little to fear from Huntingdon or the Staffords - they weren't rich enough to be a threat to her reign and nor do they have the wealth to make fining them very profitable.

Huntingdon's prominance as an alternative heir was based entirely on Elizabeth's lack of an heir and the fact the main alternatives in OTL weren't ideal (Catherine Grey was disliked for her view of her own position and then disgraced herself with Beauchamp, and Mary Queen of Scots was of course a Catholic) - Frances with two surviving daughters plus the descendants of her sister isn't in the same position luckily.

Still really like the tl though Vivat Regina Francesca
 
Fair enough I can buy the Parry error lol.
However can we stick with Pole not de la Pole (they were completely different families) and I would leave Pole in prison if i were you - he was an unreconstructed Catholic and a trouble-maker.

Just wondering what do you mean by this - who are the Poles without the 'de la'? Everyone I've been talking about is Arthur de la Pole, his sister Ursula de la Pole (Lady Stafford) and their nephew Hastings of Huntingdon :confused:

Thanks for your comments, they're very constructive and helpful :D
 
It depends. When does Sebastian die? Is Spain busy somewhere else? Because considering how Philip II "inherited, bought and conquered" Portugal the odds are that he could do the same ITTL.

É verdade :D But I dare say Philip's path was made easier by the absence of various viable Portuguese heirs - if there were a number of legitimate Aviz, things might have been different.
 
É verdade :D But I dare say Philip's path was made easier by the absence of various viable Portuguese heirs - if there were a number of legitimate Aviz, things might have been different.

Things would be more complicated, but Philip being Philip still he would still try to make good the articles of his contract of marriage. So, a war and invasion would be extremely likely in this case.
 
Just wondering what do you mean by this - who are the Poles without the 'de la'? Everyone I've been talking about is Arthur de la Pole, his sister Ursula de la Pole (Lady Stafford) and their nephew Hastings of Huntingdon :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Pole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Pole_(1502–1535)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Pole_(1531–1570)

Arthur and Ursula are just "Pole", and I suspect you're thinking of the second Arthur Pole (son of Geoffrey Pole, who in turn is the brother of Ursula Pole and the first Arthur Pole) rather than Ursula's brother Arthur who died in 1535.

The just-plain-Poles are the senior descendants of George, Duke of Clarence, younger brother of Edward IV and older brother of Richard III. There's also a de la Pole family, who are (confusingly enough) also York pretenders, but the similarity of names is just a misleading coincidence.

The de la Poles are descended from a sister of Edward IV, George of Clarence, and Richard III. John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln named by Richard III as his heirs if he died without surviving issue (as indeed he did) in preference to the genealogically senior surviving children of the Duke of Clarence (presumably because Clarence's children were still minors, or because Clarence had been executed for treason against Edward IV). John never pressed his claim, although he did support a rebellion figureheaded by an impostor claiming to be the son of the Duke of Clarence. John was executed by Henry VII, and after his death two of his brothers in turn (Edmund de la Pole and Richard de la Pole) did advance claims to the English throne based on Richard III's will. The latter, Richard de la Pole, at one point assembled an army of 12,000 in Brittany to invade England but was unable to find a way to cross the Channel. After Richard's death, his claim passed to his daughter Marguerite de la Pole, who married into a French noble family and presumably made no attempt to press the claim.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Pole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Pole_(1502–1535)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Pole_(1531–1570)

Arthur and Ursula are just "Pole", and I suspect you're thinking of the second Arthur Pole (son of Geoffrey Pole, who in turn is the brother of Ursula Pole and the first Arthur Pole) rather than Ursula's brother Arthur who died in 1535.

The just-plain-Poles are the senior descendants of George, Duke of Clarence, younger brother of Edward IV and older brother of Richard III. There's also a de la Pole family, who are (confusingly enough) also York pretenders, but the similarity of names is just a misleading coincidence.

The de la Poles are descended from a sister of Edward IV, George of Clarence, and Richard III. John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln named by Richard III as his heirs if he died without surviving issue (as indeed he did) in preference to the genealogically senior surviving children of the Duke of Clarence (presumably because Clarence's children were still minors, or because Clarence had been executed for treason against Edward IV). John never pressed his claim, although he did support a rebellion figureheaded by an impostor claiming to be the son of the Duke of Clarence. John was executed by Henry VII, and after his death two of his brothers in turn (Edmund de la Pole and Richard de la Pole) did advance claims to the English throne based on Richard III's will. The latter, Richard de la Pole, at one point assembled an army of 12,000 in Brittany to invade England but was unable to find a way to cross the Channel. After Richard's death, his claim passed to his daughter Marguerite de la Pole, who married into a French noble family and presumably made no attempt to press the claim.

LOL! :D :eek: I apologize, completely mixed up the two surnames! Thanks for the clarifications... Remind me never to post at the end of a long day!
 
LOL! :D :eek: I apologize, completely mixed up the two surnames! Thanks for the clarifications... Remind me never to post at the end of a long day!

No worries. It's an easy mistake to make.

And keep up the good work on this timeline. I'm rather fascinated by royal succession politics in this time period, and Frances Branden as heir is a possibility I've not seen explored before. I'm very much enjoying reading along as you unfold events.
 
So V, do you plan having Frances live a bit longer ITTL? It seems like in the confines of Whitehall Palace and under the care of the best doctors in the realm may extended her life for a tad to provide some stability and resolve the fact that England would have Five Soverigns during the 1550's lol...Keep it comming:D
 
220px-Frances_Brandon.jpg

Queen Frances of England


Early plans to marry the Princess Catherine to the Earl of Arran came to an end as 1560 opened, thanks both to the pressure of the French, Spanish and the growing mental instability of the Earl. The French had no wish to see the English princess begetting heirs with right to the throne of Scotland, discretely making known they would take to the field if necessary. The Spanish, for their part, knew they would not profit from such an alliance, which would naturally bring England to war with the French over the Scotch kingdom and upset the present state of affairs on the main land, at a time when Spain had no wish to go to war with France again.
Similarly the candidacy of Erik Vasa of Sweden was scuppered by the death of his father at the start of the year, which prevented him from embarking on his intended voyage to the English court. Negotiations proceeded slowly with the Emperor for his son the Archduke - though the staunchly Protestant Frances had no intention of allowing her dauighter to wed a Papist, she was also well aware of her present dependence on the good favour of the Spanish King, the Archduke's kinsman. It was only by Philip's good graces that the Pope held off from officially proclaiming against her, which fact left English Catholics without direction, facilitating the absorption of the less doctrinally-minded amongst them into the new 'via media' of the Anglican church. As such, Frances was eager that the King should think her pliable to a Habsburg match.
In the mean time, relations with France deteriorated in the wake of the Arran match. The Queen's husband Adrian Stokes continued to ocassion the Queen and her people every imaginable inconvenience imaginable during his stay at the French court; there was talk of his converting to Catholicism, in preparation for his future union with a French duke's daughter. His requests for stipends and an appanage were not well received by the French, whose new Queen Marie Stuart d'Écosse felt outraged by the mere presence of the consort of the heretic usurper who held a throne rightfully hers. In England the Queen sought various remedies to this unstoppable embarassment, urging him to return, promising great rewards. His brother was knighted and made Baron Sudeley, with others of his family receiving promotions at court and contracting advantageous matches. News of the betrothal of the Duc d'Orléans to a daughter of the Emperor provoked an angry response from Frances, horrified at the humiliation caused for her shunned younger daughter Mary.

Angry letters were still going back and forth when a merry band of Germans arrived at court, headed by the prince Wilhelm, son of Philip I the Magnanimous, Landgrave of Hesse, a powerful Protestant prince. Frances had for some time enjoyed a lively correspondence with Philip, in whom she found a ready friend; a champion of the Protestant reformation, Philip adopted a reconciliatory stance, desiring the union not only of the various branches of Protestantism, but also with the Catholic church. The English Queen with her newly formed Anglican church was a beacon of moderation and a necessary ally for the great Protestant federation Philip had in mind.

The Germans came forth to present the suit for the Landgrave's eldest son Wilhelm for the hand of the Princess Mary. The marriage was seal the alliance between England and Hesse, and by extensions, the German Protestants, as well as save face for both Frances, Mary and the English crown, so recently rejected by the French. What happened next no one had counted on: the Queen became enamoured with the Landgrave's second son, the dashing twenty-three year old Louis. So enraputed was the Queen by the youth's beauty that she convened her Councillors and began to sound out by what means she might have her unfortunate mesalliance with Adrian Stokes annulled within the church of England.
 
Seems like a lot of unnecessary drama that Queen Frances probably does not need or want at the beginning of her reign, especially when it's on such unstable footing. It'd certainly alienate the Spanish too, even if she is pursuing mock marriage negotiations for the hand of the Archduke Charles.

Furthermore, was there anything in OTL that would suggest that Stokes would have behaved in such a manner? Sure, Frances becoming Queen could make it 'go to his head,' so to speak, but I find that unlikely. Him and Frances had a very happy marriage from what I can tell, and him being in France and acted in a sort of manner seems severly out of character for him. When it came to his rank, it was always Frances who was seeking to elevate his rank, if I'm not mistaken. Sure, it adds some needed drama, but drama is always best when it's plausible.

Frances seeking a divorce with the aim of possible remarriage to a boy with such a gap in age would be probably be a PR disaster. In fact, I'm not sure the council would even agree to it. You can draw parallels between Elizabeth and Alençon, who themselves had a gap of twenty-two years, but Elizabeth had been secure upon her throne for two decades: and although her vanity certainly blinded her in regards to Alençon, he, like all the other matches, were never seriously considered. Despite being enamored, she made ridiculous demands for Calais and ect.

The situation with Frances and Louis would be similar, as we have a woman in middle age, possibly flattered upon by a man who is younger and very handsome, blinding her in her own vanity. But unlike Elizabeth, she's not secure on her throne, and she can't really afford a PR disaster or to alienate her council, who will still want to keep Spain placated: Frances marrying the son of the Protestant Landgrave will definitely not do that. Sure, Stokes is acting out, but as I mentioned, it seems very out of character to me in order to manipulate Frances wanting a divorce.

It's an interesting idea for a TL... but I just find some real inconsistencies regarding characters and their actions.
 
Seems like a lot of unnecessary drama that Queen Frances probably does not need or want at the beginning of her reign, especially when it's on such unstable footing. It'd certainly alienate the Spanish too, even if she is pursuing mock marriage negotiations for the hand of the Archduke Charles.

Furthermore, was there anything in OTL that would suggest that Stokes would have behaved in such a manner? Sure, Frances becoming Queen could make it 'go to his head,' so to speak, but I find that unlikely. Him and Frances had a very happy marriage from what I can tell, and him being in France and acted in a sort of manner seems severly out of character for him. When it came to his rank, it was always Frances who was seeking to elevate his rank, if I'm not mistaken. Sure, it adds some needed drama, but drama is always best when it's plausible.

Frances seeking a divorce with the aim of possible remarriage to a boy with such a gap in age would be probably be a PR disaster. In fact, I'm not sure the council would even agree to it. You can draw parallels between Elizabeth and Alençon, who themselves had a gap of twenty-two years, but Elizabeth had been secure upon her throne for two decades: and although her vanity certainly blinded her in regards to Alençon, he, like all the other matches, were never seriously considered. Despite being enamored, she made ridiculous demands for Calais and ect.

The situation with Frances and Louis would be similar, as we have a woman in middle age, possibly flattered upon by a man who is younger and very handsome, blinding her in her own vanity. But unlike Elizabeth, she's not secure on her throne, and she can't really afford a PR disaster or to alienate her council, who will still want to keep Spain placated: Frances marrying the son of the Protestant Landgrave will definitely not do that. Sure, Stokes is acting out, but as I mentioned, it seems very out of character to me in order to manipulate Frances wanting a divorce.

It's an interesting idea for a TL... but I just find some real inconsistencies regarding characters and their actions.

Thanks. Well, I have minimal information on Frances and Adrian, so I have developed things as seemed most plausible to me.

First of all, Frances hasn't taken a lover or divorced Adrian - this is all behind-the-scenes stuff. I don't think it's implausible for a woma her age to have something of a mid-life crisis and become smitten by a young man embodying everything her bum husband is not.

Likewise, if Anne Boleyn and her comparatively illustrious pedigree and courtly education was a disaster as a royal consort, how much more so the lowly, base-born Stokes. No sensitivity to the dignity and prestige of the crown, or the delicacies of international politics.

In modern day terms, they two have already split up. In the same way that fame and success can split up the most successful marriages in Hollywood, becoming Queen has exacerbated in a huge way the differences and issues in their marriage. It's one thing for the disgraced, out of favour Frances to marry a man of inferior rank and try to promote him somewhat; it's another for the Queen to be tied down to a commoner.

Finally, Elizabeth had her sights on the throne her whole life, and was groomed for it by the whirlwind of events and situations that she experienced. Not so with Frances. Hell, even Mary who was royal heir more often than not, was a disaster as Queen, with incredibly limited perception and discernment. Somewhere in between the two lies Frances, aging, unexperienced, overwhelmed, menopausal :p and with a strong sense of religious conviction, which perhaps over-rides even political considerations (ie, if I do the right thing, God will bless me against all odds, the opposition is just a test of my faith, etc etc).
 
Top