Henry, Prince of Wales' Florentine?

That is, Henry Frederick, the ill fated son of James I...

The boy seemed to show a lot of promise, although he disagreed with his father on many matters and didn't get along with his younger son. Apperently their were talks regarding the prince marrying Catherine de Medici, a daughter of the Grand Duke Ferdinand who employed Robert Dudley's illegitimate son for some time. The marriage idea ultimately broke down because of the difference in religions, but I see it rather a small hurdle, given James designs later in his reign regarding a match with Spain.

What if the Prince of Wales married Catherine de Medici? In 1612 they are both a little old for the marriage game -- he's 18 and she is 19. Dudley's son was in correspond with the Prince and suggested the marriage in 1611. If Henry is surrounded by fewer radicals (he was a pretty deep Protestant), the marriage has more success. Let's say the Prince agrees but only if he meets the Tuscan Princess, going on a grandtime sometime in 1612 and lasting most of year, causing him to miss catching tuberculous and dying.

In Florence, Henry makes a great impression on the Grand Duke and his court, and although Catherine is unwilling to convert, she is willing to marry the Prince of Wales provided she can practice her faith in private. Henry returns to England esctatic and negations between Tuscany and France go off without a hitch, especially when a generous dowry of £600,000 is offered to pay the debts of James I and alleviate the difficult financial situation James I is facing. The treaty is agreed upon and Catherine arrives in England in the Spring of 1613, accompanied by Robert Dudley, the illegitimate son of the Earl of Leicester, who is possibly restored the Earldom of Leicester as well as that of Warwick? (Leicester seems likely especially if Robert redeems himself, but Warwick and it's castle, which belonged to his uncle Ambrose Dudley seems much less likely).

What happens next? I can see Parliament having some difficulties accepting the marriage, but will ultimately they can't really stop it, as Parliament didn't really interfere in matters concerning the royal family and the succession, at least not until the Act of Succession. They may become intransigent regarding future funding, even more so than OTL, but shouldn't be any huge issues, perhaps some small scale riots in London and other anti-Catholic hysteria, although certainly nothing like it was IOTL 1680s...

The 17th century Jacobean Parliament was starting to be more bold, but they still didn't interfere in matters of the royal family, including their marriages. The dowry will certainly aid James, much as the dowry of Marie de Medicis aided Henry IV with his own, a major plus. The only down side is it will most definitely sour James' relations with Parliament even more, and another hurdle being Henry's rather intense faith: he may find marrying a Catholic hard to stomach. But if he begins smitten, he nay be able to conveniently ignore that fact.
 
While this seems to be very unrealistic, what with Henry going all the way to Italy to meet a potential bride, such a match would be beneficial I suppose. Again I can't see the Heir to the Throne being allowed to go all the way to Italy, that heart of Papism and home of the Pope, without significant opposition. But if such a marriage were to occur, it would be very unpopular. What advantages, besides an admittedly large Dowry, would such a marriage bring? With France or Spain or the Netherlands the advantages would be obvious. Trade, foreign alliances things like that. I can't see what Tuscany could bring to England. Also Catherine never had any children OTL and considering she was married for almost 10 years, thats a big problem.

But as for religion, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. All but one of the Queen Consorts for 17th century England were Catholic. Sure there would be a fuss but not a big one. Personally I think a better bride would be from one of the German Courts or France or Spain. Remember how much of a fuss was kicked up when the only Italian Marriage happened between the future James II and Marie Beatrice of Modena? Huge riots and high unpopularity.
 
While this seems to be very unrealistic, what with Henry going all the way to Italy to meet a potential bride, such a match would be beneficial I suppose. Again I can't see the Heir to the Throne being allowed to go all the way to Italy, that heart of Papism and home of the Pope, without significant opposition. But if such a marriage were to occur, it would be very unpopular. What advantages, besides an admittedly large Dowry, would such a marriage bring? With France or Spain or the Netherlands the advantages would be obvious. Trade, foreign alliances things like that. I can't see what Tuscany could bring to England. Also Catherine never had any children OTL and considering she was married for almost 10 years, thats a big problem.

But as for religion, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. All but one of the Queen Consorts for 17th century England were Catholic. Sure there would be a fuss but not a big one. Personally I think a better bride would be from one of the German Courts or France or Spain. Remember how much of a fuss was kicked up when the only Italian Marriage happened between the future James II and Marie Beatrice of Modena? Huge riots and high unpopularity.

I only suggested the potential travel to Italy because Charles I, when in league with Buckingham to seek a Spanish wife went to Spain personally to woo the Spanish Princess he wanted to marry, although it came to naught and the Spanish King demanded way too much for such a match.

Aside from the dowry (which a cash strapped James no doubt needs), there aren't too many big advantages for the marriage, you're right. The only thing I can think of it even more trading rights in Livorno and easier access to the Levantine trade. I know the English traded extensively at Livorno (which was known to them as Leghorn) and also traded in the Levant, but in the early 16th century I'm not completely sure how vested trade interests were.

I don't think this marriage can be compared to James II's, given it was a different time and only a few short years later the hysteria of the Popish plot broke out. A Catholic marriage to an Italian princess would no doubt be unpopular, indeed any Catholic marriage would (Henrietta Maria, IIRC, wasn't very well liked and Catherine of Braganza was also accused of various things during the Catholic hysteria of the late 1670s). James I in this scenario still has a "spare" whom he can arrange a Protestant marriage for, as well as his daughters.

I think the big issue with James II's marriage was that he himself had converted and although he had two Protestant daughters, his remarriage meant the possibility of a son who would be raised Catholic. I don't see Henry converting, it simply doesn't seem in his attitude, he was pretty close to the Puritan Party, after all. Any children would certainly be raised as Protestants -- if they have any. She was childless IOTL after all. She and her husband, the Duke of Mantua may of been a bad match in that case, or she was infertile, which certainly possible... which makes the possible marriage even more interesting... in a Chinese sense.
 
Son ? Brother (Charles) , I presume you mean .

Yes, brother. Late at night and typing do not go together for me. :eek:

Maybe the princess could be brought forth to France and meet the prince there?

This is possible... Marie de Medicis is basically ruling for her son at the time. But considering Charles I and Buckingham went to Spain to try and court the Spanish Princess Maria Anna, I don't see why Henry can't go to Florence. Yeah, it's Italy, but it's not like he's going to Rome. In the 17th century, grand tours by the great English nobility typically included Italy, with Venice and Rome being major stops.
 
A Henry-as-king-instead-of-Charles timeline would be interesting. Whereas Charles tried to nudge the Church of England closer theologically to Catholicism, Henry most likely would have gone the other way. Would that have meant no problems with Parliament? If not, then there is no Civil War . . . and does the British monarchy eventually move into a more absolutist direction?
 
A Henry-as-king-instead-of-Charles timeline would be interesting. Whereas Charles tried to nudge the Church of England closer theologically to Catholicism, Henry most likely would have gone the other way. Would that have meant no problems with Parliament? If not, then there is no Civil War . . . and does the British monarchy eventually move into a more absolutist direction?

Henry was certainly closer to the Puritan Party, but I don't think Charles' meddling in the Church was the biggest reason for the civil war. He certainly overstepped his bounds in Scotland the most, where he essentially tried to restablish the Episcopacy (that is, Bishoprics and the like, as England's Church still had them).

Henry would certainly not meddle with the church, but the issue is since the time of Elizabeth I, Parliament was becoming more bolder. They held the purse strings, and in early modern times, Kings were more cash strapped than ever. This meant that old forms of income were no longer reliant, and this was especially true in England. If a king had foreign designs abroad, he would need Parliaments help. Of course, Parliament could be dismissed; both Charles I and Charles II ruled without Parliament for years, Charles I digging up archaic laws to finance his reign, while Charles II had a French pension.

If Henry becomes King, just because he is an intense Protestant doesn't mean he will get along with them. Like all Kings of the period, he will have his allies within the Lords and Commons, and those against him. In this situation, Henry Frederick (or rather Henry IX) could rely upon the support of the Purtians and those who may have become Roundheads in the OTL civil war; it will be the High Church Anglicans he might have issues with, say if he desires more reformation of the church: there have been no changes since 1559, with the growth of those in England who are Protestants but are non-comformists. So it's hard to say what his relationship would be like. It depends on what kind of policies he pursues, both at home and abroad.
 
Top