Henry VIII dies at a time most inopportune

What if Henry VIII died in 1513 while on campaign in Flanders during the War of the League of Cambrai? Whether in battle or because of illness doesn't really matter: lets say he dies in the October of 1513, so news of his death arrives in London just after news arrives of the English victory at Flodden over the Scots.

He has no children, so who is his heir? Henry VIII's older sister Margaret has a son...James V of Scotland. He is eighteen months old, and the son of an enemy king whose corpse lies embalmed in Westminster, killed in battle at Flodden. Can he really take the throne?

Henry VIII's younger sister Mary is unmarried, and 17 years old. In OTL she was offered to the King of France as part of the peace deal that ended Henry's part in the war against France...if she becomes Queen, how does English history play out?

If for some reason she isn't allowed to become Queen, who does take the throne?
 
What if Henry VIII died in 1513 while on campaign in Flanders during the War of the League of Cambrai? Whether in battle or because of illness doesn't really matter: lets say he dies in the October of 1513, so news of his death arrives in London just after news arrives of the English victory at Flodden over the Scots.

He has no children, so who is his heir? Henry VIII's older sister Margaret has a son...James V of Scotland. He is eighteen months old, and the son of an enemy king whose corpse lies embalmed in Westminster, killed in battle at Flodden. Can he really take the throne?

Henry VIII's younger sister Mary is unmarried, and 17 years old. In OTL she was offered to the King of France as part of the peace deal that ended Henry's part in the war against France...if she becomes Queen, how does English history play out?

If for some reason she isn't allowed to become Queen, who does take the throne?

in the case of James V of Scotland, he wouldn't be King his Mother would be Queen, most likely she'd head south to London with him, much like Mary Queen of Scots going to her mothers nation, France and being raised there, James V will be raised English.
 
in the case of James V of Scotland, he wouldn't be King his Mother would be Queen, most likely she'd head south to London with him, much like Mary Queen of Scots going to her mothers nation, France and being raised there, James V will be raised English.

Will that lead the Scots to crown someone else. . . Or will they remain loyal to the baby most will have never really seen.
 
Will that lead the Scots to crown someone else. . . Or will they remain loyal to the baby most will have never really seen.

they did to Mary, who's French Mother run the country for 7 years, the Queen from the age of 5 to 18 lived in France, she spoke and thought in French, she Catholic they were not, they were largely loyal to her, till she really messed up, though her mother was Mary of Guise who was a first rate Sates-woman, it took a hell of a lot to get the Scots to kick Mary out, then only in the name of her Son James VI, if they try to find some one other then James V to been King they'll never find a strong claimant, given that James V is the only child of an only child, the only claimant i can find is James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Arran
 
the question i'd most want to know is how Margaret rule? would she rule alone as her nieces and granddaughter did a generation later or under the power of a new husband as people thought woman should. it should be noted that the queens of the latter age were able to do so because of all the strong women the were ruling in europe at the time
 
Margaret is probably the viable heir, being the oldest daughter of Henry VII, if Henry VIII dies without any children. However she's in Scotland, although I suppose she could rule, already having serving as Regent for her son, so she must have some political savvy. Mary, on the other hand, might be seen as too young to be considered a possible Queen.

But Henry VIII always feared dying without a male heir because of the War of the Roses and fearing that a woman couldn't rule. Aren't the de la Poles still around, the remaining Plantagenet heirs? They might make a bid for the crown.
 
But Henry VIII always feared dying without a male heir because of the War of the Roses and fearing that a woman couldn't rule. Aren't the de la Poles still around, the remaining Plantagenet heirs? They might make a bid for the crown.

yes it's Richard de la Pole, in 1513 he's in Brittany with 12,000 German mercenaries and backed by Louis XII because France and England were at war and Louis XII recognized the just died brother of Richard's pretensions to the English crown in 1512, it is unlikely that the English people would to happy with French power over them
 
Bumpage of an old thread (thanks for the idea, Glen!). The problem here is that Henry's likely heirs seem to be people that the English people aren't particularly excited about ruling them:

1. Henry's older sister Margaret is in Scotland, the Queen of the King of Scotland...who was at war with England until he was killed mere weeks ago at Flodden. Are the English really going to want to put her (as yet unborn) son on the throne of England, seeing as she's the wife of an enemy nation's king? Is she even going to want to rule England?

2. Of the remaining issue of Henry VII, his daughter Mary, as yet unmarried to Louis XII of France, is 17. She seems the most likely candidate to the throne, but if she rules, who holds the real power behind her? Who is she encouraged to marry?

3. If we go for a non-Tudor, the next likely claimant is, as black angel mentioned, Richard de la Pole. Again...do the English really want a French-backed de la Pole at the head of German mercenaries on the throne?
 

Glen

Moderator
Bumpage of an old thread (thanks for the idea, Glen!).

No problem. Once you've been here a few years, I recommend that you search for your own threads and if there are any you still find value in that you post in them. Once the last post in a thread gets too old, it may stop showing up when you search, and if it is something you want to revisit, that could get annoying....right now, I'm not finding anything older than June of 2006.

The problem here is that Henry's likely heirs seem to be people that the English people aren't particularly excited about ruling them:

1. Henry's older sister Margaret is in Scotland, the Queen of the King of Scotland...who was at war with England until he was killed mere weeks ago at Flodden. Are the English really going to want to put her (as yet unborn) son on the throne of England, seeing as she's the wife of an enemy nation's king?

Well, that might be one way to inspire peace.

Is she even going to want to rule England?

Of course! Those royals always do, if not for herself but for her progeny.

2. Of the remaining issue of Henry VII, his daughter Mary, as yet unmarried to Louis XII of France, is 17. She seems the most likely candidate to the throne, but if she rules, who holds the real power behind her? Who is she encouraged to marry?

Don't know. Who were the eligible royal princes in that time period?

3. If we go for a non-Tudor, the next likely claimant is, as black angel mentioned, Richard de la Pole. Again...do the English really want a French-backed de la Pole at the head of German mercenaries on the throne?

Why not? They had Normans, the Tudors were Welsh, the Stewarts would be Scottish, William Dutch, and George German....
 
With James V of Scotland as heir, how would the war go? As in, would it stop and how fast if so?

A king of Scotland inheriting the English throne... why does that seem familiar? :) An earlier Act of Union possible?
 
Why not? They had Normans, the Tudors were Welsh, the Stewarts would be Scottish, William Dutch, and George German....

Glen

That's the point I often think of whenever I hear anyone talking about English xenophobia.;) Although to be fair the Normans shouldn't really be included on the list. There was a degree of acceptance, generally fairly large, with the others but the Normans was a case of outright invasion and conquest, aided by bad luck and internal division.:(:(:mad::mad::mad:

Steve
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Glen

That's the point I often think of whenever I hear anyone talking about English xenophobia.;) Although to be fair the Normans shouldn't really be included on the list. There was a degree of acceptance, generally fairly large, with the others but the Normans was a case of outright invasion and conquest, aided by bad luck and internal division.:(:(:mad::mad::mad:

Steve

In that case no west European country have ever been xenophobic, because they have all imported external nobility and royalty.
 
Interesting
Strictly by our own times -
Line of Henry VII:
Henry VIII deceased 1513 no issue
Margaret Tudor Queen Regent of Scotland (widowed - declared Regent of Scotland and was pregnant - fighting against the pro French party at the Scots court who want the french Duke of Albany to have the regency)
James V of Scotland (b1512)
Alexander Duke of Ross (b1514 d1515)
Mary Tudor aged just 17.

Other claimants the Plantagenet/York claim:
Lady Catherine Countess of Devon (surviving sister of Elizabeth of York)
Henry Courtenay Earl of Devon (aged about 18 and was with Henry in France)
Margaret Pole (nee Plantagenet) Countess of Salisbury (aged around 40 was high in favour at court with Henry VIII and his Queen and has a family of around five children)
Anne St Leger (only child of Edward IV's eldest sister) married to George Manners with issue
Richard de la Pole (exiled son of Elizabeth younger sister of Edward IV)

after that a fair chunk of the aristocracy have claims - the principal and the one vain enough to claim would be Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingham (descendant of Thomas of Woodstock youngest son of Edward III and also descended through the Beauforts from John of Gaunt)
married to a Percy and with children)
 
Top