Henry VIII Focuses on Son-In-Law

I was going to take my mind off him, but when other people queried I couldn't help but be curious.

Suppose when Mary is... I don't know 7, Henry VIII thinks producing a son with Katherine might be unlikely (OTL he gave up later). However, unlike OTL where he looks to Anne's pants, he thinks like a Roman and starts looking around possible marriages for Mary.

Henry decides if he's having trouble getting a son, he'll make sure his son-in-law is going to be a great advisor to England's first Queen since... whenever that was. So he looks for an early betrothal for Mary. The things Henry is looking for is an English family that can expand royal influence, a handsome bright young man, and preferably one who has a title but the first two are priority. When he finds someone appropriate, Henry plans to bring the guy to court.

Suppose that none of the Ducal children impress him for the "bright" part. Which of the Earls might end up being the future groom of Mary? And, aside from no break from Rome, what effect would this have on England through Henry's life and the next three decades after he kicks the bucket?
 
Would Henry have wanted to secure merely a consort, or would he have pursued a foreign Union? afterall, Mary OTL was eventually married to Philip of Spain (though by this point was well into here majority at 37) but was also at one point or another betrothed to the Dauphin of France, the Duc d'Orlean, and to the Holy Roman Emperor - As well as being courted by the Duke of Bavaria and the Duke of Cleves.

Otherwise of English Earls, Mayber Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey (courtesy). The Howard's were a good family - the Dukes of Norfolk - and Henry was of a similar age to Mary.

Also possibly Francis Talbot, son of the Earl of Shrewsbury, who shared Mary's Catholicism and OTL was one of the first peers to support her claim to the throne. Talbot was also in line to be hereditary Chamberlain of the Exchequer.
 
James V of Scotland? union of the Crown plus Henry sisters son to boot while it is a close marriage I sure the pope would have given dispensation
 
In Henry’s mind, his inability to produce an heir was seen by him as a slight to his masculinity as a man and a husband. And also that god did not approve of him. Get by that first.

And there had been no Queen Regnant of England. Mary was the first.
 
And there had been no Queen Regnant of England. Mary was the first.

The Empress Maude might disagree with you on that.

The things Henry is looking for is an English family that 2/1) can expand royal influence, 3) a handsome bright young man, and preferably one who 1/2) has a title but the first two are priority. When he finds someone appropriate, Henry plans to bring the guy to court.

Suppose that none of the Ducal children impress him for the "bright" part. Which of the Earls might end up being the future groom of Mary? And, aside from no break from Rome, what effect would this have on England through Henry's life and the next three decades after he kicks the bucket?

See the order that I inserted. Marriages in those days - particularly royal ones - weren't based on looks/intelligence or lack thereof. They were considered a bonus. And the ducal children to impress him: the duke of Buckingham's son is already married with no son of age for Mary (plus there's his dad's sticky end); Suffolk is the king's best mate (and brother-in-law), so his elder son, Henry (the one who died in '24 OTL) is likely to be a strong contender - by dint of him being English and male; Norfolk's son is an option, but the Howards would have a chorus of detractors who viewed them as too parvenu (an interesting idea would've been Howard's son by his first wife, Anne of York, surviving). And that exhausts the ducal children.

Then we go to the earls. Ones who are actually possible consorts:

Talbot's son has already been mentioned; Percy's out (if the king's not getting Ms Boleyn he might certainly try); again, if the Courtenay earl of Devon had had kids by his first wife, Viscountess Lisle, a son might've been born around the same age as Mary. Then there's other families - the earls of Cumberland had a son who married Elinor Brandon OTL; and that's all I can think of for now.
 
Matilda was never proclaimed queen. And yes, I do know about her. Mary is the first.
You're both right.
She was accepted by her supporters as queen regnant but was never crowned. She did use the title Lady of the English which was the closest possible to the legal queen regnant title.
So Mary was the first Queen Regnant to be crowned but not the first to reign.
 
Reginald Pole, obviously not Cardinal in the ATL. Good mind, York Blood ( kill his older brother and he has the best Yorkist claim claim) and best of all, Mary likes him.
 
Would Henry have wanted to secure merely a consort, or would he have pursued a foreign Union? afterall, Mary OTL was eventually married to Philip of Spain (though by this point was well into here majority at 37) but was also at one point or another betrothed to the Dauphin of France, the Duc d'Orlean, and to the Holy Roman Emperor - As well as being courted by the Duke of Bavaria and the Duke of Cleves.

Otherwise of English Earls, Mayber Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey (courtesy). The Howard's were a good family - the Dukes of Norfolk - and Henry was of a similar age to Mary.

Also possibly Francis Talbot, son of the Earl of Shrewsbury, who shared Mary's Catholicism and OTL was one of the first peers to support her claim to the throne. Talbot was also in line to be hereditary Chamberlain of the Exchequer.

Hmmm, I was thinking kind of like the Romans. Romans looking for a heir to the family plantation (or the Roman Empire) who didn't have sons (or had bad sons) went and adopted talented young men and usually made the ties even strong with a marriage with an attractive female relative. In this particular case I was thinking of a consort advisor (since Mary would be ruling in her own right). however, the possibility of a marriage with the Holy Roman Emperor brings huge potential benefits for England (and PUs were not exactly something Romans dealt with), so that's certiainly a possibility.

In fact that's a pretty good match for both sides. I'll put that idea on the backburner. However, I'll stick with my original prompt first.

And thanks for your ideas like Howard and Talbot.

The Empress Maude might disagree with you on that.

She was the de jure heir and should have been queen. De facto, her inheritance was taken by her own cousin, one who swore an oath to support her.

Reginald Pole, obviously not Cardinal in the ATL. Good mind, York Blood ( kill his older brother and he has the best Yorkist claim claim) and best of all, Mary likes him.

Ah, that's another good suggestion! I didn't know Mary's personal feeling for him.
 
Reginald Pole, obviously not Cardinal in the ATL. Good mind, York Blood ( kill his older brother and he has the best Yorkist claim claim) and best of all, Mary likes him.

Was going to suggest him, but then I remembered that Pole made the mistake of criticizing Henry's divorce, IIRC. Plus, his mother rode the rollercoaster of Tudor favour longer than anyone else, and couldn't recall if she was in favour (which may play a role in Reggie getting considered) at the time Henry would be deciding to focus on a son-in-law or not.
 
Was going to suggest him, but then I remembered that Pole made the mistake of criticizing Henry's divorce, IIRC. Plus, his mother rode the rollercoaster of Tudor favour longer than anyone else, and couldn't recall if she was in favour (which may play a role in Reggie getting considered) at the time Henry would be deciding to focus on a son-in-law or not.

If it's at the time I suggested, there is no divorce to speak of. That said, anyone who might crtizese Henry for any reason (if not the dumping of Katherine which doesn't happen, insert any problem here) might not be viewed favorably.
 
Mary was betrothed. To Charles V, to be precise. Charles chose not to wait.

It was pointed out above, you have to get past Henry's own self-absorbed self for him to look out for his daughter. As it was pointed out above, he viewed the lack of a son by Queen Katherine as a judgment of God, a slur on his manhood, justification for everything that followed. Arthur was cast down (okay, over-dramatic, but fits H8) so that he could be King. He should have an heir, a son - and Henry Fitzroy proves it's not his fault he didn't have one, so the fault is Katherine's. At this time (1523), Henry was already frustrated with Katherine and she was going through the change.

How do you get a self-absorbed narcissist like Henry to focus on his daughter and her welfare? OTL, he was more focused on HIS wants, needs, desires. What you're proposing is an alternate Henry for this alternate history.

Pole might be the best bet, since this is before Anne Boleyn's rise and you indicate she won't. He's the right age, religion, and he does have a sense of destiny.
 
How do you get a self-absorbed narcissist like Henry to focus on his daughter and her welfare? OTL, he was more focused on HIS wants, needs, desires. What you're proposing is an alternate Henry for this alternate history.

I don't know. Let's say his father raised him better? I guess that means we have the real POD in Henry's childhood and the OP is merely the first big butterfly (as in he till writes similar things about religion early in his reign) with all earlier butterflies being little ones (the kind that might effect events in the court or perhaps his marriage in the bed that don't get out into the history books). I know some narcissistic Romans viewed their estates (or... the Empire) as proof of their lives' work and adopted young talented men (and again, usually also married them to female relatives too) so that their "legacy" would live on but by the 1500s that kind of thinking is not really a thing. Henry VIII of England isn't like Charles VI Holy Roman Emperor.

He has a dream, talks to a bishop about it and interprets it as a mission from God?

Mary was betrothed. To Charles V, to be precise. Charles chose not to wait.

Hmmm, does this work? What year was she betrothed?

Pole might be the best bet, since this is before Anne Boleyn's rise and you indicate she won't. He's the right age, religion, and he does have a sense of destiny.

You're probably right. Thanks
 
Mary was about 5 or 6 when the betrothal started, Charles was born in 1500 & she in 1516, so a few years later, he decided he didn't want to wait. Can't really blame him, he needed legitimate heirs.
 
Top