How much more powerful would the Habsburgs have become with a third (English) branch a.k.a. How screwed is France (and Scotland)?

[cex]

Well, Frances did not have reformist sympathies. Mary was fond of her and she loathed everyone with reformer sympathies. Regardless of the how and why, per Henry 1536 act of Succession (assuming it's not been changed before he dies), Mary and Elizabeth have no claim, nor do any of Margaret Tudor's offspring, so next is Frances.

*First Protestant service performed in Westminster Abbey* when almost everyone else at the time was buried as a Henrician Catholic? And Mary got along fairly well with reformist Catherine Parr...

And who again will be willing to enforce the 1536 Act of Succession? Frances is no more viable a candidate for the throne than Henry Brandon had Henry VIII died in 1533/1534. The Catholics are perfectly satisfied with Mary, and genuine Protestanism, as opposed to Henrician Catholicism(which Cromwell/Cranmer paid lip service to) was very much a fringe sentiment in 1541.

 

[Tudorfan]

*First Protestant service performed in Westminster Abbey* when almost everyone else at the time was buried as a Henrician Catholic? And Mary got along fairly well with reformist Catherine Parr...

And who again will be willing to enforce the 1536 Act of Succession? Frances is no more viable a candidate for the throne than Henry Brandon had Henry VIII died in 1533/1534. The Catholics are perfectly satisfied with Mary, and genuine Protestanism, as opposed to Henrician Catholicism(which Cromwell/Cranmer paid lip service to) was very much a fringe sentiment in 1541.

Yes, but you also forget: it is law that Mary is illegitimate. That is the important thing: per Parliament, she's illegitimate. Parliament made the 1536 Act of Succession law; if Mary or Elizabeth take the throne, even with noble support, they're usurpers. And Mary wouldn't want that stain on her reign because that invites rebellion.

Either someone else becomes Queen - likely Frances, per the 1536 act of Succession - or Mary usurps the throne and never sits securely on it.
Sadly, there are no other options.
Elizabeth is too unpopular, given Anne Boleyn.
Mary is illegitimate and becomes a Usurper...
or Frances Brandon takes the throne as Queen Regnant per the 1536 Act of Succession.

 

[Stahlo]

Maybe just for the sake of getting the thread back on topic, we can assume that Henry changed his will during the time gap between Edward's death and his own, and Mary and Elizabeth are back in the line of succession. Which, in this circumstance, he would likely do.

 

[cex]

Yes, but you also forget: it is law that Mary is illegitimate. That is the important thing: per Parliament, she's illegitimate. Parliament made the 1536 Act of Succession law; if Mary or Elizabeth take the throne, even with noble support, they're usurpers. And Mary wouldn't want that stain on her reign because that invites rebellion.

Henry VII reversed the illegitimacy of the York children after seizing the throne through military force in 1485. The Tudor Parliament was largely a rubber stamp that was in no position to effect royal policy on its own initiative.

Either someone else becomes Queen - likely Frances, per the 1536 act of Succession - or Mary usurps the throne and never sits securely on it.
Sadly, there are no other options.
Elizabeth is too unpopular, given Anne Boleyn.
Mary is illegitimate and becomes a Usurper...
or Frances Brandon takes the throne as Queen Regnant per the 1536 Act of Succession.

Similarly to Henry VII and Richard III, *Frances*, not Mary would have retroactively been declared the usurper and beheaded following Mary's seizure of the throne, had she attempted to seize the throne, which in itself is extremely unlikely given that Frances Brandon's name is mentioned nowhere in the Second Succession Act.

 

[Tudorfan]

Henry VII reversed the illegitimacy of the York children after seizing the throne through military force in 1485. The Tudor Parliament was largely a rubber stamp that was in no position to effect royal policy on its own initiative.

Similarly to Henry VII and Richard III, *Frances*, not Mary would have retroactively been declared the usurper and beheaded following Mary's seizure of the throne, had she attempted to seize the throne, which in itself is extremely unlikely given that Frances Brandon's name is mentioned nowhere in the Second Succession Act.

The Act also created several offences of high treason connected with interrupting the succession to the throne of any person so chosen, or with saying that Henry's first two marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had been valid, or that his third marriage to Jane Seymour was invalid, or with saying either of his daughters were legitimate and any son of his third marriage was not.

Finally, the Act made it treason to attempt to repeal the Act. It was superseded in 1543 by the Third Succession Act, which returned Henry's daughters into the line of succession to the throne, but did not restore their legitimacy.


Ergo, c. 1542, if Henry dies without issue from Jane (or Edward dies young), that's it; neither daughter had a claim or was legitimate, so unless Henry chooses Mary (or Elizabeth) specifically, to succeed him as Queen - it is literally high treason to support Mary or Elizabeth to the throne. Otherwise, that's it - tough titty ta tas, they're done, they have no claim, if they go for the throne, they're usurpers. Margaret's line was out, so, even though Frances is not named directly, due to the exclusion of Margaret's line and the illegitimacy of Mary and Elizabeth, FRANCES IS NEXT IN LINE.

Neither Mary nor Elizabeth are going to break the law. They're not idiots.

Mary and Elizabeth only legally have a claim in 1543, when Henry restores them; if he hasn't done that by his death in 1542, no matter how much you may want it, neither of them is becoming Queen under any circumstances.

 

[HortenseMancini]

The Act also created several offences of high treason connected with interrupting the succession to the throne of any person so chosen, or with saying that Henry's first two marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had been valid, or that his third marriage to Jane Seymour was invalid, or with saying either of his daughters were legitimate and any son of his third marriage was not.

Finally, the Act made it treason to attempt to repeal the Act. It was superseded in 1543 by the Third Succession Act, which returned Henry's daughters into the line of succession to the throne, but did not restore their legitimacy.


Ergo, c. 1542, if Henry dies without issue from Jane (or Edward dies young), that's it; neither daughter had a claim or was legitimate, so unless Henry chooses Mary (or Elizabeth) specifically, to succeed him as Queen - it is literally high treason to support Mary or Elizabeth to the throne. Otherwise, that's it - tough titty ta tas, they're done, they have no claim, if they go for the throne, they're usurpers. Margaret's line was out, so, even though Frances is not named directly, due to the exclusion of Margaret's line and the illegitimacy of Mary and Elizabeth, FRANCES IS NEXT IN LINE.

Neither Mary nor Elizabeth are going to break the law. They're not idiots.

Mary and Elizabeth only legally have a claim in 1543, when Henry restores them; if he hasn't done that by his death in 1542, no matter how much you may want it, neither of them is becoming Queen under any circumstances.

And it was treason when their grandfather became king, and their great grandfather…

 

[Elfwine]

And it was treason when their grandfather became king, and their great grandfather…

I'm not sure that those examples strengthen their position, as far as having any chance of the throne. Where are those eager for a civil war in their names?

 

[HortenseMancini]

I'm not sure that those examples strengthen their position, as far as having any chance of the throne. Where are those eager for a civil war in their names?

The English people seem to have considered Mary as her father’s heir before Edward’s birth regardless of her status. I don’t see why that would change if Edward dies in 1541.

 

[cex]

The Act also created several offences of high treason connected with interrupting the succession to the throne of any person so chosen, or with saying that Henry's first two marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had been valid, or that his third marriage to Jane Seymour was invalid, or with saying either of his daughters were legitimate and any son of his third marriage was not.

So what? Edward is now dead.

Finally, the Act made it treason to attempt to repeal the Act. It was superseded in 1543 by the Third Succession Act, which returned Henry's daughters into the line of succession to the throne, but did not restore their legitimacy.

Guess what? It was also treason to repeal the First Succession Act of 1534, yet Elizabeth lost her rights as soon as Anne was dead.

Ergo, c. 1542, if Henry dies without issue from Jane (or Edward dies young), that's it; neither daughter had a claim or was legitimate, so unless Henry chooses Mary (or Elizabeth) specifically, to succeed him as Queen - it is literally high treason to support Mary or Elizabeth to the throne. Otherwise, that's it - tough titty ta tas, they're done, they have no claim, if they go for the throne, they're usurpers. Margaret's line was out, so, even though Frances is not named directly, due to the exclusion of Margaret's line and the illegitimacy of Mary and Elizabeth, FRANCES IS NEXT IN LINE.

Most of the commons and the gentry would respond 'Frances who?' This isn't even the case of 'The Great Concubine', whose level of unpopularity is near-universal.

Neither Mary nor Elizabeth are going to break the law. They're not idiots.

The word of the King is law, and both disrespected it in 1553.

Mary and Elizabeth only legally have a claim in 1543, when Henry restores them; if he hasn't done that by his death in 1542, no matter how much you may want it, neither of them is becoming Queen under any circumstances.

 

[Tudorfan]

The word of the King is law, and both disrespected it in 1553.

Not true - Edward's device for the succession had not been approved by Parliament, so was not valid at the time.

 

[Elfwine]

The English people seem to have considered Mary as her father’s heir before Edward’s birth regardless of her status. I don’t see why that would change if Edward dies in 1541.

"We're willing to fight a civil war on your behalf." is the thing, though. It's not hard to support Mary with words, but who wants to fight over this as far comparisons to Edward IV or Henry VII?

 

[cex]

I'm not sure that those examples strengthen their position, as far as having any chance of the throne. Where are those eager for a civil war in their names?

The Brandons are despised as 'up-jumped standard-bearers' by the aristocracy, and again, the gentry and commons regard Frances as 'Frances who?'

Not true - Edward's device for the succession had not been approved by Parliament, so was not valid at the time.

Guess what, physical violence matters as much as perceived legality(The Third Succession Act of 1543 authorized Edward as well as Henry to dispose of the crown by letters patent or will) in seizing the throne. Henry Tudor had no right whatsoever in 1484.

"We're willing to fight a civil war on your behalf." is the thing, though. It's not hard to support Mary with words, but who wants to fight over this as far comparisons to Edward IV or Henry VII?

If you think the Brandons are regarded as being on the same level as York or Lancaster, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[HortenseMancini]

"We're willing to fight a civil war on your behalf." is the thing, though. It's not hard to support Mary with words, but who wants to fight over this as far comparisons to Edward IV or Henry VII?

They literally were IOTL

 

[Elfwine]

If you think the Brandons are regarded as being on the same level as York or Lancaster, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I do not. I do not find the arguments people have made that people saw this:

Ergo, c. 1542, if Henry dies without issue from Jane (or Edward dies young), that's it; neither daughter had a claim or was legitimate, so unless Henry chooses Mary (or Elizabeth) specifically, to succeed him as Queen - it is literally high treason to support Mary or Elizabeth to the throne.

as entirely meaningless to be particularly persuasive, though.

They literally were IOTL

To make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: Are you arguing that the legal situation was the same as far as Jane Grey, or that that Mary was so popular that people would back her regardless of the legal situation in 1542 or so?

 

[cex]

I do not. I do not find the arguments people have made that people saw this:

as entirely meaningless to be particularly persuasive, though.

It was *literally high treason* to support Henry Bolingbroke's claim to the throne in 1399 and Henry VII's claim to the throne in 1485.

To make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: Are you arguing that the legal situation was the same as far as Jane Grey, or that that Mary was so popular that people would back her regardless of the legal situation in 1542 or so?

Had Henry VIII died in 1536, how much popular support would the Great Concubine have had? Almost none. But at least they know *who* she is. But nobody knows who Frances Brandon is(and neither did they know anything about Jane Grey)!

 

[Elfwine]

It was *literally high treason* to support Henry Bolingbroke's claim to the throne in 1399 and Henry VII's claim to the throne in 1485.

If we're going over every case of an attempted usurpation since the Norman Conquest itself, I'm curious if you count supporting Stephen or supporting Matilda as treason.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Had Henry VIII died in 1536, how much popular support would the Great Concubine have had?

Especially as by that time Elizabeth was also a bastard (and Anne's dead in this POD)

 

[cex]

If we're going over every case of an attempted usurpation since the Norman Conquest itself, I'm curious if you count supporting Stephen or supporting Matilda as treason.

Supporting Stephen is treason to Matilda's supporters, and supporting Matilda is treason to Stephen's supporters. In the end, Stephen managed to win well enough to cast Matilda as the 'usurper', but the throne went to her son after his death.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

We are seriously deviating from the original question...
But honestly @cex I think your POD would need a bit of altering as in 1543 Philip would be engaged/married to Maria Manuela, perhaps pair Mary I off with Charles V

 

[Vercigentorix]

Forget France and Scotland, protestantism is over outside Germany and Scandinavia.
France will be fine as the English habsburgs will have an independent policy after the death of Charles V [I think he'd be Mary's husband ( also Mary would definitely be the Queen ) ]
If Scotland continues to be an outpost of France its conquered.
Henry II may not die early, resulting in a stable France.
The Anglo-dutch monarchy may not stay together, resulting in a sovereign Catholic kingdom of the Netherlands.