King Arthur Tudor

[Don_Giorgio]

About 50... He has the right age of the Popes in 16th Century... How about... "Habemus Papam... Dominum Henricum... Sancte Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Tudor... Qui sibit nomen imposuit Adrianum VII"
Has a nice ring to it...

 

[Nymain1]

On another note, the colony of New Camelot might be better called new Avalon, since Camelot was a city (er, castle), and Avalon a region. And since this looks roughly analogous to Massachusetts, its a bit too big to be Camelot. Just my 2cents.

Oh, I'm sorry, that is bad research on my part, I'm not particuarly versant in the Myth, I apologise for the mistake

Oh, and Fort Arthur is, I'm assuming, around Boston? The shawmut peninsula does provide for an excellent location for a fort (not anymore, what with many of the bays filled in and the hills leveled). How good are the relations with the natives? I ask partially because, if they're on good terms, then there's not much need for a fort. (not that that really matters, the colonists could just be cautious, or allied with a tribe that does have some local enemies, whatever).

They've fortified them because firstly, they've gone to an unknown world, so their bound to be cautious, they're not going to survive a prolonged seige, but they could fend off a wild animal attack.
And their on pretty good relations, and the relations with the natives are strong, with a good trade agreement going on.

Also, how is the settling of this colony going? In our history, there really wasn't much going for Massachusetts except the character of its settlers. Tightly knit (due to the persecution they suffered) families that were absurdly industrious and hard working. Without an initial population of people like that, it would have quickly become a backwater, noted for little but fishing and lumber (and fishing can be done from pretty much anywhere nearby). People would probably head to better locations, such as Manhattan, or the Chesapeake. Of course, Boston is still the closest good harbor to Europe (dunno about any Canadian ports), and rounding Cape Cod can be a little hazardous.

The colony is going strong, boyed by the influx of a lot of colonists and royal support, espescially from the Queen, who was obsessed with the new world, because of Bristol's story telling

I'm a little cautious about this crusade. This was the high point of Ottoman power, they had a lot going for them, and so many other reasons. I find it difficult enough to accept that all of Europe would unite against them, and even more difficult to accept that they'd succeed. But, I'll leave the ranting about how impossible it is to AHP.

Well The crusade was all the European powers, who apart from mainly France (who'd just gone through the civil war) were much more powerful then Our Timeline due to not going through the large War of of The League of Cambrai. Also with all the powers attacking at the same time, due to the pope declaring a crusade, calling them together through their faith.

 

[Nymain1]

About 50... He has the right age of the Popes in 16th Century... How about... "Habemus Papam... Dominum Henricum... Sancte Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Tudor... Qui sibit nomen imposuit Adrianum VII"
Has a nice ring to it...

Henry could become Pope, though how realistic is it, aren't most popes italian?
Though then again, he was well respected for his work against the Protestants.
Any others reckon he would become pope?

 

[Philip]

Henry could become Pope, though how realistic is it, aren't most popes italian? Though then again, he was well respected for his work against the Protestants. Any others reckon he would become pope?

Most are. At that time, there had been a few recent French. Adrian VI (elected 1522) was Dutch from the HRE. He was the last non-Italian until John Paul II. Adrian did have an advantage over the other candidates: he was HRE Charles V's tutor.

I think it is a bit of a stretch for him to become pope. If Arthur were still alive, he could lobby for Henry. I don't think Hannah has the political capital to press Henry's case.

Then again, the success of the crusade may give Henry the boost he needs, especially if the current pope dies during the euphoria following crusade successes.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That would just allow the Ottomans to defeat them in detail. The Ottomans aren't just going to sit around and do nothing while the entire world teams up on them - they have plenty of diplomatic cards to play, and the chances of all those countries, with very strongly conflicting interests, remaining united that way, is unlikely.

But then who wants any TL where the Ottomans aren't totally destroyed? That's apparently what they're there for.

I thought that in this TL Henry, who had been in power practically since Henry VIII's reign, since he was Archbishop, so would be tired and as hes getting on in years he'd take a step back, the Crusades taking it out of him.

I think that rather then all the powers against the Ottomans, I have it that each induvidual country was out to defeat the Ottomans, it just happens to be at the same time, like when the French had to beg the Venicians to supply them in Egypt

And Thank you for your comment, youve been very helpful throughtout the TL

 

[Philip]

The Ottomans aren't just going to sit around and do nothing while the entire world teams up on them - they have plenty of diplomatic cards to play, and the chances of all those countries, with very strongly conflicting interests, remaining united that way, is unlikely.

The shifting European alliances of the Italian wars definitely supports this. At the time, the French and Ottomans often found common interests in the Habsburgs. One can even make the case that some of the princes of the HRE would have not been overly upset if the Ottomans had sacked Vienna.

 

[Susano]

The shifting European alliances of the Italian wars definitely supports this. At the time, the French and Ottomans often found common interests in the Habsburgs. One can even make the case that some of the princes of the HRE would have not been overly upset if the Ottomans had sacked Vienna.

I doubt the latter, seeing how even the protestant princes were eager to support Charles V against the Ottomans. Though the French have been a near-costant Ottoman ally, yes.

 

[Nymain1]

That would just allow the Ottomans to defeat them in detail. The Ottomans aren't just going to sit around and do nothing while the entire world teams up on them - they have plenty of diplomatic cards to play, and the chances of all those countries, with very strongly conflicting interests, remaining united that way, is unlikely.

But then who wants any TL where the Ottomans aren't totally destroyed? That's apparently what they're there for.

Two things,
One, the Ottomans arent totally destroyed, they still have a large area, they've just lost north Africa, the Kingdom of Jarusalem, and some European land, their not completely gone, I apologise, as the main powers have just gone through major religious termoil, with the Protestantism and all that. Then another religion starts enroaching on their faiths land, I would have thought that the knee jerk reaction, would be to beat back the enroaching Ottomans. And theres still some things the ottomans are going to do in the future of this timeline, they've just suffered a set back
Two, the Ottomans did not have time to react to the impending threat, so would not be able to react to it quick enough, remember the Imperial Armies were attacking the Ottomans straight away after the Pope's declaration.So to be honest no nation at all would be able to take them.

And to the French supporting them, well they've just had a regime change, because they surrounded themselves with enemies, are they just going to go and declare their support for a regime, that all their neighbours have just declared war against?

 

[Rick Robinson]

It's amazing that no one has done a King Arthur (Tudor) timeline here before! Maybe the possibility is so obvious that no one actually got around to doing one.

Please don't rush headlong into the future - as a Tudor era fan, I'd really love to see this more fully textured. Anyway, every alt-hist ends up effectively being a parallel history, the distinctive qualities of the POD being lost in the ripples of time. (That is, by about 1700 or so this TL would have much the flavor of any timeline with a 16th c. POD.)

There are so many things I'd love to know, like what becomes of Anne Boleyn - married to Derby, married to Wyatt, the Archbishop's discreet mistress ... the possibilities are legion. And a host of similar questions.

A few specific comments and some grumps.

Arthur's love of archery - you mention it right after he survives the sickness that killed him in OTL. I wouldn't expect huge historical consequences, but it could have some interesting small ones. It could get him in a jam, if he thinks he can win with Agincourt tactics - those days were past - or it could put him in the forefront of bulking up his army with arquebuses.

For 1513 you mention de Foix, in Italy, capitalizing on mistakes by Arthur. Do you mean that Arthur was campaigning in Italy? That seems awfully unlikely.

I agree with whoever suggested having only a ceremonial capital at Winchester. Kings still moved around a lot, and Arthur might well build a palace there, but moving the seat of real government from London at this late date seems unlikely. If he ignores my advice and does it anyway, it could have consequences downstream - parallel to the price the French monarchy paid by moving to Versailles: losing their touch on the pulse of the realm's main city.

Nice irony that ATL Henry VIII becomes fully as anti-protestant as the OTL one was (till it suited his interest to reverse field). But there was very little English protestantism to suppress in OTL 1524, and wouldn't be much more in this TL - in fact, "protestantism" did not really exist yet. Of course there was heresy, and the stake to deal with it, but the lines between reform and outright break were still quite hazy compared to even a decade later.

I'm with the Pasha - a successful crusade to the Holy Land, right at the peak of Ottoman power, pretty much rings up "no sale" with me. They wouldn't head for the Holy Land anyway; they'd head for Constantinople to strike at the head of the beast ... and probably get their own handed to them.

Does Arthur build up the English navy, as Henry did in OTL? Pettifogging point, but "HMS King Arthur" is anachronistic. The usage HMS didn't come in till much later, and the ship would have been Arthur Royal or some such.

A colony in OTL New England also seems very unlikely at this date, at least in the familiar sense of American colonies. The population of England roughly doubled in the 16th century - in the 1530s and 40s there wasn't the population pressure to cause colonization. A fortified trading post would be possible, but very unlikely a colony in the sense we know.

Even a trading post should be either farther north - the St. Laurent - or farther south, like maybe the Hudson. Major rivers going into the interior, suited to the fur trade. Boston just has nothing going for it in 16th century eyes.

Finally, Hannah sounds all wrong - Elizabeth, Katherine, Jane, anything but Hannah! The problem is that to OTL ears - and OTL is where we're reading this - "Hannah" has a very distinctively Protestant, specifically Puritan flavor. Apart from the long-established standbys, like Elizabeth and Mary, they were the ones who popularized a lot of Biblical given names. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if anyone in early 16th c. England was named Hannah, and for a princess at that time it sounds all wrong.


All of this is basically quibbles, but I'd seriously love to see this TL filled in and developed for the first half of the 16th century rather than just rushing on to later eras. But then I'm a Tudor junkie.

-- Rick

 

[Nymain1]

It's amazing that no one has done a King Arthur (Tudor) timeline here before! Maybe the possibility is so obvious that no one actually got around to doing one.

Please don't rush headlong into the future - as a Tudor era fan, I'd really love to see this more fully textured. Anyway, every alt-hist ends up effectively being a parallel history, the distinctive qualities of the POD being lost in the ripples of time. (That is, by about 1700 or so this TL would have much the flavor of any timeline with a 16th c. POD.)

There are so many things I'd love to know, like what becomes of Anne Boleyn - married to Derby, married to Wyatt, the Archbishop's discreet mistress ... the possibilities are legion. And a host of similar questions.

A few specific comments and some grumps.

Arthur's love of archery - you mention it right after he survives the sickness that killed him in OTL. I wouldn't expect huge historical consequences, but it could have some interesting small ones. It could get him in a jam, if he thinks he can win with Agincourt tactics - those days were past - or it could put him in the forefront of bulking up his army with arquebuses.

For 1513 you mention de Foix, in Italy, capitalizing on mistakes by Arthur. Do you mean that Arthur was campaigning in Italy? That seems awfully unlikely.

I agree with whoever suggested having only a ceremonial capital at Winchester. Kings still moved around a lot, and Arthur might well build a palace there, but moving the seat of real government from London at this late date seems unlikely. If he ignores my advice and does it anyway, it could have consequences downstream - parallel to the price the French monarchy paid by moving to Versailles: losing their touch on the pulse of the realm's main city.

Nice irony that ATL Henry VIII becomes fully as anti-protestant as the OTL one was (till it suited his interest to reverse field). But there was very little English protestantism to suppress in OTL 1524, and wouldn't be much more in this TL - in fact, "protestantism" did not really exist yet. Of course there was heresy, and the stake to deal with it, but the lines between reform and outright break were still quite hazy compared to even a decade later.

I'm with the Pasha - a successful crusade to the Holy Land, right at the peak of Ottoman power, pretty much rings up "no sale" with me. They wouldn't head for the Holy Land anyway; they'd head for Constantinople to strike at the head of the beast ... and probably get their own handed to them.

Does Arthur build up the English navy, as Henry did in OTL? Pettifogging point, but "HMS King Arthur" is anachronistic. The usage HMS didn't come in till much later, and the ship would have been Arthur Royal or some such.

A colony in OTL New England also seems very unlikely at this date, at least in the familiar sense of American colonies. The population of England roughly doubled in the 16th century - in the 1530s and 40s there wasn't the population pressure to cause colonization. A fortified trading post would be possible, but very unlikely a colony in the sense we know.

Even a trading post should be either farther north - the St. Laurent - or farther south, like maybe the Hudson. Major rivers going into the interior, suited to the fur trade. Boston just has nothing going for it in 16th century eyes.

Finally, Hannah sounds all wrong - Elizabeth, Katherine, Jane, anything but Hannah! The problem is that to OTL ears - and OTL is where we're reading this - "Hannah" has a very distinctively Protestant, specifically Puritan flavor. Apart from the long-established standbys, like Elizabeth and Mary, they were the ones who popularized a lot of Biblical given names. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if anyone in early 16th c. England was named Hannah, and for a princess at that time it sounds all wrong.


All of this is basically quibbles, but I'd seriously love to see this TL filled in and developed for the first half of the 16th century rather than just rushing on to later eras. But then I'm a Tudor junkie.

-- Rick

Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate these.

I know I have made accurracy mistakes, this is my first Timeline!, and at the moment I'm more trying to get my writing style better then anything. What I might do is rewrite the Timeline with all the points I've got here.

In response to some of your quibbles:

For 1513 you mention de Foix, in Italy, capitalizing on mistakes by Arthur. Do you mean that Arthur was campaigning in Italy? That seems awfully unlikely.

It was actually in France that Arthur is campaigning, and due to King Louis XII wanting to protect his homeland more then anything, throws De Foix into defeating Arthur ITTL

Nice irony that ATL Henry VIII becomes fully as anti-protestant as the OTL one was (till it suited his interest to reverse field). But there was very little English protestantism to suppress in OTL 1524, and wouldn't be much more in this TL - in fact, "protestantism" did not really exist yet. Of course there was heresy, and the stake to deal with it, but the lines between reform and outright break were still quite hazy compared to even a decade later.

ITTL Henry VIII is a very Religious king, and see's Heresy everywhere (perhaps an illness that causes paranoia), so calles a Crusade, much like a Stalin Purge, and thus many hard working Catholics who happen to be disliked by someone with Influence could be denounced and thats it for them and ther family, thus the Protestant 'Threat' is much exaggerated, and leads to the religious Lynchings.

A colony in OTL New England also seems very unlikely at this date, at least in the familiar sense of American colonies. The population of England roughly doubled in the 16th century - in the 1530s and 40s there wasn't the population pressure to cause colonization. A fortified trading post would be possible, but very unlikely a colony in the sense we know.

I dont know, anything from the New World would be fair for trade wouldnt it?, I would have thought that at home, especially by being popularised by Nuovo Universitas, everyone would like to have something from the new world.
The reason that the they landed in Boston was a Storm making them circumnavigate around Newfoulndland, or blown off course, which ever way you want to put it, and them striking up a relationship with the locals. And that the population would be small, but enough to support a small holding.

The reason they dont go further north is that now theyve landed at boston, theyll stick to the area that they've explored, not head off into the unknown again.

Finally, Hannah sounds all wrong - Elizabeth, Katherine, Jane, anything but Hannah! The problem is that to OTL ears - and OTL is where we're reading this - "Hannah" has a very distinctively Protestant, specifically Puritan flavor. Apart from the long-established standbys, like Elizabeth and Mary, they were the ones who popularized a lot of Biblical given names. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if anyone in early 16th c. England was named Hannah, and for a princess at that time it sounds all wrong.

I don't know, their werent many Arthurs in the late 15th Century were there. yet there was a Prince named it. I would have thought that to Henry VIII would have looked in the Bible for a name and chosen one, just in this one he's chosen Hannah, the Grandmother of Jesus, a quirk of history, theirs been a couple of those.

 

[Philip]

I would have thought that to Henry VIII would have looked in the Bible for a name and chosen one, just in this one he's chosen Hannah, the Grandmother of Jesus, a quirk of history, theirs been a couple of those.

Quick Point: Mary's mother is not identified in the Bible. She is named in extra-canonical texts.
Suggestion: In English, she is normally called St Anne. Hannah is normally reserved for the mother of the Prophet Samuel.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Why not having Arthur I (or II if u prefer) Tudor to push his brother the Cardinal-Duke of York to the Papal throne? This could be an interesting turn of events... Removing the Control of the church from HRE and Italians and giving it to the youngest daughter of the church (as England was called at the time... France was the eldest daughter of the church)
This would create a superpower out of England secular and spiritual and with the naval reforms established by Henry VII this could butterfly away a lot of events...

 

[Nymain1]

The problem with trying to put England on the throne would probably make it a Tudorwank, if you excuse my french. Everything seems to be going well for the English, and I don't want it to turn into a world with a Tudor rose on every castle. I know that Henry was an ambitious fellow, but I don't think he was papal material, and to be honest I'm not particuarly versant on the workings in the Papacy, and don't want to make more mistakes then I already have.

To those who don't think Hannah was a good name for a Queen, I will rectify this in the revamp I will do when I have the time. From your suggestions I reckon either Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, or maybe Isabellel, after her Great Grandmother.

 

[ColeMercury]

I say go with "Anne".

 

[Nymain1]

I'd like to ask you all whether my writing style is up to scratch, or is there a better way, in your opinions, to tell a TL, as this is my first timeline, I would really apreciate any comments.

 

[Jammy]

I'd like to ask you all whether my writing style is up to scratch, or is there a better way, in your opinions, to tell a TL, as this is my first timeline, I would really apreciate any comments.

I think it's good personally, it appeals to me not sure about what other think though

 

[Don_Giorgio]

The problem with trying to put England on the throne would probably make it a Tudorwank, if you excuse my french. Everything seems to be going well for the English, and I don't want it to turn into a world with a Tudor rose on every castle. I know that Henry was an ambitious fellow, but I don't think he was papal material, and to be honest I'm not particuarly versant on the workings in the Papacy, and don't want to make more mistakes then I already have.

To those who don't think Hannah was a good name for a Queen, I will rectify this in the revamp I will do when I have the time. From your suggestions I reckon either Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, or maybe Isabellel, after her Great Grandmother.

I think that Henry would have made a good Pope... He was destined for the church and was well-educated... Besides in the OTL he wrote a religious treatise for the Pope if not mistaken and he was granted the Title Defender of the faith...
I would agree too that Hannah is not quite appropriate name for a Queen i might stick to Anne... Isabelle sounds good but it has a french accent and does not sounds good in english ears... Translated as Elisabeth is much much better... But having a female ruler with no precedent in England migght have caused a civil war between loyalists (Anne I) and members of the royal family claiming the throne...

 

[Nymain1]

I think that Henry would have made a good Pope... He was destined for the church and was well-educated... Besides in the OTL he wrote a religious treatise for the Pope if not mistaken and he was granted the Title Defender of the faith...
I would agree too that Hannah is not quite appropriate name for a Queen i might stick to Anne... Isabelle sounds good but it has a french accent and does not sounds good in english ears... Translated as Elisabeth is much much better... But having a female ruler with no precedent in England migght have caused a civil war between loyalists (Anne I) and members of the royal family claiming the throne...

I would have thought that as the main regent to the queens throne, he would have spent all his energies on ruling the country, and the Ottoman empire, I will decide what I do with Henry in the Revision when I get around to it.
I think that the name of Anne would be the logical choice for the princess. Soon I will post a Revision in the near future when I have some free time, work is hell at the moment

 

[Philip]

The problem with trying to put England on the throne would probably make it a Tudorwank, if you excuse my french.

Agreed. While Henry as pope is interesting, it would seem a bit much here. Perhaps in another TL.

To those who don't think Hannah was a good name for a Queen, I will rectify this in the revamp I will do when I have the time. From your suggestions I reckon either Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, or maybe Isabellel, after her Great Grandmother.

Perhaps she could be christened Hannah but crowned Anne.

I'd like to ask you all whether my writing style is up to scratch, or is there a better way, in your opinions, to tell a TL, as this is my first timeline, I would really apreciate any comments.

Pretty good so far. My only suggestion would be to not let anyone take over your timeline. If you don't like a suggestion, don't be afraid to say so. In the end, you will enjoy the process more if it is your timeline.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate these.

I know I have made accurracy mistakes, this is my first Timeline!, and at the moment I'm more trying to get my writing style better then anything. What I might do is rewrite the Timeline with all the points I've got here.

For a first timeline this is a thoroughly creditable effort, starting with the brilliant choice of an obvious "pick me!" POD that no one in the history of this board seems to have ever explored before! It's like a slap of hand to the forehead.

For a time line as such, writing style isn't that important, so long as it's clear who is doing what to whom. If you want to write in-character snippets - either "excerpts" from historical texts, or novelistic, that is more challenging. My recommendation then would be to give yourself a bit of immersion reading of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, and other period texts. Not to imitate them - a few thees and thous are usually a few too many - but to capture the flavor of 16th c. speech and writing.

Immersion in the history, too, because (IMHO) what really makes a TL in a period like this come to life is seeing what happens to secondary figures - the changed fates of people who were born before the POD, and the people born in the decades who are in some sense echoes of OTL people. Any daughter born to Anne Boleyn is of interest, even if the father is not the Duke of York.

But it all depends on how fancy and deep you want to get. For now you're off to a great start.

Now a couple of practicalities. Philip had the right answer on Hannah, which I stupidly didn't think of - it's the same name as Anne, but a Puritan-flavored version, so let her be Queen Anne, which sounds perfectly in place.

The problem with trying to put England on the throne would probably make it a Tudorwank, if you excuse my french. Everything seems to be going well for the English, and I don't want it to turn into a world with a Tudor rose on every castle.

This is very sound judgment - the biggest single flaw of most TLs is that some hero country does outrageously well, with everything working perfectly for them, or some villain country (usually, as the Pasha would observe with some annoyance, the Ottomans) can't catch a break.

But in this case there's a way to have your cake and eat it too. Henry of York is a plausible candidate - England isn't yet all that big of a power, and the Hapsburg interests could well see him as an ally.

Suppose Henry becomes Pope, and then does sort of a Becket: Seated on the papal throne he shifts his whole orientation to the Holy See, not an instrument of England or the Hapsburgs or anyone else. Reform within the Church is high on the agenda, a job big enough even for Henry Tudors' ego.

On the other hand, in this TL Henry has hands full as Queen Anne's regent until 1539, and he has been too deeply involved in international power politics for too long to really be a papal candidate at that time. He might turn his attentions to the English church, or perhaps become a leading proponent of church reform without being a candidate for pope.

Or he may stay involved at court - you've got a young queen on the throne, first queen regnant in English history, and there's going to be a lot of court politics going on. On the one hand, Anne needs experienced hands to guide her; on the other she is going to have to spread her own wings ... Henry of York could end up in the Tower.

-- Rick