List of Alternate Monarchs and Aristocratic Lineage II

[ordinarylittleme]

I hope she dies, for a tudor lead britain.

Tudors have no claim to Scotland aside from her

 

[Dragonboy]

Tudors have no claim to Scotland aside from her

I meant For a unión via marriage between Henry X and Mary I

 

[ordinarylittleme]

[ @Kellan Sullivan @isabella ]

Henry VIII, King of England (1491-1547) m. Katherine, Infanta of Aragon and Castile (1485-1510) (a) Eleanor, Archduchess of Austria (1498-1528) (b) Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke (1501-1536) (c) Christina, Princess of Denmark (1521-1590) (d)

1a) Katherine, Princess of England (1510-1560) m. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500-1558)
2b) Mary, Princess of England (1516-1566) m. James V, King of Scotland (1512-1552)
3b) Eleanor, Princess of England (1517-1571) m. John, Prince of Denmark (1518-1558)
4b) Cecily, Princess of England (1518-1591) m. Francis III, Duke of Brittany (1518-1536)
5b) Margaret, Princess of England (1520-1577) m. Sigismund II Augustus, King of Poland (1520-1572)
6c) Elizabeth, Princess of England (1533-1603) m. Philip II, King of Spain (1527-1598)
7c) Anne, Princess of England (1536-1594) m. Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy (1528-1580)
8d) Edward VI, King of England (1537-1573) m. Elisabeth, Princess of France (1545-1568) (a), Joanna, Archduchess of Austria (1547-1578) (b)
9d) Henry, Duke of York (1539-1591) m. Jane Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1537-1590)

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

[ @Kellan Sullivan @isabella ]

Henry VIII, King of England (1491-1547) m. Katherine, Infanta of Aragon and Castile (1485-1510) (a) Eleanor, Archduchess of Austria (1498-1528) (b) Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke (1501-1536) (c) Christina, Princess of Denmark (1521-1590) (d)

1a) Katherine, Princess of England (1510-1560) m. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500-1558)
2b) Mary, Princess of England (1516-1566) m. James V, King of Scotland (1512-1552)
3b) Eleanor, Princess of England (1517-1571) m. John, Prince of Denmark (1518-1558)
4b) Cecily, Princess of England (1518-1591) m. Francis III, Duke of Brittany (1518-1536)
5b) Margaret, Princess of England (1520-1577) m. Sigismund II Augustus, King of Poland (1520-1572)
6c) Elizabeth, Princess of England (1533-1603) m. Philip II, King of Spain (1527-1598)
7c) Anne, Princess of England (1536-1594) m. Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy (1528-1580)
8d) Edward VI, King of England (1537-1573) m. Elisabeth, Princess of France (1545-1568) (a), Joanna, Archduchess of Austria (1547-1578) (b)
9d) Henry, Duke of York (1539-1591) m. Jane Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1537-1590)

Where to begin:

Karl V marrying Katherine of England means no Felipe II, least, not the OTL version, which would mean Liz marries her nephew.
Margaret would be too old by the time Sigismund needs a second wife (his dad won't budge on the Hungarian princess bit).
No being the "other woman" means Anne Boleyn likely has a far less stressful time of it, and she and Henry can get married as soon as a reasonable mourning period has passed for Queen Eleanor. So I doubt that OTL Elizabeth would even exist (they'd likely get married in 1529, depending when in 1528 Eleanor dies-assuming it was in the sweat, that'll be late May 1528, so probably a marriage by Easter 1529). Given Anne's relative fertility OTL (particularly given her age, if she was born in 1499 or 1500 rather than 1507),I'd say they likely have kids by 1530. And a whole different pattern of "conjugal relations". Lack of stress means she's more likely to carry a child to term, so perhaps a whole brood of children (at least one a year-after all, Anne got pregnant (and miscarried) three times in a single year), due to stress.
And TBH, Henry getting Kristina as a fourth wife, after he's married and buried her great-aunt AND aunt, when even OTL there was an objection about the dispensation, seems borderline ASB

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Karl V marrying Katherine of England means no Felipe II, least, not the OTL version, which would mean Liz marries her nephew.

Yeah, that was the intention

she and Henry can get married as soon as a reasonable mourning period has passed for Queen Eleanor

Anne, ittl, is also widowed

Anne got pregnant (and miscarried) three times in a single year), due to stress

Wasn't it only twice (plus she'd still have stress here to produce a boy)

 

[isabella]

[ @Kellan Sullivan @isabella ]

Henry VIII, King of England (1491-1547) m. Katherine, Infanta of Aragon and Castile (1485-1510) (a) Eleanor, Archduchess of Austria (1498-1528) (b) Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke (1501-1536) (c) Christina, Princess of Denmark (1521-1590) (d)

1a) Katherine, Princess of England (1510-1560) m. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500-1558)
2b) Mary, Princess of England (1516-1566) m. James V, King of Scotland (1512-1552)
3b) Eleanor, Princess of England (1517-1571) m. John, Prince of Denmark (1518-1558)
4b) Cecily, Princess of England (1518-1591) m. Francis III, Duke of Brittany (1518-1536)
5b) Margaret, Princess of England (1520-1577) m. Sigismund II Augustus, King of Poland (1520-1572)
6c) Elizabeth, Princess of England (1533-1603) m. Philip II, King of Spain (1527-1598)
7c) Anne, Princess of England (1536-1594) m. Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy (1528-1580)
8d) Edward VI, King of England (1537-1573) m. Elisabeth, Princess of France (1545-1568) (a), Joanna, Archduchess of Austria (1547-1578) (b)
9d) Henry, Duke of York (1539-1591) m. Jane Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1537-1590)

No way Eleanor would not have more kids after 1520 and Henry would NOT wait three or four years for remarrying without a legitimate son

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Henry would NOT wait three or four years for remarrying without a legitimate son

He didn't, Anne just didn't have surviving kids in those years

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Yeah, that was the intention

Why? Why would the pope grant the dispensation for such a marriage? Aunt-nephew is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (unlike uncle-niece) which means it is going to cost Henry/Karl a boatload of cash or they're going to need a brilliant justification why the pope needs to grant the dispensation. I don't see ANY justification beyond "because I want it", which means it will cost.

A "cheaper" match would be Liz to Maximilian II. And, since the likelihood that Karl V only has one surviving son (when there were 3 or 4 short-lived boys OTL) by a relatively "unrelated" bride (he and Isabel might've also been first cousins but there was a whole mess of prior genetic overlaps that don't exist with a Tudor bride) is remote, I don't see the electors forcing him to acknowledge Ferdinand's line as his heirs in Germany, which means all Max will be inheriting is Hungary and Bohemia

Anne, ittl, is also widowed

Percy, no doubt? AFAIK no church injunctions against a widow remarrying. So not sure why you even felt the need to point this out. Unless you're saying that Henry would need a dispensation to marry Anne because her late husband was somehow related to him (i.e. that her former husband was not Percy). After all, Edward IV and Henry IV both married widows.

Wasn't it only twice

No, it was NOT "only twice". Chapuys mentions Anne as being pregnant in January 1534 already (1). In April, Lady Lisle is informed of the queen's pregnancy. In July, George Boleyn is sent to France to request a delay of the planned due to the queen's state and her being unable to travel. By end of September Chapuys writes that the king "doubts the lady is enceinte" (2*). Then a potential miscarriage in another letter (often dated to 1535, but referencing someone who died shortly before Christmas 1534) (3)

*given the descriptions used in January and April (which indicate that Anne was rather far along "clearly pregnant" and "goodly belly") I tend to believe that there were (at least) two miscarriages in 1534. Since she wouldn't be clearly pregnant on 28 January (date of Chapuys' letter) if she'd only gotten pregnant on 1 January 1534. Likely she and Henry were trying for another ASAP after Liz' birth (7 September 1533+50 days before Anne is churched-40 for a boy- and conjugal relations can officially resume). A conception date in November 1533 would justify Chapuys/Henry's doubts by September 1534. Unless there had been a second pregnancy in between (especially when Chapuys himself refers to Anne's "state" in July 1534). That we never hear that Anne took to her chamber suggests that it ended in miscarriage rather than a stillbirth.

(plus she'd still have stress here to produce a boy)

Stress to produce a boy is only one form Anne had to cope with. Stress because you know you were the other woman, stress because you know your husband broke every law of God and Man to marry you, stress because you stupidly said to him that you WOULD give him sons, stress because you are the least popular woman (to put it mildly) in the country...

 

[FalconHonour]

Why? Why would the pope grant the dispensation for such a marriage? Aunt-nephew is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (unlike uncle-niece) which means it is going to cost Henry/Karl a boatload of cash or they're going to need a brilliant justification why the pope needs to grant the dispensation. I don't see ANY justification beyond "because I want it", which means it will cost.

A "cheaper" match would be Liz to Maximilian II. And, since the likelihood that Karl V only has one surviving son (when there were 3 or 4 short-lived boys OTL) by a relatively "unrelated" bride (he and Isabel might've also been first cousins but there was a whole mess of prior genetic overlaps that don't exist with a Tudor bride) is remote, I don't see the electors forcing him to acknowledge Ferdinand's line as his heirs in Germany, which means all Max will be inheriting is Hungary and Bohemia

Percy, no doubt? AFAIK no church injunctions against a widow remarrying. So not sure why you even felt the need to point this out. Unless you're saying that Henry would need a dispensation to marry Anne because her late husband was somehow related to him (i.e. that her former husband was not Percy). After all, Edward IV and Henry IV both married widows.

No, it was NOT "only twice". Chapuys mentions Anne as being pregnant in January 1534 already (1). In April, Lady Lisle is informed of the queen's pregnancy. In July, George Boleyn is sent to France to request a delay of the planned due to the queen's state and her being unable to travel. By end of September Chapuys writes that the king "doubts the lady is enceinte" (2*). Then a potential miscarriage in another letter (often dated to 1535, but referencing someone who died shortly before Christmas 1534) (3)

*given the descriptions used in January and April (which indicate that Anne was rather far along "clearly pregnant" and "goodly belly") I tend to believe that there were (at least) two miscarriages in 1534. Since she wouldn't be clearly pregnant on 28 January (date of Chapuys' letter) if she'd only gotten pregnant on 1 January 1534. Likely she and Henry were trying for another ASAP after Liz' birth (7 September 1533+50 days before Anne is churched-40 for a boy- and conjugal relations can officially resume). A conception date in November 1533 would justify Chapuys/Henry's doubts by September 1534. Unless there had been a second pregnancy in between (especially when Chapuys himself refers to Anne's "state" in July 1534). That we never hear that Anne took to her chamber suggests that it ended in miscarriage rather than a stillbirth.



Stress to produce a boy is only one form Anne had to cope with. Stress because you know you were the other woman, stress because you know your husband broke every law of God and Man to marry you, stress because you stupidly said to him that you WOULD give him sons, stress because you are the least popular woman (to put it mildly) in the country...

Actually I think Diana Mosley gets the official title of 'Most Hated Woman in England', but never mind 😉

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Actually I think Diana Mosley gets the official title of 'Most Hated Woman in England', but never mind 😉

Had to Google who that is (living under a very comfortable rock )

 

[isabella]

Why? Why would the pope grant the dispensation for such a marriage? Aunt-nephew is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (unlike uncle-niece) which means it is going to cost Henry/Karl a boatload of cash or they're going to need a brilliant justification why the pope needs to grant the dispensation. I don't see ANY justification beyond "because I want it", which means it will cost.

Still this kind of matches happened. Ferdinand II of Naples married his half-aunt.

A "cheaper" match would be Liz to Maximilian II. And, since the likelihood that Karl V only has one surviving son (when there were 3 or 4 short-lived boys OTL) by a relatively "unrelated" bride (he and Isabel might've also been first cousins but there was a whole mess of prior genetic overlaps that don't exist with a Tudor bride) is remote, I don't see the electors forcing him to acknowledge Ferdinand's line as his heirs in Germany, which means all Max will be inheriting is Hungary and Bohemia

Ferdinand received the whole Austrian inheritance when he married Anne of Hungary, independently from what the german princes wanted AND the Electors would still force Charles to make Ferdinand his heir as Emperor.

Actually I think Diana Mosley gets the official title of 'Most Hated Woman in England', but never mind 😉

Pretty likely

 

[VVD0D95]

Pod: the Jacobite rebellion of 1708 succeeds

James III of England and Ireland and VIII of Scotland (b.1688) m Louise Elisabeth of Conde (b.1693) in 1709

Issue:

James, Prince of Wales (b.1710)

Miscarriage (1711)

Charles, Duke of York and Albany (b.1713)

Mary, Princess Royal (b.1715)

Miscarriage (1717)

Princess Louise (b.1719)

Prince Henry (b.1721: d.1723)

Princess Elisabeth (b.1724)

Prince Louis, Duke of Gloucester and Ross (b.1727)

@Kellan Sullivan @Emperor Constantine @FalconHonour @isabella @HortenseMancini

 

[VVD0D95]

Pod: the Jacobite rebellion of 1719 succeeds

James III of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (b.1688) m Benedetta of Modena (b.1697) or Maria Amalia of Austria (b.1701) in 1720

Issue:

Charles, Prince of Wales (b.1720)

James, Duke of York and Albany (b.1722)

Mary, Princess Royal (b.1724)

Miscarriage (1725)

Princess Elizabeth (b.1727)

Miscarriage (1729)

Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Ross (b.1731)

Princess Amelia (b.1733)*

*amelia only if the marriage to Maria Amalia happens

@Kellan Sullivan @Emperor Constantine @FalconHonour @isabella @The_Most_Happy

 

[FalconHonour]

Had to Google who that is (living under a very comfortable rock )

I'm always astonished by how few people know the Mitford sisters. I find them fascinating... I can't wait for @The_Most_Happy to introduce Unity in The Last Hanover (yes, I know it's forever away...)

 

[VVD0D95]

Been on this train the whole of the day

James and Maria clementina have a better marriage:

James III of the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (b.1688) m Maria Clementina Sobieska (b.1702) in 1719

Issue

Charles, Prince of Wales (b,1720)

Mary, Princess Royal (b,1721)

miscarriage (1723)

Henry, Duke of York and Albany (b.1725)

James, Duke of Gloucester and Ross (b.1727)

Miscsrriage (1729)

Princess Elisabeth (b.1731)

@Kellan Sullivan @Nuraghe @FalconHonour @isabella @King of Danes

 

[Kynan]

Scenario: Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of England.

Richard II, King of England (b.1367: d.1405) m. Isabeau of Bavaria (c.1370: d.1435) (a)

1a) Elizabeth, Princess of England (b.1386: d.1403) m. Charles VI, King of France (b.1368: d.1422) (a)​

​

- had issue​

​

2a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1389: d.1399)​

​

3a) Edmund, Prince of England (b.1392: d.1395)​

​

4a) Joan, Princess of England (b.1395: d.1473) m. John V, Duke of Brittany (b.1389: d.1442) (a)​

​

1a) John VI, Duke of Brittany (b.1420)​

​

2a) Francis of Brittany (b.1427: d.1427)​

​

5a) Richard III, King of England (b.1397: d.1458) m. Margaret of Burgundy (b.1393: d.1442) (a) -annulled 1437-, Jeanne of Bar, Countess of Marle and Soissons (b.1415: d.1462) (b)​

​

1b) Thomas I, King of England, Count of Marle and Soissons (b.1439)​

​

2b) Cecily, Princess of England (b.1440)​

​

3b) John, Duke of Clarence (b.1442)​

​

4b) Edmund, Duke of Cambridge (b.1443)​

​

5b) Isabelle, Princess of England (b.1445: d.1447)​

​

6b) Stillborn Son (c.1447)​

​

7b) Joan, Princess of England (b.1448)​

​

8b) Stillborn Daughter (c.1450)​

​

9b) Edward, Prince of England (b.1452: d.1452)​

​

10b) Helena, Princess of England (b.1453)​

​

6a) John, Prince of England (b.1400: d.1400)​

​

7a) Anne, Princess of England (b.1402: d.1404)​

​

8a) Catherine, Princess of England (b.1405: d.1432) m. Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (b.1396: d.1463) (a)​

​

- had no issue​

​

---

Charles VI, King of France (b.1368: d.1422) m. Anne of Luxembourg, Princess of Bohemia and Germany (b.1466: d.1398) (a), Elizabeth, Princess of England (b.1386: d.1403) (b), Joan of Armagnac (b.1375: d.1412) (c)

1a) Miscarriage (c.1392)​

​

2a) Stillborn Son (c.1395)​

​

3b) Charles VII, King of France (b.1402)​

​

4b) Miscarriage (c.1403)​

​

5c) Isabelle, Princess of France (b.1406)​

​

6c) Joan, Princess of France (b.1409)​

​

7c) Anne, Princess of France (b.1410: d.1480) m. Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (b.1396: d.1463) (a)​

​

- had no issue​

​

---

Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (b.1396: d.1463) m. Catherine, Princess of England (b.1405: d.1432) (a), Isabelle of Bourbon-La Marche (b.1408: d.1440) (b), Anne, Princess of France (b.1410: d.1480) (c)

1b) Philip IV, Duke of Burgundy (b.1435)​

​

2b) Stillborn Daughter (c.1436)​

​

3b) Stillborn Son (c.1437)​

​

4b) Charlotte of Burgundy (b.1438)​

​

5b) Stillborn Daughter (c.1439)​

​

6b) Miscarriage (c.1440)​

 

[ordinarylittleme]

So not sure why you even felt the need to point this out. Unless you're saying that Henry would need a dispensation to marry Anne because her late husband was somehow related to him (i.e. that her former husband was not Percy). After all, Edward IV and Henry IV both married widows.

No, I'm saying Anne wasn't widowed early enough for Henry to marry her right after Eleanor died...

Aunt-nephew is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (unlike uncle-niece)

Are you referring to Leviticus 20:20?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

@VVD0D95 I like the first one (1708), though for the post 1715 children I'd personally use the birthdates of Louise Élisabeth's OTL kids (just a personal preference of mine). As for the 1719 one, Beneditta wouldn't work as a bride. By early 1719 James was already betrothed to Clementina Sobieska, and was (I believe) married to her by proxy while awaiting the chance to join the 1719 Spanish expedition. So if 1719 had succeeded, he'd be married to Clementina.

 

[VVD0D95]

@VVD0D95 I like the first one (1708), though for the post 1715 children I'd personally use the birthdates of Louise Élisabeth's OTL kids (just a personal preference of mine). As for the 1719 one, Beneditta wouldn't work as a bride. By early 1719 James was already betrothed to Clementina Sobieska, and was (I believe) married to her by proxy while awaiting the chance to join the 1719 Spanish expedition. So if 1719 had succeeded, he'd be married to Clementina.

Cheers and aye that’s what I had thought whilst compiling t the trees but wasn’t sure so left as is. But now o know

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I'm always astonished by how few people know the Mitford sisters. I find them fascinating... I can't wait for @The_Most_Happy to introduce Unity in The Last Hanover (yes, I know it's forever away...)

I know about the Mitford girls. It was the use of Di's married surname that threw me.