Tudors have no claim to Scotland aside from herI hope she dies, for a tudor lead britain.
Tudors have no claim to Scotland aside from herI hope she dies, for a tudor lead britain.
I meant For a unión via marriage between Henry X and Mary ITudors have no claim to Scotland aside from her
Where to begin:[ @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)
Yeah, that was the intentionKarl V marrying Katherine of England means no Felipe II, least, not the OTL version, which would mean Liz marries her nephew.
Anne, ittl, is also widowedshe and Henry can get married as soon as a reasonable mourning period has passed for Queen Eleanor
Wasn't it only twice (plus she'd still have stress here to produce a boy)Anne got pregnant (and miscarried) three times in a single year), due to stress
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[ @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)
He didn't, Anne just didn't have surviving kids in those yearsHenry would NOT wait three or four years for remarrying without a legitimate son
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.Yeah, that was the intention
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.Anne, ittl, is also widowed
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)Wasn't it only twice
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...(plus she'd still have stress here to produce a boy)
Actually I think Diana Mosley gets the official title of 'Most Hated Woman in England', but never mind 😉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...
Had to Google who that is (living under a very comfortable rock )Actually I think Diana Mosley gets the official title of 'Most Hated Woman in England', but never mind 😉
Still this kind of matches happened. Ferdinand II of Naples married his half-aunt.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.
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.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
Pretty likelyActually I think Diana Mosley gets the official title of 'Most Hated Woman in England', but never mind 😉
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...)Had to Google who that is (living under a very comfortable rock )
No, I'm saying Anne wasn't widowed early enough for Henry to marry her right after Eleanor died...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.
Are you referring to Leviticus 20:20?Aunt-nephew is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (unlike uncle-niece)
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@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.
I know about the Mitford girls. It was the use of Di's married surname that threw me.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...)