List of Alternate Monarchs and Aristocratic Lineage

Reader mode

isabella

Work in progress inspired by @DJB001 ”Philip the Handsome born as girl”

Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (1459-?) married a) Mary, Duchess of Burgundy (1457-1482) in 1477 b) Elizabeth of York (1466-1492) in 1482 c) Bianca Maria Sforza (1472-?) in 1494

1a) Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy (1478-?) married Richard, Duke of York (1473-?) in 1491

2a) Isabella of Burgundy (1480-1510), Queen of France married Charles VIII, King of France (1470-1498) in 1492
​
3a) Francis (1481)
4b) stillborn son (1484)
5b) Eleanor (1486-?)
6b) Ernest (1489-?)
7b) Rudolf (1490-1496)
8b) Elizabeth (1492-?)
9c) Frederick (1495-1496)
10c) Beatrice (1497-?)
11c) Bianca (1499-?)
12c) miscarriage (1500)
13c) stillborn son (1502)
12c) Isabella (1503-?)
13c) Maximilian (1506-?)​
 
Last edited:

Jan Olbracht

Barbara Zapolya, Queen of Poland, does not die in childbirth in 1515

Sigismund I (1467-1548) Grand Duke of Lithuania 1506-1548, King of Poland 1507-1548 m. a) Brabara Zapolya (ca 1495-1522) b) 1524 Eleanor of Austria (1498-1558)

1a) Hedwig (1513-1573) m. 1530 Francis I (1494-1547) King of France

1) Louis (1533-1548)​

2a) Anna (1515-1567) m. 1535 Joachim II (1505-1571) Elector of Brandenburg

1) Sigismund (1537-1578)​

2) Elizabeth (1540-1598) m. 1560 Maurice (1521-1575) Elector of Saxony*​

3) Joachim (1542)​

4) Joachim (1542-1544)​

5) Hedwig (1546-1597) m. 1566 John Frederick (1542-1600) Duke of Pomerania​

6) Barbara (1549-1597) m. 1568 John III (1537-1592) King of Sweden​

7) Sophia (1552-1613) m. 1573 Albert Frederick (1553-1618) Duke of Prussia​



3a) Sigismund II (1517-1574) Grand Duke of Lithuania, King of Poland 1548-1574 m. a) 1543 Elizabeth of Austria (1526-1547) b) 1549 Catherine of Austria (1531-1571)

1a) Hedwig (1546-1551)

2b) Sigismund (1550)

3b) Sigismund III (1552-1611) Grand Duke of Lithuania, King of Poland 1574-1611 m. 1575 Magdalene of Cleves (1553-1633)

4b) Vladislaus (1555-1561)

5b) Casimir (1557-1564)

6b) Alexander (1560-1622)​

4b) Sophia (1526-1583) m. 1547 Charles Victor (1525-1579) Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel*

1) Charles Henry (1551-1555)

2) Sigismund Philip (1554-1617) Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel m. 1578 Sibylle of Cleves (1557-1627)​

*They both survived as Battle of Sievershausen is butterflied away ITTL.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Charles II has a surviving daughter with Catherine of Braganza

Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (b.1630:d.1685) m Catherine of Braganza (b.1638:d.1705)

Issue:

Catherine Elizabeth (b.1666) m James, Duke of Cambridge (b.1663) in 1683

Issue:

Charles III of England, Scotland and Ireland (b.1684)

James, Duke of York and Albany (b.1686)

Catherine, Princess Royal (b.1688)

Anne of England (b.1691)

Mary of England (b.1694)

Henry, Duke of Kendal (b.1699)
 

isabella

VVD0D95 said:
Charles II has a surviving daughter with Catherine of Braganza

Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (b.1630:d.1685) m Catherine of Braganza (b.1638:d.1705)

Issue:

Catherine Elizabeth (b.1666) m James, Duke of Cambridge (b.1663) in 1683

Issue:

Charles III of England, Scotland and Ireland (b.1684)

James, Duke of York and Albany (b.1686)

Catherine, Princess Royal (b.1688)

Anne of England (b.1691)

Mary of England (b.1694)

Henry, Duke of Kendal (b.1699)
Click to expand...
For me Elizabeth Catherine is more likely as name (so we will have Elizabeth II and James II) but for the rest work
 
FalconHonour

FalconHonour

And the fact that Charles had a sister called Elizabeth. Although, honestly, I'd think he'd go for Elizabeth Henrietta, after his favourite sister. Or Henrietta Elizabeth.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
FalconHonour said:
And the fact that Charles had a sister called Elizabeth. Although, honestly, I'd think he'd go for Elizabeth Henrietta, after his favourite sister. Or Henrietta Elizabeth.
Click to expand...
Interesting how about Elizabeth Henrietta, and she names her daughter Catherine after her mother?
 
Jonathan

Jonathan

VVD0D95 said:
Charles II has a surviving daughter with Catherine of Braganza.
Click to expand...

I like this idea, but want to try another avenue.

Monarchs of England
1558-1601: Elizabeth I
1601-1625: James I
1625-1649: Charles I
(Commonwealth period)
1660-1685: Charles II
1685-1717: Elizabeth II


Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (1630-1685) m. 1662, Catherine of Braganza (1638-1705)
Elizabeth II (22/2/1666-9/10/1727) [1] m. 1683, Maximilian William, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (13/11/1666 –16/7/1726) [2]
Charles III of England, Scotland and Ireland (b.1684)​

[1] Born Elizabeth Catherine Henriette Marie, Princess Royal.

[2] Known at the English court as William, Archduke of Westminster, the title ranking him higher than any other Duke but not higher than the Queen and the location addressing his importance at the House of Commons (Palace of Westminster)
His parents were Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and Sophia of the Palatinate (daughter of Elizabeth Stuart), and he was the third of six sons to survive to adulthood.
As the Protestant, third son of a ruling monarch, with close family ties, the marriage was seen as a good match.


VVD0D95 said:
James, Duke of Cambridge (b.1663)

James, Duke of York and Albany (b.1686)
Click to expand...

I doubt that Charles II would marry his daughter off to a direct cousin, especially one without political, financial or diplomatic gain.

The title of Duke of York and Albany, would stay with Prince James (OTL James II, and his descendants)
 
Valena

Valena

Jonathan said:
I doubt that Charles II would marry his daughter off to a direct cousin, especially one without political, financial or diplomatic gain.
Click to expand...
The reason is maintaining Stuart dynasty in the throne - the same reason Braganzas, whose succession worked similarly to British, went through two uncle-niece marriage in the same family in a row. Why get a foreign consort, if there is a male Stuart lad in the immediate succession line?
So, in a TL when Charles II has a daughter only, while James of York/Henry of Gloucester left male issue, the daughter is going to be married to said male line cousin if only to ensure the crown still stays within House of Stuarts, not Oldenburg or other dynasty willing to provide consorts.
It's closer to OTL Braganza situation than to OTL House of Hanover demise (Victoria had male line cousin, but Parliament was seemingly eager to get rid of albatross around the neck in form of Hanover).
 

isabella

VVD0D95 said:
Oh why Elizabeth?
Click to expand...
Because unless she will be born from Catherine’s first pregnancy her father will know she will be likely Queen of England one day so better calling her after the great Queen as first name and use family names after that (plus Elizabeth was still one of his sisters so Elizabeth Catherine Henriette work perfectly)

Jonathan said:
I like this idea, but want to try another avenue.

Monarchs of England
1558-1601: Elizabeth I
1601-1625: James I
1625-1649: Charles I
(Commonwealth period)
1660-1685: Charles II
1685-1717: Elizabeth II


Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (1630-1685) m. 1662, Catherine of Braganza (1638-1705)
Elizabeth II (22/2/1666-9/10/1727) [1] m. 1683, Maximilian William, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (13/11/1666 –16/7/1726) [2]
Charles III of England, Scotland and Ireland (b.1684)​

[1] Born Elizabeth Catherine Henriette Marie, Princess Royal.

[2] Known at the English court as William, Archduke of Westminster, the title ranking him higher than any other Duke but not higher than the Queen and the location addressing his importance at the House of Commons (Palace of Westminster)
His parents were Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and Sophia of the Palatinate (daughter of Elizabeth Stuart), and he was the third of six sons to survive to adulthood.
As the Protestant, third son of a ruling monarch, with close family ties, the marriage was seen as a good match.




I doubt that Charles II would marry his daughter off to a direct cousin, especially one without political, financial or diplomatic gain.

The title of Duke of York and Albany, would stay with Prince James (OTL James II, and his descendants)
Click to expand...
Wrong. The son of James, Duke of York will be the top candidate for Princess Elizabeth’s hand for everyone... sure he do not bring any alliance (but that will be the job of his own sisters) but his wedding will give stability to England preventing any war of succession (plus at this point is pretty likely who the husband of a princess will be her King Consort or co-ruler if he is a close relative not a simple consort and a title like Archduke would never be used in England. Grand Duke also will not work here). Your William is not a bad match but James of Cambridge is ten times better under any aspect. And about Charles not marrying his daughter to a direct cousin well in OTL he married his heiress presuntive to his nephew in Netherlands and is not like William III of Orange had the full control of the Dutch republic when he married Mary of York.
James of Cambridge here would be the male heir of the Stuarts, third-in-line of his own (after his wife-to-be and his father) so his wedding to Princess Elizabeth will bring continuity to the Stuart line and would be the best way for excluding the Duke of York from the succession (as Elizabeth and James will be both crowned as rulers like William and Mary in OTL)
 

isabella

Valena said:
The reason is maintaining Stuart dynasty in the throne - the same reason Braganzas, whose succession worked similarly to British, went through two uncle-niece marriage in the same family in a row. Why get a foreign consort, if there is a male Stuart lad in the immediate succession line?
So, in a TL when Charles II has a daughter only, while James of York/Henry of Gloucester left male issue, the daughter is going to be married to said male line cousin if only to ensure the crown still stays within House of Stuarts, not Oldenburg or other dynasty willing to provide consorts.
It's closer to OTL Braganza situation than to OTL House of Hanover demise (Victoria had male line cousin, but Parliament was seemingly eager to get rid of albatross around the neck in form of Hanover).
Click to expand...
In the case of Victoria remember who the father of the first male line cousin was pretty hated (other than being the new King of Hannover), while the Cambridge cousin could work and remember who a male relative was kept for long time in reserve as possible husband for Victoria’s cousin and aunt Charlotte of Wales
 
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

Henry VIII m. Catherine of Aragon d. 1532(a) Anne Boleyn (b)
1a. Mary Tudor b. 1516 m. Francis II of France
2b. Elizabeth b. 1533 m. Philip II of Spain
3b. Edward VI b. 1534 m. Elizabeth of France
 
Valena

Valena

isabella said:
William III of Orange had the full control of the Dutch republic when he married Mary of York.
Click to expand...
In 1677? Unless you can call "being elective ruler with general-in-chief powers" not having a full control... well, you are right.
But 146% agree to you with the rest (NB: if you're wondering about number, it's from popular Russian meme about bad statistics).
isabella said:
(but that will be the job of his own sisters)
Click to expand...
Anne of York TTL can be considered for new Queen of Portugal, me thinks - in 1684 she is already a proud aunt of a Duke of Edinburgh and future Prince of Wales, so her marriage to Protestant is not important. Mary ends up with OTL marriage for peacemaking reasons - nobody would want a daughter of commoner for say Dauphine when she has a living cousin and brother - no possible landgrab excuses.
 
Valena

Valena

The only thing that bugs me re. @VVD0D95 table is the unhealthy obsession with Kendal title in main Royal line (also present in other places), which had never quite made a proper return to Royal family after mass die out of Kendal title holders in infancy - I think he was one of "stigmatized" titles for Royals to have, along with Clarence, but rather than "title that traitor once held", it was considered plain unluckly. Yes, George IV wanted to create his son-in-law Duke of Kendal, but that was literally the only Royal Dukedom remaining unclaimed by the time of his reign due to him having so many male siblings.
Youngers sons would likely be given Gloucester (for 1686 son) and Cumberland (for 1699 one).

OTOH, if James of York is still married a second time (though not to Mary of Modena, she was only going to marry a heir presumptive), a Duke of Kendal can be used for a son from this marriage. With York dukedom later returning to the main line, as King James would be against his younger sibling inheriting the title when he can remain a Duke of Kendal and not create a mess re. who inherits what.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Valena said:
The only thing that bugs me re. @VVD0D95 table is the unhealthy obsession with Kendal title in main Royal line (also present in other places), which had never quite made a proper return to Royal family after mass die out of Kendal title holders in infancy - I think he was one of "stigmatized" titles for Royals to have, along with Clarence, but rather than "title that traitor once held", it was considered plain unluckly. Yes, George IV wanted to create his son-in-law Duke of Kendal, but that was literally the only Royal Dukedom remaining unclaimed by the time of his reign due to him having so many male siblings.
Youngers sons would likely be given Gloucester (for 1686 son) and Cumberland (for 1699 one).

OTOH, if James of York is still married a second time (though not to Mary of Modena, she was only going to marry a heir presumptive), a Duke of Kendal can be used for a son from this marriage. With York dukedom later returning to the main line, as King James would be against his younger sibling inheriting the title when he can remain a Duke of Kendal and not create a mess re. who inherits what.
Click to expand...

ahhh fair enough, had thought Kendal might be used for a son of James and Elizabeth due to it
Merging with the crown. But can see what you mean. So Gloucester for Henry and Cumberland for a third son.
In such a scenario would Anne be married to George of Denmark and they be given another title?
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Valena said:
In such a scenario Anne may well end up Queen of Portugal come 1684 and birth of her first nephew.
Click to expand...

alrigntu works for me. Would James duke of York still marry a second time here? Especially if his son is betrothed to the future queen
 
Valena

Valena

He may - if only to secure the succession, but way later than OTL (say in 1678) and likely to a different girl.
In similar scenario in "Gloucester Stuart line" I had him remarry to youngest half-sister of Leopold I, OTL Electress Palatine, as part of giving middle finger to France in 1677 combined with Mary's Dutch match.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top