Mary I marries Luis of Portugal

It seems that in 1537 Charles V proposed that Infante Luís of Portugal, Duke of Beja (3 March 1506 – 27 November 1555), son of King Manuel I be married to Henry VIII of England's daughter, future Queen Mary I.

Luís had been considered a bright young prince and considered, at least in the letters "virtuous, valourous, and generous", having studied mathematics and astronomy. He had accompanied Charles V to Tunis, and it was proposed that he be given the Duchy of Milan, as a way of securing peace between France and the Holy Roman Empire. The French were agreeable to the scheme as it would also potentially bring a Catholic Prince to the throne of England.

It also seems that Henry VIII was in favour of marrying off the young princess on the condition that she renounce her place in the line of succession any future children he should have. The negotiations seemed to have almost come to fruition as Portugal and England maintained friendly relations throughout this period.

The question is, if a younger marriage would have allowed Mary to produce offspring. When she married Philip II, she was 37 and never produced any children. If she gets married at an earlier age, would a child be possible? Assuming that Portugal's throne becomes vacant in 1578 as IOTL, if a surviving heir is available would he or she be the heir to both Portugal and England resulting in a dynastic union? I would be curious to see what effects this would have had on Europe in the short-term, and even long-term.
 
Hopefully, by the time the Portuguese throne falls vacant, there's a younger son that it can be delegated to if the Aviz are ruling England. The logistical nightmare of governing Portugal/Portuguese empire from Westminster makes me shudder
 
Ok so: Luis and Mary Tudor get married in late 1537, after the birth of an heir to the English Throne. As part of the marriage agreement, Mary agreed to suspend her right to the English Throne for herself, although the wording was vague as to if her children were also exempt. The Duke of Beja and his English bride honeymooned in the Portuguese Court, where Mary met with her cousin Catherine of Austria, becoming attached to the young Prince John Manuel of Portugal. The new Duchess of Beja grew comfortable in the company of the royal family, but wrote to her father that she hoped the atmosphere of the court would pick up soon, due to the mourning set in place for the recent death of the Prince Manuel of Portugal. She also acted as a confidant to the Princess Maria Manuela, with whom she founded a great friendship. Thus, it was with great sadness that, in early 1538, she left the Portuguese Court to travel to Toledo, where they met with her cousin the Emperor Charles V.

While there, Mary fell pregnant for the first time, giving birth in November to her first child, a son named John. With her son, Mary and Luis entered the world of diplomacy and Luis began negotiating being granted the Duchy of Milan. The talks would go on for the next 6 months and finally, in August of 1539, Mary Tudor and Luis of Portugal were Duke and Duchess of Milan. They arrived in Milan in December, presiding over a triumphant Christmas court, compounded with the announcement of Mary's second pregnancy. Thus, the royal couple greeted many different dignities, including the English ones, with Mary in a delicate state. Finally, in June of 1540, Mary gave birth a second time, to a second son. This child was named Charles Manuel, after his cousin and grandfather. Thus, the Milanese royal family grew larger.

In 1540 the Duke and Duchess of Milan and Beja welcomed the guest of Pier Luigi Farnese and his wife Gerolama Orsini, along with their unmarried daughter Vittoria Farnese who Mary agreed to take on as a maid-of-honour. The talian Lady was, therefore, present for the birth of the Duchess' third child, yet another son, in July of 1541. Unfortunately, Afonso of Milan was a sickly babe and died within a week of his birth, leaving the Duchess melancholy for the next few months. However, she seemed to pick up at the betrothal of her son, John of Milan, to Eleanora d'Este, who would join the Court of Milan in November of 1541, during which time her parents visited her and brought a significant portion of her dowry. The Italian Noblewoman would be raised as one of the royal children for the time being.

In 1543, it was discovered the Duke of Milan was conducting an affair with his wife's favoured maid, Vittoria Farnese. Scandalized, Mary sent the Lady home to her parent's home, where she moved to a convent due to her new status as fully spoiled and a known "harlot". This came during the Duchess' most recent pregnancy, that ended in 1544 with the birth of a 4th son, named Luis of Milan after his father. This child was immediately pegged for a religious life and Mary would continually gift him with religious effigies and the like to help him along his path. Mary's fourth pregnancy was quite difficult and she would leave Milan for a time to take the waters at a nearby health spa, staying for three months. Arriving home, she was seen as relaxed and much happier, although sickness in Charles Manuel of Milan seemed to renew her stress.

The Duchess would undergo a fifth pregnancy in 1545, giving birth to a stillborn son in December. Again, as the birth and death of Afonso of Milan had left her unhappy, depression struck again and she once again took to the waters, leaving her husband to deal with the issue of the Farnese family. After Luis of Portugal had ruined his daughter, the newly made Duke of Castro had decided on war for the two families, claiming the Duchy of Parma and thus lands belonging to the Duke of Milan. Having recently gained a betrothal between their second son and Maria of Guimarães, the Duke of Milan began an attack on the armies occupying his Duchy, eventually driving them out at minimal losses either side. Hailed as a hero, he arrived to find his wife returned to him, and in 1546 Mary would undergo her final pregnancy, giving birth in May of 1547 to the couple's only daughter, Maria Catarina Renata of Milan. Having recently been joined by Maria of Guimarães, the household was divided up into three: the Court, the household of Princes and the household of Princesses.

The situation worked well, particularly since the courts moved together and thus Mary was able to keep close to the children. In particular, she held considerable sway over their educations and pushed for them to strive intellectually. However, due to her constant absences, the Duchess of Milan was also a somewhat uneven presence in the lives of the children in her care, moving between careful and constant visits and long stretches of emptiness, epitomized by a 5 week time at the waters after news of her father's death was broken to her. However, it seems she was a more constant presence than Luis, who was supposed to have not visited the courts more than thrice a year. Common for most royals, the issue usually taken against him is the closeness of the households, which allowed his wife to go for many short visits while also continuing her duties, often on level with his due to the pile ups during her absences. However, with the constant bickering with the Farnese family, Luis; absence can be justified somewhat.

The celebrations of the marriage between John of Milan and Eleanora d'Este was undertaken in August of 1553, when both parties were 15 years old. The event was attended by many and was quite expensive. However, what was more important for Mary at this time was the death of her brother in England, leaving her sister as the Queen of England. An unfortunate victim to the Tudor genes, Edward VI of England had left a highly Protestant England to a Protestant new Queen, to the disgust of the Duchess of Milan. Thus, the Duchess travelled from Milan to England to attend her sister's coronation and discuss the religious situation of England, particularly due to the potential for Elizabeth I of England to marry a Catholic and bring England under the Hapsburg umbrella.

Arriving shortly before the coronation, the sisters greeted each other warmly and Mary congratulated her sister on the succession, although she did grieve for the brother they both lost. However, Elizabeth was evasive as to questions of marriage and religion, claiming herself a tender woman and in need of guidance for her future dealings. Mary took this as a good sign, and offered Elizabeth her own advice, to marry quickly and enjoy her youth and power, but to also follow god in all things. The advice was taken gratefully but not to heart and, no sooner had she returned to Milan than had Elizabeth banished over 20 men who spoke for the Catholic religion. Clearly taken aback, Mary wrote a series of letters (referred to historically and the "Sister's Letters") begging Elizabeth to choose her path wisely.

At this time, Mary saw her second son married, to Maria of Guimarães. Charles Manuel and his bride were married in 1555 in a smaller ceremony than his brother and was granted, by the Pope, the Duchy of Camerino, theoretically making him as high as his brother. However, this was meant instead to keep him busy until his father's death, when he was inherit the Duchy of Beja as willed. The paperwork for this transition had been signed and agreed to and Mary, with her husband ailing, began to ready her son and daughter-in-law, to leave for Portugal. And, in 1555, with the death of her husband, Mary saw the young children off, to where they would be greeted by their cousin Joanna of Austria and their aunt, Catherine of Austria. While Joanna greeted the young, happily married couple with suspicion, Catherine embraced and protected them. Thus, Mary's final years would be spent helping her son rule.

A strong willed young man, John I, Duke of Milan found himself quite suited for power. While never a strong student, he seems to have slotted into ruling quite well and, with his bride, seems to have been quite happy with his situation. A son in 1559, the first of his children, was named Luis Francis, after his father and the French King, who he was attempting to broach a trade treaty with and who would agree to act as the godfather to the Milanese Prince. Unfortunately, this move did not work in the long term due to Francis II of France's unfortunate case of death in 1560 and thus he instead married his sister in 1568 to Hercule François de Valois, who was made Duke of Berry shortly after their marriage. He was also and amorous man and, after her first husband's death, installed Ippolita Gonzaga, a daughter of his father's friend, as his mistress. However, his wife seems to have easily accepted this arrangement and the two would have 4 surviving children together.

Mary herself would die in 1559, a mere three days after her grandson was born. While content with her immediate family, a letter written to her sister that year shows she had concerns for the future and her questioning the continual choice to marry proves she held significant concerns for the future. However, these concerns would prove significant to her children and grandchildren's futures. But the Dowager Duchess of Milan and Beja could not have known this in 1559, as she slipped into death and was buried next to her husband and dead children, with the inscription: She who had birth us/She who has loved us/She who has left us.

In the years proceeding her death, Mary's youngest son broke from what was expected from him. Luis, more commonly known as Louis, escaped from Milan in 1561 to France, becoming a favourite of Charles IX of France and rising to the Dukedom of Mayenne, before leaving with a French bride in 1574 to England, where he joined the court as a favourite of his aunt. A clever man, he died the year before her in 1602, but managed to convince her his son was worthy of the throne. As a direct descendant of Henry VIII of England, he was accepted, particularly after his marriage to the younger daughter of the Lady Jane Dudley (previously Grey). Thus, Mary's line took the English Throne, although Mary herself never seems to have coveted it and never once was implicated in plots for it during her time as Duchess of Milan.

Mary Tudor (b.1516: d.1559) m. Luis of Portugal, Duke of Milan and Beja (b.1506: d.1555) (a)

1a) John I, Duke of Milan (b.1538) m. Eleanora d'Este (b.1538: d.1581) (a)

1a) Luis Francis I, Duke of Milan (b.1559)

2a) Miscarriage (c.1560)

3a) Anna Theresa of Milan (b.1563)

4a) Ippolita of Milan (b.1564: d.1564)

5a) Charles of Milan (b.1566)

6a) Miscarriage (c.1567)

7a) Maria Luisa of Milan (b.1570: d.1571)

8a) John Philip of Milan (b.1572)​

2a) Charles I of Portugal (b.1539: d.1590) m. Maria of Guimarães (b.1538: d.1577) (a)

1a) Beatrice of Portugal (b.1563)

2a) John IV of Portugal (b.1567)

3a) Afonso, Duke of Beja (b.1571)

4a) Luisa of Portugal (b.1574)​

3a) Afonso of Milan (b.1541: d.1541)

4a) Louis, Duke of Mayenne (b.1544) m. Louise de Bourbon (b.1548: d.1586) (a)

1a) Louis I of England (b.1576)

2a) John, Duke of Mayenne (b.1580)​

5a) Stillborn Son (c.1545)

6a) Maria Catarina Renata of Milan (b.1547: d.1609) m. Hercule François de Valois, Duke of Berry and Anjou (b.1555: d.1584) (a)

1a) Marie Catherine de Valois (b.1574)

2a) Marguerite Anne de Valois (b.1577)

3a) Stillborn Son (c.1580)

4a) Charlotte de Valois (b.1584)​
 
Wasn't OTL Charles IX or Henri III available for Maria Caterina? She IS a Portuguese infanta, Italian princess, and English princess (if you don't accept her mother's renunciation as valid or just don't like Mary Stewart and Elizabeth Tudor), and the youngest son (at nearly 10yrs younger) seems almost insulting.

Was D. Felipe II or D. Carlos not available? Since if Maria Manuela still dies, she might be seen as a nice replacement.
 
From John I's view point, marrying a sister to a King (as Duke of Milan) would have down sides: powerful allies can just as easily become powerful enemies.
 
But would mary renounce her rights? Wouldn't that be tantamount to admitting her mother was wrong and the marriage to Henry viii was incestuous?
 
The provision was that Mary would renounce her rights in the succession, but not her rights to the throne. If Henry VIII were to not have any other heirs, Mary would be eligible for the throne.
 
It still begs the question though. Mary, it's fair to say was a bit mulish where her mother was concerned.
 
It amounts to the same thing and if it places her behind elizabeth, it's not going to happen. Mary's mother was fighting for her right to succeed her father. Only a son would supercede her, which is what happened. And I'm not sure such a surrender was possible. She was either in line or not.
 
Neither Mary Tudor, nor Margaret Tudor (sisters of Henry) renounced their rights at all. Henry did relegate Margaret's heirs to the very back of the line (in his will). As did Edward VII (I think). I'm not sure there's really a precedent for renunciation in English law, unless the Act of Supremacy applies, which I'm not sure it does just yet (I think Mary did agree to that, obviously under duress).
 
It amounts to the same thing and if it places her behind elizabeth, it's not going to happen. Mary's mother was fighting for her right to succeed her father. Only a son would supercede her, which is what happened. And I'm not sure such a surrender was possible. She was either in line or not.

What about letting Sickly Eddie live longer than Mary. His death was more tortured OTL since Dudley supposedly fed him arsenic to hasten the end along (which ironically, arsenic actually prolongs life apparently). If Edward passes an Act of Parliament instead of just a "device" for the succession, that since Mary's heirs are foreign born, they are unable to inherit "this imperial crown of England". Which leaves the succession options 1) Elizabeth (he didn't name her heiress OTL because he used the bastardy argument, and couldn't declare Mary a bastard incapable of inheriting the throne, and then nominate Liz, who was even more of a bastard by comparison); 2) Lady Frances Brandon; 3) Lady Margaret Douglas or 4) Mary Stewart.
 
Sickly Eddie just came up in another thread, as to how long he might have lived. A completely different upbringing for Edward could buy him some time, and that's still possible here. It was fairly widely felt he died of a lung ailment of some sort. Maybe a bit more athleticism may have helped?
 
Mary did not flee England for precisely the reason given for disinheriting her "foreign-born children" listed above. So, that makes Luis unlikely in that it goes against Mary's known character to flee England and abandon the throne (because, let's face it, when a daughter-heir leaves the country and weds, that's what she's done.)
 
Mary did not flee England for precisely the reason given for disinheriting her "foreign-born children" listed above. So, that makes Luis unlikely in that it goes against Mary's known character to flee England and abandon the throne (because, let's face it, when a daughter-heir leaves the country and weds, that's what she's done.)

The question was she really at mercy to make her own choice in 1537, she had been readmitted to her father's court and he was willing to provide her with a generous dowry. She considered marrying Philip of Palatinate-Neuburg in 1539, and that would have taken her away from England. The only thing that prevented the marriage was Henry not wanting the marriage the Duke's relation to his previous wife.
 
My question was more along the lines if a personal union between Portugal and England (and possibly Milan) were to take place in 1578, what would have been the consequences?

For one, I imagine that Mary and Louis' heirs would try to reimpose Catholicism in England, particularly as both parents were fervent supporters of the church. There were cases in Europe where religions were imposed by rulers forcefully such as in Scandinavia and within a generation uniformity ensued. This might make England become Catholic, though this to a large extent depends on the nobility and merchant classes. Though at the close of Mary I's reign, a study of wills by F. Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003) found Protestants to be an estimated 8% of the population by 1550, with most being in cities With around 20% of London being Protestant, at least according to the preamble of the wills studied. Considering that in France Huguenots were around twice as large in proportion and they were suppressed, it is not impossible.

I found the quote below from "Elizabeth I and Religion 1558-1603" by Susan Doran, and was wondering if someone more versed on the subject could verify the authenticity of the quote below.

"During the Edwardian Reformation there were undoubtedly many sincere conversions to Protestantism, but the evidence (unsatisfactory though it is) suggests that a majority of the population remained Catholic or conservative in their beliefs during the six years of the king's reign. As a result, from 1553 onwards Mary I had little difficulty in restoring many Catholic devotional practices in most parts of England."

Also, I read that during this period (the Reign of Ferdinand I), in Hungary the largest part of the population (excluding Croatia) became Protestant, including the majority of the nobility with Catholics being about 15% of the Hungarian Crown Lands population. Yet the counter-reformation succeeded in reversing this trend so that Protestants were the minority within the century. I imagine that the masses had little say, or perhaps little understanding of the differences in the churches.

The kingdoms would be ruled separately, with separate laws and customs etc, probably much in the same way that Portugal and Castile were during their union, however English merchants would enjoy easier access to Portugal and its colonial trade. This might make England replace the Netherlands as Portugal's middlemen in Northern Europe a century and a half earlier.

Internationally, Portugal had long pursued a policy of neutrality, signing treaties of friendship with both France and England before 1580 along with agreements to limit piracy against Portuguese shipping. Of the latter the French and even Scots were the biggest offenders, particularly during times of war between the Habsburgs and France with grain shipments from the Baltic to Portugal, along with Portuguese trade with Antwerp suffering. So I imagine that any union of the crowns would remain allied with the Habsburgs and against the Auld Alliance. Without English help, could this mean that the Dutch revolt is crushed?
 
I don't really think it's clear that there was any legal basis to "renounce rights" in the 1550s England. Neither of Henry VII daughters did so, and it doesn't seem lawful in England even today. Practical considerations (which could go either way) would influence Mary. She's next in line to what we presume is the healthy Parr "bonny son". I forget his name.
If she left the country to wind up in Milan, she'd still be next in line If there's no issue from the spare prince.
 
Last edited:
I don't really think it's clear that there was any legal basis to "renounce rights" in the 1550s England. Neither of Henry VII daughters did so, and it doesn't seem lawful in England even today. Practical considerations (which could go either way) would influence Mary. She's next in line to what we presume is the healthy Parr "bonny son". I forget his name.
If she left the country to wind up in Milan, she'd still be next in line If there's no issue from the spare prince.

From what I have been reading, the negotiations were not a complete renunciation of rights, simply that she would be last in line after her father's sons or any future daughters.
 
I think to Mary, that would have been a deal breaker. There was also the matter of Luis's existing relationship with Violante Gomes. Which the Spanish or Imperial ambassador might whisper to Mary. The Hapsburgs and their employees were not known for being nice to princesses after all. They'd ruin Mary's wedding to keep her in England if it was in their power.
 
Could be quite interesting. However, what were the details over Mary and Beja's proposed marriage? I mean it couldn't stipulate Mary to renounce her rights; in 1538 she had none. Same as Elizabeth. They didn't regain succession rights until the third act of succession in 1543. Second, as Luis wasn't the heir presumptive and there was no reason to believe in 1538 that he would inherit the throne, we could just as easily see the Duke and Duchess of Beja reside in England. After all Mary was a wealthy woman in her own right. Third, look at how easily Mary gained the throne in 1553. She had the entire Royal government arrayed against her yet in 14 days she had overcame them without firing a shot.

Sure part of it was due to the usurpation by Lady Jane and the Dudley family but another part was over religion and a third over Mary's legitimacy. Elizabeth's legitimacy was nonexistent and her religious views weren't popular in 1553 (see the unpopularity of Edward VI's religious reforms). We could just as easily see a revolt against Elizabeth if she attempts to become Queen over her sister. After all, you can't give one succession rights and cut out the other, as Edward VI learned as he lay dying. Plus here Mary has guaranteed foreign support in the form of her husband and Portugal. So even if Mary is living in Portugal that doesn't mean Elizabeth becomes Queen Regnant. Especially if here Mary has children while her bastard half-sister is bizarrely single. Think of how much damage Mary Queen of Scots was able to do to childless Elizabeth then triple it with Mary Tudor's children.

Finally, to the point of the question: an Anglo-Portuguese union. I fail to see why it would be any more unwieldy than the Spanish or Austrian monarchies. Communication wouldn't be that hard between Lisbon and London: both were major ports and easily accessible. In theory it would be easier for the Sovereign to go in between Portugal and England than it was to go between say Spain and Naples or Spain and the Netherlands. Not to mention the two nations were ancestral allies from 1399 onward. But, on the flip side, you'd see the King cede the Portuguese throne to a second son or a brother.
 
Top