Mary Tudor bears a son and lives till age 60
- Thread starter joeyanonymous
- Start date
I've always imagined that Mary would've named her son Henry Philip, if she had one.
Oh that is a good compromise name! But then the child be Kinf Henry IX, King Philip II or King Henry Philip I?
Charles is out of question as that is the name of Philip’s son and heir.
John is a good name for a second son, as would not be seen well as name for the future King of England
Well, we would have the first Philip in England then. Henry would probably be out of question given the association to her father - and Edward too, she certainly wouldn't want to remember her brother. Is Richard already a taboo by then? Otherwise, the only option left from past monarchs is William.
Mary traded in a lot on her relation to her father though...she wanted people to remember that she was ‘great Harry’s’ daughter and what better way to do that then name her baby boy after him? Do agree with you about Edward though, between her half brother and the Duke of Somerset.
i think Henry IX Philip (or just Henry IX)
If Charles IX has a son (I don't see at all why he would name him Philip but okay), it implies his brother Henri would never become king of France and, therefore, would most likely stay in Poland.
What are the consequences?
Would Henryk Walezy (as he was named in Poland) found a dynasty in Poland?
I guess it could be possible if he marries a Jagiellon descendant. He was supposed to marry Anna Jagiellon but she was too old to give him children and he really did not want to marry her. Maybe he could marry one of her nieces instead. From a dynastic point of view, the most strategic choice would probably be Elisabeth-Magdalena of Brandenburg. The problem is that they do not have the same religion.
If the throne of Poland is held by Henri/Henryk or an hypothetical son of him, it means Stephen Báthory stays in Transylvania and, more important, Sigismund Vasa stays in Sweden.
Does Sigismund have a chance to bring Sweden back to Catholicism? Or would Protestants overthrow him?
What about the Polish attempt to conquer Russia during the Time of Troubles, several decades later? Could it be more successful with a different king of Poland?
In OTL, it went that far that Sigismund's son Władysław was briefly elected Tsar.
How far could it go in this ATL?
After all, Henri/Henryk had Rurikid blood through Anne of Kiev.
Last edited:
The initial assumption is correct, but that assuming that POD (which is itself at least in 1554, as this is birthdate of John II of England in my tree) doesn't affect Poland at all and Sigismund II of Poland might marry Elizabeth Tudor and have children with her, he might have children with his OTL wife as well if OP wants to.
Well, most likely (unless he cannot get out of marrying Anna Jagiellon), yes, he would found a "dynasty" (although one hindered by elective nature of Polish monarchy) here.
No, I don't think that anyone would even think about Brandenburger girls. If she didn't convert to Lutheranism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Vasa_of_Sweden would be perfect choice for Henry's wife no 2.
I think that Sigismund being in Sweden, would not be likely to be overthrown as the distance was also a main factor in his deposition IOTL. He could even convert to Lutheranism Henry IV-style, he wasn't fanatic like most people think (if they know him at all) and IOTL he thought that he'll keep Sweden using Poland's resources.
This didn't succeeded.
Well, there wasn't much an attempt to conquer Russia. Some private Polish magnates backed False Dmitry, but only in exchange for profits for themselves.
Later, Sejm agreed to the war because they wanted to get back Smoleńsk (and it succeeded) and the ideas of either equal union (proposed by hetman Żółkiewski) or outright conquest (proposed by king Sigismund) were not supported by Sejm.
The different king could manage to convince Sejm into acting differently, but there is no certainty.
The Rurikid blood claim would be meaningless and there were many male Rurikid lines floating around. No one thought them as suitable to become Tsar.
Philip II, as his father was already Philip I.
Edward is clearly out, Richard also, John still unlikely for an heir, Charles out of question as Philip used it for his eldest son, Arthur possible but unlikely to be used by Mary, so the list of usable names is: Philip, Henry and William. Among them I see Philip as the most likely choice, specially as Mary was definitely in love with her husband
Sigismund II never had any legitimate child in OTL despite three marriages. And he had no known bastard. He is commonly believed to be infertile.
Also Elizabeth Tudor is sometimes theorized to be infertile too, though it is of course quite unclear considering uncertainties about her sex life.
Could you give more details, please?
Why do you think Anna Vasa of Sweden would be a better choice than Elizabeth-Magdalena of Brandenburg?
The main advantage about Elizabeth-Magdalena is that she was Sigismund I’s most senior descendant, being his eldest daughter’s eldest daughter. When Henri/Henryk became king in 1573, she was a celibate childless widow after a marriage that lasted only several months, she was 35 years old and her two brothers were already dead without issue. It means that she was disponible for a new marriage, that she was in a right age to bear children and that a son of her and Henri/Henryk would have the best dynastic position to claim Sigismund I’s inheritance.
As I can see, the only problem was the difference of religion between her and Henri/Henryk. I don’t think Henri/Henryk would convert to Lutheranism. He was a very devoted Catholic and, in OTL, he refused to marry Elizabeth Tudor because he did not want to convert to Anglicanism. About a possible conversion of Elizabeth-Magdalena, I am unsure. Her Catholic mother had been mistreated by her Lutheran father and I don’t know what she thought about that.
Anna Vasa, in addition to being only 5 in 1573, was only the daughter of Sigismund I’s fifth daughter. She had a brother and some cousins who could claim the throne of Poland with a better dynastic position than her or her children. And, as you pointed, though she was raised a Catholic, she converted to Lutheranism in OTL immediately after her mother’s death. I fail to see what makes her a better choice than Elizabeth-Magdalena.
Thank you for this opinion. It is quite interesting.
Is there any sign in OTL that Sigismund could convert to Lutheranism?
Him not being a fanatic is one thing. Him converting is another matter.
As I said, in OTL, Władysław Vasa was briefly elected Tsar. Though it did not last, it looks like a much serious attempt to annex Russia to Poland.
Of course, Henri/Henryk's Rurikid ancestry is far from being a big deal. However, if he tries to conquer Russia, he might still use it as a pretext to legitimate his actions.
Last edited:
There were children, who were rumored to be his bastards, for example https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Woroniecka and we would never ever truly know if Sigismund II was or wasn't infertile. Elizabeth Tudor was never married so we cannot exactly know if she was infertile or not.
Well, to start with since 1538 Polish monarchy was in practice and in theory fully elective, so the estates were fully free to elect anyone as King, not bound by dynastic laws.
In 1569, this elective principle was broadened to Lithuania, where previously monarchs could nominate whomever they wanted to as a heir.
So why Henry should still marry a Jagiellonian descendant? The answer is - the union is still young and Lithuanians and some Poles still cared about Jagiellonian dynasty (though no one forced them to do so), so Henry needs to marry a Jagiellonian descendant to please them, not to have a claim to the throne.
And I don't know why you assume that anyone (even those who still cared about Jagiellons) would follow British-style male-preference primogeniture (if that law was followed, Sigismund I wouldn't even become king of Poland and the throne would go to Louis II of Hungary and Habsburgs, after him) and seek for the most senior descendant of Sigismund I, after death of Sigismund, archbishop of Magdeburg (Elizabeth Magdalena's brother) no one cared about issue of Hedwig, electress of Brandenburg (and Sigismund II toyed with the idea of making Sigismund Hohenzollern his heir at least in Lithuania, which would guarantee him also to win Polish royal election) and anyway, judging from the precedents from the time Poland was still hereditary, her sororal nephew, Henry Julius of Brunswick would have better claim than her - king Louis I of Poland and Hungary still succeeded to Polish throne, despite his mother, Elizabeth of Poland being still alive.
And in Lithuania, when it was hereditary (and that is more important, since it stopped being hereditary so recently) the full siblings of preferred heir had priority over his half-siblings, and in that case, preferred heir of Sigismund I was Sigismund II and his only full-sister which left issue which outlived their uncle (of course, with the POD in 1554 you could also butterfly the deaths of Sigismund of Brandenburg and John Sigismund Zapolya of Transylvania), was Catherine, Anna's mother.
Also, Anna could claim the superiority of rank over Sigismund I's descendants, being daughter of a king. And Henry probably won't be able to free himself from promise of marriage (he could only delay that) to Anna Jagiellon (Sigismund I's daughter) and his second marriage would take place only after her death, so his issue would be teenaged at best at the time of his death.
IOTL he let his sister run Lutheran masses in Kraków, and overall was close to Henry IV-style opportunist.
Was placing Philip V on the throne of Spain attempt to annex Spain to France? Although, yes there were projects of inviting Russians as equals to the union, but they didn't have much support from both king and Sejm - Sejm pursued opportunistic landgrab, while king wanted to really conquer Russia, the problem is no one supported that to.
The Władysław thing was initiated by supporter of equal union, hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski but the conditions he accepted on behalf of PLC were judged unacceptable, and king and Sejm declined from the treaty (it involed Władysław converting to Orthodoxy, which would make him unable to become king of PLC, but Żółkiewski, being a poor politician just ignored it, and PLC giving up whatever land it gained on Russia).
So, with a living Mary married to Philip and a Prince of Wales born in 1555, who would inherit the Netherlands, how would go the Dutch Rebellion, if it still happens? Would the Protestants be even more persecuted? Also, I think that France would feel even more threatned, and try to help even more any rebellion against the Habsburgs.
I had no idea of this Lituanian tradition about full-siblings coming before half-siblings. Thank you very much for the info.
I know, of course, that Polish throne was elective at this time. It is the reason why Henri was elected in the first place. However, it seems the electors did not want or did not dare to elect just anyone, at least for a time. Both Henri and Stephen were supposed to marry Anna Jagiellon. Sigismund III was Catherine Jagiellon’s son. Władysław IV and John II Casimir were Sigismund III’s sons.
You say nobody cared about Hedwig’s descendants. Okay. But why did they care about Catherine’s descendants and not about hers?
I still believe that, had Elizabeth-Magdalena married Henri, everybody in Poland would’ve remembered who she was and that would’ve been a huge help for the future election of a son she could have with Henri. Of course, as for any election, the victory would not be totally assured.
Was placing the future Louis VIII on the throne of England attempt to annex England to France?
The answer is yes.
The big difference with Philip V is that Louis and Wladyslaw were eldest sons.
Louis was supposed to become king of France after his father’s death. And he did.
Wladyslaw becoming king of Poland was less sure because of the election but he still had high chances to win. And he did too (though I suppose he may have lost had he still been Tsar).
Philip V, on the opposite, was only Louis XIV’s second grandson. He was never supposed to become king of France. Sure, it was still a possibility but Carlos II’s will specified he should abdicate the throne of Spain if he became king of France.
Last edited:
Yes, the electors were unwilling to elect a total random person. The first time they refused the throne to the son of reigning monarch was after John III of Poland died and the electors didn't elect his son James. I know that Stephen and Henri were supposed to marry Anna Jagiellon and Sigismund was a son of Catherine.
Why did they care? Catherine's descendant, Sigismund III was closer kin than Hedwig's descendants (full nephew vs half niece and half great nephew) and Anna did a lot of propaganda campaign to place Sigismund on the throne.
I that marrying Elizabeth Magdalena wouldn't be useful and he would not fully free himself from his promise to marry Anna Jagiellon (he could only delay the marriage) and Henry could remarry only after Anna's death (or by some wonder, he could manage to have some kids by Anna), so the marriage would be impossible and Anna Vasa would have been in perfect age after her aunt's death.
And Władysław was not supposed to become king. However, you're right in saying that it was an attempt to tie Poland and Russia by union, although not backed by king or Sejm - it was done by hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski all by himself.
Really?
So, who was supposed to be Sigismund III's successor in Poland?
I know... The election... But still!
There were probably some plans about who could become the next king.