Tudor dynasty: 1468 - 16XX/17XX

hey, all. i just got back into writing up parts of my ASB ATL and have been working on British history most recently. one thing that i decided a long time ago was that one difference in British history here would be that the Tudor dynasty lasts longer than IOTL, starting earlier and ending much later. i'd like to know what everyone thinks would be the best direction to go in from what i have so far. here's the gist of Tudor history:

  • Edmund IV (1468 - 1483): the War of the Roses ends earlier when Edmund Tudor of Hadham leads the last of the Lancastrian men to defeat Richard III and becomes the first Tudor king
  • Henry VII (1483 - 1509)
  • Henry VIII (1509 - 1547)
  • Edward VI (1547 - 1553)
  • Mary I (1553 - 1558)
  • Elizabeth I (1558 - 1603): has a son out of wedlock with Robert Dudley, the Duke of Leicester, who continues the Tudor dynasty (though technically the Tudor line ends here and the ruling house becomes Dudley-Tudor*)
  • Henry IX (1603 - 1643): was raised in secret to preserve Elizabeth I's image during her life and took the throne as her admittedly illegitimate heir; reigned during the early colonial period, and OTL Jamestown is consequently called "Tudorstown" instead
  • Robert I (1643 - 1665): this would be the king who rules during the Civil War
*Dudley-Tudor was partly chosen for aesthetics because i wanted the Tudors to continue in spirit, though logically it may just be "House of Dudley" rather than "Dudley-Tudor". w/e :rolleyes:



one thing i want to explore is the possibility of a Royalist victory in the English Civil War and what could happen later on as a result of that, as well as any other major changes which could take place with a persisting Tudor dynasty and when it would most likely end (past the Civil War; i kinda want the Tudors to continue for a while)
 
Edmund Tudor possessed no royal blood except that of France. It is unlikely in the extreme for him to become king of England unless the literally dozens--perhaps hundreds--of other claimants with better claims than him somehow dropped dead. Perhaps that's how your ASB gets involved? I don't know what your TL is about.

EDITED TO ADD: Edmund Tudor died in 1456. You'd need an earlier POD to have him survive, which means that everything after that will be affected. Every single monarch after Edmund has precisely the same reign? Including Mary I, who died in 1558 of cancer, one of the few events that is reasonably governed by stochastic principles? An English Civil War still happens in the 1640s despite the Tudors having a radically different governing style than the Stuarts, not to mention their aversion after Mary I to marrying Catholics? Arthur Tudor still dies of tuberculosis? Richard III did not become king until 1483. Did you mean Edward IV?
 
Last edited:
Richard III kills most of the Lancastrians and Yorkists, sort-of opening the way for him to take the throne
 
EDITED TO ADD: Edmund Tudor died in 1456. You'd need an earlier POD to have him survive, which means that everything after that will be affected. Every single monarch after Edmund has precisely the same reign? Including Mary I, who died in 1558 of cancer, one of the few events that is reasonably governed by stochastic principles? An English Civil War still happens in the 1640s despite the Tudors having a radically different governing style than the Stuarts, not to mention their aversion after Mary I to marrying Catholics? Arthur Tudor still dies of tuberculosis? Richard III did not become king until 1483. Did you mean Edward IV?
yeah, a fair amount of it is a cop-out on my part. with respect to the preceding kings, there's other changes to the timeline that i honestly felt wasnt important to discussing the Tudors themselves. technically, the ATL's POD is much earlier (i don't really want to derail the thread with all the preceding stuff; the ASBness is mainly that the butterfly effect is controlled).

pertaining to Edmund Tudor, i believe my original intention (i first wrote him in a LONG time ago) was that he avoids capture and doesn't come down with the plague in prison, and thus lives longer; his return and defeat of Richard III is supposed to be analogous to Henry VII's IOTL

the English Civil War is actually one thing that i wanted to explore in the first place. either what happens if the Civil War never occurs, or what happens if it ends in a Royalist victory. i'd like to hear any suggestions you have about it not happening because of different ruling methods by the Tudors.
 
yeah, a fair amount of it is a cop-out on my part. with respect to the preceding kings, there's other changes to the timeline that i honestly felt wasnt important to discussing the Tudors themselves. technically, the ATL's POD is much earlier (i don't really want to derail the thread with all the preceding stuff; the ASBness is mainly that the butterfly effect is controlled).

pertaining to Edmund Tudor, i believe my original intention (i first wrote him in a LONG time ago) was that he avoids capture and doesn't come down with the plague in prison, and thus lives longer; his return and defeat of Richard III is supposed to be analogous to Henry VII's IOTL

the English Civil War is actually one thing that i wanted to explore in the first place. either what happens if the Civil War never occurs, or what happens if it ends in a Royalist victory. i'd like to hear any suggestions you have about it not happening because of different ruling methods by the Tudors.

I don't know. At this point, any and all semblance of realism is out the window, so I suppose you could pick any outcomes you wanted. An earlier, more permanent victory for the Lancastrians (possibly the survival of Edward of Westminster) is going to have absolutely massive effects on English history by 1500, let alone 1600. The parallelism in the brief TL you've posted in effect eliminates the use of logic to determine what will happen. I understand that this is for an ASB TL, but basically it's impossible to predict what will happen, because what happens is whatever you want to happen. I'm really afraid that I'm not going to be of any help here.
 
thanks for your input thus far, anyway, thesp; the reason i post more in the pre- and post-1900 forums is because i want to look at changes on a smaller scale so that i dont overwhelm people with all the elements of the timeline before that would logically warrant something completely unrecognizable from OTL. afterwards, i adjust it appropriately for the TL. that's what i was hoping to do here.
 
Perhaps Edmund Tudor claims the throne jure uxoris and by proximity of blood? He was King Henry VI's closest kinsman and his wife was Henry's heiress, so, it's not *too* out there.

Dudley-Tudor dynasty is out there though.
 
Perhaps Edmund Tudor claims the throne jure uxoris and by proximity of blood? He was King Henry VI's closest kinsman and his wife was Henry's heiress, so, it's not *too* out there.

Dudley-Tudor dynasty is out there though.
that definitely sounds more plausible than the "there can be only one!" might-makes-right idea i had before
 
Top