Tudor Dynasty

im doing some research for the british empire in my ATL, as well as into symbolism i could include in their alternate flag

anyway, my main question is this: what's the best way that the tudor dynasty could be continued following Elizabeth I's death? obviously, she would have to have a child, but what then? do you all think that later tudors would be that much different than the house of stuart, or orange-nassau, or any of the others?
 
A child of Elizabeth would not be Tudor dynasty, it would be the founder of the dynasty named after said child's father's surname. The only way around that would be for the child to be illegitimate and the father unknown by the court -highly unlikely in itself - but that would be very messy indeed for that child's future and would create huge domestic problems for Elizabeth too. Kings can get away (just) with illegitimate children. Queens regnant can't. I can't think of a single example in European history of a Queen having an illegitimate child with no known father and actually succeeding in getting them recognised as heir.

Otherwise, remember that surnames pass down the male line. Queens are always the end of their dynasty, sister queens excepting.
 
Agreed. You could possibly see something hyphenated, like [Blahblah]-Tudor, but I'm not sure how likely that was in the period... Still, any child of Elizabeth's would have Tudor blood and ancestry and could pull upon that to show their Englishness.
 
thanks for the input thus far, all :) i look forward to more in the morning

here's some stuff that ive determined/begun speculating on based on your input so far:

  1. Elizabeth I's heir (let's just say that its a son) takes on a new name because of his paternal heritage. this would depend on who the father is. i'll elaborate on this later
  2. even though Liz1's son would be named "suchandsuch-Tudor", would it be unreasonable for him and his descendants to simply be called just "Tudor" both in homage of Liz1, and also to keep up the legacy of Liz1 since she was really popular in england in her time
  3. ill be looking more deeply into tudor imagery to use for the flag im working on, but i plan to use the tudor rose at least relatively extensively ;)
  4. for the heir's parentage, i looked into a couple of Liz1's favorite nobles from OTL. of the two ive looked at so far, i decided that Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester at the time, is perhaps the most likely. i dont really like the sound of "Dudley-Tudor", but if thats the most plausible, ill be going with him regardless :p meantime, though, does anyone know of any other suggestions for who the heir's father could be?
 
Agreed. You could possibly see something hyphenated, like [Blahblah]-Tudor, but I'm not sure how likely that was in the period... Still, any child of Elizabeth's would have Tudor blood and ancestry and could pull upon that to show their Englishness.

But wasn't this hyphenated thing (in the sense that you continue to use the name of the female line in the dynasty) only created when the Habsburgs decided that "Habsburg-Lorraine" was a much better name for propaganda then just simply "Lorraine"?
 
Any extended Tudor Dynasty Timeline,would require at-least for Edward VI to survive long enough to secure his proposed marriages with either Elizabeth of Valois or Mary, Queen of Scots. Since both were around 10 or 11 when Edward died IOTL, Edward would have to wait until around 1557 to 1558(Which works out great, if Mary still succumbs to Ovarian cancer as per OTL) to secure the Tudor Line. Or you can go back further and have the Lord Protector intercept Northumberland's scheme for the throne, and have Eddie marry his good cousin, the Lady Jane Grey which could be able to produce a heir relatively quickly since they were both the same age. However, it might be in Edward's best interest to wait it out for the foreign Princesses both Domestically and in terms of Foriegn Affaris, due to the propensity of the Brandon-Grey Line to be rather predisposed to women.
 
even though Liz1's son would be named "suchandsuch-Tudor", would it be unreasonable for him and his descendants to simply be called just "Tudor" both in homage of Liz1, and also to keep up the legacy of Liz1 since she was really popular in england in her time

Remember that a part of her popularity and her mythos was that she was the Virgin Queen, and declared herself married to her country. There were always rumours at court that she had had dalliances and maybe she did but so long as she went childless she had plausible deniability. If she has this child it would ruin that deniability and her reputation with her subjects would be severely dented.

In fact it may just be easier to have her marry Dudley. By all accounts they both wanted to, if secretly, and his station was significantly below hers that she would dominate him at court and any children would be considered hers more than his. Of course, it doesn't help the dynasty thing but that's a bit of a losing battle you're fighting IMO.

But wasn't this hyphenated thing (in the sense that you continue to use the name of the female line in the dynasty) only created when the Habsburgs decided that "Habsburg-Lorraine" was a much better name for propaganda then just simply "Lorraine"?

It was a territorial distinction, yes. Not sure it applies here.
 
It was a territorial distinction, yes. Not sure it applies here.

That what I meant. Hyphenated surnames indicated the subdivisions of a same dynasty based on the territory they ruled (look at the Wittelsbachs or the "Saxes"). I can't find any example before the Habsburgs where a surname like X-Y indicated the union of two noble houses, especially one where the female line is given precedence over the male one.
 
Remember that a part of her popularity and her mythos was that she was the Virgin Queen, and declared herself married to her country. There were always rumours at court that she had had dalliances and maybe she did but so long as she went childless she had plausible deniability. If she has this child it would ruin that deniability and her reputation with her subjects would be severely dented.

In fact it may just be easier to have her marry Dudley. By all accounts they both wanted to, if secretly, and his station was significantly below hers that she would dominate him at court and any children would be considered hers more than his. Of course, it doesn't help the dynasty thing but that's a bit of a losing battle you're fighting IMO.



It was a territorial distinction, yes. Not sure it applies here.

What about having my alternate POD of having Edward VII Survive Fal although his reign is to be one of intense Protestant reformation, if he marries as Catholic such as Mary, Queen of Scots or Elizabeth of Valois it might make for a moderating effect on his persecutions of the Catholic populations. Or you could just have Edward do as Queen Mary I did, and just ignore their spouses advice(Philip was actually towards the end of their marriage writing to the Queen that he thought she was being to heavy handed in her prosecution against protestant). Although Edward is unlikely to reach a religious settlement like Elizabeth did, a young Prince of Wales deeply influenced by their mother's Catholicism just might ITTL.
 
The dynastic surname could simply be decided by an Act of Parliament

Since the blood royal is Tudor, it could simply be decided that the dynasty would be Tudor.

We attach too much this sometimes. Don't forget the Romanovs are actually the House of Holstein-Gottorp!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
But wasn't this hyphenated thing (in the sense that you continue to use the name of the female line in the dynasty) only created when the Habsburgs decided that "Habsburg-Lorraine" was a much better name for propaganda then just simply "Lorraine"?

The Bourbons and Something branches of the french royal family come to my mind...
 
The Bourbons and Something branches of the french royal family come to my mind...

Dynastic names are to an extent made up retrospectively. All of the French ones after Capet were based on the geographical possession of the individual who succeeded to the kingship - ie Comte de Valois, Comte de Bourbon, Duc d'Orleans

The English royal house was IIRC a bit surprised to revive the name Plantagenet in the 15th century, which occurred due to the internicine struggle between La
 
What about having my alternate POD of having Edward VII Survive Fal although his reign is to be one of intense Protestant reformation, if he marries as Catholic such as Mary, Queen of Scots or Elizabeth of Valois it might make for a moderating effect on his persecutions of the Catholic populations. Or you could just have Edward do as Queen Mary I did, and just ignore their spouses advice(Philip was actually towards the end of their marriage writing to the Queen that he thought she was being to heavy handed in her prosecution against protestant). Although Edward is unlikely to reach a religious settlement like Elizabeth did, a young Prince of Wales deeply influenced by their mother's Catholicism just might ITTL.

That would definitely preserve the surname "Tudor", yes, though I think it's oshron's preference to preserve Elizabeth's position in his ATL. I would put a healthy dose of skepticism on whether Edward marrying a Catholic would moderate his views - I think he was a fervent Protestant with strong anti-Catholic rhetoric drummed into him, and far more likely his wife would be forced to keep her Catholicism private, if not convert entirely. In fact unless you tinker with the Privy Council, which rapidly became dominated by Protestant interests thanks to Northumberland's powerplaying, I find it somewhat unlikely that Edward would be married off to a Catholic at all unless it was implicit in the marriage arrangement that she were expected to convert to Protestantism or at least make a show of it in public.

Also bear in mind that his mother died as a result of Edward's birth - you'd need a POD keeping her alive to have any Catholic influence on him anyway, since Edward grew up in a very Protestant household as a result of his successive mothers. Jane Seymour may have been Catholic but her religion had no influence at all on Edward's own.

The dynastic surname could simply be decided by an Act of Parliament

Since the blood royal is Tudor, it could simply be decided that the dynasty would be Tudor.

We attach too much this sometimes. Don't forget the Romanovs are actually the House of Holstein-Gottorp!

Well yes, and the House of Windsor is actually the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but I think changing surnames wouldn't really be something Parliament were interested in (nor, in the Tudor era, had the authority to do - Parliament was very much under the monarch's control rather than vice versa at this point, remember). It could, on the other hand, be that somehow the name Tudor gains a certain significance amongst the people of England in general, and entirely without any recourse to Parliament the new house which should be named Dudley is by public acclamation simply always referred to as Tudor. Now, that wouldn't be likely to last long, and it might be weak enough that 500 years on all history textbooks insist on naming the sub-dynasty as the Dudley dynasty in order to be true to the way that dynasty naming works, but in the language of the day Dudley and Elizabeth's children could be said to be a continuation of the House of Tudor. Straws firmly clutched, but it could I guess.

Legitimising the child goes a long way to keeping Elizabeth's reputation intact, too.

The English royal house was IIRC a bit surprised to revive the name Plantagenet in the 15th century, which occurred due to the internicine struggle between La

...ncaster and York?
 
thanks for all your continued replies! :)

here's some more conclusions and speculations based on your input:

  1. the name of the new dynasty may be hyphenated, or it may not be. in any case, my idea from earlier was that it would be officially called the House of Dudley-Tudor (or maybe Tudor-Dudley) but the tudors' precedence could result in the house being commonly called just "Tudor"
  2. while i do want this to focus more on Liz1, im willing to explore possibilities with other tudors. eddie and jane grey sounds the most plausible to me; extending eddie's lifespan a bit long doesnt sound too unreasonable or implausible. not too sure what to make of the brandon-grey comments here (ive probably just misunderstood the writing)
  3. ive thought about it, and perhaps an interesting way for Liz1 to go about her status as the Virgin Queen would be to keep her motherhood secret: since she knows how important her image is to the people, she goes the rest of her life saying that she's still the Virgin Queen and is initially claimed to have died childless. meanwhile, her son by dudley is raised in that household, though in the knowledge that he IS heir apparent, and documentation from Liz1 herself confirms his eligibility. basically, she puts the needs of the people first and never formally marries, though everyone acknowledges dudley as the father and their son becomes the king (im not sure how plausible or realistic this is, though)
 
A child of Elizabeth would not be Tudor dynasty, it would be the founder of the dynasty named after said child's father's surname. The only way around that would be for the child to be illegitimate and the father unknown by the court -highly unlikely in itself - but that would be very messy indeed for that child's future and would create huge domestic problems for Elizabeth too. Kings can get away (just) with illegitimate children. Queens regnant can't. I can't think of a single example in European history of a Queen having an illegitimate child with no known father and actually succeeding in getting them recognised as heir.

Otherwise, remember that surnames pass down the male line. Queens are always the end of their dynasty, sister queens excepting.

No that is not correct.

The current royal dynasty is the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II made a proclamation that her descendants born without a title will be known by the surname of Mountbatten Windsor but the Royal House remains Windsor.

In The Netherlands, there has been three successive Regnants, the House of Orange Nassau remains the name, not the family name of any of the three Prince Consorts.
 
Well yes, and the House of Windsor is actually the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but I think changing surnames ...

Saxe-Coburg wasn't a surname, it was the name of the duchy. The actual surname was Wettin, but it was never used as the 'House of' name in GB.

Similar story for the Hanoverians, whose family name was Welf/Guelph (both spellings show up in the sources; George III preferred the latter).
 
thanks for all your continued replies! :)

here's some more conclusions and speculations based on your input:

  1. the name of the new dynasty may be hyphenated, or it may not be. in any case, my idea from earlier was that it would be officially called the House of Dudley-Tudor (or maybe Tudor-Dudley) but the tudors' precedence could result in the house being commonly called just "Tudor"
  2. while i do want this to focus more on Liz1, im willing to explore possibilities with other tudors. eddie and jane grey sounds the most plausible to me; extending eddie's lifespan a bit long doesnt sound too unreasonable or implausible. not too sure what to make of the brandon-grey comments here (ive probably just misunderstood the writing)
  3. ive thought about it, and perhaps an interesting way for Liz1 to go about her status as the Virgin Queen would be to keep her motherhood secret: since she knows how important her image is to the people, she goes the rest of her life saying that she's still the Virgin Queen and is initially claimed to have died childless. meanwhile, her son by dudley is raised in that household, though in the knowledge that he IS heir apparent, and documentation from Liz1 herself confirms his eligibility. basically, she puts the needs of the people first and never formally marries, though everyone acknowledges dudley as the father and their son becomes the king (im not sure how plausible or realistic this is, though)

Well Oshron, here is my take on how exciting a potential TL could be if you decided to against the parliamentary hurdles of having Elizabeth getting married, and having issue yet still calling it a Tudor dynasty:confused: lol

****************

House of Tudor: Edward VI TL Lives

1509-1547: King Henry VIII (House of Tudor)
1547-1583: King Edward VI (House of Tudor)*
1583-1598: King Edmund I (House of Tudor)*
1598-1603: King Arthur I (House of Tudor)*
1603-1629: King Arthur II (House of Tudor)*
1629-1649: Queen Catherine I (House of Tudor
-Oldenburg)*
1649-????: King Christian I (House of Oldenburg)**


Notes.

1. Edward VI, survives his bout with Tuberculosis and goes onto continue the reformation despite his marriage to the Catholic Queen Elizabeth of Valois. The Tudor-Valois marriage proves to be a happy one despite the fact that only two children survive to adulthood; Edmund, Prince of Wales( b.1562) and a daughter, Catherine (b.1565)…Future Queen of France, wife of King Henri III

2. Edmund was born in 1562, two years after Queen Elizabeth the death of twin boys (Henry and Edward) who did not make it a sole year, in 1560. The Prince of Wales was 21 years of age, when he ascended to the throne, and was already married to the daughter of the protestant Queen of Navarre Jeanne III…Catherine de Bourbon who was three years Henry’s senior. Catherine’s staunch Calvinist faith, although clashed somewhat with Edmund’s desire to mitigate the decades long conflict between Protestants and Catholics in his kingdom. Their union did prove fruitful as Catherine; much like her mother produced five children, most of whose names were grounded in Edmund obsession with the history of the Tudor Line. Those names included; Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales (b. 1579), Henry Tudor, (1581-1582), Princess Elizabeth Tudor (b. 1583), Jasper Tudor, Duke of York, (b. 1585), and Princess Jean Tudor (b.1587)

3. Arthur Tudor, named after the first son of Henry VII, ascended to the throne after the freak accident of death of his father at the age of 36, who was thrown from his horse during a fox hunt. Crowned in a splendid ceremony with overtures to the mythical Camelot of old, Arthur I, at the age of 19 was a vibrant young king. Due to the penitent of the Tudor’s for early dynastic marriages, Arthur married his royal bride in 1594, at the age of 15; his partner for most of his reign was a result Edmund’ strengthening of relations between the protestant Princes of Europe. His Queen would be daughter of the esteemed Prince of Orange, William the Silent…Countess Louise Juliana of Nassau. Yet most hope for the dynamic young King was cut short, when he was unexpectedly assassinated in London, by Catholic revolutionaries in 1603 at the young age 24. He was only survived by his Dutch Queen, and his two surviving children…Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales (b. 1595), and Louise Tudor (b. 1602)

4. Although in the annals of English History, most reigns for Child-Kings don’t usually turn out well. This was not the case for King Arthur II, who under the consummate knowledge and leadership of his uncle…the Duke of York, Jasper Tudor, who ruled in Arthur’s stead as Lord Protector until Arthur reached his majority in 1613. Under much of his “reign” the Lord Protector sponsored much of the flowering of the arts and exploration that would become known as The Arthurian Era. Yet despite concerns that Arthur II was a less serious man than his forefathers(he’d much rather spend his times frolicking with him male favorites) The Duke of York respectfully stepped down to allow the rightful king to take his place on the throne. Despite his certain predispositions, Arthur followed the tradition of the Tudor Kings, and he married during the regency period to the feisty Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, daughter of the leader of the German Protestant Union, Fredrick IV of the Palatinate. Yet largely due to the King’s constant pursuit of pleasure, the marriage between Arthur and Elizabeth proved rather cold, producing a sole daughter in Princess Catherine Louise Jeanne Tudor in 1601.

5. Despite Arthur II being one of the most non-military minded Kings of the Tudor Dynasty, at the age of 34, Arthur egged on by Parliament decided to take advantage of the War of Succession raging in Scotland. Leading his own army in the highlands, King Arthur was stuck down by an unexpected arrow show to his neck killing him instantly. The death of King caused an immediate withdrawal from Scots’ War of Succession in order to figure out the own difficulties on procuring Arthur’s heir. After a lengthy debate, Parliament decided on the side of Princess Catherine who was to reign as Sovereign Queen, with all the powers of a King. This was much to the chagrin of a still-vibrant Duke of York, Jasper Tudor, who although was approaching 55 years of age, had a powerful claim in that he was the only surviving son of King Edmund I. Yet in still, the Princess was the sole issue of King Arthur II, and thusly was coroneted as Queen Catherine I of England and Ireland. However, unlike her father, Catherine proved to be a remarkably strong ruler, whose belief in a monarch holding absolute power had not truly been seen since the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Much to the concern of many of Englishmen, parliament in 1633 approved of a marriage with the third son of the powerful King Christian IV of Denmark, the 22 year old Prince Fredrick of Oldenburg, although eight years her junior…Fredrick proved to be an extremely capable co-monarch, whose belief in absolutism cemented a strong section of parliament who was against the foreign King. Despite her age, Queen Catherine produced three surviving children in quick succession; Christian Henry Edward Oldenburg, Prince of Wales, (b. 1634) Princess Louise Anna Sophia Oldenburg (b. 1635), and Princess Charlotte Catherine Jane Oldenburg (b. 1637). Queen Catherine would continue to wrestle away power from parliament, when by virtue of the death of his father, the Prince Consort ascended to the throne as King Fredrick III.

6. For a year, before her unexpected death at the age of 48 years of age, Queen Catherine groomed her son for the likely event that he was to rule not only as the first monarch of the Oldenburg dynasty in England, but also as King Christian I and V of England, Denmark, Norway and Ireland. Although the unbroken Henrician- Line of the Tudor Dynasty, which had reigned for nearly one hundred and sixty-five years and survive the reigns of seven distinct monarchs, had finally came to an end…A new emperor of the North has been born, with the blood of the Tudors coursing through his veins.
 
No that is not correct.

The current royal dynasty is the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II made a proclamation that her descendants born without a title will be known by the surname of Mountbatten Windsor but the Royal House remains Windsor.

In The Netherlands, there has been three successive Regnants, the House of Orange Nassau remains the name, not the family name of any of the three Prince Consorts.

That all happened in the 20th century. Prior to the 20th century, yes, Falastur was correct. Victoria herself was the last of the Hannoverians. Her son was actually of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, until George V passed the proclamation to rename it to Windsor. The Montbattens and the Tecks also shed their German names. The British Royal Family didn't remain Hannoverian after Victoria was gone.

The same happened in Portugal, where the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas also reigned, although I think the name was actually known as Braganza-Coburg, although this style was only used by non-Portuguese historians. In the period, they were recognized as simply being Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, whilst the Kings themselves after Maria II continued to style themselves as Braganzas.
 
Top