Tudor question

A quick query, during the early Tudor period what would be needed to trigger a civil war?

By early Tudor period I mean from the start of Henry VII reign to around 1515?
 
A quick query, during the early Tudor period what would be needed to trigger a civil war?

By early Tudor period I mean from the start of Henry VIII reign to around 1515?

Have Henry VIII of England die without an heir. If he dies around July of 1515, when Catherine of Aragon is pregnant with Mary Tudor, then you end up in a situation where there's a bunch of heirs that don't quite work. Margaret Tudor is the mother of the King of Scotland, but she's also currently stuck in the middle of the Duke of Albany's regency and pregnant with the Earl of Angus' daughter. Her son is a foreign King, but he has a younger brother (soon to die) if you want both thrones to stay independent. Then there's Mary Tudor Snr, who is recently married to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. She's probably pregnant herself, and if not then will be soon. She's also in England, which might make her feel she's more entitled to the throne than her sister. Then you've got the Duke of Buckingham.

Basically, if Henry VIII died in 1515, then you could have Buckingham rise up, a pregnant Catherine of Aragon fight him to protect her unborn child's claim, and then have James V of Scotland's regency claim England as well. That way, there's a three way struggle that'll end either with Catherine of Aragon completely dominating, or compromising with one side and having Mary marry either James V of Scotland or Henry Stafford, depending on who she has to bargain with.
 
Here's an idea:

Scenario: Catherine of Aragon chooses, in 1517, having brought her daughter to the throne, to treat with the Duke of Buckingham, promising her daughter would marry his eldest legitimate son, Henry Stafford. Thus, Buckingham rose to the head of the regency. The decision was made for two reasons. The first being that Catherine of Aragon did not trust the Scottish Regency to respect her daughter's independent rule, the second being that Buckingham looked to have the advantage on the home front.

Henry VIII of England (b.1491: d.1515) m. Catherine of Aragon (b.1485: d.1536) (a)

1a) Stillborn Daughter (c.1510)

2a) Henry Tudor, Prince of Wales (b.1511: d.1511)

3a) Stillborn Son (c.1513)

4a) Stillborn Son (c.1515)

5a) Mary I of England (b.1516: d.1558) m. Henry Stafford, 4th Duke of Buckingham (b.1501: d.1563) (a)

1a) Henry IX of England (b.1533)

2a) Stillborn Daughter (c.1536)

3a) Stillborn Son (c.1538)

4a) Margaret Stafford (b.1541)

5a) Stillborn Son (c.1543)

6a) Elizabeth Stafford (b.1547)​
 
Methinks thou hast forgotten Norfolk. Not a smart thing to do. He kills Buckingham for challenging Dowager Queen Katherine (and because he doesn't like the bugger). Now what?
 

Both Catherine and Mary might live longer without the stress and health problems that came from Henry's marital shenanigans.

Basically, if Henry VIII died in 1515, then you could have Buckingham rise up, a pregnant Catherine of Aragon fight him to protect her unborn child's claim, and then have James V of Scotland's regency claim England as well. That way, there's a three way struggle that'll end either with Catherine of Aragon completely dominating, or compromising with one side and having Mary marry either James V of Scotland or Henry Stafford, depending on who she has to bargain with.

Though with the Scots claiming the throne, they wouldn't really be able to do much would they? Both with their own domestic troubles regarding the regency and the fact that the last time they confronted England they got utterly trounced and had their nobility gutted.

A quick query, during the early Tudor period what would be needed to trigger a civil war?

By early Tudor period I mean from the start of Henry VII reign to around 1515?

If you want a civil war during the reign of Henry VII you could theoretically try and make Simnel/Warbeck/the de la Poles more successful, but I'm not sure how to do that.

Where exactly does one draw the line between "rebellion" and "civil war" anyway? Is it a matter of duration or the sides being somewhat equally matched? I mean Stoke had two guys claiming to be the King of England and the upstart Simnel had some mildly significant English support (Lincoln, Lovell, Scrope) so...
 
Where exactly does one draw the line between "rebellion" and "civil war" anyway? Is it a matter of duration or the sides being somewhat equally matched? I mean Stoke had two guys claiming to be the King of England and the upstart Simnel had some mildly significant English support (Lincoln, Lovell, Scrope) so...

Rebellions tend to be shorter and with a less even power struggle. Think 3-6 months tops, with one clear winner. Civil Wars, as I've always seen it, tend to take a few years and are usually pretty murky as to who is in the right. Take the York/Lancaster wars. If you think about it, both sides are in the wrong as the Lancaster side usurped the throne. Thus, a Tudor/Buckingham conflict lasting a few years would be a civil war. If you wanted to make it even more interesting, have Henry die in 1509, shortly after his father, and the daughter Catherine of Aragon was carrying actually survive. That way, you have Buckingham on one side, Tudor on the other, Norfolk still has his York wife, and possibly had a child or two from it who might be alive, and the Scots have a claim as well. That'll last a while.
 
Rebellions tend to be shorter and with a less even power struggle. Think 3-6 months tops, with one clear winner. Civil Wars, as I've always seen it, tend to take a few years and are usually pretty murky as to who is in the right.

Fair enough.

If you wanted to make it even more interesting, have Henry die in 1509, shortly after his father, and the daughter Catherine of Aragon was carrying actually survive. That way, you have Buckingham on one side, Tudor on the other, Norfolk still has his York wife, and possibly had a child or two from it who might be alive, and the Scots have a claim as well. That'll last a while.

Yeah, apparently Anne of York and Thomas Howard (then going by the courtesy title of the Earl of Surrey? Edit: No, this was before his father was made Duke) had a son, Thomas, born in 1496 and dead in 1508/9, so if you squint he could still be alive.

An unmarried Mary Tudor (the elder) would also be floating about in that scenario.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, apparently Anne of York and Thomas Howard (then going by the courtesy title of the Earl of Surrey?) had a son, Thomas, born in 1496 and dead in 1508/9, so if you squint he could still be alive.

An unmarried Mary Tudor (the elder) would also be floating about in that scenario.

I've also heard that a daughter and possibly a second son were also floating around, but that could just be fool's talk.

And Mary Tudor, in this scenario, might actually end up with Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor if Catherine of Aragon holds the throne. If not, then a domestic match to either Norfolk/Norfolk's son depending on if he lives, or Henry Stafford.
 
I've also heard that a daughter and possibly a second son were also floating around, but that could just be fool's talk.

Yeah, I've seen mentions of a few more kids (of both genders) that died really young (like hours/days after birth so I figured they'd be dead at our POD), whilst the Wiki has an unsourced mention of a William and a Henry.
 
Yeah, I've seen mentions of a few more kids (of both genders) that died really young (like hours/days after birth so I figured they'd be dead at our POD), whilst the Wiki has an unsourced mention of a William and a Henry.

One website I read years ago claimed a William, Henry and Elizabeth all lived into the 1510s, but I'd be heard pressed to believe that. If we just have Henry Howard (b.1496), live into the 1510s, then we have a probable cause for a Howard/Stafford/Tudor civil war, with a Anglo/Scots conflict on the side. It could last decades, particularly if all sides have heirs.

Tudor:

Claimant: Mary I of England (b.1510)

Main Supporters: Mary Tudor, Princess of England (b.1494), Catherine of Aragon, Queen Dowager of England (b.1485), Ferdinand II of Aragon (b.1452), the Pole Family (maybe)

Heir: Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots (b.1489)

Howard:

Claimant: Henry IX of England (b.1496)

Main Supporters: Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey (b.1446), Lord Thomas Howard (b.1473)

Heir: None at the time.

Stafford:
Claimant: Edward VI of England (b.1478)

Main Supporters: Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland (b.1477)

Heir: Henry Stafford (b.1501)

Stewart:
Claimant: Margaret I of England (b.1489)

Main Supporters: James IV of Scotland (b.1473)

Heir: Arthur Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1509) -to die in 1510 OTL-
 

Would Buckingham be the best positioned in such a scenario, based on the fact that he is an adult male who's well-endowed with land? Despite the fact that his claim to the throne is the most remote (a great-great-great-great-grandson of Edward III vs a possibly unborn daughter of Henry VIII, a daughter of Henry VII and a grandson of Edward IV).

Would Buckingham's brothers-in-law the Robert Radcliffe (Baron Fitzwater, Earl of Sussex IOTL) and (if the marriage had already happened) Earl of Huntingdon support him? How about his brother the Earl of Wiltshire?

England has yet to have a Queen Regnant, so how reluctant would the English be to have an infant female monarch (in contrast to 1553 IOTL, in which Mary was an adult and there were no obvious male candidates)?
 
Would Buckingham be the best positioned in such a scenario, based on the fact that he is an adult male who's well-endowed with land? Despite the fact that his claim to the throne is the most remote (a great-great-great-great-grandson of Edward III vs a possibly unborn daughter of Henry VIII, a daughter of Henry VII and a grandson of Edward IV).

Would Buckingham's brothers-in-law the Robert Radcliffe (Baron Fitzwater, Earl of Sussex IOTL) and (if the marriage had already happened) Earl of Huntingdon support him? How about his brother the Earl of Wiltshire?

England has yet to have a Queen Regnant, so how reluctant would the English be to have an infant female monarch (in contrast to 1553 IOTL, in which Mary was an adult and there were no obvious male candidates)?

That's why I could see Catherine of Aragon having this ITL Mary I of England marrying one of the opposing claimants to the throne.
 
That's why I could see Catherine of Aragon having this ITL Mary I of England marrying one of the opposing claimants to the throne.

How old do you have to be to marry in this context? Marg Beaufort got married-ish as a child to John de la Pole, and Anne Mowbray was 5-6 when she married Richard of Shrewsbury.

Because things could get tense if the uppity Staffords (or Howards) have to wait 10-15 years for the marriage to actually happen. And they'd constantly be on edge because they'd fear that if circumstances changed Katherine would renounce her daughter's betrothal.
 
How old do you have to be to marry in this context? Marg Beaufort got married-ish as a child to John de la Pole, and Anne Mowbray was 5-6 when she married Richard of Shrewsbury.

Because things could get tense if the uppity Staffords (or Howards) have to wait 10-15 years for the marriage to actually happen. And they'd constantly be on edge because they'd fear that if circumstances changed Katherine would renounce her daughter's betrothal.

A "marriage" could occur at any time, with it being consummated once she's 12 years old and then properly fulfilled regularly once she's physically mature, so around 16/17 years old. They'd also probably request that Mary stay with them, and try and get Catherine out of the country.
 
Also, in a scenario where Henry died in 1509 and Catherine gives birth to a stillborn daughter, then the Howards and Staffords we have living in ITL are going to duke it out over Mary Tudor, and try and get her to marry their King/Heir. She's the right age for both Henry Stafford and Henry Howard, so it's going to be who gets her first. Catherine of Aragon finally gives up on England and leaves for Spain, probably taking the veil or, if the opportunity comes up, marrying a royal. Either Louis XII of France or Charles III, Duke of Savoy would work.
 
Hmm some very interesting scenarios here.

In either scenario if Catherine dies whilst giving birth to either a stillborn or live girl, what would happen,
 
Hmm some very interesting scenarios here.

In either scenario if Catherine dies whilst giving birth to either a stillborn or live girl, what would happen,

If it's a stillborn girl, then there's going to be civil war between Howard and Buckingham, and a normal war between whoever is in control at any time and Scotland.

If it's a live girl, same thing but whoever gets control of her is going to marry her off to their appropriate heir.
 
Furthermore, I take it that in a scenario where Catherine dies giving birth to a stillborn girl, whoever succeeds in the following civil war out of Howard and Buckingham will aim to marry their son and heir to Mary Tudor the elder
 
1. Richard III survives Bosworth. He escapes to Burgundy and leads its armies effectively. His sister, the dowager duchess, in gratitude, backs his claim with a fleet and an army. It helps if Henry VII has proved divisive.

2. The princes in the Tower are actually still alive. In a chaotic aftermath of Bosworth they are allowed to escape. Thereafter somewhat similar to alternative 1.

3. Arthur lives. Henry (OTL VIII) rebels. Not sure of the ostensible reason, although underlying it is Henry's ambition and confidence that he would make a better king than his brother. If his reasons are purely dynastic, he might find an outside supporter in France, since Arthur, being married to Catherine of Aragon, would be in the Spanish camp. Alternatively, maybe Henry could become a religious reformer in his own right. In real life, he thought himself an expert on such things.
 
Top