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?
snip
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.
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?
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.
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?) 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.
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.
Snip
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.
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.
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,