Tudor/Stuart Civil War (part of "Different Tudors")

oshron

oshron

hey, all. i decided to get extra opinions from a directly history-oriented message board that i was part of long before i joined AH.com concerning the questions about a continued Tudor dynasty that i brought up here. one thing that came up is that, going on the assumption that Elizabeth I has a son out of wedlock, there would be lots of objections to his rule because he would be illegitimate and only be confirmed and brought to the public's attention on Elizabeth's deathbed. the Stuarts, iirc, were the default successors, and maybe Elizabeth I would make that promise to them before she gets pregnant.

anyway, since its entirely possible that the Stuarts would feel like the throne was stolen from them by the new Tudor king and may embark on what is essentially a second War of the Roses, though it may go down as TTL's version of the English Civil War, with the Tudors and the Stuarts replacing the Royalists and Parliamentarians. its also entirely possible that Oliver Cromwell may be involved somewhere ITTL, or an approximation of him because one possibility arose that Henry VIII was interested in Cromwell's mother IOTL (iirc), so TTL's version of Cromwell could very well be aligned to the Tudors if such a man exists
 
oshron

oshron

anyone? if it helps, this could be imagined as a Scottish/English war not unlike the previous ones between those two nations, though this time Scotland would be the aggressor rather than England
 

Georgie Porgie

The closest in OTL would be the Duke of Monmouth .

He was a war hero and well know as the king's son, just born on the wrong side of the blanket. His rebellion didn't not work against an unpopular King so for an unknown bastard to take the throne from the Heir Apparent with no backing or support from anyone would be highly unlikely.

If you want the Tudors to continue then look at another way. Prehapse a higher survival rate amongst the grandsons of Henry VI.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Henry VIII played fast and loose with the succession law, disinheriting and reinstating heirs at will. The ideas of letter patent or inheritance through last will and testament was current in Elizabeth's time but had failed to ensure Lady Jane Grey took the throne against Mary even though she was named by Edward VI as his successor. Of course there was a good deal of doubt about the validity of these letters patent and Mary was clearly an English Royal compared to the tenuous claim for Lady Jane.

Elizabeth held as much power as Henry towards the end of her reign and there is nothing to stop her choosing to name her successor via a Sucession Act. It doesn't quite fit your suprise deathbed announcement but if Elizabeth's bastard was widely known and recognised as her son (very very difficult for her to achieve this and retain any respect compared to Henry VII/ Henry Fitzroy for example) it might be enough to consolidate enough support around the son rather than the "foreign" Stuart king
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Henry VIII was quite happy to raise his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy to the dual dukedom of Richmond and Somerset and quite openly looked at the idea of making him his heir over his daughters - but then the guy died.

Elizabeth can basically DECIDE her heir, and she can decide not to make a foreign king who is the daughter of a Catholic Queen her heir if she wants, and if her nobility will go along with it.

I would imagine that as long as the bastard's father does not gain by his birth, the court would be happy enough with the existence of the child. All it would need would be for there to be a broad support - ie not JUST Cecil. Then Elizabeth can get them to take an oath of allegiance to the child as her heir.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Georgie Porgie

Grey Wolf said:
to the child as her heir
Click to expand...

Lets have a look at dates. Elizabeth was born in 1533 and came to the throne in 1559. It would have been FAR to dangerous to have a child before Mary was dead (it may be a boy and therefor a threat to Mary's throne).

In 59 she was 26, I would say that she had another 10 years of safe childbaring so lets assume the (male) child was born in 1569. That would mean that he would be in his 30's when his mother died, not a child by a long chalk!

Unless he was amazingly politically estute he would have cabals supporting and opposing him and would drop in and out of his mothers support as he went through life. If he was married (very probably) his wife's family would have allies and enemies etc.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Georgie Porgie said:
Lets have a look at dates. Elizabeth was born in 1533 and came to the throne in 1559. It would have been FAR to dangerous to have a child before Mary was dead (it may be a boy and therefor a threat to Mary's throne).

In 59 she was 26, I would say that she had another 10 years of safe childbaring so lets assume the (male) child was born in 1569. That would mean that he would be in his 30's when his mother died, not a child by a long chalk!

Unless he was amazingly politically estute he would have cabals supporting and opposing him and would drop in and out of his mothers support as he went through life. If he was married (very probably) his wife's family would have allies and enemies etc.
Click to expand...

Marry him to Arabella :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top