WI: Edward IV lived longer?

WI: Edward VI lived longer?

What would've happened if Edward VI had lived longer, married Jane Grey and had later died with her as Queen & pregnant?

~Salamon2
 
Last edited:
You mean Edward VI. :)

If Edward had provided a legitimate male heir, there's no doubt that he would have been succeeded by his own line and not by his two sisters. There's a case to be made that Mary was determined to get the throne but had Edward lived longer and produced an heir, he would never have disinherited Mary and Elizabeth so maybe they'd have been contented to stay as Princesses at court. Certainly it would have extended the Tudor dynasty.
 
You mean Edward VI. :)

If Edward had provided a legitimate male heir, there's no doubt that he would have been succeeded by his own line and not by his two sisters. There's a case to be made that Mary was determined to get the throne but had Edward lived longer and produced an heir, he would never have disinherited Mary and Elizabeth so maybe they'd have been contented to stay as Princesses at court. Certainly it would have extended the Tudor dynasty.

Yes, forgive the typo.

~Salamon2
 
We all do it ;)

I've just read a biography of Mary I and she had considerable support among the ruling families of the day which ultimately secured her place as Queen once Edward died. So there's a WI for Mary leading a coup against her brother's protestant heir.
 
Actually, the main reason for her support was that the will of Edward cut her (the rightful heir) out in favour of a cousin with a weak claim. That's not an issue here.

I would imagine the Princess Elizabeth would be the young child's godmother, and would probably be the preferred heir in case something goes wrong. In OTL, Mary only has 6 years to live before she dies, proabably of cancer, and given the hit and miss nature of that disease, I imagine she could drop dead pretty much any time in the 1550s. With the sucession pretty much secure as a protestant line, we may see a second 'Pilgramage of Grace' in the North, and Elizabeth is probably married off.
 
I imagine that until the birth of the child (and thus whether we find out if it's a boy or a girl) the country would be on pins and needles. Jane would rule as a regent Queen at least until the birth of her child, and if it's a boy that she'd continue to rule as regent until he came of age. For solidarity I imagine Elizabeth being close to the family & supporting "Jane the Quene", but eventually being married off.

Whom would she be married off to?

I seem to recall that the King of Sweden was interested, and he was a Protestant.

~Salamon2
 
I doubt Mary would sit by whilst Jane served as regent.

Me too, but until the gender of the baby is determined, what other choice does she have? She could try to push for being regent herself, but Jane has been Queen for some amount of time and with Edward's illness I imagine she took over some duties or at least helped him with his duties. So she already is helping to run the country at the time of Edward's death. I'd imagine that until the birth of her child she'd be regent. Mary could push to act as regent instead of Jane... and that would send the country into civil war.

The reason why the people supported Mary over Jane IOTL was because they favored a natural succession rather than a forced one. Making Jane Edward's wife and carrying his child would extend the succession to include her, even if it was only for a brief time. So until the child is born the country is on the verge of civil war. I definitely imagine that if the child born is another girl then Mary would push for the throne, but if it's a boy she might continue pushing to be regent and raise her brother's son in the "true faith".

EDIT: I've got an interesting idea that'll turn this WI thread into a time line and possibly turn England down the path of Civil War. I'll write up the scenario and work on it later.

~Salamon2
 
Last edited:
The rough beginning of a timeline

POD: Edward VI recovers and lives for a few years longer, but eventually grows sick again and dies. He marries Jane Grey at 15, and when they are 17 Jane becomes pregnant. When Jane is five months along, Edward falls sick again and dies on January 28, 1556 leaving the fate of his kingdom in a precarious state. Jane is decided to rule as regent until she gives birth. Mary is perturbed at this, but advisors tell her that once the her brother’s child is born she will be proclaimed Queen—they assume the child is a girl and await only confirmation of the child’s birth. Mary however is not so confident about the gender of the child and fears that if it is a boy that she’d be forced to have to wait to have her rightful rule as Queen. So to hedge her bets, Mary arranges for the midwife to be paid off and smother the child if it’s a boy.
In May of 1556 Jane goes into labor, a long one that lasts well into the night. Just after midnight on May 16th Jane gives birth to a baby boy who is named after his father, thus becoming Edward, Prince of Wales. Before the midwife can smother Edward however, Jane screams out, apparently still in labor, and another boy, Edward’s twin brother, is delivered. This boy is named Henry by Jane, after her father-in-law and is named the Duke of York. Jane is exhausted from being in labor and falls unconscious. Northumberland has been in the room since the Prince’s birth (he heard that the Queen had given birth and burst into the room to see the child, and after doing so was chased out while the Queen continued in her labor). After Henry’s birth is over, Northumberland and the other lords of the Privy Council burst into the room, eager to see the new kings of England. The midwife takes the young princes to get one of the few baths they’ll get in their lives. Unsure of what to do the midwife steals Edward, leaves Henry, and hurries off for Mary. The midwife presents Mary with Edward, the heir to the throne.

“You wench! Why is he still alive? I told thee to smother him.” said Mary as the midwife entered with the young Prince.

“Milady, you will forgive me but there was no time to smother the babe, what with his twin being born—“ answered the midwife.

“Twin? Did you say he has a twin?”
“Aye, milady, a twin brother.”
“And he is my brother’s eldest son?”
“Aye, milady. The Queen named him after his father, she did.”
Mary takes Edward from the midwife and looks at him.
“He looks like a healthy boy. Thank you for your pains, you will be rewarded hereafter.”
The midwife leaves and Mary stares at her nephew.
“Your father might have been poisoned by these heretics, but you won’t.”
~Salamon2
 
If she doesn't revel him in the future they'll just say Henry came out first and is the true Protestant king.

If she does and don't give him back but takes it to civil war, i can't see her having any real support - particularly when it's so obvious she's doing it for her own gain.
- Even if she has some sembalence of support, Jane & Co still control London and all principle towns etc.

I'm still not sure that the midwife could be bribed either or could get away with stealing the prince. I can't think they would allow a Catholic midwife (im sure she'd be heavily checked out prior?) and would a Protestant midwife really deliever the Protestant heir to the throne to his known Catholic Aunt?

I'll be interested to see where you go but still not atall convinced at the minute.
 
Why am I always the one to rain on the parade?

Guys, excuse me. I have to point out to one and all that inbreeding had reached such a point where ALL the Tudors were barren/firing blanks. The only way an heir is produced is thru treasonous hanky-panky.:p Which means the constant threat of exposure/civil war.:eek:
 
Guys, excuse me. I have to point out to one and all that inbreeding had reached such a point where ALL the Tudors were barren/firing blanks. The only way an heir is produced is thru treasonous hanky-panky.:p Which means the constant threat of exposure/civil war.:eek:

Define all Tudors? Henry produced at least 2 children that reached adulthoot, 2 more that reached teens and several others that died young but they were still born.

Edward could have produced kids i reckon
 
Here I was all ready to join an interesting discussion on Edward IV, as per the thread title in its listing

Regarding the last Tudor dynasts, there's a theory that both Mary and Elizabeth had some kind of vaginal deformity (inside) that made it painful to have sex, and difficult to conceive. There's also the theory that Thomas Seymour raped Elizabeth when she was young.

Edward VI has the unfortunate fact of being a sickly lad obscuring whether or not his reproductive capabilities were up to it, but there is no particular reason to think otherwise. Henry Fitzroy was certainly seen to be fully-functioning, married and about to get into the heir-producing stage when he dropped dead.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Guys, excuse me. I have to point out to one and all that inbreeding had reached such a point where ALL the Tudors were barren/firing blanks. The only way an heir is produced is thru treasonous hanky-panky.:p Which means the constant threat of exposure/civil war.:eek:

Uhhh...methinks you're thinking of the Hapsburgs. There wasn't much inbreeding in the Tudor line. Some yes, but not much. I mean, the Tudors just four generations before this were Welsh gentry so there's no real possibility of extensive intermarrying there.

Also, inbreeding doesn't cause infertility. It causes genetic defects. Henry VIII had at least eight children, including one illegitimate son who reached his twenties. Mary was married for four years, slept with Philip II about three times and had a stomach tumour which might well have caused her infertility. Elizabeth wasn't known for her frequent marriages. Edward was 15. Hardly the sort of family which provides a lot of fuel for claims of infertility. That comment was a little wide of the mark.
 
Top