About the succession issue, at least our hypothetical "Henry Tudor" would at least be English and not a foreigner.
At this period in time, nationality wouldn't count for toffee so long as the new monarch was a Protestant.
About the succession issue, at least our hypothetical "Henry Tudor" would at least be English and not a foreigner.
At this period in time, nationality wouldn't count for toffee so long as the new monarch was a Protestant.
So, here's the POD. Sometimes in the 60s of the 16th century, Queen Elizabeth of England gets pregnant and gives birth to a son. Let's name him Henry, just for the lols. The father is not revealed to the public, might be Robert Dudley, might be God or the midichlorians, Elizabeth does not marry. Henry rises to become an intelligent, calm young man (raised a protestant, of course) and takes the throne in 1603.
What happens?
I guess civil war doesn't, neither do the Stuarts. Might we actually have a surviving Tudor house until today?
Would William have been so acceptable if he weren't married to Mary, King James' daughter?
I think someone has read too much about the setting of Code Geass...
That's perfectly right, of course. All Hail Lelouch!
So, everyone agrees that it's impossible for our potential Henry to take the throne (without resorting to force, that is - William I took the throne of England, after all, based on a claim that was shaky at best and an handy little army outside London)?
She generally was careful and planned her every move because she was not assured of getting what she wanted.
Also the proposed bastard would not have a better claim than James VI/I as a bastard whose ancestry can't even be revealed would be denied any claim at all. Henry VIII had bastards of genuine talent and ability and none of them ever came in for consideration as heir to the throne.