WI Elizabeth I has an issue?

A woman's bastard and a man's bastard are two totally different things.
A man having a bastard...its a sin but not too major a one, away from the priests there is a bit of 'good on ya son!'.
A woman having a bastard though....total dual standards. Utterly unacceptable for her to be getting up to anything.

That is assuming Elizabeth could have kids at all. There are theories she knew herself to be infertile (never having a period I guess?)
There are also those ideas that she wasn't interested in men having been sexually abused when younger.
And of course there's the great political tool that dangling marriage in front of everyone is. To have an heir...and to a lesser extent to be sullied...the prospect of marrying her becomes less desirable.
 
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?

As others have said, this "ba***rd" child stands little (if any) chance of inheriting the Enghlish crown. The House of Tudor ends with the death of Elizabeth I.

Would William have been so acceptable if he weren't married to Mary, King James' daughter?

Your question strays a century off topic; but to answer it, William would be as acceptable as OTL George I was.
 
Of course his position could be strengthened by marrying him to someone with a legitimate claim to the throne. Arbella Stuart comes to mind.

On the whole though, I think Elizabeth was reasonably content with James VI as her heir. No other successor could bring Scotland with him on accession.
 
I think someone has read too much about the setting of Code Geass...

My own personnal opinion is that Elizabeth would have pretty much doomed her position if she had fell pregnant in the 1560s, had made it public and hadn't reveal who the father of her son was.

In her early reign, there were many concerns on having a woman on the throne: it was partially due to the strongly male-dominated times, partially due to the Bible (Eve and the Original Sin, you know) and partially because of the dark mark left by Elizabeth's half sister "Bloody" Mary I. These concerns did only disappear after Elizabeth's death OTL, as she had shown herself a magnificient ruler (The impression I got is that the only British ruler that proved greater in all was Victoria).

If Elizabeth were to have a son OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, this would hurt her position: women who had children while not being married were generally Prostitutes at the time. Thus Elizabeth would earn the reputation of being a whore, which is bad. Among the prejudices agaisnt ruling women, there was the possibility that the true ruler would be their lover: it's very macho, but that was one of the fears of the time.
Someone mentionned you can't doubt the maternity of Elizabeth regarding her bastard son in this scenario, because a Pregnancy is very hard to hide. In my eyes, this is a double-edged sword: one of the reasons a King could have bastard sons is because men do not have an Uterus and thus can easily hide the fact they fathered a bastard. Ergo, unless the King recognised his bastard child, the father could remain "unknown". This wouldn't work for a Queen, unless she managed to make her pregnancy a secret, which would be nearly (but not completely) impossible in the 1560s.

Thus, in my eyes, if Elizabeth became PUBLICLY the mother of a bastard, she has chances of being overthrowned. Her most likely replacement is probably one of the children of Mary Tudor (the sister of Henry VIII, not the "Bloody" who had none), probably Catherine Grey. Though the Stuarts are technically next in line, Mary Stuart is Catholic and not very liked and I'm not sure James VI was already born.

The only way for Elizabeth giving birth to a bastard could pass would be if she were able to hide it. That's not unlikely in my eyes: we do not forcibly know how many bastards a King could have, only those born out of their official mistresses (most of whom are generally legitimized). Thus, Bastards born out of a "One-Night Stand" may still remain unknown to us. It will be harder for Elizabeth to hide her "fault", but if she manage to keep it a secret... Of course, this means the bastard doesn't suceed the throne, unless Elizabeth asks about it in her last will but even then Parliament is in the way.
 
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)?
 
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)?

Its not IMPOSSIBLE, only improbable. If his mother remains on the throne, and if he grows up safely then things can happen. He would probably get ennobled, presumably at the time of his marriage, although it can be granted earlier. If he is an intelligent and persuasive young man he could well get a circle around him, maybe play the role that Essex did in reality.

And one supreme advantage he has if he is to make a bid for the throne on his mother's death is that he is THERE. OTL James of course was in Scotland, and a messenger had to make a mad-cap ride on a succession of post horses to inform him, so he could get down to London ASAP to secure his succession.

This Henry would already be in London with supporters, and its certainly possible he could try a more successful Jane Grey

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
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.

Actually, Henry Duke of Richmond and Somerset was seriously considered by Henry VIII as a potential "reserve" heir. Only his early death prevented anything more potentially coming of this

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
A number of issues around this
But the most obvious one is the reality of how women in authority were perceived.
It was regarded generally as against all common perceptions of what was right and proper - Knox's "monstrous regiment" (aimed at Mary Tudor and Mary of Guise) was not just hyperbole but was the general view of most men that it was simply wrong for a women to be elevated to a supreme position because of the failings of the sex in general.
Elizabeth in the years following her accession was regarded as light of morals (relationship with Dudley) and a 'typical' women in her failure to follow the conventions of what a woman raised to such a position should do.
She was by enlarge unfairly contrasted with her cousin Mary Stuart who in those early years followed the conventions - taking a back seat and marrying.
Their positions reversed in the 1560s with Elizabeth gaining the moral high ground (despite her reputation for familiarity with both her courtiers and the commoners) whilst Mary became mired in scandal after scandal.
With Mary's example and the damage to her own reputation following the death of Amy Dudley the chances of Elizabeth risking everything and producing a bastard must be minimal.

Had she done so then her chances of keeping her throne are slim to negligible - and her only hope was the lack of a clear Protestant heir.

I would suggest the nearest example is Lady Catherine Grey with her impromptu, hasty and secretive marriage which effectively ended any chance of her claim (as heir presumptive which at law she was) being given any credence.

At the time of the marriage she was widely considered the nearest preferable heir (this is prior to the Mary Stuart/Darnley marriage and the birth of James I).

While i don't doubt an illegitimate child could have mounted a coup on Elizabeth's death and taken the throne but the problem is whether Elizabeth could have survived such an international scandal and i doubt even she could have done that.
The rumours of her lax morals were damaging enough to her reputation and largely without foundation to suddenly present the world with proof would have been devestating.
 
Top