WI: Henry Fitzroy was born a girl?

In 1519, Henry VIII's mistress Bessie Blount gave birth to the King's natural and only living son at the time, Henry Fitzroy, who was made the Duke of Richmond. Now what if this son had been born a girl? Would Henry have recognized her as his daughter? And what of her future? Would Henry have married her off? And to whom?
 
In 1519, Henry VIII's mistress Bessie Blount gave birth to the King's natural and only living son at the time, Henry Fitzroy, who was made the Duke of Richmond. Now what if this son had been born a girl? Would Henry have recognized her as his daughter? And what of her future? Would Henry have married her off? And to whom?

Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, was the only illegitimate child of Henry VIII's that was public knowledge.
However there were other children that were suspected of being his including:
Catherine Carey, daughter of his mistress Mary Boleyn, the sister of his second wife, Anne Boleyn, and wife of William Carey.
Henry Carey (4 March 1526 – 23 July 1596), brother of Catherine.
John Perrot (November 1528 – 3 November 1592), his mother being Mary Berkeley the wife of Sir Thomas Perrot
Thomas Stucley (c. 1520 – 4 August 1578), his mother being Jane Pollard the wife of Sir Hugh Stukeley
Richard Edwardes (1523? - 1566), born to Mrs. Agnes Edwardes
Ethelreda Malte (born c. 1527), born to Joan Dingley, alias Dobson. Paternity was claimed by John Malte.

I would very much doubt that in 1519, he would be as proud to boast of having a bastard daughter so this new daughter, Elizabeth Blount would just be another suspected child.
She would most likely be kept away from marrying and giving birth to a male heir that could out do, Mary Tudor.
 
If one takes Norton's view point, Bessie's daughter, Elizabeth, who was born before Bessie's marriage to Gilbert Talboys, was Henry's but was never acknowledged, except for an odd occasion where it was decided in her favor instead of her husband's that she would be suo jure holder of some or other title rather than have it recreated for him, which she points out was unusual for the time. This Liz married Ambrose Dudley as his nth wife.
 
If one takes Norton's view point, Bessie's daughter, Elizabeth, who was born before Bessie's marriage to Gilbert Talboys, was Henry's but was never acknowledged, except for an odd occasion where it was decided in her favor instead of her husband's that she would be suo jure holder of some or other title rather than have it recreated for him, which she points out was unusual for the time. This Liz married Ambrose Dudley as his nth wife.

Wasn't that because they needed to have children first before it could be recreated in his own name?
 
I agree that if Henry Fitzroy was born a girl, she would not have received anywhere near the same amount of attention as her male counterpart. Henry showered little Fitzroy with titles and attention because the boy was living proof of his ability to sire sons, thus allowing him to claim that the fault lay with Katherine of Aragon, his wife, and not with him. If we have little Henrietta instead of little Henry, then the king won't be keen to claim her. All she proves is his continued potency, which is something, but not much.

As for whether or not he'd claim her, given that his relationship with Bessie was so well-known, Henry might quietly claim her, but the girl wouldn't receive much. Bessie would still be married off to someone who would be willing to raise the little girl in his household. Later on, Henry might provide a small dowry for her if a marriage was arranged. The girl would certainly be no threat to Mary's succession rights, in any case. No one would champion Bessie Blount's bastard girl over Queen Katherine's child.
 
As for whether or not he'd claim her, given that his relationship with Bessie was so well-known, Henry might quietly claim her, but the girl wouldn't receive much. Bessie would still be married off to someone who would be willing to raise the little girl in his household. Later on, Henry might provide a small dowry for her if a marriage was arranged. The girl would certainly be no threat to Mary's succession rights, in any case. No one would champion Bessie Blount's bastard girl over Queen Katherine's child.
I'm not saying the Bastard girl would be able to claim over Princess Mary .... but if the Bastard girl married and had a son, he could lay claim to the throne.

Proposed husbands:
Henry Grey, 3rd Marquess of Dorset
Lord Henry Brandon (if you can have him live past 1523)
Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox (A catholic Scottish earl, who could support Queen Mary I and help Henrietta take the throne form Elizabeth Tudor :cool:)
King James V of Scotland (Henrietta would act as regent for their child, creating a quicker union between the two kingdoms :cool:)
 
I'm not saying the Bastard girl would be able to claim over Princess Mary .... but if the Bastard girl married and had a son, he could lay claim to the throne.

Proposed husbands:
Henry Grey, 3rd Marquess of Dorset
Lord Henry Brandon (if you can have him live past 1523)
Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox (A catholic Scottish earl, who could support Queen Mary I and help Henrietta take the throne form Elizabeth Tudor :cool:)
King James V of Scotland (Henrietta would act as regent for their child, creating a quicker union between the two kingdoms :cool:)

Even if recognized this bastard girl would never, ever aim so high - not with two quasi-legitimate sisters in her way.

She'd marry an Earl, at very best, and pass on her genetics to the English nobility in due time, as her mother did.
 
Even if recognized this bastard girl would never, ever aim so high - not with two quasi-legitimate sisters in her way.

She'd marry an Earl, at very best, and pass on her genetics to the English nobility in due time, as her mother did.

Marrying an Earl will place their son into the noble court leading to him to be to close for the Stuarts or Quasi-legitimate aunts.

Being married with heir, would but the Son above King James of Scotland
 
Marrying an Earl will place their son into the noble court leading to him to be to close for the Stuarts or Quasi-legitimate aunts.

Being married with heir, would but the Son above King James of Scotland

The son would be of a bastard line, no higher in rank than Viscount Lisle and other semi-contemporary bastards. James was descended from a legitimate line and that's what counts.
 
The son would be of a bastard line, no higher in rank than Viscount Lisle and other semi-contemporary bastards. James was descended from a legitimate line and that's what counts.

Then there would be a civil war between the Bastard supporters and the Stuarts.
 
Civil war?

Maybe a few skirmishes before James has the bastard and his main supporters beheaded.

An army of English supports, such as:
  • Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham
  • Thomas Grey, 15th Baron Grey de Wilton
Would unit behind, William the Second Bastard of England ;), instead of trying to do small plots that were bound to fail.
Many English peers were angry of Queen James, of putting favourites and Scottish nobles in to the English privy council and would happily fight to have an English earl on the throne.
 
An army of English supports, such as:
  • Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham
  • Thomas Grey, 15th Baron Grey de Wilton
Would unit behind, William the Second Bastard of England ;), instead of trying to do small plots that were bound to fail.
Many English peers were angry of Queen James, of putting favourites and Scottish nobles in to the English privy council and would happily fight to have an English earl on the throne.

This is really past the period of barons being able to rally meaningful armed forces, and certainly past the period where law and custom could be disregarded enough for a bastard or bastard-line descendant could ascend to the throne.

If someone was somehow able to dislodge James from the throne after he inherited England in 1603, the most likely replacement is his cousin Arabella or else the sons of Lady Catherine Grey, legitimate-line descendants of House Tudor with solid claims to the throne.
 
An army of English supports, such as:
  • Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham
  • Thomas Grey, 15th Baron Grey de Wilton
Would unit behind, William the Second Bastard of England ;), instead of trying to do small plots that were bound to fail.
Many English peers were angry of Queen James, of putting favourites and Scottish nobles in to the English privy council and would happily fight to have an English earl on the throne.

Rebellions and support for pretenders were not uncommon in English history. They rarely proved successful.

There were legitimate descendants of Henry VII, who were English and who were candidates to succeed Elizabeth. Assuming the Scottish candidate was unpopular, a legitimate English candidate would be preferable to your candidate. Assuming the Grey girls were deemed inappropriate, you still had the Derby family.
 
This is really past the period of barons being able to rally meaningful armed forces, and certainly past the period where law and custom could be disregarded enough for a bastard or bastard-line descendant could ascend to the throne.

If someone was somehow able to dislodge James from the throne after he inherited England in 1603, the most likely replacement is his cousin Arabella or else the sons of Lady Catherine Grey, legitimate-line descendants of House Tudor with solid claims to the throne.
How is it, full-time professional soldiers, rather than part-time militia did not come about until 1645, so for another 100 years, nobility was the only way of organising an army.

Rebellions and support for pretenders were not uncommon in English history. They rarely proved successful.

There were legitimate descendants of Henry VII, who were English and who were candidates to succeed Elizabeth. Assuming the Scottish candidate was unpopular, a legitimate English candidate would be preferable to your candidate. Assuming the Grey girls were deemed inappropriate, you still had the Derby family.

But this is under the asumsion that Henry has acknowledged Henrietta as his legitimet daughter from a mistress.

With her line being watch by the nobility of England, if the young, lad has the makings of a king they will elevate him to that position, the same thing that would have happened to Henry Fitzroy if he had outlived Henry and Edward.
 
How is it, full-time professional soldiers, rather than part-time militia did not come about until 1645, so for another 100 years, nobility was the only way of organising an army.



But this is under the asumsion that Henry has acknowledged Henrietta as his legitimet daughter from a mistress.

With her line being watch by the nobility of England, if the young, lad has the makings of a king they will elevate him to that position, the same thing that would have happened to Henry Fitzroy if he had outlived Henry and Edward.

You mean like the Duke of Monmouth a 100 years later?

I'm starting to think you don't know anything about English history.
 
Top