WI: Henry VIII dies 1528, Francesco Sforza dies 1527

New timeline I'm planning, wanted to see what butterflies you guys reckon would result?

I think Mary of England will be a new Empress Matilda in England in this scenario, she might bring England to be a part of a large empire later on.
 
I think Mary of England will be a new Empress Matilda in England in this scenario, she might bring England to be a part of a large empire later on.

For one, no I don't think she would be an Empress Matilda. For two, Empress Matilda didn't make England part of a large empire anyway, except indirectly by losing a war against a rival claimant. It was Stephen who really caused England to become part of a larger empire. I'm not really sure what empire you're thinking of anyway, because in this era it's unlikely that Mary will end up married to a Hapsburg, and she certainly won't marry the King of France.
 
Bare in mind she was affianced to the duke of Orleans yet her highly popular mother favoured a pro-Habsburg match (infante Luis of Portugal, although Hans of Denmark might do the job).

How is the government likely to be immediately upon Henry's death? Katherine as regent? How strong are the claims and popularity of King James?

As for Milan, would Francesco's death allow outright French annexation?
 
The POD of Henry's death in 1528 was wildly discussed a few weeks ago; the big pointers might be that James marries Mary and you get a British Union in the 16th century; it'd also be a huge impact on the reformation in the British Isles since both of them were pretty heavily Catholic. I don't know how the English felt about him, but it would be a popular match for weening Scotland out of French orbit -- plus, Henry VII seemed to plan for an eventual union by bringing them into the succession with the marriage of his daughter to their king.

I could still see her marrying a different prince, though. 1528 is before Wolsey's fall so Katherine as Regent may be forced to keep him on despite her dislike of him simply because he's so affective. If Mary doesn't marry the King of Scotland, I think she'd likely marry a suggestion of Charles V, like Dom Luis. Her mother would quickly break off any talk of a French marriage, and we'd definitely see a more pro-Habsburg during Katherine's regency.
 
The marriage of Margaret Tudor to James IV was actually quite meagre compared to what was proposed at one point; if I recall correctly Elizabeth of York was to marry the widowed King of Scots and two of her daughters marry his two sons. And ofc this King was their cousin through Joan Beaufort. Basically, I think the union of the crowns was inevitable - more a question of when, and not if. ;)

However, say Katherine doesn't become regent - maybe Henry's death pushes her over the edge and her obsessive love for him goes the way of her sister and OTL daughter. England was then at war with the Emperor, who had been tarnished before all Christendom with the sack of Rome. Maybe Wolsey or Suffolk favour the unionwith Orleans? Or William of Cleves is considered two years earlier than historical?
 
Also, how.differently does a young Mary as Queen turn out compared to long-siffering piously Catholic matron we all know and love? Maybe not as unshakably Catholic after all?
 
plus, Henry VII seemed to plan for an eventual union by bringing them into the succession with the marriage of his daughter to their king.

I think that's a bit of an overexaggeration, probably a symptom of the way that the Scottish union was made with Elizabethan consent and thus has gone down in history as "an English decision", at a guess. The point of the matter is, though, that it was common habit for Kings to marry their daughters to foreign rulers and it was pretty much never done for the purposes of engineering, or even encouraging, Personal Unions. It was, very simply, just a way of creating family ties with a foreign ruler that could then be manipulated to stave off war and potentially lead to cooperation, but in the general term simply to make two countries a little bit more amenable to each other. Henry VII had no intention of bringing the Scots into the English succession by marrying Margaret to the King of Scotland. As it was he had two living and healthy sons at the time of Margaret's marriage, whom he expected to grow to adulthood and to father a continuation of the male line. In 95% of scenarios this would happen, and even though 95% isn't 100%, 95% was good enough back then - he had a child a year after Margaret's marriage, too, so he probably expected to make the English succession even more secure by having a third son at some point. In some ways you could argue that his faith in this was fairly defensible and practical anyway, as he was succeeded by not one but four (or if you count Lady Jane Grey, then five) English monarchs before the Scots came to London - that should have been enough time for a fourth generation to be born, and you might argue that if Henry VIII hadn't been so drastic with his wives, he could potentially have had more sons to secure his own succession and the whole thing would never have occurred as it did.

Anyway, the point is - Henry VII never meant Margaret's marriage to James to be a way of setting up a future union. In fact, while he would have set the marriage up to try to drag Scotland out of the French orbit, he probably would have had no interest whatsoever in a Personal Union, and entirely likely he would have viewed the possibility with a great degree of mistrust and apprehension. Throughout history, Personal Unions have been regarded overwhelmingly as negative for the people they affect, and just because a couple of them - this one included - actually worked out in the end, doesn't mean that the logical conclusion is that people wanted them to occur.
 
I think that's a bit of an overexaggeration, probably a symptom of the way that the Scottish union was made with Elizabethan consent and thus has gone down in history as "an English decision", at a guess. The point of the matter is, though, that it was common habit for Kings to marry their daughters to foreign rulers and it was pretty much never done for the purposes of engineering, or even encouraging, Personal Unions. It was, very simply, just a way of creating family ties with a foreign ruler that could then be manipulated to stave off war and potentially lead to cooperation, but in the general term simply to make two countries a little bit more amenable to each other. Henry VII had no intention of bringing the Scots into the English succession by marrying Margaret to the King of Scotland. As it was he had two living and healthy sons at the time of Margaret's marriage, whom he expected to grow to adulthood and to father a continuation of the male line. In 95% of scenarios this would happen, and even though 95% isn't 100%, 95% was good enough back then - he had a child a year after Margaret's marriage, too, so he probably expected to make the English succession even more secure by having a third son at some point. In some ways you could argue that his faith in this was fairly defensible and practical anyway, as he was succeeded by not one but four (or if you count Lady Jane Grey, then five) English monarchs before the Scots came to London - that should have been enough time for a fourth generation to be born, and you might argue that if Henry VIII hadn't been so drastic with his wives, he could potentially have had more sons to secure his own succession and the whole thing would never have occurred as it did.

Anyway, the point is - Henry VII never meant Margaret's marriage to James to be a way of setting up a future union. In fact, while he would have set the marriage up to try to drag Scotland out of the French orbit, he probably would have had no interest whatsoever in a Personal Union, and entirely likely he would have viewed the possibility with a great degree of mistrust and apprehension. Throughout history, Personal Unions have been regarded overwhelmingly as negative for the people they affect, and just because a couple of them - this one included - actually worked out in the end, doesn't mean that the logical conclusion is that people wanted them to occur.

Interesting. What malice or injury do you think the Tudors would have envisioned as resultant from union with Scotland?
 
Top