WI Henry VIII legitimises his bastard son and doesnot divorces Catherine of Aragon?

In 1519 Elizabeth Blount gave birth to Henry's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy. The young boy was made Duke of Richmond in June 1525 in what some thought was one step on the path to legitimatizing him. In 1533, he married Mary Howard the only daughter of the Duke of Norfolk, Anne Boleyn's first cousin, but died only three years later without any successors. At the time of FitzRoy's death, the king was trying to get a law passed that would allow his otherwise illegitimate son to become king.
WI Henry Fitzroy survives his father and Henry VIII has him legitimised so he ascends the throne as Henry IX? Henry VIII could have avoided the troubles with the Pope that way... How is that changing History? Any thoughts?
 
In 1519 Elizabeth Blount gave birth to Henry's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy. The young boy was made Duke of Richmond in June 1525 in what some thought was one step on the path to legitimatizing him. In 1533, he married Mary Howard the only daughter of the Duke of Norfolk, Anne Boleyn's first cousin, but died only three years later without any successors. At the time of FitzRoy's death, the king was trying to get a law passed that would allow his otherwise illegitimate son to become king.
WI Henry Fitzroy survives his father and Henry VIII has him legitimised so he ascends the throne as Henry IX? Henry VIII could have avoided the troubles with the Pope that way... How is that changing History? Any thoughts?

It would still seem to snub Mary and thereby Catherine and thereby Charles V, which would have political consequences.
 
Like Nico said, there will be other ramifications and conflicts if H-8 does this. He may even end up breaking with Rome over it.
 
Like Nico said, there will be other ramifications and conflicts if H-8 does this. He may even end up breaking with Rome over it.

Indeed, it would also potentially create some internal schisms within the nobility.

Also, if Henry XI has ties to the same circles as the Boelyns, doesn't than mean that even if he accedes to the throne (under some sort of Papal dispensation / Parliamentary action) the pro-Protestant camp within the English court are close to the corridors of power?
 
Charles V was concerned that his aunt would no longer be the Queen of England. I would think that if Henry FitzRoy was legitimized, this would be in lieu of divorcing Katherine of Aragon, so the conflict over whether or not to annul the marriage of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon never arises.

Charles V may not like his cousin being passed over in the line of succession, but that is an English matter, not a Papal or Imperial one, so I don't think that Charles V would be able to interfere via the Church.

I think that Henry FitzRoy would have a much better chance at legitimacy if he and his wife had a male child immediately post-marriage. Henry VIII would be looking at a politically dangerous proposition in regards to divorcing Katherine of Aragon, or legitimizing Henry FitzRoy, and probably naming Henry FitzRoy's new son (called Edward let's say) his heir.

As far as I can see, both options are dangerous, but the legitimization issue is something that can be dealt with almost entirely internally, without having to involve the Church and continental politics in general.

A male grandchild would be a powerful draw to legitimize FitzRoy. Since FitzRoy's marriage apparently allied him with the Boleyn clique, perhaps we see a offensive on Henry VIII's side by having Anne Boleyn become Henry VIII's new mistress. A Boleyn in the King's bed, a male grandchild, probably the Boleyns in the Privy Council. Thats a good chance for legitimization.
 
Because he's male.

And because after he legitimized him Henry returns to the only thing that really entertained him (besides cutting off wives, exfriends, and various other undesirables heads) war with France. With the throne secure Henry VIII can indulge in his wars against the hated French, knowing that Henry FitzRoy (would this be changed at legitimization to Tudor- either way, he's still the Duke of Richmond) and the Prince of Wales Edward Tudor/FitzRoy, are safely ensconsed in power.
 

Thande

Donor
Aside from the continental politics mentioned above, remember that the Tudors were still facing periodical Yorkist pretender rebellions (although the pretenders were always fake). Henry wouldn't want to have even a smidgen of uncertainty in his hair the way legitimising a bastard would.
 
I tend to think Charles would support Mary's claim on the throne. Remember it was Charles's grandfather who really began the strong move by the Habsburgs toward family first and Charles would likely follow in that tradition(I realize that Catherine of Aragon wasn't actually a Habsburg but you get what I mean). I think this is especially likely if it became a contest, for the lack of a better word, between Mary I supported by her mother, and this proposed Henry XI.
 
I tend to think Charles would support Mary's claim on the throne. Remember it was Charles's grandfather who really began the strong move by the Habsburgs toward family first and Charles would likely follow in that tradition(I realize that Catherine of Aragon wasn't actually a Habsburg but you get what I mean). I think this is especially likely if it became a contest, for the lack of a better word, between Mary I supported by her mother, and this proposed Henry XI.

This wouldn't be a contest between Mary Tudor (daughter of Henry VIII) and the legitimized bastard Henry FitzRoy, it would have to be a contest between Mary Tudor and the legitimized FitzRoy's son, who would be called either Edward or Henry (I lean toward Edward myself).

There would really have to be something of a double POD for this. The first is that Henry FitzRoy doesn't die of consumption in 1536. The next is that Jane Seymour doesn't have a living son (the future Edward VI) the following year.

With Henry FitzRoy avoiding his untimely demise, he will go on to (in 1537 as well) have a son, who will be named Edward. Jane Seymour still dies in childbirth, so Henry VIII is looking at the prospect of marrying yet again to sire a male heir. With Henry FitzRoy having a male child, Henry VIII decides he needs to secure his succession, and pushes the necessary measures through Parliament.

Aside from the continental politics mentioned above, remember that the Tudors were still facing periodical Yorkist pretender rebellions (although the pretenders were always fake). Henry wouldn't want to have even a smidgen of uncertainty in his hair the way legitimising a bastard would.

The Yorkist Pretenders never really presented a real threat to Henry VIII's regime in my opinion. In Henry VIII's mind, the biggest threat to his regime was the lack of a male heir. With Henry FitzRoy having proven his line's viability (via the production of Henry VIII's only grandchild, who also happened to be male) I think Henry VIII would latch on this as the way to guarentee his line's continued occupation of the English throne.
 

Gracie

Banned
The greatest impact on history is theatre!

Elizabeth I was a big fan of theatre, otherwise the industry would be
condemned as "indecent."

Without Elizabeth, there is no William Shakespeare.
 
But what if the legitimized FitzRoy does not have a son or the son is very young when Henry VIII dies?

Then he wouldn't be legitimized. In order for Henry VIII to take the massive political risk that is legitimization, he needs certain assurances that it won't be a bad idea. Legitimizing FitzRoy if he doesn't have a son would not make sense under that set of conditions.

Now a young son when Henry VIII dies- that might be okay actually. FitzRoy was the largest landholder in England when he died, and if he is legitimized then he will definitely become an influential figure in Court. Since I think that his legitimization would have to come after the "Great Matter" Henry FitzRoy will have the added stability that breaking up the Church's property brought to the Tudor dynasty. Basically, once the religious houses were broken up and sold, all those owners instantly had a vested interest in the continued rule of a Tudor, since another monarch might try and take those properties away from them.

Henry FitzRoy would be the regent for his young son if Henry VIII died while the child was still in his minority. For the reasons stated above, I believe that the regime was pretty stable, and would continue to be under the Regency of Henry Tudor/FitzRoy. Now the interesting question would be what Henry VIII or Henry Tudor/FitzRoy (in the event of his father's early death) would do with Mary and Elizabeth. Mary is probably the bigger threat, since she is legitimate by birth, and has the potential to draw on Hapsburg support for any attempt against the English throne.

How does this sound- Henry FitzRoy avoids the consumption, Jane Seymour dying in child-birth w/ child, FitzRoy has a son, Henry VIII legitimizes FitzRoy and names FitzRoy's son the new English heir, Henry VIII promptly dies, Mary Tudor (half-sister to the new regent Henry Tudor/FitzRoy) flees England and seeks support among her mother's relatives, Mary Tudor soon finds herself with an army and fleet being built for her- with the aim of bringing England back into the fold!
 
Top