WI: House of Tudor-Courtenay

[Kellan Sullivan]

Edward Courtenay, son of the earl of Devon and Edward IV’s (second) youngest daughter, Katherine, was seen by many as a domestic alternative to a match with the king of Spain for Mary I. A month after her coronation, a parliamentary delegation lectured the newly crowned queen at length as to why she and Courtenay should marry, as opposed to her marrying a foreigner.

‘Parliament was not accustomed to use such language unto the kings of England. Nor was it suitable they should now do so’ was her angry response this lecture. It was an impossible situation, since by the mores of the time, a wife’s Christian duty meant that she was subservient to her husband, lord and master, in all things. And now, Mary, a crowned sovereign, must obey and be subservient to her husband (who would also be her subject*) in all things. So, Mary married D. Felipe II of Spain, and the rest is history.



Or not so? Mary’s right to the throne (unlike her half-sister) was for all intents and purposes unchallengeable, plus, she held connections to the Habsburgs through her mother. However, the right of the Lady Elizabeth Tudor to that same throne, was not. Depending on one’s interpretation of the various Acts of Succession and the law, Mary’s successor swung between three main candidates, the Lady Elizabeth, the Lady Margaret Douglas (only daughter of the late Queen of Scots, Mary’s aunt) and Mary, Queen of Scots (Margaret’s niece).



What if, perhaps on Felipe’s urging, Mary were to marry her spurned suitor, Courtenay, to Elizabeth? Basically, by doing so, Elizabeth stays in England (which was even proposed when the match between her and the duke of Savoy was in the offing), plus she’s removed from being the centre of any foreign conspiracy. And so, in 1558, Elizabeth Tudor, Marquess of Exeter & Pembroke, Countess of Devon, becomes Queen of England.



Plausible? Not so much?



*Unfortunately, Courtenay, was cocksure of the fact that he and Mary’s marriage was inevitable, and basically had trouble keeping his dick in his pants, something that put Mary off marrying him. So I don’t think it’s impossible that she would ‘graciously’ allow Elizabeth to marry Courtenay.

 

[VVD0D95]

I do think it is possible. Also would it not be house of Tudor when Elizabeth rules and then house of courternaay with any issue they might have after

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

If Courtenay has any siblings, it might be wise for them to branch the family at explicitly call themselves the Tudor-Courtenays, or Courtenay-Tudors. As the rest of the family wouldn't have the royal claims.

But it isn't implausible, I just don't think Elizabeth would be a happy bride. But it would mean that if things continue as per OTL, Courtenay would be simply King-Consort, not King. With Elizabeths strong will IOTL, I doubt she'd be willing to let him take charge.

It does mean that we might not have James I of England, and the union of England and Scotland unless Elizabeth has daughters and marries one to James.

 

[VVD0D95]

If Courtenay has any siblings, it might be wise for them to branch the family at explicitly call themselves the Tudor-Courtenays, or Courtenay-Tudors. As the rest of the family wouldn't have the royal claims.

But it isn't implausible, I just don't think Elizabeth would be a happy bride. But it would mean that if things continue as per OTL, Courtenay would be simply King-Consort, not King. With Elizabeths strong will IOTL, I doubt she'd be willing to let him take charge.

It does mean that we might not have James I of England, and the union of England and Scotland unless Elizabeth has daughters and marries one to James.

Or a daughter of James marries a son of Elizabeth and James has no sons

 

[VVD0D95]

Courternay had no other siblings

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If Courtenay has any siblings, it might be wise for them to branch the family at explicitly call themselves the Tudor-Courtenays, or Courtenay-Tudors. As the rest of the family wouldn't have the royal claims.

But it isn't implausible, I just don't think Elizabeth would be a happy bride. But it would mean that if things continue as per OTL, Courtenay would be simply King-Consort, not King. With Elizabeths strong will IOTL, I doubt she'd be willing to let him take charge.

It does mean that we might not have James I of England, and the union of England and Scotland unless Elizabeth has daughters and marries one to James.

Since when has a state marriage ensured a happy bride? But seriously though, what reason would Elizabeth have to be unhappy The marriage could be seen, for all intents and purposes as Mary's tacit acknowledgement - either of Elizabeth's bastardy (since she doesn't esteem her high enough for a foreign court) or of that Elizabeth would be her preferred successor (Courtenay was offered for Mary due to his Plantagenet descent) due to her marrying an Englishman (unlike Margaret Douglas who'd married a Scot or Mary Stewart who'd married a Frog).

 

[DrakeRlugia]

I don't know if Mary would countenance the match. Many times pressure was put on her to accede to Elizabeth's marriage to the Duke of Savoy: as late as 1557, I believe the Dowager Duchess of Lorraine visited London in an attempt to bring it about. There's also the issue of Elizabeth probably refusing point blank... but she wouldn't be the first bride carried to the altar by force, so the biggest thing would be overcoming Mary's own reluctance.

The biggest problem is Courtenay was the ambitious sort. Assuming he and Elizabeth have children (but most especially sons), they're naturally going to draw focus away from Mary and her unpopular policies and Spanish connection. It will pull Elizabeth away from foreign conspiracies, but it'll only increase her draw among Protestant circles: a husband to take over the reign of government, and heirs of their body. Especially given Elizabeth's own ambiguous religious views in Mary's time, I could see Courtenay being drawn into such circles. There were rumors of negotiation with Wyatt during Wyatt's rebellion, and during his exile on the continent he was the focus of the Marian Exiles, though I'm not sure how involved he was with them.

 

[Jonathan]

Edward Courtenay, son of the earl of Devon and Edward IV’s (second) youngest daughter, Katherine.

Actually Edward was the first Earl of Devon and only son of Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter (c.1498-1539) by his second wife, Gertrude Blount, daughter of William Blount, 4th Baron Mountjoy.

Princess Catherine of York (1479-1527) was Edward's paternal grandmother, making Edward a great-grandson of King Edward IV great-nephew of King Edward V and Queen Consort, Elizabeth of York, making Edward, first cousin once removed of King Henry VIII and of Queen Margaret of Scotland, and a second cousin to Queen Mary I, Queen Elizabeth I, King Edward VI, King James V of Scotland and Henry Brandon, 1st Earl of Lincoln.

What if, perhaps on Felipe’s urging, Mary were to marry her spurned suitor, Courtenay, to Elizabeth? Basically, by doing so, Elizabeth stays in England (which was even proposed when the match between her and the duke of Savoy was in the offing), plus she’s removed from being the centre of any foreign conspiracy. And so, in 1558, Elizabeth Tudor, Marquess of Exeter & Pembroke, Countess of Devon, becomes Queen of England.

Plausible? Not so much?

*Unfortunately, Courtenay, was cocksure of the fact that he and Mary’s marriage was inevitable, and basically had trouble keeping his dick in his pants, something that put Mary off marrying him. So I don’t think it’s impossible that she would ‘graciously’ allow Elizabeth to marry Courtenay.

Marrying Edward to Mary was also suggested due to his mother enjoying the friendship of Queen Catherine of Aragon even after her divorce from King Henry VIII. Gertrude Blount, kept a close friendship with Mary, allowing Gertrude to secured the release of her son Edward on 3 August 1553, after 15 years of incarceration in the Tower, due to the Exeter Conspiracy of 1538. Created Earl of Devon in 1553, the new Earl of Devon carried the Sword of State in the coronation ceremony.

On 10 October 1553, Edward was acknowledged as the proper heir to the lands and titles of his father's, but was not allowed to succeed him as Marquess of Exeter. On 2 January 1554, the new ambassadors of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor arrived in England, and the new Earl of Devon was assigned to receive them.

To make this marriage avaliable, you need to avoid the Wyatt's rebellion in late January 1554, which under Thomas Wyatt the Younger, who among those Protestants who feared Catholic persecution under Mary and Philip, tried to prevent this marriage, leading to Courtenay and Princess Elizabeth being implicated as being responsible for the rebellion, and were both incarcerated at the Tower of London while awaiting trial.

If a secret marriage could be achieve in December 1553, this could be an excellent extension of the Tudor lineage.

 

[JonasResende]

Actually Edward was the first Earl of Devon and only son of Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter (c.1498-1539) by his second wife, Gertrude Blount, daughter of William Blount, 4th Baron Mountjoy.

Princess Catherine of York (1479-1527) was Edward's paternal grandmother, making Edward a great-grandson of King Edward IV great-nephew of King Edward V and Queen Consort, Elizabeth of York, making Edward, first cousin once removed of King Henry VIII and of Queen Margaret of Scotland, and a second cousin to Queen Mary I, Queen Elizabeth I, King Edward VI, King James V of Scotland and Henry Brandon, 1st Earl of Lincoln.



Marrying Edward to Mary was also suggested due to his mother enjoying the friendship of Queen Catherine of Aragon even after her divorce from King Henry VIII. Gertrude Blount, kept a close friendship with Mary, allowing Gertrude to secured the release of her son Edward on 3 August 1553, after 15 years of incarceration in the Tower, due to the Exeter Conspiracy of 1538. Created Earl of Devon in 1553, the new Earl of Devon carried the Sword of State in the coronation ceremony.

On 10 October 1553, Edward was acknowledged as the proper heir to the lands and titles of his father's, but was not allowed to succeed him as Marquess of Exeter. On 2 January 1554, the new ambassadors of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor arrived in England, and the new Earl of Devon was assigned to receive them.

To make this marriage avaliable, you need to avoid the Wyatt's rebellion in late January 1554, which under Thomas Wyatt the Younger, who among those Protestants who feared Catholic persecution under Mary and Philip, tried to prevent this marriage, leading to Courtenay and Princess Elizabeth being implicated as being responsible for the rebellion, and were both incarcerated at the Tower of London while awaiting trial.

If a secret marriage could be achieve in December 1553, this could be an excellent extension of the Tudor lineage.

Well, as to secret marriage, we need to prevent Eddy from marrying his Medici wife in a similar ceremony (which he reportedly did in the Tower, although no one can pinpoint the identity of the lady exactly beyond several references to her as a Florentine and the Lady de M-.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Well, as to secret marriage, we need to prevent Eddy from marrying his Medici wife in a similar ceremony (which he reportedly did in the Tower, although no one can pinpoint the identity of the lady exactly beyond several references to her as a Florentine and the Lady de M-.

Her name was Laurana de Medici, but the source of the marriage dates from a book published by Minerva Press in 1791. Supposedly the affair began when they were both imprisoned within the tower, but no such woman is known to exist and doesn't exist in any primary or secondary sources of the actual period when Courtenay lived—we know plenty of his marital aspirations towards Mary and Elizabeth, but there's nothing about this supposed woman. There is no record of a woman of that name being held in the tower and there's no record of her ever existing among the Medici family tree, or any other Italian families. It's essentially bunk.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@Jonathan: mea maxima culpa, I forgot he was Katherine's grandson and not her son. But I like the idea of extending the Tudor line in this way.

Is there a way that we can butterfly the Wyatt plot? Or at least make it so that it doesn't damage Edward and Elizabeth's positions so entirely? Maybe Felipe, who was against the wholesale burning of the heretics under Mary (apparently) (which I find hard to believe, considering that this is the man who also was responsible for the setting up of the 'Council of Blood' in the Netherlands a decade later, yet at the same time stayed successive papal excommunications of his sister-in-law until the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots (so I guess it comes down to whether he likes you or not)).

 

[DrakeRlugia]

The Wyatt plot essentially sprung up because of Mary's unpopular Spanish marriage. Obviously it had religious implications, but it's very hard to separate the religious from the political in the 16th century—they were often one in the same. In November of 1553, parliamentary deputies actually suggested Mary take an English husband (obviously hinting at Courtenay, who was swaggering about at the time). So—it's a pretty difficult position. Mary isn't going to bring about a marriage for Elizabeth before she's been married herself. In 1553, while she was quite old for a first marriage at 37, she was still in some-what decent health (for her, anyways: she always had health issues) and still thought she might be able to beget an heir.

It's not that insane: down the line in 1559, the Duke of Savoy married Princess Margaret of France when she was 36—she gave birth to her son when she was 38. So the idea of Mary having children (or a child) wasn't that cooky at the time. I can't see Mary arranging a match for her young sister, one that would certainly beget issue. It's just asking to open up a can of worms.

There is also the fact that Mary is England's first true queen regnant, discarding the Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey. While women have reigned in other countries in Europe, there was no precedent in England. With the English common law doctrine of jure uxoris, property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband's upon marriage. With royalty, this issue was complicated: did any man that married the queen become King of England in fact and in name?

This necessitated Queen Mary's Marriage Act, and also allowed the English to set stringent conditions that the Spaniards were not happy with. It was seen as more favorable for the queen to take as English husband as it did not complicate things. No foreign alliances, nor would England be dragged into the wars of the queen's husband (a fear that became real under Philip II at the end of her reign). She was not also necessarily "rising up a subject" (a claim that Elizabeth would oft repeat as a reason she would not marry an Englishman) because Courtenay himself had royal blood and a claim to the throne.

The issue, if Mary pushes ahead with the Spanish match, it will certainly bring about the Wyatt rebellion. It will have a Protestant flavor, because Mary will be intent on restoring Rome's supremacy. Courtenay and Elizabeth would be implicated. Elizabeth, most certainly, because of her religious views. Maybe Courtenay could be given some brains to stay out of it, maybe if there is a private understanding that Philip II might help bring about the marriage with Elizabeth... but it'd be a bitter pill, accepting the "Lady" Elizabeth when you had a shot at marrying the queen. Remember, he doesn't have the ability to look forward in the history book like we do: he would not know that Mary will not reign long and have no issue. If Mary's reign were cut short, many would think it would come from the implications of 16th century childbirth, not uterine cancer. So even if Courtenay escapes unscathed, Mary is going to view her sister with displeasure following the rebellion in almost every instance, and would be very unlikely to bring about her marriage... most especially to a man of the blood royal who has claims on the English throne, too. I doubt even Philip II would be able to brow-beat her into it.

You'd have to have Mary's marriage settled before anything could happen with Elizabeth. Of course, Mary's match will set the flames ablaze...

Perhaps they could elope? But that would involve changing Elizabeth's personality substantially. After the horror she underwent with Thomas Seymour in the previous reign, when she was relentlessly questioned regarding possible marriage plans—and tongues wagged that she was pregnant... I can't see her being seduced in the difficult atmosphere of Mary's early reign. Courtenay was no Thomas Seymour in that department, and Elizabeth is no longer a teenager, but in 1553 a young woman.

Philip II could be pragmatic at times. Mostly, he saw what Mary's policies were doing to the Catholic cause in England, and also prejudiced the English people towards the Spaniards, who believed Philip II was behind the acts—the beginning of the so-called Black Legend. With Mary Stuart in France and engaged to marry the Dauphin, England was important piece on the chess board in the wars between the Habsburg and the Valois. This explains Philip's temperance, and most especially explains his protection of Elizabeth through the early part of her reign: he didn't want England cozying up to France.

 

[LincolnH]

Plausible, in a strict sense. Because Philip was willing to take a "crown matrimonial" this strategy leaves Mary in charge, a King sort of in quotes. But at 40, I wonder how confident in the plan Mary could have been. Childbirth was always risky, downright dangerous. While making Elizabeth marry a Catholic subject might mean England returns to the True Faith, it also sets up a race to produce an heir. While it's safe to say Mary saw Elizabeth as illegitimate, would that truly matter if Elizabeth bore a healthy son first? Suppose Mary bore a daughter: two heirs-- one a daughter of the King of Spain, the other a bonny English lad. I'm sticking to the soap operatic who has the baby scenario, because there's nothing about Mary that leads me to believe she looked at the situation as political. She could have easily chosen limited toleration (for if all things were equal, how could England not return to the True Faith?) but by this time she was certain she'd been brought to the throne, not merely to rule England but to save it from heresy.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I've just read something about Frances Grey, namely that after her first husband died, in 1555, Simon Rénard wrote that there was talk of a match between Edward Courtenay and the "widow Suffolk" (which since Catherine Willoughby wasn't in England during Mary's reign, I would imagine refers to Frances Grey née Brandon). Might Mary force such a match - after all, Frances had three children with her second husband, two stillborn children (a son and a daughter) and a short lived daughter, so she wasn't outside the age of childbearing - and named Frances and Courtenay's child as her heir over Elizabeth and Frances' older daughters (who she could say had the taint of their sister/father's treason)?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Bump