WI Mary Tudor is really pregnant

What if instead of suffering a 'phantom pregnancy', Mary Tudor in fact really becomes pregnant and gives birth to a healthy child (girl or boy)? Bear in mind that Mary is most likely going to die before this child becomes much more than a toddler, so England is in for another child monarchy. What effect would that be?

Edit: It should say 'was', not 'is'. Stupid me and my lack of spell-checking...
 
Last edited:
What if instead of suffering a 'phantom pregnancy', Mary Tudor in fact really becomes pregnant and gives birth to a healthy child (girl or boy)? Bear in mind that Mary is most likely going to die before this child becomes much more than a toddler, so England is in for another child monarchy. What effect would that be?

Edit: It should say 'was', not 'is'. Stupid me and my lack of spell-checking...
Eh, don't worry about tense confusion. As far as I can see, we really don't have a consensus on what tense to use with our scenarios. But anyway, I'd think that Elizabeth would have a much more difficult time of taking the throne, if she even does take the throne successfully. An interesting question would be the religion of England. Let's assume that Mary gives birth to a healthy baby boy. Would he continue the suppression of Protestantism? Or maybe he'd pull a Henry IV of Navarre and convert to some form of Anglicanism? Of course, it would depend on who's around him when his mother and father kick the bucket.
 
Issues arise over the Regency. Parliament might be loath to accept Philip as Regent for his son, as he was never really popular. He might be able to strongarm them into it, but somehow I doubt it. He also has his other domains to look after and I'm not sure he can remain in England perpetually. He's going to have to return to Spain, or at the very least the Low Countries. At least in Spain he has his sister Catherine of Austria who can serve as Regent. Perhaps he becomes Regent, but it's merely ceremonial with most powers invested into a Lord Protector. Definitely someone who was loyal to the Marian regime and Catholic, perhaps the Earl of Lennox, husband of Margaret Douglas (who Mary herself thought a suitable successor to herself over Elizabeth. She certainly had a claim to the crown, although it was disregarded as she claimed it through Margaret, Queen of Scots).

As for Elizabeth, IOTL when it became clear Mary would not conceive, Philip sought to marry her to the Duke of Savoy, not only to get her out of England, but to bind her to a Catholic husband. Philip's only requirement was Elizabeth's recognition as heir. Naturally, Mary refused, even when Philip sent over his sister Margaret of Parma and the Duchess of Lorraine to attempt to sway her. In this situation we might see Philip force the marriage to remove Elizabeth from the situation.
 
If Don Carlos dies as OTL, then Prince Henry (?) would be in line to inherit the thrones of England and Spain; he probably would have an arranged marriage with one of the Austrian Hapsburgs, with the result that you have no union between England and Scotland.
 
Mary Tudor

The Protestant persecutions would probably abate somewhat after Mary's death. There is a strong possibility of civil war, especially after Scotland goes Protestant. The Scottish monarchs were descended from Henry VIII's sister Margaret Tudor, and therefore have a valid claim to the throne. Perhaps they may be invited in by dissident English protestants.
 
Mary Tudor

Issues arise over the Regency. Parliament might be loath to accept Philip as Regent for his son, as he was never really popular. He might be able to strongarm them into it, but somehow I doubt it. He also has his other domains to look after and I'm not sure he can remain in England perpetually. He's going to have to return to Spain, or at the very least the Low Countries. At least in Spain he has his sister Catherine of Austria who can serve as Regent. Perhaps he becomes Regent, but it's merely ceremonial with most powers invested into a Lord Protector. Definitely someone who was loyal to the Marian regime and Catholic, perhaps the Earl of Lennox, husband of Margaret Douglas (who Mary herself thought a suitable successor to herself over Elizabeth. She certainly had a claim to the crown, although it was disregarded as she claimed it through Margaret, Queen of Scots).

As for Elizabeth, IOTL when it became clear Mary would not conceive, Philip sought to marry her to the Duke of Savoy, not only to get her out of England, but to bind her to a Catholic husband. Philip's only requirement was Elizabeth's recognition as heir. Naturally, Mary refused, even when Philip sent over his sister Margaret of Parma and the Duchess of Lorraine to attempt to sway her. In this situation we might see Philip force the marriage to remove Elizabeth from the situation.
I agree that Elizabeth is a real problem. The regents of this child of Mary may even try to have her executed for trumped up charges.
 
The Protestant persecutions would probably abate somewhat after Mary's death. There is a strong possibility of civil war, especially after Scotland goes Protestant. The Scottish monarchs were descended from Henry VIII's sister Margaret Tudor, and therefore have a valid claim to the throne. Perhaps they may be invited in by dissident English protestants.

Scotland may not go Protestant if England remains Catholic. It was actually an English backed coup that toppled Mary of Guise and allowed the protestants to take power in 1560.
 
I agree that Elizabeth is a real problem. The regents of this child of Mary may even try to have her executed for trumped up charges.

I don't think they would execute her if Philip has power in the regency. I agree with Drake, he would probably force her to marry a foreign and distant Catholic noble.
 
I don't think they would execute her if Philip has power in the regency. I agree with Drake, he would probably force her to marry a foreign and distant Catholic noble.

Given that as Mary's husband his authority was limited to the point of pretty meaningless, will he really be able to force Elizabeth to do anything?
 
Given that as Mary's husband his authority was limited to the point of pretty meaningless, will he really be able to force Elizabeth to do anything?


His power was far from limited. He was the one who practically kept Elizabeth alive. There were just certain things he couldn't get Mary to do given how much he tried to browbeat her: that was the Savoy match and legitimizing Elizabeth. After her marriage, coins bore both Mary and Philip's features, Parliament was called in their name, and laws bore both their names too. Hence in the state papers of Parliament you'll see effectively two portions of Mary's reign. The time before her marriage, and then after, when documents are dated with both names.

With the Catholic succession ensured, Elizabeth's allies are going to stay abroad. She was really quite isolated during Mary's reign. Philip wouldn't let her put her away and told her to treat gently.
 
His power was far from limited. He was the one who practically kept Elizabeth alive. There were just certain things he couldn't get Mary to do given how much he tried to browbeat her: that was the Savoy match and legitimizing Elizabeth. After her marriage, coins bore both Mary and Philip's features, Parliament was called in their name, and laws bore both their names too. Hence in the state papers of Parliament you'll see effectively two portions of Mary's reign. The time before her marriage, and then after, when documents are dated with both names.

With the Catholic succession ensured, Elizabeth's allies are going to stay abroad. She was really quite isolated during Mary's reign. Philip wouldn't let her put her away and told her to treat gently.

"Philip would enjoy the title of king and 'aid Her Highness in the happy administration of Her Grace's realms and kingdoms', but real power was to remain with Mary. If she died without heirs to her body, he would have no claim upon England, altough the eldest son of the union would inherit England, Burgundy, and the Low Countries....the treaty also bound Philip to obey all the law s and customs of England. He would not be allowed to appoint his servants to English offices, nor involve England directly or indirectly in his father's war with France. No Spaniard was to interfere in English politics and both Philip and Mary were to be counseled only by English ministers." - The Children of Henry VIII by Alison Weir.

What actual authority is he wielding? What areas of government is he able to influence?

If he's trying to "browbeat" Mary to get her to do what he wants, that - given the usual status of kings relative to their wives - a sign of someone trying to convince someone, not someone in a position to order anything.
 
Mary Tudor

If she did have a son who succeeded her, he would not only be king of England, but would inherit extensive territories elswhere. This would make the king of England more of an international monarch, who would only spend limited time in England. I see this as a primary cause of revolt in England..
 
"Philip would enjoy the title of king and 'aid Her Highness in the happy administration of Her Grace's realms and kingdoms', but real power was to remain with Mary. If she died without heirs to her body, he would have no claim upon England, altough the eldest son of the union would inherit England, Burgundy, and the Low Countries....the treaty also bound Philip to obey all the law s and customs of England. He would not be allowed to appoint his servants to English offices, nor involve England directly or indirectly in his father's war with France. No Spaniard was to interfere in English politics and both Philip and Mary were to be counseled only by English ministers." - The Children of Henry VIII by Alison Weir.

What actual authority is he wielding? What areas of government is he able to influence?

If he's trying to "browbeat" Mary to get her to do what he wants, that - given the usual status of kings relative to their wives - a sign of someone trying to convince someone, not someone in a position to order anything.

He was able to force Mary to join in his war against France, despite the disastrous consequences for England. To be honest, Philip himself was very unhappy with the marriage terms that were listed above, as they were brokered by Parliament. Even men like Gardinier didn't want Mary to marry him, and there really was not precedent for a female ruler in England yet. Hence the strict articles imposed. Otherwise Philip might consider himself a jure uxoris king and lay claim to England by right of the crown matrimonial (not that would've ever gotten it - Parliament already had great control in regulating the succession). He took the marriage up only for political purposes and for perseving the Low Countries. There wasn't much he could do about those terms, but essentially he was meant to co-reign with her. There was one particular demand that English laws had to be printed in Latin of Spanish as well, because Philip couldn't read English; it became treasonable to deny his royal authority in Ireland and England. There's a neat difference in the Great Seal before and after her marriage: before her marriage, Mary is seated alone, the crown on her head. After, she seated in a deferential position to Philip, although the crown is between them and hence "shared."

He definitely played a part in the statescraft of Mary's reign--when he was there. He was the one who persuaded Parliament to the repeal Henry's religious laws (The Second Statute of Repeal). Before that, Mary's first statute had merely nullified Edward's religious laws. Another issue is his distaste for Mary meant that he spent most of his marriage abroad (IIRC, he was only in England for around 1554-1555 and 1557 for a time. Philip was even partially against Mary's burnings of so many heretics, and his advisor Simon Renard warned him that, "such cruel practices would cause a revolt," and inflame anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic sentiment.

In short, Philip definitely had vested or shared powers with Mary... but he was only in England for barely two years of their entire marriage. He helped get the Second Statute Appeal through Parliament in 1555, and then in 1557 convinced Mary to join his war against France. I think he used his authority definitely only when it benefited him, and his own domains.

Hence why I think if they had a child and Mary Tudor died on time, Philip would be Regent but in name only, and we'd have an actual Lord Protector who would have actual authority to rule in the young king's name.
 
He was able to force Mary to join in his war against France, despite the disastrous consequences for England. To be honest, Philip himself was very unhappy with the marriage terms that were listed above, as they were brokered by Parliament. Even men like Gardinier didn't want Mary to marry him, and there really was not precedent for a female ruler in England yet. Hence the strict articles imposed. Otherwise Philip might consider himself a jure uxoris king and lay claim to England by right of the crown matrimonial (not that would've ever gotten it - Parliament already had great control in regulating the succession). He took the marriage up only for political purposes and for perseving the Low Countries. There wasn't much he could do about those terms, but essentially he was meant to co-reign with her. There was one particular demand that English laws had to be printed in Latin of Spanish as well, because Philip couldn't read English; it became treasonable to deny his royal authority in Ireland and England. There's a neat difference in the Great Seal before and after her marriage: before her marriage, Mary is seated alone, the crown on her head. After, she seated in a deferential position to Philip, although the crown is between them and hence "shared."

He definitely played a part in the statescraft of Mary's reign--when he was there. He was the one who persuaded Parliament to the repeal Henry's religious laws (The Second Statute of Repeal). Before that, Mary's first statute had merely nullified Edward's religious laws. Another issue is his distaste for Mary meant that he spent most of his marriage abroad (IIRC, he was only in England for around 1554-1555 and 1557 for a time. Philip was even partially against Mary's burnings of so many heretics, and his advisor Simon Renard warned him that, "such cruel practices would cause a revolt," and inflame anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic sentiment.

In short, Philip definitely had vested or shared powers with Mary... but he was only in England for barely two years of their entire marriage. He helped get the Second Statute Appeal through Parliament in 1555, and then in 1557 convinced Mary to join his war against France. I think he used his authority definitely only when it benefited him, and his own domains.

Hence why I think if they had a child and Mary Tudor died on time, Philip would be Regent but in name only, and we'd have an actual Lord Protector who would have actual authority to rule in the young king's name.

That makes sense. Something where his authority is acknowledged as little as possible, but he's given enough power - or at least what would be power if he'd wield it (being rather busy) to be some kind of concession.

He is Henry*'s father.

Though, I think there has to be a distinction made (for the time he was Mary's husband) between "Philip had authority" and "Philip could talk Mary into doing X with her authority."
 
That makes sense. Something where his authority is acknowledged as little as possible, but he's given enough power - or at least what would be power if he'd wield it (being rather busy) to be some kind of concession.

He is Henry*'s father.

Though, I think there has to be a distinction made (for the time he was Mary's husband) between "Philip had authority" and "Philip could talk Mary into doing X with her authority."

Well, Mary definitely had authority; but after her marriage, it was definitely a joint authority, as that was how the marriage treaty specified it. There's a reason why William and Mary's reign later down the line happened as it did: there was a precedent from Mary and Philip's marriage, that he was recognized as King (and not merely a consort) during his wife's lifetime, with restrictions placed on his power. So of course he had authority, but it was a joint one shared through his wife. The English of the period were extremely xenophobic and feared England being relegated to a Habsburg dependency. Mary and Philip's marriage treaty was even recreated some thirty years later, in regards to Elizabeth's proposed match to the Duke of Alençon. It was practically word for word.

I mean, you are right that Philip had no authority in his own right, but given that he agreed to aid her grace in the governance of her dominions specifies that he had some power through her. The Second Statute of Appeal was probably Philip's only notable act as King of England, because again; he was only in England from 1554 to 1555, when he left following the embarrassment of Mary's phantom pregnancy. A planned visit in 1556 was cancelled following his succession as King of Spain. He received a letter that confirmed the mood of the English Parliament and even the great discontent of the English people. This dashed for Philip any hopes of even being crowned as King of England. Philip had been raised in that typical sixteenth century sense that a man was superior to a woman, and in the game of royalty, that a Queen would be absolutely obedient to him and he expected nothing less. Anything else was "unbecoming of his dignity," and so he only visited England and his wife once more, in 1557: and even that was only to gain English support for his wars.

I'm currently reading a book on Mary Tudor though; Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, and Queen by Anna Whitelock. I've just gotten to the section where she has succeed Edward, so I'll continue reading onward and see if I can find anymore clarifications regarding her joint reign with Philip. I definitely need to get a copy of the Children of Henry VIII too. Alison Weir is very informative. Her book on his wives is superb, as is her work on Mary, Queen of Scots... I prefer Antonia Fraser's biopic of the Scottish Queen a bit more, though.
 
Top