WI Queen Mary I of England married local?

Well, here I am, sitting in my Early modern European history course and my teacher is discussing Mary I.

Some of the points he brought up (don't know if they are entirely correct)
-England didn't want Mary to marry Phillip II of Spain
-They wanted her to marry a local lord
-Because of Mary's marriage to Phillip, England entered into Philip's war with France which lost England Calais
-On her death, Catholicism in England became associated with military defeat, foreign domination (papal and otherwise), and persecutions.

So here is my thought. Mary marries a local lord (who?) and doesn't get herself involved in Philip's war with Spain. This for the most part removes two of the big problems the English had with Catholicism at the end of Mary's reign.

Mary still dies childless, but she leaves a living catholic husband who is actualy English and not Spanish. Can he keep control of the throne? What happens to Elizabeth? How does this affect England...
 
The overwhelming favorite for both the public and the nobility at the time for Mary to marry was Edward Courteney, Earl of Devon. Big pluses were he was Catholic and would remain in England. One thing that caused Mary such stress when married to Philip was he was gone from England for long periods of time. This wouldn't be the case if she married Edward. She would probably live longer in this TL because she would be happier(in OTL she basically gave up the will to live).The persecutions would probably still happen as it was Mary who revived the old heresy laws.
 
Last edited:
Mary still dies childless, but she leaves a living catholic husband who is actualy English and not Spanish. Can he keep control of the throne? What happens to Elizabeth? How does this affect England...

No he can't. This is simply because the consort (non-reigning spouse) of a monarch loses any and all claims to the throne if their spouse dies childless...unless said consort has their own claims already, which is hugely unlikely at this point, since most anyone with a valid claim before had their claims annulled in some way or other during the reigns of the preceding Tudors. While Mary's husband may want to try to hold power as a Catholic, he will have no right to do so whatsoever, and thus even some Catholics would go as far as admitting that Elizabeth should have the throne. That's what happened IRL, after all. Elizabeth would be offered the throne by the multitudes of Protestant nobles, and would take it without much fuss. At the very worst, there would be a replication of Mary's accession (Elizabeth raising an army and essentially walking into London unopposed, then to execute the few that stood against her) but really everyone would know that Mary's husband would have no claim, and he himself would too. In these situations, the traditional thing for the husband to do is to retire to a quiet life in the country.

Ultimately it doesn't affect things much. Now, if Mary had a child (somehow)...
 
I think part of it was that any English lord was beneath Mary. Only Royalty was her equal so to speak. But this also contrasted in that the majority of the English were distrustful of foreign domination (which would happen when Mary married)
 
I think part of it was that any English lord was beneath Mary. Only Royalty was her equal so to speak. But this also contrasted in that the majority of the English were distrustful of foreign domination (which would happen when Mary married)

Agreed, at the time a reignant queen marrying one of her subjects wasn't common. Besides the fact that any English lord would have a lower status there is also the problem that chosing one noble family over the others would enrage everybody else.
 
No he can't. This is simply because the consort (non-reigning spouse) of a monarch loses any and all claims to the throne if their spouse dies childless...unless said consort has their own claims already,

Generally, yes, though not necessarily. In medieval law and mindset, the husband of a queen regnant held the crown jure uxoris--something that was always interpreted as the said husband reigning as 'king consort' with his wife. However, this could be, and often was, easily extended to mean the full rights of the 'Crown Matrimonial'. Essentially, with the assent of Parliament, it was theoretically possible for any consort of Queen Mary to hold the English crown by right of his wife, as king regnant, and to continue to reign even in the event of the death of his wife (Parliament being necessary under English law in this case, because the assent of the lords and commons assembled as a law court was needed to officially interpret the law in that way).

There are several examples of this: King Francois II, the husband of Queen Mary of Scots, was granted the crown matrimonial in Scotland (via the efforts of Marie de Guise), though nothing came of this due to his premature death--nevertheless, the royal regalia were even sent to Saint-Denis. Further, this was a constant source of contention between Mary and Henry Stuart (he was promised the crown in matrimony, but only ended up as king-consort). This also happened several times in Sicily, if I'm not mistaken, and I do believe that there was also one or two feudal examples in France (though the particular instances escape me at the moment).
 
Top