WI: Rumors of Elizabeth I & Thomas Seymour True

Since the rumor of the Bisley Boy (by Bram Stoker, no less) - that Elizabeth was replaced before puberty by a boy when she suddenly died and said boy was unlikely to have carried out the farce forever are highly unlikely, what if the rumor that she had a crush on Thomas Seymour and acted on it - after she went to live with Katheryn Parr (as the Queen herself signed it) before the birth of Mary Seymour. Elizabeth was hurriedly sent away, supposedly after Katheryn caught the pair in an embrace. I recently finished "Cold Case: Reopened, The Secret of the Virgin Queen" by Mark Garber. He proposes that either about the time of Katheryn's pregnancy, Elizabeth was found to be with child by Seymour as well and this was the reason she was rushed off to Cheshunt rather than one of her (liz's) own homes. In Cheshunt, overseen by Kat Ashley's sister and brother-in-law, access to the no longer virginal Elizabeth could be tightly controlled.

What if: she did become pregnant by Seymor while under the 'supervision' of Katheryn Parr and was sent away? And it became public knowledge because Sir Antony Denny felt his responsibility to the King overrode that to his wife's sister' lax supervision of the girl?
 
Well first of all it wasn't Elizabeth pursuing Seymour, he was pursuing HER, while his wife was a former Queen she had no real royal blood, Elizabeth however did and came with a legally sanctioned spot in the royal succession, via her father's will.

Seymour clearly wanted to get Elizabeth under his thumb, then do away with Katheryn and then convince his brother to let him marry Elizabeth, then scheme to get the throne... somehow.

As Elizabeth herself commented later, Thomas Seymour was a man of much wit but little judgement.

In this case there really isn't a means to hide the pregnancy or 'make things right' by having Seymour marry the girl as a cover. Unless Elizabeth get's a hand abortion or miscarriage before it becomes public knowledge she is officially soiled and will take a big chunk of blame for all this despite being a child under the care of people who should have known better.

Now if things play out the way they did in RL, as in Edward dying young and Mary getting the throne but not able to have children... Mary will find herself in a pickle.

Her legal heir is her soiled half-sister, now proven to be just as much a whore as her mother Anne Boleyn, BUT the alternate heir with Tudor blood is Mary of Scots, who is already a Queen and married to the Dauphin of France, if she has a son then there would be a union of the British Isles and France, a direct threat to her Hapsburg relatives that they will wage endless wars to see dissolved.

So the question is... Can Mary accept her sister as Queen with a bastard child in tow... Especially if Elizabeth was either stuffed in seclusion due to all this, or married off, though I think the first one is more likely.
 
She was the right age for a crush on the dashing Seymour. Kat Ashley was the one who was horrified, she understood the ramifications. Elizabeth (but not Jane Grey) was suddenly sent away to Cheshunt in the middle of Katheryn Parr Seymour's pregnancy to a place where contact with Elizabeth could be strictly monitored. Elizabeth's later statements on Seymour are said with both the benefit of hindsight and for public relations. So, I take them with a grain of salt.

If Mary finds out that Elizabeth is pregnant, she's going to tell the council. Since Elizabeth's succession rested with doing as the council wishes, she (Liz) is back out of the succession. I don't see Edward allowing her to remain unmarried.......think Northumberland will be able to successfully foist a son on her? Lord knows he has enough of them.
 
Interesting lack of the stories that imply that Seymour was aided in essentially sexually abusing, stalking, and nearly raping Elizabeth.

If any of you have read 'The Story of Britain' ...
 
Why would Elizabeth get in trouble? At that young age, I'd blame the guardians is the fiasco happens.

Her legal heir is her soiled half-sister, now proven to be just as much a whore as her mother Anne Boleyn, BUT the alternate heir with Tudor blood is Mary of Scots, who is already a Queen and married to the Dauphin of France, if she has a son then there would be a union of the British Isles and France, a direct threat to her Hapsburg relatives that they will wage endless wars to see dissolved.

Can Mary find a Hapsburg-friendly heir? John should not have succeeded Richard the Lionhearted (their nephew Arthur should have) but at the last minute Richard said "Wait, Phillipe is going to trick Arthur into losing Normandy just as he tricked John into rebelling against me. I can't let that happen! John, take the throne when I die (in three years), you need to secure Normandy" ha ha ha, and we all know how that disaster turned out. My point being, Lady Margret Beaufort must have some descendants left and there is precedent for bypassing normal succession laws (and it will happen again with William III)
 
In 1548, Elizabeth is legally a woman. She is responsible for her behavior. Yes, by today's standards, Thomas Seymour is a creep and by any standards, a social climber. But social climbing was expected back then. Please, enough already with the modern standards applied to the situation. Yeah, I think it's creepy, but at age 12, Elizabeth officially became of age to wed and run a household. Had her father been anyone but the schmuck Henry VIII, she'd already been living with her future husband's family if not already wed and bed. So, if Liz gets herself into a sticky wicket, is Edward the prude and uber-Protestant going to be kind and find her a husband? Mary can afford to be gracious and will the throne to Mary, Queen of Scots (who is a cousin and a Catholic).

Elizabeth's not going to wed abroad, she can't wed ahead (abroad) of Mary without admitting there's a problem with her or Mary. That's why I thought perhaps the uber-ambitious Northumberland might want to wed one of the boys to her without much fanfare - it gets him into the royal family. Edward is still on the throne, he will be for another few years. So, will Edward wed Elizabeth off or send her away in disgrace?
 
Katheryn will feel a very personal disgrace, but since Elizabeth is technically an adult in the Tudor world, Elizabeth will be seen badly. Sucks, but them's the times at this point in history. This is why Kat Ashley was so upset about the situation, she could see what was happening and was working to avoid it.
 
In 1548, Elizabeth is legally a woman. She is responsible for her behavior. Yes, by today's standards, Thomas Seymour is a creep and by any standards, a social climber. But social climbing was expected back then. Please, enough already with the modern standards applied to the situation. Yeah, I think it's creepy, but at age 12, Elizabeth officially became of age to wed and run a household. Had her father been anyone but the schmuck Henry VIII, she'd already been living with her future husband's family if not already wed and bed. So, if Liz gets herself into a sticky wicket, is Edward the prude and uber-Protestant going to be kind and find her a husband? Mary can afford to be gracious and will the throne to Mary, Queen of Scots (who is a cousin and a Catholic).

Wow... I knew by those day's standards Seymour's behavior was OK. But I thought until she was 15 Elizabeth would be under a care of a guardian until she is old enough to marry.
 
Girls could wed at 12, boys 14. Royals and nobles did it most often; the common folk needed their children to help out on the farm/family business, so the marriage age was later.

BUT....neither Elizabeth nor Mary could wed without permission without losing their place in the "line". Until a girl was wed, she was under some sort of supervision (no such thing as a woman on her own back then); in Elizabeth's case it was Katheryn Parr yada Seymour, the dowager Queen. Yes, Katheryn would lose some face, but since a man was supposed to look elsewhere when his wife was pregnant, Seymour would be in trouble ONLY because Elizabeth is in line for the throne (deflowering a royal/semi-royal virgin). Ironically, but since there was correspondence on them marrying PRIOR to his marriage to Katheryn, Elizabeth would be held to a higher level. Both would be in trouble.

What I'm trying to find out and no one is answering: Would Northumberland be able to convince Edward to let Elizabeth wed one of his myriad of boys?
 
Dudley is Duke of Northumberland, the surviving Percy bros backed a losing cause and lost the title. Henry Percy left everything he could to the crown. I'm talk the Dudleys boys, one of which (Guildford) wed Lady Jane Grey OTL. Robert Dudley ended up the oldest of the surviving boys (he wed in 1550, I believe) and his wife's death effectively ended his OTL chances of wedding Elizabeth I. (Yeah, like she was going to wed a subject, I know. But Amy Dudley's death by misadventure - fell down the stairs - put paid to any hopes Robert had.)
 
Tyop? You'd better get to the doctor quick!:p You're gonna break out in freckles!

But, seriously, which of his boys do you think the Duke would try to foist on Elizabeth?
 
Will this force a planned succession from Edward since he's just had a Protestant heir bumped down?
Northumberland's scheming might actually come off now!
 
Okay, Prof, you've figured out part of what I was thinking: Dudley would "rescue" Elizabeth's reputation, but she would be ousted from the succession formally (for violating her father's will). And I just realized I don't know how many daughters Dudley had.

With the realization that there are 'real' people involved in the succession with real feelings and the ability to act independently, will (hopefully) force Edward to act like a king and the council to stop dicking around and realize someone needs to look ahead.........and stop worrying about who gets the next title.
 
Top