No I don't think Henry would have added Fitzroy to the succession. I can't really say why but it just doesn't seem likely to me. Henry wanted his time on the throne to strengthen the Tudor claims. It was after all a new line really started by his father. His prime driving force was to have heirs, an illegitimate son would not have been as secure an option for Henry.

As to Edward's reign to be honest he didn't actually reign did he? He was young, ill, unwordly and guided in everything by those around him, Seymour etc. He was a cypher for most of his life. Even his actions regarding Mary and Elizabeth came about after what was basically 'brainwashing' by those who for their own interests, before that of the crown or the country, were the driving force. If he had lived he would probably have been married to Jane Grey, that I think would have been the best result for those 'advisors' who led him by the nose.

Henry did look into trying to legitimate Henry Fitzroy but I think Wolsey put his oar in. Certainly Henry F was important to Henry as it was proof that he could produce males, and KOA was the one at fault not him..of course we now know that the sex of a child is determined by the man not us woman. To be honest I don't think it would have made a lot of difference to the succesion if he had been able to legitimate him, as he died in 1536 anyway. Nobody of course knew tis would happen of course. But speaking from a purely hypothectial view Henry F would have been placed before Mary, as he was a boy.

I think Salic Law was still in force as well so Mary would have been dis reguarded purely because she was female, and that law was changed towards the end of Henry's reign I believe to allow Mary and Elizabeth to inherit if Edward died without heirs (which of course he did), without the law being changed, the throne or rather the kingdom would have been thrown into choas. Mary would have ruled certainly but only as a consort to her husband Philip, and of course the throne of England would have continued through Philip's heirs whether or not they were Mary's children or not.

I think the question would have been here would Elizabeth been allowed to inherit after the death of Mary? or Would she have to get married in order to inherit it, via of course her husband. Then of course there would be the Wars of the Roses all over again, as Philip would still be King.      

Of course if you wanted to put in another way..If Henry Fitzroy had outlived his father to actually inherit it, then the same thing would happen again but between Mary who could legally argue that since she was born in wedlock her claim was stronger than the claim of a bastard. War of the Roses again.

The fact that Henry had managed to legitimize him wouldn't have counted I don't think where Mary and perhaps the rest of the world was concerned. Mary had made it quite clear that she intened to drag England back to Rome, and because of that the Pope would back her claim against Fitzroy's. As I don't think the Pope would have offically acknowleged Fitzroy as being Henry's Heir.. who knows I may be completely wrong here, but I still think that there would have been all out war after Henry died and if Fitzroy had lived and tried to rule.

: )

Sharon said:

Boleyn said:

I think Salic Law was still in force as well so Mary would have been dis reguarded purely because she was female, and that law was changed towards the end of Henry's reign I believe to allow Mary and Elizabeth to inherit if Edward died without heirs (which of course he did), without the law being changed, the throne or rather the kingdom would have been thrown into choas. Mary would have ruled certainly but only as a consort to her husband Philip, and of course the throne of England would have continued through Philip's heirs whether or not they were Mary's children or not.

I think the question would have been here would Elizabeth been allowed to inherit after the death of Mary? or Would she have to get married in order to inherit it, via of course her husband. Then of course there would be the Wars of the Roses all over again, as Philip would still be King.      

 

Salic Law was never the law in Great Britain.  British kings just didn’t want women to rule.  The boys were given priority over the girls. There was no absolute law against a woman being queen. (ie, Maud who fought for the crown, won it for a brief period, and eventually lost it to Stephen in a bloody civil war) Thankfully, Phillip was never crowned king of England; and Elizabeth never had to marry in order to be queen. 

Richmond would never have been as secure on the throne as Henry’s already legitimate children.  Even if Henry legitimized the boy, there would be those who considered him illegit, including Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. The crown would be in jeopardy.  War would ensue.  Henry would not have wanted that to happen.  Edward’s people would have been the first to say Richmond was not legitimate.  Edward, Mary and Elizabeth would have been united against Richmond. I don’t usually give much credit to Henry, but I think his decision not to legitimize Richmond was a wise choice.

If Henry did legitimize Richmond and everyone was okay with it, he would most likey have become king upon the death of Henry. Any children Richmond had would follow him to the throne.  We may not have ever had a King Edward VI, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth.

Ok agree Salic Law did not exist here but Henry still had to make sure that an act of succesion that named Mary and Elizabeth as heirs and that was done in 1543. Only for The Duke of Northhumberland to repeal it and possibly Cecil to re instate it after the rule of Jane the 9 days queen for it to be repealed yet again when Mary came to the throne or at least sometime during her reign, for it to be reinstated, again possibly by Cecil, towards the end of Mary's reign when it was obvious that she would never bear a child, to allow Elizabeth to take the throne. Honestly that 1543 act was bounced about more times than a power ball in the 11 years between, Henry's death and Elizabeth's succession. As it was that act was the 3rd act of succession passed in Henry's life time.

Although I still feel that there were people who thought that a woman ruler was basically not up to the job, and I possibly believe that if given half a chance the Duke of Norfolk, would have tried to take the throne for himself. However there were also some that believed that because Mary never actually officially named Elizabeth as heir, that she shouldn't have got the throne anyway, and being that the country was Catholic that Mary Queen of Scots should have got it instead. We all know the outcome of that so I needn't write a book about it here. But just a theory here if Mary Queen of Scots did manage to succeed if for instance Mary had named her as heir being that she was a Catholic and England was a Catholic Country, Would she not be debarred from actually being Queen but ruling as Queen Consort in favour of her husband, on the account she was married into the French Royal house, and I think, though don't quote me Salic law was in force there. Her husband Francois was named before her as King of Scotland I believe in any correpondence? This is a good one to puzzle over..

It does seem strange to me however that Henry should find the idea of a woman ruling to be a bad one, as I've pointed out either here or in anaother posting, KOA had proved that a woman was just as effective as a man to rule, and Elizabeth more than proved it.

Men could make mistakes too, I mean William (Rufus) 2 wasn't that good neither was Edward 2nd, King John, Henry 3rd, Richard 2nd or Henry 6th although with exception of William Rufus and possibly Edward 2nd, their choice in wives didn't exactly help perhaps, but even so there is no excusing their behaviour when they are meant to be these all powerful Godlike creatures who can do no wrong.

I guess Henry like so many other men used the disasterous reign of Matilda as their floor plan and didn't think about the Kings who had messed up. Ostrich syndrome.

Anyway thank you for pointing out my error, we all make mistakes and none of us are infallible.

Keep the posts comming..

Hello Boleyn,

Both Mary and Elizabeth were originally Henry's heirs to the throne. In 1543 Henry restored Mary and Elizabeth to the succession having previously anulled his marriages to their mothers thereby making them illegitimate (although, I agree Sharon, the anullment did not confer illegitiamcy in Cannon Law). 

Louise said:

Hello Boleyn,

Both Mary and Elizabeth were originally Henry’s heirs to the throne. In 1543 Henry restored Mary and Elizabeth to the succession having previously anulled his marriages to their mothers thereby making them illegitimate (although, I agree Sharon, the anullment did not confer illegitiamcy in Cannon Law). 

Yes this is true, but the 1543 act was the 3rd and final act that cemented what would happen upon his death.

Before then the whole succesion thing was being bounced about like a rubber ball, from pillar to post.

 Henry even made a provision in his will that any children born to him by K.P after his death were to follow Elizabeth if she died without heirs. I think K.P was instrumental in getting Mary and Elizabeth back into the line of succesion.

Sharon I'm not offended or upset at all like I've told other members I value your and their opinions. I also thank you for taking the time for reading and understanding what I've said.

Henry completely for whatever reasons completely ignored Margaret's royal line. and chose as we know for the royal line of his younger sister to rule instead. I still think that he was a blasted hypocrite about this as Margaret only did what Henry was trying to do. Is it because he was jealous of the fact that Margaret had managed to get her divorce with the Pope's blessing? where Henry couldn't, and so in a petty act of spite stuck 2 fingers up at her, and her heir and their Royal line?

Yeah I agree completely that it was definetly Henry of France's idea for Mary to quarter her royal flag with England's coat of arms.. I wonder if he did this to try and provoke a war with Elizabeth? If so it didn't work and all that happened was his death followed by his son's not long after.I also think that de guise brothers may have had something to do with Mary quatering her arms with England's perhaps because they felt that the English had something to do with their sister death? Who knows? Again I agree with you about Mary QOS and perhaps not naming Darnley as King was one of the best things she did, as I do believe she knew the state of play that she would be unlikely to inherit England's throne because her grandmother had be debarred by Henry, and just wanted a peaceful relationship with Elizabeth.. just an opinion.

Mary held off as long as possible from naming Elizabeth as her heir, I think that she still believed that she would be able to bear a child, almost right up until her final illness. Certainly she refused to believe that she wasn't pregnant with her first phantom pregnancy, and it was only until her swelling went down that she excepted the truth. Elizabeth in her turn refused completely to name a succesor and I'm not certain I don't think she actually named James even when she knew she was going to die, however he would have been the most likely if she had have named anyone. The Grey girls were dead, and the children that Katherine had by Edward Seymour were named bastards anyway,(as Katherine couldn't prove that she had actually married Edward Seymour legally) that fact alone would have debarred them, and people had excepted James as succesor anyway, basically because he had children who would continue the line.

Again I agree with your view about Elizabeth and Mary QOS not wanting to share their crowns with men. Mary obvisiously had her own reasons, but Elizabeth's  were because she never intended to marry, and if she had she wouldn't want a man to try and rule over her. in short she liked to be in control.

 Perhaps if QOS had Elizabeth's mind set she wouldn't have got herself in the pickle she did.

It's been said by a few historians that if Elizabeth and Mary could have married one another there would be the perpetual headache of what to do with one another as there was.. Although this was said between Anne and KOA I think it is quite apt to describe the situation between Elizabeth and QOS too, it was always a case of her death or Elizabeth's.

 

Boleyn said:

Henry completely for whatever reasons completely ignored Margaret’s royal line. and chose as we know for the royal line of his younger sister to rule instead. I still think that he was a blasted hypocrite about this as Margaret only did what Henry was trying to do. Is it because he was jealous of the fact that Margaret had managed to get her divorce with the Pope’s blessing? where Henry couldn’t, and so in a petty act of spite stuck 2 fingers up at her, and her heir and their Royal line?

I'm not sure if Henry left Margaret's children out of the succession due to his disagreement with her over her marriage or whether it was because Marie of Guise went behind his back and betrothed Mary to Francois. You never know with him.  Either way, Scotland was out of the running.

Mary held off as long as possible from naming Elizabeth as her heir, I think that she still believed that she would be able to bear a child, almost right up until her final illness. Certainly she refused to believe that she wasn’t pregnant with her first phantom pregnancy, and it was only until her swelling went down that she excepted the truth. Elizabeth in her turn refused completely to name a succesor and I’m not certain I don’t think she actually named James even when she knew she was going to die, however he would have been the most likely if she had have named anyone. The Grey girls were dead, and the children that Katherine had by Edward Seymour were named bastards anyway,(as Katherine couldn’t prove that she had actually married Edward Seymour legally) that fact alone would have debarred them, and people had excepted James as succesor anyway, basically because he had children who would continue the line.

I do not believe Elizabeth named James as heir at the end.  I think she knew her council would do it.  To be honest, I don't think she thought anyone was worthy enough to fill her shoes. 

Again I agree with your view about Elizabeth and Mary QOS not wanting to share their crowns with men. Mary obvisiously had her own reasons, but Elizabeth’s  were because she never intended to marry, and if she had she wouldn’t want a man to try and rule over her. in short she liked to be in control.

 Perhaps if QOS had Elizabeth’s mind set she wouldn’t have got herself in the pickle she did.

It’s been said by a few historians that if Elizabeth and Mary could have married one another there would be the perpetual headache of what to do with one another as there was.. Although this was said between Anne and KOA I think it is quite apt to describe the situation between Elizabeth and QOS too, it was always a case of her death or Elizabeth’s.

When I first read about Elizabeth, many, many, many years ago, I thought 'wow what a woman.' I wondered if all queens were like her.  If so, it was good to be queen. I had never read about other queens.  Elizabeth was my first, and I have loved her ever since.  I only knew about her parents from reading about her.  Mary, of course was always a big part of the story of Elizabeth.  I had a hard time liking Mary. She never quite stood out in my mind as anything but a bother to Elizabeth. 

Now I'm old…older, and a bit more educated about these two women. Everytime I read a book about Mary I think, 'Wait a minute she had  choices open to her, why did she always seem to choose the wrong one?' I guess my opinion has not really changed very much.  These women grew up under extremely different circumstances. Mary in luxury.  Elizabeth in fear.  In my opinion, Mary through no fault of her own, missed a few life lessons that Elizabeth learned well.

In so many steps along the way, Mary made bad choices.  She chose dispicable husbands. She lost her Scots crown.  She fled to England.  She decided she had the right to take the crown from Elizabeth.  Mary seemed to make impulse decisions without ever thinking of the long term consequences.  I doubt if Elizabeth ever made a decision on impulse.  She was always thinking long term.

Had they met, maybe things would have been different, but I have my doubts about that. I think Elizabeth had a problem planning to meet with someone who was plotting behind her back to kill her and take her crown. 

Boleyn,

I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but there is a discussion page for Elizabeth that Claire also runs.  It’s been kind of quiet over there.  It would be great fun if you would like to join the discussion. 

http://www.elizabethfiles.com/

PS, Invite extends to all!