Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
10:36 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I have several what if questions, and I would love to “hear” everyone's theories on this often ignored, yet important, historical figure.
What if, as Weir argues in Six Wives, page 370, Henry did marry Fitzroy off to Princess Mary after being granted a special dispensation by the Pope? What would some imlpications be of this union? Would Henry have remained married to KOA? What position would Anne find herself in?
What if, as Lipscombe argues in her book 1536…,page 91, that Henry was on the path to legitimizing Fitzroy and naming him as successor, and decided to fulfill this desire?
We all know that Fitzroy dies a few moths after Anne in 1536 at age 17. But, what could his role(s) have been in his father's court as he aged? Would he be like Henry Bolingbroke and upsurp the throne? Or, would he simply be happy to serve his legitimate relations?
Say, he and his wife, Mary Howard, consummated their marrige (an issue often debated) and had children, what potenital threat or role could they (male or female) play in the future Tudor courts and reigns?
Just some ideas that came to me after reading about Fitzroy today. What do you all think….
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
12:32 pm
June 10, 2011
Offline
In my opinion, I think even if Henry Fitzroy had married Princess Mary, Henry still would have divorced KOA and married Anne. He was pretty obsessed with having a legitimate heir, as he wanted to avoid a civil war and keep the peace his father won. Even if Henry had legitimized Fitzroy, I think that he still would have wanted another heir. After all, it was customary in that time to have a “spare” son, one that could inherit the throne if the first died and it was pretty obvious he wasn't going to have a son with KOA. Plus, the people of England would have much prefered a true heir to a bastard son.
That being said, I think that if Henry Fitzroy had lived past 1536, I don't think he would have been much of a rival to Edward VI. However, after the death of Edward, he could have possibly been a rival, as he would have had some claim to the throne, and people probably would have prefered a King to Queen Mary. The same could be said for any children he and Mary Howard had together.
Those are very interesting questions, ones I fear we will never have an answer to. My old history teacher always used to say that the “what if's” of history were unimportant and that they should be ignored, but to me, they are some of the most interesting topic to consider.
1:24 pm
December 12, 2010
Offline
There's some interesting “what ifs” there. Here's a thought: if Henry Fitzroy hadn't died, but everything else panned out as it really did before Henry VIII's death, he would probably have been included in the line of succession before Mary and Elizabeth. After all, they were both declared illigitimate, and remained so officially even after being restored to the succession. He could have ended up being king after Edward died.
3:42 pm
April 11, 2011
Offline
Fitzroy died just as an act of parliament was going through which would have enabled the King to nominate him as heir to the throne.
On September 30th 1536 rebellion against Henry began in Lincolnshire, where Fitzroy and his mother had much influence, this spread throughout the north where it became known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. It failed due to one decisive fact, that there was no one uniting leadership and cause, if the Duke of Richmond had lived and been a legitimate heir by act of parliament, then he would have posed a serious threat to Henry. Fitzroy and his mother were popular in the area, opposition to the King was becoming organised and Fitzroy could have easily matched the 5,000 men that had been sent with the Duke of Suffolk to put down opposition.
As the King's son and heir to the throne, he would have provided an alternative to an increasingly unpopular Henry, in an area of the country where he had most influence and contacts. If he had therefore defeated Suffolk this support would have undoubtedly spread and could have ended with him seizing the ultimate prize.
6:23 am
April 11, 2011
Offline
Duchess, on something of a crossed thread here, my understanding of Croke's mission to Rome was that of being to check out the possibilities of making Henry's bastard son a legitimate heir. This brief of course changed when Henry decided to divorce KOA.
When Henry began the process of having his marriage annulled, it was suggested that Fitzroy marry his half-sister Mary in order to prevent the annulment and strengthen Fitzroy's claim to the throne. The Pope, also anxious to do anything to prevent Henry's annulment, was prepared to grant a special dispensation for their marriage.
As these two issues appear to be separate therefore, it would have no bearing on Henry's desire to divorce KOA in favour of Anne and as such it would appear unlikely that such a union would have been allowed by Henry as it would have placed his own desires in jeopardy. How reliable is Weir in this argument?
I don't believe the issue of Richmond having any children would have complicated any of Henry's future plans, as legislation through parliament via Henry would have left them very much out of the loop. As to any minor roles in future courts or reigns, I would class this as unlikely, as what ruler would want a potential threat to their power in a position of influence (Mary and Jane Grey for example), far more likely they would be banished to obscurity or even disposed of.
Just some initial thoughts Duchess, on a great topic, You may prove me wrong on some of my comments, or indeed I may change my viewpoints upon more detailed reference. I will study further!
9:54 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Wow, I find in fascinating that the Catholic Church was prepared to allow half-siblings to marry. I know genetics back then wasn't really understood but surely everyone involved would be concerned about what it could mean for the children? The things the church was prepared to do to save their power back then is amazing.
Ready this thread has made me come to the conclusion that Henry Fitzroy is the reason why it was all Katherine's and Anne's fault that no son had been produced from their union (that survived beyond infancy). If Henry could produce a male with a mistress than surely it's not his fault that his wife wasn't producing a male heir. I always wondered why Henry blamed the wife for his 'misfortune' and now I've found the answer that will help me sleep at night LOL.
12:30 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
I think it would have been an excellent idea for Fitzroy to have married the Princess Mary. If they had children then the Tudors could still reign supreme. And the great thing is they would be easily recognisable with their five foot necks and webbed feet.
6:20 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
Wow, I find in fascinating that the Catholic Church was prepared to allow half-siblings to marry. I know genetics back then wasn't really understood but surely everyone involved would be concerned about what it could mean for the children? The things the church was prepared to do to save their power back then is amazing.
Ready this thread has made me come to the conclusion that Henry Fitzroy is the reason why it was all Katherine's and Anne's fault that no son had been produced from their union (that survived beyond infancy). If Henry could produce a male with a mistress than surely it's not his fault that his wife wasn't producing a male heir. I always wondered why Henry blamed the wife for his 'misfortune' and now I've found the answer that will help me sleep at night LOL.
I agree that I find this shocking! They seemed so finicky about everything else, but it was mysteriously ok for half-siblings to marry each other. Now, I realize that a degree of intermarriage was going between European royalty as it was, and, thus, it seems like many unions were between distant cousins–which also seems strange to me since I don't know anyone who can even remotely trace a relationship between themselves and their spouses.
Knowing what we do about half-siblings and DNA and whatnot that means that Mary and Henry F. shared–what?–roughly 25% of their genes? Ew…
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
7:09 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
I'm happy to be corrected but since they had the same father it technically would be 50%. Ignoring mutations, random segregation during meiosis and the randomness of sperm.
I can deal with cousins marrying more than half-siblings. OK so Henry Fitzroy wasn't living under the same roof as his father, but what they were proposing was the equivalent of having Edward VI marry Elizabeth I. Can you imagine that conversation:
'Come on Edward , your Dad would approve, do it for the good of the country, do it to ensure the Tudor line stays intact. Marry your sister.'
'But…we have the same Dad'
'That's a minor detail, don't think of it like that. Remember you do have different mothers, it's not like you are full brother and sister'
'But Elizabeth's mum was executed because of false incest charges, this is real incest'
'Pfft, minor details. Now get to the church young man, you have deformed babies to make'
3:30 am
November 23, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
'Pfft, minor details. Now get to the church young man, you have deformed babies to make'
AHAHAHAHA this made me laugh out loud really badly right in the middle of a silent office …… now I have my work colleagues giving me funny looks *nutter* ahahahaha
Why not join my page on Facebook – Tudor Dynasty
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....9213293551
3:54 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
Funny stuff, Bill. But what squicks me out about the whole situation is that Henry was seeking an annulment on the grounds that the Pope erred in granting a dispensation for he and Katharine to get married; that their marriage was incestuous. And yet now he's asking for another dispensation? For real incest? How is marrying your brother's widow worse than marrying your children to each other? Was this after his bang on the head? Because that makes zero logical sense unless you're a big ole hypocrite. Oh, wait….
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
6:27 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
The irony of the situation is one of the most intriguing issues. I agree with Impish: Henry annuling his marriage on the grounds of incest, yet he was willing to damn his own daughter and son's souls for power and greed. Something not right there. I guess what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. Henry, I'm sure, would have some justification to explain this situation. No doubt something from the Bible that he'd construe to suit his needs.
Bill, you raise a good point about Fitzroy's role in the downfall of Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. He was the proof Henry needed to justify his position: he could father boys, but not with KOA (at first), the not with Anne (later on). His presence in Henry's life must have been a constant reminder of his wives limitations as women (from Henry's prespective, not mine). For KOA and AB, Fitzroy must have reminded them of their inability to give Henry a legitimate heir. While we know that men determine the sex of the child, in this era, the accepted cultural standard was women were to blame (really for everything). I can only imagine KOA and AB knowing they failed, and that Fitzroy was always a lurking presence, a reminder, and a potential threat to everything they held dear.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
7:33 am
April 11, 2011
Offline
Let's not forget that the Pope was happy to allow an incestuous marriage in order to try and stop the annulment of Henry's marriage!
A case of hypocrisy all round methinks.
8:43 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Ok, I had to look it up…but half-siblings share fewer DNA markers than full-siblings because they share only one parent instead of two…
Cousins share roughly 25% of their DNA markers and half-siblings are clearly more closely related than cousins but less closely related than full-siblings…
So, not taking into account mutations and segregation…I'd say half-siblings are probably closer to 37.5%.
Ew….
I wonder what kind of weird phenotypes would have emerged had the marriage gone through and Mary been able to bear children–which is a whole nother topic.
And Impish said it wonderfully because I was thinking the exact same thing, but I couldn't phrase it nearly as succinctly as she did. All of these random annulments because of “incest” and then suddenly he wants to commit incest?!?!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:44 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
I'm happy to be corrected but since they had the same father it technically would be 50%. Ignoring mutations, random segregation during meiosis and the randomness of sperm.
I can deal with cousins marrying more than half-siblings. OK so Henry Fitzroy wasn't living under the same roof as his father, but what they were proposing was the equivalent of having Edward VI marry Elizabeth I. Can you imagine that conversation:
'Come on Edward , your Dad would approve, do it for the good of the country, do it to ensure the Tudor line stays intact. Marry your sister.'
'But…we have the same Dad'
'That's a minor detail, don't think of it like that. Remember you do have different mothers, it's not like you are full brother and sister'
'But Elizabeth's mum was executed because of false incest charges, this is real incest'
'Pfft, minor details. Now get to the church young man, you have deformed babies to make'
Where is the “Like” button when you need it?!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
9:21 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
When I was a little girl, about 7 yrs old, I was absolutely in love with my third cousin. My other cousin and I used to argue over which one of us would marry him. When I told my Mom I was going to marry him, I thought she was going to kill me. I got over that heartbreak real quick. **sigh** Sorry, I digressed. All this talk of incest reminded me of this story.
Henry and the Pope…hypocrites one and all. I find it so hard to believe that as long as you catered to the whims of Popes, you could get any type of dispensation you wanted. Nothing surprises me about Henry's thinking. What a mess that would have been had Mary married Fitzroy. The poor children from that match!
I sure wish someone could have known that it was the man who determined the gender of a child. I would have loved for Anne and KOA to have had that piece of info.
9:27 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
Sharon said:
I sure wish someone could have known that it was the man who determined the gender of a child. I would have loved for Anne and KOA to have had that piece of info.
So true, Sharon. I wonder how that would have impacted these ladies's fate? The upperhand would be theirs. Henry's logic gone to hell, and left looking like the idiot he was. I imagine history might have been different, or is that wishful thinking?
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
5:49 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
Sharon said:
I sure wish someone could have known that it was the man who determined the gender of a child. I would have loved for Anne and KOA to have had that piece of info.
So true, Sharon. I wonder how that would have impacted these ladies's fate? The upperhand would be theirs. Henry's logic gone to hell, and left looking like the idiot he was. I imagine history might have been different, or is that wishful thinking?
Imagine the number of physicians, apothecaries, and barber-surgeons who would have been beheaded/burned/drawn-and-quartered if Henry had known that. Nothing was ever HIS fault–the blame always lay with someone else. Henry would have brought in anyone he could find to help him have the elusive legitimate male, and if it didn't work he would have had them charged with witchcraft and probably burned. You know it's true.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
7:30 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
“You know it's true.”
HA! Yes, we do. He was completely predictable on some things.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
11:48 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
DuchessofBrittany said:
Sharon said:
I sure wish someone could have known that it was the man who determined the gender of a child. I would have loved for Anne and KOA to have had that piece of info.
So true, Sharon. I wonder how that would have impacted these ladies's fate? The upperhand would be theirs. Henry's logic gone to hell, and left looking like the idiot he was. I imagine history might have been different, or is that wishful thinking?
Imagine the number of physicians, apothecaries, and barber-surgeons who would have been beheaded/burned/drawn-and-quartered if Henry had known that. Nothing was ever HIS fault–the blame always lay with someone else. Henry would have brought in anyone he could find to help him have the elusive legitimate male, and if it didn't work he would have had them charged with witchcraft and probably burned. You know it's true.
That is true Meg!
Knowing this wouldn't have helped KOA. She got too old. It wouldn't have helped Anne, who got too bitchy for him. Henry would have just added the people you mentioned to the list of 70,000 he is known to have killed.
