Thomas died of natural causes in March 1539. Even if he had lived, he would have been about 70 when Henry died. He would have been the obvious choice over George, but he would have had to have been in great health to have undertaken the role at that age.

Louise said

If Anne was still queen when Henry died then she wouldn’t have remained regent until Elizabeth reached majority, in the same way that Catherine Parr didn’t remain regent until Edward reached majority. Anne was only queen due to her marriage to Henry. That marriage didn’t make her queen in her own right. On Henry’s death Elizabeth would have been queen automatically, it was just a question of who acted as Lord Protector until she was old enough to take over her rightful position. Whether Anne could have taken over that role is a question I don’t know the answer to, but whether a none royal born woman would have been acceptable is debatable. I think George would have been the obvious choice, because as Sharon says he was certainly as capable as Edward Seymour, in addition to which he had diplomatic experience which would have made him the perfect person to undertake the role. Plus the fact Edward was not universally liked and I’ve read letters in the Lisle Letters which show him in a bad light, whereas on the whole George appears to have been popular and well thought of.

Good one Louise. I agree George could be a possible candidate for L.P for Elizabeth, but how about the Duke of Norfolk too?
He was about the highest and oldest? Duke in the land, and did have a tablespoonful or 2 of noble blood running in his veins.

Norfolk barely escaped Henry’s rule with his life. I have to wonder if he would have been allowed any where near Elizabeth. Anne would have had something to say about that no matter what position she held. Norfolk and Anne didn’t quite see eye to eye on things. Prison was as good a place as any for him.

Hi Louise
I think if Anne had been queen for getting on for 15 years when Henry died with Elizabeth still his heir then she (E) would have taken the throne quite quietly. If Henry was content in his marriage I think Mary would have been married off by the time of his death and probably to somewhere to insult and anger the Spanish. The thing about the scenario is that if Henry and Anne had remained married they would most likely have had other children so Mary would have really lost any importance I think. Anne would I am pretty sure have helped engineer even bigger steps from Rome and the Catholicism of the time if she had lived so even to the people I think Mary would have been undesirable in the end.

Louise said

Something did occur to me the other day regarding this thread. If Anne and George had not died in May 1536 then upon Henry’s death Elizabeth would have been his heir, assuming he hadn’t reinstated Mary to the succession, which would have been highly unlikely if he had still been married to Anne when he died.
When Edward VI, who was without doubt the rightful King, died, his appointment of Lady Jane Grey as heir was thwarted by an uprising in favour of Mary. I wonder whether there would have been a similar uprising against Elizabeth, and if so, whether the Boleyns would have had enough support to suppress it? Clearly poor Jane did not have sufficient support and died for it. The Boleyns were unpopular and many viewed Mary as the rightful heir to the throne, which was only held at bay by the fact Edward, as a boy, was the rightful heir over her. If history had been rewritten, Anne had been Queen at the time of Henry’s death and Edward had never been born, I think the Boleyns and Elizabeth would have struggled to retain power in a country still ravaged by religious unrest, unless Anne had subsequently had a son. If so then there could have been no argument as a son obviously would have taken precedence over Mary, but if not I think their position may have been tenuous. I wonder what everybody else thinks?

Hmm another good point Louise. However I’m not sure if Anne did have a son, and Henry had died in 1536, would the boy actually become King?
Bear in mind that the Pope and many of the nobles viewed Anne as a wh*re and not Henry’s true wife. England was in religious choas really up until K.P came to the throne, and even then it was untidy. The religious choas only really sorted itself out and settled down to an sort of impass of peace when Elizabeth took the throne, in 1558 and even in her reign their were a few Catholic tantums that blew up from time to time and it was really only when Elizabeth was forced to execute Mary QOS that the message about the protestant faith was hammered home firmly to the catholic faction once and for all that it was here and it was here to stay.

Louise said

Hello Boleyn,
On my hypothesis I wasn’t suggesting Henry died in 1536, I was suggesting he died as normal in 1547, by which stage Anne may very well have had a son, who would have taken precedence over any previous or subsequent daughter.
What Maggyann and Neil were saying was that by 1547, had Henry and Anne still been married then Elizabeth’s position would have been seccured, which is a valid point.

My mistake Louise sorry..
Note to self “Engage Brain stupid” LOL
However it would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if Old Stinky blubber mountain had died in 1536, in his jousting accident?
Anne was pregnant, with what might have been a boy so would the powers that be held off from naming Stinky’s successor until Anne gave birth, or would Elizabeth automatically become Queen? Or would Elizabeth just be Queen until Anne gave birth and if the child was a boy Elizabeth would be demoted? I hope that makes sence..