England's Lost Queens

First off, I am not an expert of British history so I am merely throwing up possibilities and would hope to see them develop. The Tudor Stuart period more than any other time in British history permitted the personality of the soveriegn to shape the destiny of the country. Also the relative shortage in the imperial nursery often throws up many interesting and plausible possibilities of might have beens.

Henry the VIII's will laid out his succession which placed descendants of his younger sister Mary over descendants of his older sister Margaret. The exclusion was because Margaret had married a foreigner (the King James the something of Scotland)

With that introduction done..lets begin

1) Queen Jane I
At age 15 she was married to Lord Guilford Dudley as part of a plot to control the English throne after the death of her cousin, the boy king Edward VI (son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour). On 10 July 1553, four days after Edward's death, Lady Jane's supporters proclaimed her to be Queen.

It soon became clear that Edward's half-sister Mary Tudor had far greater support, and after a "reign" of nine days Lady Jane Grey relinquished the crown. She and her husband were charged with high treason, and in 1554 they were beheaded.

There are two possibilities, firstly Edward dies sooner and more unexpectedly leaving a younger Queen Jane and a less prepared Mary Tudor.

Alternatively Edward lives maybe another 3 or 4 years. He systematically undermines Mary's power and greatly weakens her position, allowing an older Jane Grey to ascend the throne with more deeply rooted support in court.

Finally Edward lives longer and marries Jane Grey. In the absence of children she inherits the throne in her own right. (If we consider Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate under Acts of Parliament, then Jane is the next heir by Henry VIII's will).

In all the scenarios there is no return of catholicism to England, no burning of the bishops and other heretics. On the other hand, there is a very disgruntled Phillip II and an angry Spain.

2) Queen Arbella Stuart
Arbella was the granddaughter of Margaret, Countess of Lennox ( and great-grandaughter of Princess Margaret, Henry VIII's sister). This made her niece to Mary, Queen of Scots and to Elizabeth. In fact, her claim to the English throne was said by many to be better than James I and Mary, Queen of Scots. Being foreigneres they were technically barred from inheriting the throne. Elizabeth herself, used Arbella as a bogeyman to scare James whenever she felt he needed to be pulled down a peg or too. Arbella unfortuntately remained a pawn in the royal game and except for her ill fated marriage to another royal claimaint William Seyomour (son of Catherine Grey, Lady Jane's sister).

William Cecil, Lord Burghley actively supported Arbella's candidature, so did Francis Walsingham. However by the time Elizabeth died most of Arbella's champions were already dead. In the reign of James I, she was imprisoned in the Tower for marriage to William Seymour (who also had a claim to the throne through the Suffolk line) without the monarch's consent.

However if Elizabeth died earlier say in the late 1580's, Arbella has a strong position for the court. If she married any of the Seymour brothers, her position improved further, for under the terms of Henry VIII's will they represented more senior lines than the foriegn scottish one. In contrast to James, strict protestant upbringing, Arbella was reportedly indifferent and open minded in terms of religion. She was intelligent and highly educated in the tradition of Tudor Princesses (Elizabeth I, Jane Grey being examples). Spain and Austria Hungary, then united in marriage preffered her claim over that of the Francophile Scots.

Arbella remains a cipher in many ways...one of History's could have beens


3) Elizabeth III
Simple POD, Gunpowder plot succeeds. The original plan was to make Princess Elizabeth (james I's eldest daughter later Queen of Bohemia)Queen and bring her up as a Catholic. Her mother Queen Anne had already converted.

4) Queen Sophia Dorothea
Queen Anne dies sooner (she died 7 months after Sophia Dorothea) and unde the Act of Settlement the throne goes to Sophia known to be politcally canny and intersested in England instead of her son George. (George I besides being very unpopular couldnt speak a word of English).

Maybe a Queen Sophia would see lesser powers to the Prime Minister.

5) Queen Charlotte
George IV's daughter died at childbirth precipitating a race amongh the royal dukes to father an heir. Victoria won those sweepstakes. However, Charlotte with her husband Leopold of Saxe Coburg (later King of the Belgians) by her side makes an intersting possibility. Certainly foriegn relations would have played out differently.

oh look what i found! FUN!


Queen Louisa, James II last last child in 1712 she and her brother both got smallpox, James lived, Louisa died, however if it had been the other way around Queen Ann would of gladly made her Queen, (if she'd give up being Catholic, no idea if she would of) after she died


Queen Anne II, if James "III" is never born his luckless father may of been able to hold on, and after the death of his children (Mary II and Anne) his sisters daughter, Anne Marie, Duchess of Savoy


Queen Ann, under the Will of Henry VIII, the line of Mary Tudor was to be fallowed, given that the senior line of Mary had died out by the time Elizabeth I died in 1603, the Junior line headed by Lady Ann Stanley should of taken the Crown

Queen Mary III, King George III's longest lived child by 6 years, in a TL where he has no grandkids (not all that out there if you look at it) she would of been the oldest monarch ever (in her late 70's)

black angel said:

oh look what i found! FUN!


Queen Louisa, James II last last child in 1712 she and her brother both got smallpox, James lived, Louisa died, however if it had been the other way around Queen Ann would of gladly made her Queen, (if she'd give up being Catholic, no idea if she would of) after she died

Click to expand...

This is interesting. If she married a Protestant, would they have amended or fudged the Act of Settlement, since she's a woman ? Maybe she could have married into the line of one of Charles II's bastards (who would be her cousins, but that hardly stops people) ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

037771 said:

Or James II could have had it so she marries a Catholic....which would then inflame passions a tad...

Click to expand...

unlikely James II dies in 1701, she was 9 in 1701, her mother Mary of Modena may of tried, but hadn't by 1712 when she 19, i think she and her mother would be more willing then her brother and father to become Protestants in the name of the crown

Few points:

Queen Jane - its quite important to take into consideration a few facts - Henry VIII's will and his final Act of Succession - Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth and then his niece Francis Brandon Duchess of Suffolk.
Edward dying earlier (ie before the fall of his Uncle Seymour makes Queen Jane even less likely - if Edward dies really early before his uncle Thomas' falls out with his brother then a straight fight between a Seymour backed Elizabeth and a strong anglo catholic backed Mary would be more likely). Edward VI in many ways was showing strong signs of devout strict reform protestantism and recent research has shown that far from being the entire work of Northumberland his device for the succession was as much his own desperate desire that a) he wasn't succeeded by a woman and b) if he had to be succeeded then anyone but his sister Mary.
Had he lived Jane was very unlikely to have been his chosen wife - he was showing all the signs of the autocratic and distinctly royal views of his late father and was keen to have a truly Royal Wife.


2) Queen Catherine - the one missed from the list and by far the most likely one - Catherine Grey was technically heiress apparent under Henry VIII's will and act of succession from her mother's death in 1559 - Elizabeth I didn't like her and of course her rather circumspect and dodgy marriage in 1560 destroyed her chances and her life - but that marriage wasn't revealed publicly and disavowed by Elizabeth until 1561. Elizabeth fell seriously ill of smallpox quite early in her reign 1563 and Catherine figured highly in the council's discussions of who should and could succeed - legally as Henry's will was never overturned she was the rightful heiress. Despite the fact that at the time she was still under arrest in the tower and her children *born 1561 and 1563 were considered illegitimate.

Even though it might have meant war with France and Scotland because of Mary of Scots strict primogenture claim its highly likely that even a Protestant Catherine could have received support from Spain (Philip I long supported the 'heretic' Elizabeth because Mary was seen as pro-french). She could have easily survived - irrespective of her personality her accession would probably have meant the survival of most of Elizabeth's early and most important councillors it would have also restored the Seymour family to power (her husband was the young Earl of Hertford) more importantly to her chauvinistic councillors she was already the mother of two young sons (the first males in the tudor line since the birth of the Countess of Lennox's sons Lord Darnley and Charles Stuart) Catherine died in 1568 but had she succeeded then that might not have been the case and the Royal House of Tudor Brandon Grey Seymour might still be on the throne today.

3) Queen Arbella - a later Catherine Grey perhaps - she was by the 80's the leading candidate as an alternative to James VI and as has been said wheneveer Elizabeth wanted to send a warning north she was dragged to court and treated with considerable charm by the ageing Elizabeth. However it doesn't do to overstate her claim because she lacked political support - after Mary of Scots death - most of the council including both Walsinghan and Cecil were convinced that a male protestant heir who was already a King was the preferred choice and it also became increasingly clear that that was Elizabeth's view also. Marriage wise it was suggested fairly early that she marry one of Catherine Grey's sons (eventually she ran off probably in desperation with Catherine's grandson) but that was never pursued partly because of the danger it represented.

4) Queen Margaret - Lady Margaret Clifford (died 1596) cousin of Jane and Catherine Grey and next in line according to the will of Henry VIII - married to the Earl of Derby. Had Elizabeth died a few years earlier then she would have been a possible contender had Elizabeth shown her any great favour and had say James VI not been available or as popular with the council.
Not tainted by the Grey families dodgy marriages and treason - but considered closely connected to the northern aristocracy and anglo catholicism (she was the daughter of the late Earl of Cumberland) - again the mother of numerous sons but was succeeded in her pretensions by her granddaughter -

5) Queen Anne - Lady Anne Stanley - if you accept the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's son's then legally at the death of Elizabeth I Lady Anne was the heiress apparent to the English Throne - 23 on Elizabeth's death and unmarried.

mcdnab said:

5) Queen Anne - Lady Anne Stanley - if you accept the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's son's then legally at the death of Elizabeth I Lady Anne was the heiress apparent to the English Throne - 23 on Elizabeth's death and unmarried.

Click to expand...

YAY! Queen Anne


any way if the house of Hanover was gone, you'd get two queens in 1714

Queen Margaret of England- Margaret Brydges, the heir of Lady Anne Stanley

and

Queen Anne II of Scotland- Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton, the only heir to the Scots Crown

Doubtful though - had Anne Stanley assumed the throne in 1603 she would have made a very different marriage (she was still unwed in 1603). And her accession has no bearing on the Scots where James VI is still King so no need to turn to the Hamilton line in Scotland.

mcdnab said:

Doubtful though - had Anne Stanley assumed the throne in 1603 she would have made a very different marriage (she was still unwed in 1603). And her accession has no bearing on the Scots where James VI is still King so no need to turn to the Hamilton line in Scotland.

Click to expand...

different POD hun, i was saying if the Hanover line wasn't around in OTL in 1714, then there's no non-Catholic heir to Great Britain, just to Scotland and England

Which POD though dear gives you the Hamiltons as heirs to Scotland in 1714?

Assuming Elizabeth's council determine to enforce Henry VIII's will and accept the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's children and therefore Crown Queen Anne in 1603 she marries some other than the Earl of Castlehaven (a blessed relief to the poor woman given how that marriage ended) James VI and his two sons continue to thrive in Scotland with the likelihood that his eldest son survives and a french catholic marriage is extremely remote for the future Henry I of Scots there is little chance of a Hamilton assuming the throne ever.

Even assuming that say James VI dies before producing an heir and the Hamilton's succeeding in Scotland as i said we don't know how the future Hamilton Kings of Scotland would have married and produced so we can't guarantee by 1714 who would have been on the Scots throne.

If in 1714 there had been no obvious Protestant heirs to Queen Anne (and given we've already had Union between England and Scotland in 07) there's hardly going to be two seperate monarchs is there -

mcdnab said:

Which POD though dear gives you the Hamiltons as heirs to Scotland in 1714?

Assuming Elizabeth's council determine to enforce Henry VIII's will and accept the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's children and therefore Crown Queen Anne in 1603 she marries some other than the Earl of Castlehaven (a blessed relief to the poor woman given how that marriage ended) James VI and his two sons continue to thrive in Scotland with the likelihood that his eldest son survives and a french catholic marriage is extremely remote for the future Henry I of Scots there is little chance of a Hamilton assuming the throne ever.

Even assuming that say James VI dies before producing an heir and the Hamilton's succeeding in Scotland as i said we don't know how the future Hamilton Kings of Scotland would have married and produced so we can't guarantee by 1714 who would have been on the Scots throne.

If in 1714 there had been no obvious Protestant heirs to Queen Anne (and given we've already had Union between England and Scotland in 07) there's hardly going to be two seperate monarchs is there -

Click to expand...

i was talking about a different POD then the Queen Anne in 1603 POD, the POD i was talking about is every thing OTL till 1714 when the Hanover's die (well before 1714, but saying that doesn't change much, maybe George I dies young, and Sophia of Hanover and Sophia Charlotte die shortly before 1714, or something)

mcdnab said:

Few points:

Queen Jane - its quite important to take into consideration a few facts - Henry VIII's will and his final Act of Succession - Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth and then his niece Francis Brandon Duchess of Suffolk.
Edward dying earlier (ie before the fall of his Uncle Seymour makes Queen Jane even less likely - if Edward dies really early before his uncle Thomas' falls out with his brother then a straight fight between a Seymour backed Elizabeth and a strong anglo catholic backed Mary would be more likely). Edward VI in many ways was showing strong signs of devout strict reform protestantism and recent research has shown that far from being the entire work of Northumberland his device for the succession was as much his own desperate desire that a) he wasn't succeeded by a woman and b) if he had to be succeeded then anyone but his sister Mary.

Click to expand...

But the final Devise for Jane Grey was only Edward´s third proposal. When Northumberland came up with the issue of thwarting Mary, Edward´s first proposal was not getting a male heir - it was Queen Elizabeth. Northumberland talked him out of it: if Mary is out because illegitimate then so is Elizabeth. The second proposal was for Frances Brandon to be a Governess until some of her daughters produces a son. Northumberland talked him out again, with some effort, calling Frances to his sickbed to assure that her daughter was worthy to rule and that she did not want to rule.

You could have Edward insisting on some other course over objections of Northumberland.

mcdnab said:

Had he lived Jane was very unlikely to have been his chosen wife - he was showing all the signs of the autocratic and distinctly royal views of his late father and was keen to have a truly Royal Wife.

Click to expand...

Had he though he was sure to live long. Yes. He expressed the desire to get a foreign princess.

But suppose that he gives a thought to future in April or early May. Foreign princesses take some time to marry him, and their families will delay and hesitate more if the groom is sickly with uncertain prognosis. He might very well decide that Jane is available, better than most other available ladies in his Court - if he is unlucky and survives then he is saddled with a not too bad dutiful wife, and this is an acceptable risk to get laid without a theoretical sin and hope for a heir.

So he decides to throw up a hasty wedding and make Jane his anointed Queen - the groom does not look all that well at the party, but no one can deny the legality - and makes a will that declares his beloved Queen a Governess of Realm for their unborn and then underage child. If the child should die, or Jane should miscarry or not have conceived then she is to become a monarch in her own right, and her issue after her.

What next? Mary and her supporters cannot deny that Jane is as much a Queen as Katherine Parr. And they cannot immediately rule out the possibility that she is indeed expecting Edward´s posthumous child.

But Northumberland is a bit out in the cold. Jane is NOT married to Guilford, and he cannot really press the Governess to do so, seeing how he had difficulties doing so with plain Lady Jane.

This is possible with a PoD before 25th of May 1553, when Jane did marry Guilford, of course.

Somebody kidnapped Englands crossdressers?

chornedsnorkack said:

Had he though he was sure to live long. Yes. He expressed the desire to get a foreign princess.

But suppose that he gives a thought to future in April or early May. Foreign princesses take some time to marry him, and their families will delay and hesitate more if the groom is sickly with uncertain prognosis. He might very well decide that Jane is available, better than most other available ladies in his Court - if he is unlucky and survives then he is saddled with a not too bad dutiful wife, and this is an acceptable risk to get laid without a theoretical sin and hope for a heir.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this. Primarily my reasoning is that this marriage would have been against the forbidden degrees of kinship, and though people often point out the Hapsburgs for incestuous marriages, most European royals weren't nearly so bad. I suspect Edward attempting to marry his first cousin once removed would have been refused by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Also, I'm not sure about the idea of "marrying at the last minute in the hopes of leaving an unborn child as legacy". Also, Edward was considerably ill by this period, and if he wouldn't be talked out of it by his advisers it's probable that doctors of the age would be brought in to point out to him that attempting to sleep with a woman to father a child would essentially just be condemning that woman to die of the same disease, from which his hopeful future son would probably never even make it out alive. Fathering an heir to the Kingdom was a King's duty, but there are some things which any man has to admit is wrong, and a 15-year old devout Protestant surely would be loathed to do this. Also there's the fact that his illness caused him considerable shortness of breath and he was very weak in his final months, so he in all possibility would actually struggle to find the energy to properly have sex...I'm not sure he would have even been able to stand for the wedding ceremony.

Falastur said:

I'm not sure about this. Primarily my reasoning is that this marriage would have been against the forbidden degrees of kinship, and though people often point out the Hapsburgs for incestuous marriages, most European royals weren't nearly so bad. I suspect Edward attempting to marry his first cousin once removed would have been refused by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Also, I'm not sure about the idea of "marrying at the last minute in the hopes of leaving an unborn child as legacy". Also, Edward was considerably ill by this period, and if he wouldn't be talked out of it by his advisers it's probable that doctors of the age would be brought in to point out to him that attempting to sleep with a woman to father a child would essentially just be condemning that woman to die of the same disease, from which his hopeful future son would probably never even make it out alive. Fathering an heir to the Kingdom was a King's duty, but there are some things which any man has to admit is wrong, and a 15-year old devout Protestant surely would be loathed to do this. Also there's the fact that his illness caused him considerable shortness of breath and he was very weak in his final months, so he in all possibility would actually struggle to find the energy to properly have sex...I'm not sure he would have even been able to stand for the wedding ceremony.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure when the rules of consanguinity in BCP were written, but they outlaw marriages to parents/children (and steps), aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews (and spouses), grandparents/grandchildren.

First cousins are quite definitely allowed, let alone first cousins once removed (I've got a couple of 1st cousin once removeds in my (mostly Anglican) family tree).

I won't swear that that rubric goes that far back, but I suspect it does.

Actually the Jane Grey relationship was slightly more complicated than just first cousin once removed
Henry VII - Mary - Francis - Jane
Henryh VII - Henry VIII - Edward VI

as Jane was a cousin on her paternal side as well in half blood#

Elizabeth Wydeville - Elizabeth of York - Mary - Francis - Jane
Elizabeth Wydeville - Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorest - Thomas 2nd Marquess of Dorset - Henry Duke of Suffolk - Jane

From memory the early Anglican church prohibited the marriages of 1st cousins although English law has since changed.

Yeah. First cousins were forbidden to marry. Indeed, up til 1550, second cousins weren't allowed to marry either, and before that the restrictions were even tighter.

Another thing to consider: What if Mary Tudor dies before Edward VI? Illness, accident, or assassination (a lot of people in England really didn't want a Catholic on the throne) are all possible.