AHC: Lord Darnley crowned King Henry IX of England

[Historico]

I thought it would be nice to kick off a little summer fun, with a new AH Challenge. This is a POD that I think hasn't really been fleshed out on the board but could prove fascinating. So what means would we have to use to have Henry Stuart, the insufferable Lord Darnley win the game of the Tudor inheritance to be crowned King Henry, ninth of that name? Is it possible that Edward's desire for a male heir allows for boy Darnley to be crowned King upon his death? Or if Mary's desire for a catholic heir causes her to skip over Elizabeth and crown Margaret Douglas, Henry's mother as Queen? Or how plausibe is it that we have both Queen Bess and Mary Stuart shuffle of the mortal coil in a quick enough sucession to allow for Henry to ascend to the throne? And can't wait to see what everyone thinks about this

 

[Velasco]

I don't know his age or location at the time, but perhaps a different Lord Protector, or even Dudley, might see some profit in marrying Darnley to one of his daughters.

Alternatively, if his father died early, his mother might be set up as Queen by whoever married her - a Dudley or Seymour, perhaps, or even the Earl of Huntingdon. He could then succeed her.

Alternatively, Edward lives a while longer, perceives in him a worthy Protestant successor, and either marries him to Mary or Elizabeth.

 

[Elfwine]

Darnley is eight years Edward VI's junior. Not sure why he'd see him as a worthy successor - especially given that Darnley's character seems to be the sort that Edward would find repulsive.

 

[Velasco]

Darnley is eight years Edward VI's junior. Not sure why he'd see him as a worthy successor - especially given that Darnley's character seems to be the sort that Edward would find repulsive.

As a child his character wouldn't have been particularly important. His legitimate, English birth and "correct" religious persuasion would make him an ideal heir if he was brought to court/left in Edward's care/betrothed to Elizabeth.

 

[Simreeve]

He's twelve years younger than Elizabeth: This match might be legal, but wouldn't really be very practical.

 

[Elfwine]

As a child his character wouldn't have been particularly important. His legitimate, English birth and "correct" religious persuasion would make him an ideal heir if he was brought to court/left in Edward's care/betrothed to Elizabeth.

If Edward lives enough longer to contemplate it, he probably won't be a child anymore.

 

[Velasco]

Say Edward VI lives long enough to turn 20 (1557):

- Mary is a sickly, barren, Papist spinster of 41
- Elizabeth is older than ideal for a first marriage, but still viable at 24
- Lord Darnley is ready for marriage at 13

Darnley's tutor was a Scottish Protestant, John Elder, so I'm guessing a fairly Presbyterian upbringing. By this point Edward is ruling alone and has shaken off both the Seymours and Dudleys. His reforms are in full swing, securing the position of his sister Elizabeth, young, Protestant and [to the Anglicans] legitimate. Jane and Catherine Grey have by now married into the nobility. If Edward's sickly and has been for some years, I don't think it's altogether improbable he'd opt to use Elizabeth as he intended to use Jane, as a female heiress who can transmit the throne on to her husband. Said husband would naturally have to be both royal and Protestant, prerequisites Darnley fulfills. Lord and Lady Lennox would most likely wield power in the early days of the régime, until Darnley is of sufficient age to really take power, and Elizabeth plays the dutiful Protestant bride and gives him plenty of Protestant heirs. Mary is shut up somewhere, if she isn't already dead by this point.

 

[Velasco]

He's twelve years younger than Elizabeth: This match might be legal, but wouldn't really be very practical.

A marriage around 14-15 and 26-27 could work; he's young and lusty and she's still decent and fertile. So long as she gives him an heir, the throne's secured.

Line of succession would then be:

1. Darnley (/Elizabeth?)
2. Charles Stuart
3. Arabella Stuart
4. Jane Grey, and issue
5. Catherine Grey, and issue
6. Mary Grey, and issue
7. Margaret Clifford, and issue

[Mary Stuart is excluded, unless Elizabeth dies young and Darnley marries her ]

 

[Maniakes]

It depends on what Edward could ram through Parliament and/or get accepted by most of the people who had enough influence to raise an army. The Third Act of Succession and the will of Henry VIII would need to be repealed or set aside to bypass Mary Tudor in favor of either Darnley or Elizabeth.

A couple options:

1. Exclude Mary Tudor, leaving the rest of the line of succession intact. Darnley would then be King Consort by right of his marriage to Elizabeth, and the remainder of the line of succession would be:
   1. Elizabeth's issue
   2. Jane Grey, and issue
   3. Catherine Grey, and issue
   4. Mary Grey, and issue
   5. Margaret Clifford, and issue
   6. Mary Stuart
   7. Darnley, in his own right
   8. Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox, and issue (OTL Arabella Stuart)
2. Repeal the Acts of Succession (or just the Third Act), reverting to primogeniture with Mary and Elizabeth excluded as bastards (since Henry VIII's marriages to their respective mothers were both annulled). Mary Stuart would need to be excluded as well, which could be accomplished by interpreting Margaret Tudor's marriage treaty as excluding her issue by James IV from the English succession. Darnley would be King in his own right, and the remainder of the line of succession would be:
   1. Darnley's issue
   2. Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox, and issue
   3. Jane Grey, etc

The latter seems more likely to me, especially if Edward could also arrange for Charles Stuart to marry Jane Grey.

 

[Velasco]

Edward could also keep Mary a bastard, but declare Elizabeth legitimate as his father had been legitimately married to her mother (even if Anne Boleyn bewitched him, he at least had entered into the union with good faith).

Why marry Charles Stuart to Jane Grey? He's more useful marrying a foreign princess.

 

[Historico]

Say Edward VI lives long enough to turn 20 (1557):

- Mary is a sickly, barren, Papist spinster of 41
- Elizabeth is older than ideal for a first marriage, but still viable at 24
- Lord Darnley is ready for marriage at 13

Darnley's tutor was a Scottish Protestant, John Elder, so I'm guessing a fairly Presbyterian upbringing. By this point Edward is ruling alone and has shaken off both the Seymours and Dudleys. His reforms are in full swing, securing the position of his sister Elizabeth, young, Protestant and [to the Anglicans] legitimate. Jane and Catherine Grey have by now married into the nobility. If Edward's sickly and has been for some years, I don't think it's altogether improbable he'd opt to use Elizabeth as he intended to use Jane, as a female heiress who can transmit the throne on to her husband. Said husband would naturally have to be both royal and Protestant, prerequisites Darnley fulfills. Lord and Lady Lennox would most likely wield power in the early days of the régime, until Darnley is of sufficient age to really take power, and Elizabeth plays the dutiful Protestant bride and gives him plenty of Protestant heirs. Mary is shut up somewhere, if she isn't already dead by this point.

Interesting, but it seems like we would still have to come to terms with the idea of the crown matrimonial, and whether Elizabeth would willingly transfer all her claims to Dudley if he outlives her. As long as both her sisters are his legal heir, I still think we have a huge leap to jump across even if Edward's plans for the succession are taken more seriously ITTL.

 

[Historico]

It depends on what Edward could ram through Parliament and/or get accepted by most of the people who had enough influence to raise an army. The Third Act of Succession and the will of Henry VIII would need to be repealed or set aside to bypass Mary Tudor in favor of either Darnley or Elizabeth.

A couple options:

1. Exclude Mary Tudor, leaving the rest of the line of succession intact. Darnley would then be King Consort by right of his marriage to Elizabeth, and the remainder of the line of succession would be:
   1. Elizabeth's issue
   2. Jane Grey, and issue
   3. Catherine Grey, and issue
   4. Mary Grey, and issue
   5. Margaret Clifford, and issue
   6. Mary Stuart
   7. Darnley, in his own right
   8. Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox, and issue (OTL Arabella Stuart)
2. Repeal the Acts of Succession (or just the Third Act), reverting to primogeniture with Mary and Elizabeth excluded as bastards (since Henry VIII's marriages to their respective mothers were both annulled). Mary Stuart would need to be excluded as well, which could be accomplished by interpreting Margaret Tudor's marriage treaty as excluding her issue by James IV from the English succession. Darnley would be King in his own right, and the remainder of the line of succession would be:
   1. Darnley's issue
   2. Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox, and issue
   3. Jane Grey, etc

The latter seems more likely to me, especially if Edward could also arrange for Charles Stuart to marry Jane Grey.

I like the second scenario the best in a somewhat longer-lived Edward VI TL. His rough draft of his his devise for the succession, showed his preference for a male heir, as the throne would conceivably go to a potential son by Lady Jane and Guilford Dudley, or if Frances Brandon/the Grey younger sisters produced a male heir. But interestingly enough I think the Margaret Tudor line was still excluded in both versions of the document.

So if we did get an entirely different Fourth Act of the Succession under an Edward that has reached majority. Would he really re-bastardize Elizabeth? It seems that without the Seymour/Dudley influence the young King would see much greater stock in Elizabeth as a diplomatic tool like his Tudor for-bearers. But leaving both his sisters, and the exclusion of James IV line of the Stuarts, is the best way of seeing Darnley take the throne in his own right.

 

[Historico]

Edward could also keep Mary a bastard, but declare Elizabeth legitimate as his father had been legitimately married to her mother (even if Anne Boleyn bewitched him, he at least had entered into the union with good faith).

Why marry Charles Stuart to Jane Grey? He's more useful marrying a foreign princess.

That might sorely piss off the Catholic contingent of the poulation. But I do agree that Charles would have better stock spreading the Stuart Line across Europe.

Any Ideas on how to get Darnley to succeed Mary or Elizabeth directly?

 

[Velasco]

That might sorely piss off the Catholic contingent of the poulation. But I do agree that Charles would have better stock spreading the Stuart Line across Europe.

Any Ideas on how to get Darnley to succeed Mary or Elizabeth directly?

For Mary, have him convert to Catholicism and accept marriage to a Habsburg-approved lady.
For Elizabeth, keep him Protestant and far away from Mary of Scots. If he marries Elizabeth before she's Queen, that works too.