Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset

[Tyler96]

Hmm interesting, do you think Mary might still be the only surviving child then for Henry and Catherine? I'm working under the assumption that Arthur does still die as in otl.

I alluded to this earlier, but there's a theory that Henry VIII had a rare Kell Positive Blood Type (90% don't have it) which makes it hard to get living children from Kell negative wives (especially after the first pregnancy- Elizabeth, Edward and Fitzroy all being the result of the woman's first pregnancy with Henry). As far as I can make out, if they experience multiple pregnancies with Kell Positive foetuses, a Kell negative mother will develop antigens that attack the foetus' Kell positive red blood cells as 'foreign' and result in miscarriage.

If that hypothesis is correct (and I'm not into genetics so I can't offer much insight here) then Henry and Katherine were doomed to have childbearing issues and potentially only have a single child (whether that child is Mary or from one of their other pregnancies is mostly dumb luck about whether the foetus inherits Kell Positive from Henry).

 

[VVD0D95]

I alluded to this earlier, but there's a theory that Henry VIII had a rare Kell Positive Blood Type (90% don't have it) which makes it hard to get living children from Kell negative wives (especially after the first pregnancy- Elizabeth, Edward and Fitzroy all being the result of the woman's first pregnancy with Henry). As far as I can make out, if they experience multiple pregnancies with Kell Positive foetuses, a Kell negative mother will develop antigens that attack the foetus' Kell positive red blood cells as 'foreign' and result in miscarriage.

If that hypothesis is correct (and I'm not into genetics so I can't offer much insight here) then Henry and Katherine were doomed to have childbearing issues and potentially only have a single child (whether that child is Mary or from one of their other pregnancies is mostly dumb luck about whether the foetus inherits Kell Positive from Henry).

Hmm very interesting, very, very interesting indeed

 

[ByzantineLover]

I'm sorry, but Charles V or Philip the Handsome, Emperor Maximilian and Ferdinand of Aragon, all would want someone more important for Eleanor of Austria. Eleanor would marry at least kings, she's the eldest sister of Charles V, she isn't to be waisted on a younger prince. If you want a Habsburg match, then I suggest a younger sibling, perhaps Isabella?

Or maybe either of these two?:

Anne Stanhope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Seymour,_Duchess_of_Somerset)

Elizabeth Stafford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Stafford,_Duchess_of_Norfolk)

 

[Tyler96]

Or maybe either of these two?:

Anne Stanhope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Seymour,_Duchess_of_Somerset)

Elizabeth Stafford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Stafford,_Duchess_of_Norfolk)

The latter seems unlikely, considering Henry's rather tense/paranoid relationship with Buckingham- he wouldn't want to inflate Buckingham's ego/pride by giving his daughter a royal marriage. And if Henry's relationship with Edmund isn't great he wouldn't want to give his brother an alliance with the realm's most powerful nobleman. That said, if Buckingham still gets executed then such a match might allow him to pseudo-legitimately appropriate Buckingham's estates and give them to his brother.

As for Anne, she seems kinda...lowly for a wife of a prince (only the daughter of a mere knight and a granddaughter of a Baron), but that might be the kind of thing Henry's looking for.

 

[ByzantineLover]

The latter seems unlikely, considering Henry's rather tense/paranoid relationship with Buckingham- he would've want to inflate Buckingham's ego/pride by giving his daughter a royal marriage. And if Henry's relationship with Edmund isn't great he wouldn't want to give his brother an alliance with the realm's most powerful nobleman. That said, if Buckingham still gets executed then such a match might allow him to pseudo-legitimately appropriate Buckingham's estates and give them to his brother.

As for Anne, she seems kinda...lowly for a wife of a prince (only the daughter of a mere knight and a granddaughter of a Baron), but that might be the kind of thing Henry's looking for.

Do you mean "wouldn't"?

The only other candidate I can think of would be Mary Boleyn. The Other Boleyn Girl.

 

[Kynan]

What about Ursula Pole? She's English but still royal blood. Or maybe a Howard girl?

 

[VVD0D95]

Hmm very interesting, when was Buckingham exexcuted?

 

[ranichi17]

Hmm very interesting, when was Buckingham exexcuted?

1520 or thereabouts, when Henry was looking to secure Mary as his heir.

 

[VVD0D95]

1520 or thereabouts, when Henry was looking to secure Mary as his heir.

Okay interesting, very interesting.

 

[Gonzaga]

Just an idea for his bride: Beatrice of Portugal. She was of the right age (only five years younger than Edmund), She was royal, and had good connections (was Catherine's niece and a cousin of Charles V). IOTL she became the wife of the Duke of Savoy, but there is no reason for Charles V and Manuel I not to accept her engagement with Edmund.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Henry never showed any Protestant leanings. This is a misconception. He simply made himself not the Pope, the head of the English or Anglican church. This made it easier for the council to later push Protestantism through.
Henry was far from the only monarch, at that time to reduce the status of the Pope. Even Philip II, was only prepared to accept so much direction from the Pope before putting Spanish interests first.
The Scots for example, didn't need a messy divorce to switch from one sect, to another.

Henry's Church wasn't as overtly Protestant as Edward's or even Elizabeth's, but the idea that it was just "Catholicism without the Pope" errs in the opposite direction. Among other things, the suppression of monasticism, pilgrimages and the veneration of relics were all important steps towards the Protestant direction.

From what I've read, Catherine of Aragon was cold to anyone who might be a threat to the succession of her daughter, Mary, so she might not be keen on Edmund, so they might want Catherine gone, especially if it increases Edmund's chances of getting the crown.

OTOH, if Mary had never been heir due to one of Henry's male relatives coming first in the order of succession, I'd imagine Catherine would accept this with considerably more equanimity than if (as IOTL) Mary was heir but Henry and his cronies kept trying to get rid of her. Not having something is often easier than having it and then seeing it taken away from you.

 

[Kynan]

Just an idea for his bride: Beatrice of Portugal. She was of the right age (only five years younger than Edmund), She was royal, and had good connections (was Catherine's niece and a cousin of Charles V). IOTL she became the wife of the Duke of Savoy, but there is no reason for Charles V and Manuel I not to accept her engagement with Edmund.

If Charles does what he should have OTL and married soon after he took his position as Duke of Savoy, that might work. Say, if he married Anne of Navarre or someone else around that age, he's good. That leaves Beatrice without any real prospects and marrying the only brother of a King with a bride with only one child. Edmund and Beatrice may also have more hope with their children, being closer in age than the 18 year older Charles.

 

[Amelikite]

Henry's Church wasn't as overtly Protestant as Edward's or even Elizabeth's, but the idea that it was just "Catholicism without the Pope" errs in the opposite direction. Among other things, the suppression of monasticism, pilgrimages and the veneration of relics were all important steps towards the Protestant direction.

Nice try, but no. Monasticism Pilgrimages and the Veneration of Relics, may have been part of the Catholic Church, but to contradict your previous post, the absence of them doesn't show Protestant leanings, in a Catholic. Otherwise it would severely limit the number of places that it would be possible to be a Catholic. England under Elizabeth didn't have monasteries, but its not proof that Thomas Tresham wasn't a Catholic.
The dissolution of Monasteries was not a practise that began with Cromwell and Cramer, before them Thomas Cardinal Wolsey and Bishop John Fisher ( not a notable protestant) had themselves been engaged in a program of Monastic closure and 'rationalisation' the proceeds being used for the endowment of colleges
There were a number of people before the reformation who opposed what they saw as abuses by the church, but that doesn't imply in any way that they saw themselves in any way as proto-protestants. Relics were considered a particular risk of abuse, so much so that the Catholic Church itself took up the regulation of them.
Martin Luther was not oppose d to the veneration of relics as such, he became an object of veneration himself at first, Luther saw himself as following on from reformers before him, but saw himself as the first to attack abuses on the grounds of the underlying doctrine, the Popes control over access to Purgatory. This meant that the veneration of relics wasn't initially wrong, it was unnecessary.
Later reformers decided it was not only unnecessary but wrong too.
Besides doing away with relics, stopped the Church's greedy money grabbing activities.
So ending the veneration of relics was not originally a Protestant act.

 

[VVD0D95]

So, is the assumption here that unless some other reason comes about, Henry is not going to be breaking from Rome?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Edmund Tudor was the third and youngest son of Henry VII Tudor and Elizabeth of York, at birth he was titled Duke of Somerset, born in February, 1499, he died in June, 1500.

However, what I am wondering is what happens if he survives?

Prince of Hearts by Katy Cooper (2012), a 2012 Harlequin Historical romance. Edmund and Arthur both live; Edmund is the love interest of the heroine, a minor noble's daughter.

 

[Amelikite]

So, is the assumption here that unless some other reason comes about, Henry is not going to be breaking from Rome?

The thing you have to remeber about Henry VIII is that he was rather funny and fussy about the succession. And this caused problems for all his children, up until the ascension of James. Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimated and so couldn't inherit, but could succeed. Margaret and her children were barred from the succession, Francis and Eleanor couldn't inherit, but their children could. All this for an inheritance that shouldn't have lasted beyond the crowning of Edward, who was then free to make his own decision.
This makes it very difficult to tell what role that Edmond and any children of his would have played in the succession, because it all depended on how Henry felt.
So its quite possible, Henry might have decided that he needed heirs of his own body, and if he decides that Catherine was the problem, and he never should have married his brothers wife, which is exactly the sort of thing he wanted to believe, then the divorce and break with Rome happens anyway.

 

[VVD0D95]

The thing you have to remeber about Henry VIII is that he was rather funny and fussy about the succession. And this caused problems for all his children, up until the ascension of James. Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimated and so couldn't inherit, but could succeed. Margaret and her children were barred from the succession, Francis and Eleanor couldn't inherit, but their children could. All this for an inheritance that shouldn't have lasted beyond the crowning of Edward, who was then free to make his own decision.
This makes it very difficult to tell what role that Edmond and any children of his would have played in the succession, because it all depended on how Henry felt.
So its quite possible, Henry might have decided that he needed heirs of his own body, and if he decides that Catherine was the problem, and he never should have married his brothers wife, which is exactly the sort of thing he wanted to believe, then the divorce and break with Rome happens anyway.

Hmm true, true

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Nice try, but no. Monasticism Pilgrimages and the Veneration of Relics, may have been part of the Catholic Church, but to contradict your previous post, the absence of them doesn't show Protestant leanings, in a Catholic. Otherwise it would severely limit the number of places that it would be possible to be a Catholic. England under Elizabeth didn't have monasteries, but its not proof that Thomas Tresham wasn't a Catholic.
The dissolution of Monasteries was not a practise that began with Cromwell and Cramer, before them Thomas Cardinal Wolsey and Bishop John Fisher ( not a notable protestant) had themselves been engaged in a program of Monastic closure and 'rationalisation' the proceeds being used for the endowment of colleges
There were a number of people before the reformation who opposed what they saw as abuses by the church, but that doesn't imply in any way that they saw themselves in any way as proto-protestants. Relics were considered a particular risk of abuse, so much so that the Catholic Church itself took up the regulation of them.
Martin Luther was not oppose d to the veneration of relics as such, he became an object of veneration himself at first, Luther saw himself as following on from reformers before him, but saw himself as the first to attack abuses on the grounds of the underlying doctrine, the Popes control over access to Purgatory. This meant that the veneration of relics wasn't initially wrong, it was unnecessary.
Later reformers decided it was not only unnecessary but wrong too.
Besides doing away with relics, stopped the Church's greedy money grabbing activities.
So ending the veneration of relics was not originally a Protestant act.

There's a difference between not personally going on pilgrimage, and suppressing the practice of pilgrimage altogether. The first isn't un-Catholic, the second is.

There's also a difference between closing a few monasteries, and putting a stop to monasticism per se.

As for the veneration of relics, Luther might not have opposed it in principle, but there were other Reformers besides Luther, many of them more radical than he was.

 

[Amelikite]

There's a difference between not personally going on pilgrimage, and suppressing the practice of pilgrimage altogether. The first isn't un-Catholic, the second is.

There's also a difference between closing a few monasteries, and putting a stop to monasticism per se.

As for the veneration of relics, Luther might not have opposed it in principle, but there were other Reformers besides Luther, many of them more radical than he was.

So you think that something is un-Catholic, whatever that is. The point remains that if even reformers firmly within the Catholic Church realise that the relic and pilgrimage practise has become a racket, it is not of itself evidence of Protestantism.
It was entirely possible for Catholics to oppose practises which they considered objectionable without intending to leave the Catholic church or to promote Protestant doctrine
The same goes for closing monasteries, which were in decline, the state chose to close monateries which were subject the States control.
But if you are going to argue your line of reasoning, then virtually any reform can be defined as Un-Cathiolic, and somehow advancing Protestantism.
Priotestantism was a different belief to which, Henry VIII did not subscribe.

 

[VVD0D95]

INteresting.

So if Edmund Tudor survives, most likely he either prevents a break from the church to surviving or gets imprionsed for suviving and having sons