Male Heir to Edward VI
- Thread starter xerex
- Start date
Looking at the Tudor family tree, the closest surviving male heir to the throne was Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, great-grandson of Henry VII through his eldest daughter, Margaret. The problem is he's only around eight years old when Edward VI dies in 1553, so he may be skipped over for an older and more capable heir.
It wouldn't matter WHO Edward picks, they won't succeed. Mary was essentially the People's Princess who came to power almost entirely on popular support. So I doubt a male heir, who would be VERY distantly related, would go over any better then Lady Jane.
Under these circumstances, only Parliament could pass a law definitively barring women from the succession. But why would they? They had a wildly popular heir who held the position per an Act of Parliament itself. Neither the nobles nor the commons were prescient; they couldn't see the burning of the Protestant Martyrs, the marriage to Philip and the loss of Calais, the devaluation of the currency, or the results of Wyatt's Rebellion. So why would they upset the applecart with some foreign innovation such as Salic law?
And for what? The Third Act of Succession explicitly barred descendants of Henry's sister Margaret from the succession. The Third Act could safely be ignored after Elizabeth's death, given James VI's apparent suitability and the lack of any controversy. But in 1553 the Act was considered to be in full force. Do you think that the common people who stood up so powerfully for Mary over Jane Grey (a healthy, unquestionably legitimate, wholly English Protestant) would stay at home in 1553 if she'd been challenged on behalf of an an eight-year-old regarded by all as a foreigner?
And what benefit would Parliament, the nobles, or anyone at all see in choosing Darnley over Mary? Both were Catholic, so there's no religious reason to prefer him over her. Mary was infinitely preferable not just because of her history but because of her age. Why would anyone want another regency, with the instability, waste, and bad government of Edward's reign such a recent memory?
And for what? The Third Act of Succession explicitly barred descendants of Henry's sister Margaret from the succession. The Third Act could safely be ignored after Elizabeth's death, given James VI's apparent suitability and the lack of any controversy. But in 1553 the Act was considered to be in full force. Do you think that the common people who stood up so powerfully for Mary over Jane Grey (a healthy, unquestionably legitimate, wholly English Protestant) would stay at home in 1553 if she'd been challenged on behalf of an an eight-year-old regarded by all as a foreigner?
And what benefit would Parliament, the nobles, or anyone at all see in choosing Darnley over Mary? Both were Catholic, so there's no religious reason to prefer him over her. Mary was infinitely preferable not just because of her history but because of her age. Why would anyone want another regency, with the instability, waste, and bad government of Edward's reign such a recent memory?
Just to clarify, by barring a woman from sitting on the throne, would you be excluding all female lines of succession too?
For instance on the French principle, even if you are male, you can't inherit through your mother? Or German, where a girl cannot inherit, but her son can?
For instance on the French principle, even if you are male, you can't inherit through your mother? Or German, where a girl cannot inherit, but her son can?
There was a brother and a sister both born before Lady Jane Grey. However, the brother died soon after birth. AFAIK, the Lady Mary Grey was hated by her mother for not being a boy. Why Mary was singled out IDK.
In almost all cases up to the 1550s parliament had merely rubber stamped the succession or accession of the Monarch - it had only ever legally backed the status quo regardless of what it thought it never really presumed to dictate the succession in accordance to its own views as it would do in the late 17th and 18th centuries - so it supported Richard III over Edward V after Richard had already assumed authority, accepted Henry VII's right as King by conquest after he was already in charge and had merely rubber stamped Henry's succession acts as he changed wives and legitimised or delegitimised his children.
So it is unlikely that parliament is likely to insist on Edward VI ruling out the women of his family.
The situation in his last year was that Edward VI (and it is important to remember that this was not just a matter of what the council and Northumberland wanted but what the King wanted) a) wanted a Protestant heir who would continue to reform the church b) preferably a legitimate male heir (stringent protestants were of course even less enamoured of a woman being put above and in charge of men than the Catholics)
Edward's problem was that in his mind the obvious protestant heir was his half sister - temperance - ie Elizabeth - however he could not easily remove one sister from the succession without removing the other and she had been tainted in the council's eyes by the Thomas Seymour affair.
Edward clearly wanted to stick with his father's Act and his council and Northumberland favoured that as it gave them further advantage - in the person of the unmarried and eligible daughters of the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk.
His initial device left the throne to the heirs male of Lady Jane - it was only amended to leave the throne to her as it became clear Edward would not live long enough to allow the Lady Jane to have issue male or otherwise.
Assuming Edward is even more dogmatic he has zero choice - there are no male heirs in direct descent from Henry VII - the only male heir general is Henry Stuart Lord Darnley - a child and the son of a woman who remains catholic (or Anglo Catholic at least) - although to be fair I have little doubt that Margaret Douglas and her husband would have thought London and the English crown worth abandoning Rome for.
Henry's only advantage is that he and his mother were both born and raised in England - he is young enough to be manipulated of course and raised in the right religion but there was little desire to do so by anyone.
Parliament are likely to go along with whoever is the strongest - had Northumberland caputered or imprisoned Mary immediately before she was able to raise support and have herself proclaimed (and joined by Elizabeth) then Parliament were likely to have supported Northumberland and Jane (although to be fair even members of the council present who tacitly supported Jane had severe doubts about the legality of Edward VI's device).
It is in other words unlikely that Edward or anyone else would insist on a male succession given the paucity of candidates.
So it is unlikely that parliament is likely to insist on Edward VI ruling out the women of his family.
The situation in his last year was that Edward VI (and it is important to remember that this was not just a matter of what the council and Northumberland wanted but what the King wanted) a) wanted a Protestant heir who would continue to reform the church b) preferably a legitimate male heir (stringent protestants were of course even less enamoured of a woman being put above and in charge of men than the Catholics)
Edward's problem was that in his mind the obvious protestant heir was his half sister - temperance - ie Elizabeth - however he could not easily remove one sister from the succession without removing the other and she had been tainted in the council's eyes by the Thomas Seymour affair.
Edward clearly wanted to stick with his father's Act and his council and Northumberland favoured that as it gave them further advantage - in the person of the unmarried and eligible daughters of the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk.
His initial device left the throne to the heirs male of Lady Jane - it was only amended to leave the throne to her as it became clear Edward would not live long enough to allow the Lady Jane to have issue male or otherwise.
Assuming Edward is even more dogmatic he has zero choice - there are no male heirs in direct descent from Henry VII - the only male heir general is Henry Stuart Lord Darnley - a child and the son of a woman who remains catholic (or Anglo Catholic at least) - although to be fair I have little doubt that Margaret Douglas and her husband would have thought London and the English crown worth abandoning Rome for.
Henry's only advantage is that he and his mother were both born and raised in England - he is young enough to be manipulated of course and raised in the right religion but there was little desire to do so by anyone.
Parliament are likely to go along with whoever is the strongest - had Northumberland caputered or imprisoned Mary immediately before she was able to raise support and have herself proclaimed (and joined by Elizabeth) then Parliament were likely to have supported Northumberland and Jane (although to be fair even members of the council present who tacitly supported Jane had severe doubts about the legality of Edward VI's device).
It is in other words unlikely that Edward or anyone else would insist on a male succession given the paucity of candidates.
To Emperor Constantine and Blurgle,
The scenario I'm proposing is that law and popular opinion in England are different from OT and only a male person can succeed.
I'm going for the German principle since I suspect that no one is left who satisfies the French Principle . However if you know a candidate could fulfill that role I'd be very very interested in hearing.
The scenario I'm proposing is that law and popular opinion in England are different from OT and only a male person can succeed.
I'm going for the German principle since I suspect that no one is left who satisfies the French Principle . However if you know a candidate could fulfill that role I'd be very very interested in hearing.
Then you need a PoD a long time in the past. At least prior to 'whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary' . Probably temp Stephanus.
1. I'm not really trying to create a timeliine here , I'm just curious who would have been the major contenders if the throne was a male only occupation.
2. As an aside what did make England so willing to accept a Queen when they had only the example of Matilda ?
It followed the same rule as other fiefs. English common law regarded the crown as being just a fief. So in the same way that a woman could be , for instance Baroness Berkeley, the same logic indicated she could be queen, the line male failing.
OK the problem is going by male only succession means that NO female lines are accepted. So the entire Tudor line would be excluded from the throne. NO way that Edward VI or any Tudor would let that happen.
Not quite the same law. For an actual fief, such as the Barony of Berkeley, the death of its lord leaving no sons so that two [or more] of his daughters or [without any brothers] sisters were his heirs would have seen the estates divided between the women as co-heiresses and the title become 'abeyant' (i.e. not in use) until the time if-&-when there was again only one line of potential heirs in existence.
Or until the ruling sovereign granted a termination of said abeyance and conferred the title (not necessarily the full estates) upon one of those heirs.
IIRC Earldoms and the later Duchies tended not go abeyant but this may be due to circumstances of the times HYW, War of the Roses etc
And often with co-heiresses the law could be manipulated in favour of one if her husband was powerful and well connected enough.
Moving on
To adopt a semic salic system (excluding women but allowing them to transmit rights of succession to their offspring) you need an incentive for it.
England hadn't really had a need for such a system between the accession of Henry II in the 12th century and the deposition of Richard II in 1399.
The only time when a woman could have claimed the throne was in the early 13th century when Arthur of Brittany died and his sister Eleanor technically had a better right to the throne than her uncle John I.
Richard II's deposition and replacement by the nearest heir male rather than the heir general neatly avoided the need for legislation.
One point when the system might have been useful was during the early reign of Henry III (John's son) say you have a major uprising on behalf of the imprisoned Eleanor of Brittany then you might have Henry move to issue new rules regarding the inheritance of the throne.
Giving it time to bed in over the centuries -though that would butterfly the dynastic issues of the Wars of the Roses meaning a Tudor accession unlikely.
An other option is for Henry VII (who ruled by conquest not by hereditary right) to resent the pressure parliament put on him to marry Elizabeth of York (to sort of legitimise his claim) and to force parliament to limit the succession of the throne - but that would require a character change as he had no great qualms about the possibility of his daughter Margaret's Scots descendants inheriting if his male line failed.
If such as system is in place - then Henry's will and the final Act of Succession which permit his daughter's, niece and great niece to inherit would override an earlier limitation to to the succession.
Say those don't happen and the throne has been limited then there is only one legal heir - Henry Lord Darnley.
The Tudor succession has overridden any dynastic rights of those Plantagenet descendants still living but say Parliament wants an alternative
Then in the York line's the only real candidate is Edward Courtenay (the senior heir general of Edward IV after the Tudor's) who has been a prisoner for the last fifteen years but is in his early 20s and unmarried.
You have no real inspiring candidates but if the succession is limited in the way you imagine then in my view this is the likely outcome.
Northumberland plans to name Henry Stuart King as Henry IX on Edward's death with the tacit agreement of his parents he is named guardian of the young King who is to be raised in the Protestant reformed religion and is betrothed to Northumberland youngest daughter Katherine Dudley (who in otl was betrothed in 1553 to the Earl of Huntingdon's heir).
You will almost certainly get a rising in some part of England in favour of the Lady Mary probably in reaction to the continuation of Edward VI's stringent protestant reforms despite the law limiting the succession many will rally to support the late King's daughter.
Who wins is anyone's guess of course.
Moving on
To adopt a semic salic system (excluding women but allowing them to transmit rights of succession to their offspring) you need an incentive for it.
England hadn't really had a need for such a system between the accession of Henry II in the 12th century and the deposition of Richard II in 1399.
The only time when a woman could have claimed the throne was in the early 13th century when Arthur of Brittany died and his sister Eleanor technically had a better right to the throne than her uncle John I.
Richard II's deposition and replacement by the nearest heir male rather than the heir general neatly avoided the need for legislation.
One point when the system might have been useful was during the early reign of Henry III (John's son) say you have a major uprising on behalf of the imprisoned Eleanor of Brittany then you might have Henry move to issue new rules regarding the inheritance of the throne.
Giving it time to bed in over the centuries -though that would butterfly the dynastic issues of the Wars of the Roses meaning a Tudor accession unlikely.
An other option is for Henry VII (who ruled by conquest not by hereditary right) to resent the pressure parliament put on him to marry Elizabeth of York (to sort of legitimise his claim) and to force parliament to limit the succession of the throne - but that would require a character change as he had no great qualms about the possibility of his daughter Margaret's Scots descendants inheriting if his male line failed.
If such as system is in place - then Henry's will and the final Act of Succession which permit his daughter's, niece and great niece to inherit would override an earlier limitation to to the succession.
Say those don't happen and the throne has been limited then there is only one legal heir - Henry Lord Darnley.
The Tudor succession has overridden any dynastic rights of those Plantagenet descendants still living but say Parliament wants an alternative
Then in the York line's the only real candidate is Edward Courtenay (the senior heir general of Edward IV after the Tudor's) who has been a prisoner for the last fifteen years but is in his early 20s and unmarried.
You have no real inspiring candidates but if the succession is limited in the way you imagine then in my view this is the likely outcome.
Northumberland plans to name Henry Stuart King as Henry IX on Edward's death with the tacit agreement of his parents he is named guardian of the young King who is to be raised in the Protestant reformed religion and is betrothed to Northumberland youngest daughter Katherine Dudley (who in otl was betrothed in 1553 to the Earl of Huntingdon's heir).
You will almost certainly get a rising in some part of England in favour of the Lady Mary probably in reaction to the continuation of Edward VI's stringent protestant reforms despite the law limiting the succession many will rally to support the late King's daughter.
Who wins is anyone's guess of course.
thanks mcdnab.
Any idea if these guys would have a claim ?
Henry Hastings, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hastings,_3rd_Earl_of_Huntingdon
and
William Somerset, 3rd Earl of Worcester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Somerset,_3rd_Earl_of_Worcester
Any idea if these guys would have a claim ?
Henry Hastings, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hastings,_3rd_Earl_of_Huntingdon
and
William Somerset, 3rd Earl of Worcester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Somerset,_3rd_Earl_of_Worcester
A couple of points.
Firstly, it's completely possible for a woman to transmit a claim without being eligible to be queen herself. Ever since Empress Maud failed to successfully claim the throne in the 12th century, this had been the working theory of English kingship, finally broken only in 1553. It's also the theory under which Edward III had claimed the French throne - if we're going by pure primogeniture, all of Philip IV's sons left surviving daughters, so Edward III's claim only makes sense as being the only *male* descendant of Philip IV.
This doesn't work out so well in 1553, because the only male descendant of Henry VII was Darnley, who's a small child and a Scot, to boot. However, if we expand ourselves to descendants of Richard, Duke of York, there's a lot more to work with.
First, there's the only living non-Tudor descendant of Edward IV, Edward Courtenay (b. 1527). His father, the Marquess of Exeter, a grandson of Edward IV and first cousin of Henry VIII, was executed as a traitor by Henry VIII, but he would later be restored to some of his father's titles and lands by Mary. He's reasonably attractive as a Protestant candidate: he apparently was partly implicated in Wyatt's Rebellion. A reasonably plausible candidate.
Next, there's a bunch of descendants of Clarence's daughter, Margaret Pole. Two of her younger sons still living in 1553 - Cardinal Pole, who would have been an attractive Catholic candidate in the absence of Mary (he'd specifically not been ordained as a priest so as to maintain potential eligibility), and Geoffrey, who was likewise a Catholic, and not very appealing as a candidate.
The heir of her eldest son, Lord Montague, was Lord Hastings, the future 3rd Earl of Huntingdon. He was about a year older than Edward VI, and was widely seen as a potential heir to the throne. Unlike his Pole relations, he was a Protestant, and a few years later, when Elizabeth seemed like she might die of smallpox, her ministers considered Huntingdon as a possible successor (since they certainly didn't want the Queen of Scots).
I'd say Courtenay and Hastings are your best bets for a male successor to Edward VI
Firstly, it's completely possible for a woman to transmit a claim without being eligible to be queen herself. Ever since Empress Maud failed to successfully claim the throne in the 12th century, this had been the working theory of English kingship, finally broken only in 1553. It's also the theory under which Edward III had claimed the French throne - if we're going by pure primogeniture, all of Philip IV's sons left surviving daughters, so Edward III's claim only makes sense as being the only *male* descendant of Philip IV.
This doesn't work out so well in 1553, because the only male descendant of Henry VII was Darnley, who's a small child and a Scot, to boot. However, if we expand ourselves to descendants of Richard, Duke of York, there's a lot more to work with.
First, there's the only living non-Tudor descendant of Edward IV, Edward Courtenay (b. 1527). His father, the Marquess of Exeter, a grandson of Edward IV and first cousin of Henry VIII, was executed as a traitor by Henry VIII, but he would later be restored to some of his father's titles and lands by Mary. He's reasonably attractive as a Protestant candidate: he apparently was partly implicated in Wyatt's Rebellion. A reasonably plausible candidate.
Next, there's a bunch of descendants of Clarence's daughter, Margaret Pole. Two of her younger sons still living in 1553 - Cardinal Pole, who would have been an attractive Catholic candidate in the absence of Mary (he'd specifically not been ordained as a priest so as to maintain potential eligibility), and Geoffrey, who was likewise a Catholic, and not very appealing as a candidate.
The heir of her eldest son, Lord Montague, was Lord Hastings, the future 3rd Earl of Huntingdon. He was about a year older than Edward VI, and was widely seen as a potential heir to the throne. Unlike his Pole relations, he was a Protestant, and a few years later, when Elizabeth seemed like she might die of smallpox, her ministers considered Huntingdon as a possible successor (since they certainly didn't want the Queen of Scots).
I'd say Courtenay and Hastings are your best bets for a male successor to Edward VI
The only issue with returning to the descendants of the Plantagenets is that Henry VII's and his descendants claim is based purely (in legal terms) on his victory at Bosworth (his first Parliament declared him King by right of conquest not because of his Beaufort descent and not because of his mooted marriage to Edward IV's daugther)
Irrespective of the recognised Plantagenet descent of Courtenay and Huntingdon even under a semi salic system Darnley is the lawful heir in 1553 unless one of his more senior female relations produces a son before Edward VI's death.
Another point Darnley was not a Scot - he was born and raised entirely in England (as his mother Margaret Douglas had been) so that would not rule him out.
Courtenay was widely seen as a possible contender and was a real candidate to marry Mary Tudor after her accession - his nose was put out of joint when she married Philip of Spain and he rebelled and fled abroad dying under mysterious circumstances.
Huntingdon's claim is equally strong on paper and again was Protestant - widely seen as a contender is not as clear - he didn't really emerge as a possible until Elizabeth fell ill and nearly died of smallpox - this was in part because of the paucity of an obvious heir and the concern about Mary Stuart but the council did lean towards the disgraced Catherine Grey at that point and Huntingdon was very unwilling to stick his name in the ring.
Someone mentioned the Earl of Worcester - he has no legal claim he is the illegitimate descendant of the Beaufort's and as such has no rights to the throne.
The senior English Lancastrian heir would be the descendant of Eleanor Beaufort daughter of the 2nd Duke of Somerset - in 1553 that would be Henry Clifford 2nd Earl of Cumberland (who was the widower of Lady Eleanor Brandon).
Irrespective of the recognised Plantagenet descent of Courtenay and Huntingdon even under a semi salic system Darnley is the lawful heir in 1553 unless one of his more senior female relations produces a son before Edward VI's death.
Another point Darnley was not a Scot - he was born and raised entirely in England (as his mother Margaret Douglas had been) so that would not rule him out.
Courtenay was widely seen as a possible contender and was a real candidate to marry Mary Tudor after her accession - his nose was put out of joint when she married Philip of Spain and he rebelled and fled abroad dying under mysterious circumstances.
Huntingdon's claim is equally strong on paper and again was Protestant - widely seen as a contender is not as clear - he didn't really emerge as a possible until Elizabeth fell ill and nearly died of smallpox - this was in part because of the paucity of an obvious heir and the concern about Mary Stuart but the council did lean towards the disgraced Catherine Grey at that point and Huntingdon was very unwilling to stick his name in the ring.
Someone mentioned the Earl of Worcester - he has no legal claim he is the illegitimate descendant of the Beaufort's and as such has no rights to the throne.
The senior English Lancastrian heir would be the descendant of Eleanor Beaufort daughter of the 2nd Duke of Somerset - in 1553 that would be Henry Clifford 2nd Earl of Cumberland (who was the widower of Lady Eleanor Brandon).