What if Henry VIII's children by his first three wives had had children/gotten married?

[isabella]

I never said otherwise.

Yes, you have said exactly the opposite…

Her male line family is French. That makes her French.

NOT when her mother is a ruling Queen and she can inherit her mother’s country AND NOT her father’s…
Mary of Burgundy’s children were Burgundian first and then Austrian…

Tell that to Jeanne d'Albret. After Antoine de Bourbon's death, Catherine raised in French court the heir apparent to the throne of Navarre.
And you think she would let go the heiress presumptive to the throne of Scotland who happens to be her own granddaugher? No way.

Navarre was more a title than a country and Jeanne’s son was in the French line of succession. Jeanne was fully dependent from France and cousin of Henry II, so had no wy to oppose to this arrangement.
Mary can and will refute to leave her daughter and heiress as hostage in a foreign land

 

[FouDuRoy]

Yes, you have said exactly the opposite…

No. Please do not invent what I said and read my comments instead.

NOT when her mother is a ruling Queen and she can inherit her mother’s country AND NOT her father’s…

If you say so...

Navarre was more a title than a country and Jeanne’s son was in the French line of succession.

Navarre was definitely a country. A very small country but a country. No doubt about this.

and Jeanne’s son was in the French line of succession. Jeanne was fully dependent from France and cousin of Henry II, so had no wy to oppose to this arrangement.
Mary can and will refute to leave her daughter and heiress as hostage in a foreign land

She would not be hostage. She would be part of the French royal family.
And, no, Mary can't. The child is in France. Mary herself is in France too. If Catherine refuses to let them go, what will Mary do? Declare war to France? The Lords of the Congregation barely still recognized her as queen of Scotland. She was not stronger than Jeanne d'Albret.

 

[isabella]

No. Please do not invent what I said and read my comments instead.

You said who her rank as heiress presumptive do not mattered while her mother was able to generate a son

If you say so...


Navarre was definitely a country. A very small country but a country. No doubt about this.


She would not be hostage. She would be part of the French royal family.
And, no, Mary can't. The child is in France. Mary herself is in France too. If Catherine refuses to let them go, what will Mary do? Declare war to France? The Lords of the Congregation barely still recognized her as queen of Scotland. She was not stronger than Jeanne d'Albret.

Navarre was ENTIRELY dependent from France. Henry II had married the much older and widowed sister of Francis I, Jeanne was dragged against her will at the altar by her French uncle for her first marriage… Navarre had NO way to oppose France, specially as most of their own lands were in France (meaning who they were also subjects of the French King) …

Mary can very well argue who her child’s custody belong to her as she is the heiress of Scotland and Catherine would have no way for denying that

 

[FouDuRoy]

You said who her rank as heiress presumptive do not mattered while her mother was able to generate a son

No. I only said her presence in Scotland was useless. And her inheriting Scotland and England was purely speculative. Which is true.

Navarre was ENTIRELY dependent from France. Henry II had married the much older and widowed sister of Francis I, Jeanne was dragged against her will at the altar by her French uncle for her first marriage… Navarre had NO way to oppose France, specially as most of their own lands were in France (meaning who they were also subjects of the French King) …

Navarre was still a sovereign country, as legitimate as Scotland. Like it or not.

Mary can very well argue who her child’s custody belong to her as she is the heiress of Scotland and Catherine would have no way for denying that

Sure Mary can argue. She can always argue. Jeanne could too.
And who would decide? The Parliament of Paris that just made Catherine gouvernante of France? The Lords of the Congregation that are far away and opponents to Mary?

 

[isabella]

No. I only said her presence in Scotland was useless. And her inheriting Scotland and England was purely speculative. Which is true.

Her presence in Scotland would be far from useless, as would remember to

Navarre was still a sovereign country, as legitimate as Scotland. Like it or not.

Navarre was a sovereign country in name only and its rulers valued their French holdings more than it. Scotland is a fully independent country, allied to France, but NOT dependent from it

Sure Mary can argue. She can always argue. Jeanne could too.
And who would decide? The Parliament of Paris that just made Catherine gouvernante of France? The Lords of the Congregation that are far away and opponents to Mary?

I doubt who Catherine would be so stupid to try to claim custody over Mary… If Francis had signed anything about his child‘s future you can be sure who he has given full custody to Mary.
Also the Parliament of Paris is likely to back Mary’s claim for the same reason for which had given to Catherine the government of France, by the way.
Jeanne could argue? The same Jeanne who was forced by another French King to marry a man who she do not wanted? Sure, she could and risk Catherine’s wrath who would likely go on Jeanne’s French holdings

 

[ordinarylittleme]

The Parliament of Paris that just made Catherine gouvernante of France

Yes, because she became gouvernante of France in right of her child, which is exactly what Mary will do with her daughter

 

[FouDuRoy]

Navarre was a sovereign country in name only and its rulers valued their French holdings more than it. Scotland is a fully independent country, allied to France, but NOT dependent from it

Are we talking about legality or about politics and power?
If we are talking about legality, Navarre and Scotland are equal and Jeanne has as much right as Mary to get her child's custody.
If we are talking about politics and power, Catherine is able to keep in France both the heir apparent of Navarre and the heiress presumptive of Scotland.

If Francis had signed anything about his child‘s future you can be sure who he has given full custody to Mary.

I am not sure at all about that. Also, you are right to precise "If".

Also the Parliament of Paris is likely to back Mary’s claim for the same reason for which had given to Catherine the government of France, by the way.

You mean to assure France's safety by giving power to someone devoted to the king of France?

Jeanne could argue? The same Jeanne who was forced by another French King to marry a man who she do not wanted? Sure, she could and risk Catherine’s wrath who would likely go on Jeanne’s French holdings

Exactly. And Mary can argue too: it will not change the fact that Catherine can keep the girl if she wants.

Yes, because she became gouvernante of France in right of her child, which is exactly what Mary will do with her daughter

What? Charles IX was a king and Catherine ruled in his name.
Mary was a queen regnant and ruled in her own name. Her daughter would not even be heiress apparent.

 

[isabella]

Are we talking about legality or about politics and power?
If we are talking about legality, Navarre and Scotland are equal and Jeanne has as much right as Mary to get her child's custody.
If we are talking about politics and power, Catherine is able to keep in France both the heir apparent of Navarre and the heiress presumptive of Scotland.

She can keep a French Prince of Blood but NOT the heiress of Scotland, unless her mother fully agree with it

I am not sure at all about that. Also, you are right to precise "If".


You mean to assure France's safety by giving power to someone devoted to the king of France?

No, because a mother was the best person to take care of her child (and his inheritance, if that apply). That was the rule, else Catherine de‘ Medicis would NEVER EVER be allowed to get near the regency of France

Exactly. And Mary can argue too: it will not change the fact that Catherine can keep the girl if she wants.

NOT without getting in far too much troubles with Mary and the Guises for it being worth. Mary was far from being powerless and friendless and Catherine had NOT the OTL power at this point. Two years later the situation would be very different…

 

[noturaveragejoe0316]

She can keep a French Prince of Blood but NOT the heiress of Scotland, unless her mother fully agree with it

No, because a mother was the best person to take care of her child (and his inheritance, if that apply). That was the rule, else Catherine de‘ Medicis would NEVER EVER be allowed to get near the regency of France

NOT without getting in far too much troubles with Mary and the Guises for it being worth. Mary was far from being powerless and friendless and Catherine had NOT the OTL power at this point. Two years later the situation would be very different…

for simplicities sake we can say that Mary brings her newborn daughter back with her to Scotland, and that Catherine is too busy preparing her son for his coronation to care much. If it helps matters, I have her having four more children by Darnley (I know, but he's a better Darnley in my timeline ), so Catherine is behind her brothers James and Alexander in the Scottish line of succession anyhow

 

[ordinarylittleme]

for simplicities sake we can say that Mary brings her newborn daughter back with her to Scotland, and that Catherine is too busy preparing her son for his coronation to care much. If it helps matters, I have her having four more children by Darnley (I know, but he's a better Darnley in my timeline ), so Catherine is behind her brothers James and Alexander in the Scottish line of succession anyhow

If Catherine is behind her brothers then she is getting not Scotland but Brittany so therefore she would be better off in Brittany.

 

[isabella]

If Catherine is behind her brothers then she is getting not Scotland but Brittany so therefore she would be better off in Brittany.

The brothers are still far in the future and she will NOT get Brittany

 

[ordinarylittleme]

The brothers are still far in the future and she will NOT get Brittany

She is the senior male line descendant of Anne de Bretagne

 

[FouDuRoy]

She can keep a French Prince of Blood but NOT the heiress of Scotland, unless her mother fully agree with it

You can see them as a French Prince of the Blood and the heiress to Scotland. Or you can see them as the heir to Navarre and a French Fille de France. That's true in both cases.

No, because a mother was the best person to take care of her child (and his inheritance, if that apply). That was the rule, else Catherine de‘ Medicis would NEVER EVER be allowed to get near the regency of France

This is precisely what I had said: chosing the king's mother is the best way to have someone who will not endanger France by betraying its king.

NOT without getting in far too much troubles with Mary and the Guises for it being worth. Mary was far from being powerless and friendless and Catherine had NOT the OTL power at this point. Two years later the situation would be very different…

The Guises? Not sure they would interfere in that.

she will NOT get Brittany

She is the senior male line descendant of Anne de Bretagne

In order to get Brittany, she needs to contest the Edict of Union of 1532. Difficult but possible if she manages to get enough support.