WI: Elizabeth I is the last descendant of Henry VII?

[Deleted member 200420]

Who would succeed Elizabeth I if she was the last legitimate descendant of Henry VII alive at her death?

• James VI and I dies in 1593.
• Arbella Stuart dies in 1592.
• Edward Seymour dies in 1585.
• Thomas Seymour dies in 1584.
• Ferdinando Stanley infertile, dies in 1594.
• William Stanley dies in 1595.

Margaret Stanley would briefly be heir until her death in 1596. I would think of some inventive ways to get rid of these people but I want to minimise butterflies; surely if the succession was more tenuous early on in Elizabeth's reign, she would've married. Also, what would happen in Scotland?

 

[mickeymouse]

In England, I believe that Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland would become king; I could be wrong, but by that time I think that he was the senior male descendant of the Yorkists through Edward IV's older sister Anne.

In Scotland, James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran should become king, but given his insanity he might be passed over for his brother John (IOTL the first Marquess of Hamilton).

 

[DrakeRlugia]

IIRC, the Henry Hastings, the Earl of Huntingdon was considered a possible heir in 1562 when Elizabeth fell ill with smallpox. His Yorkist ancestry barred the way to higher office during Elizabeth's reign. If there's a lack of suitable successors (or rather, James VI has died without issue) some may look towards the Hastings family. Henry died in 1595, but he had a brother who succeeded him, who did have children.

 

[Tyler96]

In England, I believe that Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland would become king; I could be wrong, but by that time I think that he was the senior male descendant of the Yorkists through Edward IV's older sister Anne.

In Scotland, James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran should become king, but given his insanity he might be passed over for his brother John (IOTL the first Marquess of Hamilton).

Don't think anyone is cracking open the genealogies to find the senior most heir - will be more a case of who is the most powerful or good at horse trading. In any case, the senior male descendant of the Yorkists would be Duke of Clarence's Pole descendants, who are apparently bouncing around Italy at this point (though obviously there's the claim that Clarence's descendants lost their claim through his attainder)?

When you're going so many several generations, basically everyone has some drop of royal blood and can come up with some plausible claim - there's not really an obvious 'legitimate' pick and some of most convincing potential claimants on paper are probably off the table (Clarence's male-line Pole descendants, absent in Italy and Catholic; the Staffords, with their eclectic mix of royal blood, having been much diminished since the execution of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham in 1521; the Nevilles, arguably the rightful domestic Lancastrian claimant by virtue of their descent from Anne Holland, granddaughter of Elizabeth of Lancaster, having been exiled after the 1569 Northern Rising and Catholic).

Earlier on the Lennox Stewarts did maintain an alternate claim on the basis of the 1st Earl of Arran's complicated marital history rendering his descendants (allegedly) illegitimate - the Lennox Stewarts being descended from the 1st Earl of Arran's sister. Don't know if Ludovic Stewart is inclined to have a go at the throne, or if he'd get anywhere if he tried?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

though obviously there's the claim that Clarence's descendants lost their claim through his attainder

it's explicitly outlined in the Titulus Regius that Clarence's attainder disqualifies his kids. Also, Huntingdon was a Puritan and Elizabeth apparently was appalled at the thought of him succeeding.

the Staffords, with their eclectic mix of royal blood, having been much diminished since the execution of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham in 1521;

a Stafford tried to claim the throne as late as Queen Mary's reign- screwing the chances of his brother being restored to the dukedom- but while much diminished, the queen's cousin (and mistress-of-the-robes) Dorothy Stafford, happens to be the sister of the Stafford claimant. She's also Protestant (not sure about her nieces and nephews)

he Nevilles, arguably the rightful domestic Lancastrian claimant by virtue of their descent from Anne Holland

except the 6th earl of Westmorland is under attainder since 1571. Good news, he only has daughters (and a Howard wife and a Manners mother). So in theory, we could see something like Westmorland's eldest daughter marrying the 4e Baron Stafford.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Could such weak claims lead to a Poland style elective monarchy in England?

In the case of an elective monarchy would local nobles be preferred as they’re Anglican? Are the only real foreign candidates Scotland and Denmark-Norway? Perhaps Frederick IV elector palatine could be considered, as the preeminent Calvinist ruler, and that would massively change the lead up to the 30 years war.

It certainly gives parliament the upper hand in any future negotiations, but I don’t know whether they’d just go for a straight up republic like the Dutch.

 

[Deleted member 200420]

I am terribly lacking in understanding of Tudor history so please excuse my ignorance.

Did the claim of Henry VII not derive from his mother Margaret Beaufort? He of course won the throne through right of conquest but his claim derives from there. While the Beauforts were not in the line of succession, considering the direness of the situation perhaps a Beaufort heir could be sought after? I don’t see why a Yorkist candidate would be put forward considering the Lancastrians technically won the war.

If the Beauforts are placed into the line of succession then presumably through the line of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset is where we can find a claimant. There are then two avenues to go down, which is through the Staffords or the legitimised bastard branch of the Somersets.

The Somersets to me present the far more interesting scenario as the guy who would take the throne after Elizabeth would be Edward Somerset, 4th Earl of Worcester. He is married to Elizabeth Hastings which means his son Henry Somerset born 1577 would have the Stafford, Pole and Hastings claim too. It is also technically a Plantagenet restoration in the 1600s.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Henry VII had Lancastrian blood through his mother, but his primary claim to the throne, as you mentioned was by right of conquest. Hence Henry VII claiming the throne and ensuring that he was crowned before he finally married Elizabeth of York. He in no way wished for his own claim to England to subordinated to his wife's claim. The House of Tudor represented a union of the competing claims, hence the Tudor Rose being a mix of the Red + White rose.

I think the main issue with the Somerset's is similar to the Beauforts, they were illegitimate. The Beauforts were later legitimized through Gaunt's marriage, but without succession rights. Charles Somerset, the son of Henry Beaufort was legitimized as well, but his parents never wed. It's hard to say if the Beauforts / Somersets ever gained true succession rights, as Henry VII's claim was based upon conquest, not blood. The Somersets remain the only extant line of the Lancastrians, while there are plenty of Yorkist lines about with less murky succession rights.

 

[RedKing]

My first instinct was that the descendants of Katherine of York succeed Elizabeth but they seem to have died out by now. That leaves two main contenders for the succession: Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcesters and George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon. Ironically, one derives their claim from the House of Lancaster while the other from the House of York. Not sure which of these two would emerge triumphant as the heir, though I’d imagine Elizabeth would have the issue settled by the time of her death.

It’s also possible that some Catholics and Philip II try to install Isabella Clara Eugenia on the English throne, it was considered by some in otl.

 

[Deleted member 200420]

That leaves two main contenders for the succession: Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcesters and George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon.

The Somersets remain the only extant line of the Lancastrians, while there are plenty of Yorkist lines about with less murky succession rights.

Indeed, but Edward Somerset is married to the Earl of Huntingdon's sister Elizabeth Hastings. Meaning their son also inherits the Hastings claim too. And George Hastings was out of favour with Elizabeth due to his Puritan beliefs as Kellan Sullivan wrote. Really, the Somersets mirror the Tudors as Edward Somerset would be a Lancastrian while his son would inherit the Yorkist claim too. I'm unsure what favour the Somersets enjoyed at court.

 

[kasumigenx]

My first instinct was that the descendants of Katherine of York succeed Elizabeth but they seem to have died out by now. That leaves two main contenders for the succession: Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcesters and George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon. Ironically, one derives their claim from the House of Lancaster while the other from the House of York. Not sure which of these two would emerge triumphant as the heir, though I’d imagine Elizabeth would have the issue settled by the time of her death.

It’s also possible that some Catholics and Philip II try to install Isabella Clara Eugenia on the English throne, it was considered by some in otl.

Perhaps we can marry the Somersets and Isabella Clara Eugenia, problem solved.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Could such weak claims lead to a Poland style elective monarchy in England?

No, it was unthinkable in anywhere besides Poland, no other nobility would be willing to risk it.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

No, it was unthinkable in anywhere besides Poland, no other nobility would be willing to risk it.

The Czechs disagree.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

No, it was unthinkable in anywhere besides Poland, no other nobility would be willing to risk it.

The Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, Denmark-Norway, Sweden all had technically elective monarchies, and there is precedent in English history as well for parliament to select a monarch, even though the elective principal isn’t a regular occurrence in England.

The advantage is of course that you don’t elevate any one from among the class of general nobility, meaning you avoid the factional overhaul created by all their allies and relatives suddenly being put into positions of influence.

Especially when all the potential candidates are of roughly the same power level as many other noble families, it might be seen as preferable to invite a foreigner who wouldn’t be attached to any particular faction, allowing the balance of alliances some continued stability.

 

[Deleted member 200420]

The advantage is of course that you don’t elevate any one from among the class of general nobility, meaning you avoid the factional overhaul created by all their allies and relatives suddenly being put into positions of influence.

Especially when all the potential candidates are of roughly the same power level as many other noble families, it might be seen as preferable to invite a foreigner who wouldn’t be attached to any particular faction, allowing the balance of alliances some continued stability.

On the other hand, it's not like any of the other potential candidates to the English throne have the ability to cause any strife. Their claims are all remote, all minor nobility, none of them Tudors, and they don't have the power base to launch a challenge. If Elizabeth just picks an heir and elevates them I'm not sure anything can be done even if another "faction" opposes them.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Their claims are all remote, all minor nobility,

Yh that makes things a little different then- I don’t really know how connected these families are, so if they genuinely have so little pre existing influence or ties to court that their elevation would have no clearly predictable consequences on the balance of power in parliament, then they might be more viable than a foreign candidate.

Still, parliament might want to make the monarchy technically elective to ensure the monarch knew who carried the whip hand- falling short of that perhaps an earlier version of the bill of rights or an updated Magna Carta.

 

[Deleted member 200420]

Still, parliament might want to make the monarchy technically elective to ensure the monarch knew who carried the whip hand- falling short of that perhaps an earlier version of the bill of rights or an updated Magna Carta.

I certainly agree with you there that parliament will have more power. Considering that the most viable candidate to the throne is a very minor noble from a legitimised bastard branch of a legitimised bastard branch (who were barred from inheriting the throne). And while his heir has more legitimacy--if you can call it that--it is only through somewhat uniting the various remote and perfunctory Yorkist claims to the throne. So I'd think if the new king tries to garner too much power he'd be immediately shot down and reprimanded by parliament.

But I'd imagine parliament would not actually want an elective monarchy because that would simply empower the nobility more, who now can jostle and take the throne despite having no claim. If instead some minor noble is ascended, whose claim is based on shaky foundations, and who now has to play a balancing act with all the non-royal powerful nobility in the kingdom I see that being a more advantageous position for parliament.

Perhaps we can marry the Somersets and Isabella Clara Eugenia, problem solved.

That would not work. Firstly, she's too old for the Somerset heir. And they would probably want a domestic match to increase their influence with the nobility. Secondly, all her brothers are dead so she must marry another Habsburg to ensure Spain stays in the family. Thirdly, the Somersets wouldn't actually be considered heirs to the throne until the mid-1590s so they wouldn't be able to attract any major foreign brides.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

And they would probably want a domestic match to increase their influence with the nobility.

A king marrying domestically brings its own problems, as I've pointed out to @Charles III Stuart

Secondly, all her brothers are dead so she must marry another Habsburg to ensure Spain stays in the family.

Felipe III would like a word.

And given that Felipe II was keeping her free to marry a Bourbon or a Guise in the 1580s, and offered her to James VI should the Armada be successful, I could see him going for it, TBH. But I'm guessing that, in anti-Spanish post-Armada England, any candidate who opts for that match immediately finds himself blackballed.

So a domestic marriage is likely IMO. I still think a Westmoralnd-Neville+Stafford or Westmorland+Pole match is likely. The Beauforts are a bastard line. Now, while this is not really an issue, it does help if the bastard in question was a) King, b) in the last generation or so, and/or c) they've got the resources to back it up . Them claiming the crown of England a century after Bosworth would be like one of the Freeman-Bourbon putting themselves forward as heir to France on Henri de Chambord's death. Or one of the Naundorffist Bourbons challenging Chambord's claim (which oddly enough, they never did AFAIK)

 

[Deleted member 200420]

Felipe III would like a word.

Yeah I forgot about him. Saw Don Carlos and just assumed. She's too old regardless.

Them claiming the crown of England a century after Bosworth would be like one of the Freeman-Bourbon putting themselves forward as heir to France on Henri de Chambord's death. Or one of the Naundorffist Bourbons challenging Chambord's claim (which oddly enough, they never did AFAIK)

I think the Somerset claim is far more legitimate than imposters and impersonators

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I think the Somerset claim is far more legitimate than imposters and impersonators

They all have the same legitimacy (none)