How successful would Henry VIII’s reforms be if there was a legitimate cadet rival Tudor line?

Avrorrange

Avrorrange

Let’s suppose Edmund, Duke of Somerset didn’t die as an infant, and lived to a full grown adult with many sons of his own, and both Edmund and Henry VIII hated each other. Is it still feasible for Henry VIII to break away from the Church if he still had his OTL marriage problems without triggering a massive, much more serious revolt led by his younger brother? I’d presume that far less people would have supported Henry VIII with the presence of a younger brother, and it would have potentially led to civil war if proceeded with his OTL policies?
 
Last edited:
Happiness

Happiness

Even if they hate each other, I think there is little chance of Henry seceding from Rome with healthy nephews. He would marry his daughter Mary to one of them and the Tudor male line will continue. He would hardly act foolishly because of his hatred of Edmund to do the same as he had done in real life.
 

isabella

Avrorrange said:
Let’s suppose Edmund, Duke of Somerset didn’t die as an infant, and lived to a full grown adult with many sons of his own, and both Edmund and Henry VIII hated each other. Is it still feasible for Henry VIII to break away from the Church if he still had his OTL marriage problems without triggering a massive, much more serious revolt led by his younger brother? I’d presume that far less people would have supported Henry VIII with the presence of a younger brother, and it would have potentially led to civil war if proceeded with his OTL policies?
Click to expand...
ASB. Whatever opinion Henry had of his brother he would marry Mary to Edmund’s eldest son. That if Henry with a younger brother still made the OTL idiocy to marry Catherine instead of waiting a little more for Eleanor (entirely possible as Catherine was essentially a love match)
 

vizzer

Avrorrange said:
Let’s suppose Edmund, Duke of Somerset didn’t die as an infant, and lived to a full grown adult with many sons of his own, and both Edmund and Henry VIII hated each other. Is it still feasible for Henry VIII to break away from the Church if he still had his OTL marriage problems without triggering a massive, much more serious revolt led by his younger brother? I’d presume that far less people would have supported Henry VIII with the presence of a younger brother, and it would have potentially led to civil war if proceeded with his OTL policies?
Click to expand...
A Tudor having many healthy sons is not quite ASB but is heading in that direction
 

AkhenatenOrRamses

I agree with the idea that Mary would be betrothed to Edmund's eldest son to keep the Tudor name alive. Even if the brothers hated each other, it'd still happen - OTL Henry quarreled with both Francis and Charles V but made up with each at various times when it suited his interests.
 
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

Avrorrange said:
Is it still feasible for Henry VIII to break away from the Church if he still had his OTL marriage problems without triggering a massive, much more serious revolt led by his younger brother?
Click to expand...
Henry would have no reason to, as his brother would be a male heir, after all his concern was female succession and he was the last male Tudor alive, something that is not true here
 

Stahlo

Henry might grumble about Edmund or one of Edmund's boys being his heir rather than a son of his own, but they are still legitimate male heirs. And if Catherine still dies on schedule, there'd be nothing stopping him from remarrying and trying for a son.

Also, if Edmund survived infancy, there's a good chance that Elizabeth of York would live longer, which would make for a healthier Tudor family dynamic. This Henry may not have the same issues that OTL Henry did.
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

isabella said:
ASB. Whatever opinion Henry had of his brother he would marry Mary to Edmund’s eldest son. That if Henry with a younger brother still made the OTL idiocy to marry Catherine instead of waiting a little more for Eleanor (entirely possible as Catherine was essentially a love match)
Click to expand...
ASB literally meant aliens, magic etc. Your also statement completely underestimates the length and type of madness/pettiness kings in real life go to when it comes to trying to deny their rivals the throne. Henry in real life deliberately added parliamentary clauses barring his Scottish nephews’ lines from taking the throne for example, and then also debarred his daughters on various occasions before finally inserting back into the line of succession again. He simply doesn’t care about the potential chaos he could have caused. All hell could have potentially broken lose because of the succession law changes when the Tudors died out IOTL for example. In the worst case scenario, kings have completely purged their families in a fit of paranoia,especially if said brother is specifically a rival.Like how Edward IV killed George of Clarence. The strange part should have been Edmund and Henry tolerating each other for such a long time without actually trying to knife each other.
Stahlo said:
Henry might grumble about Edmund or one of Edmund's boys being his heir rather than a son of his own, but they are still legitimate male heirs. And if Catherine still dies on schedule, there'd be nothing stopping him from remarrying and trying for a son.

Also, if Edmund survived infancy, there's a good chance that Elizabeth of York would live longer, which would make for a healthier Tudor family dynamic. This Henry may not have the same issues that OTL Henry did.
Click to expand...
The problem was that Henry doesn’t exactly know when Catherine dies on schedule.
 
Last edited:
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

ordinarylittleme said:
Clarence was also actively supporting Edward's enemies and had initially been reconciled...simple personal mistrust between brothers would not have led to murder.
Click to expand...
Princes supporting their brother’s enemies or is explicitly said enemy (whether overtly or not) because of hatred is hardly an unusual outcome in monarchies of this period. Personal mistrusts generally do balloon into brothers trying to kill each other or raise rebellions as a way of protest(even if the rebelling brother isn’t really trying to kill the king, only to cause trouble) across different monarchies of this period. There‘s also evidence to suggest that Henry was basically bonkers after he got his jousting accident, which by all means could still happen due to how dangerous the sport was.A mentally unstable king trying to kill his brother hardly needs justification.It is in fact the most likely outcome.
 
Last edited:
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

Avrorrange said:
Princes supporting their brother’s enemies or is explicitly said enemy (whether overtly or not) because of hatred is hardly an unusual outcome in monarchies of this period.
Click to expand...
Yes, but here Henry would need Edmund and his male line alive, to join with his line if needed...Edmund if he is smart will know that, so will make little trouble while waiting for his sister-in-law to not produce a nephew....
 

Fabius Maximus

ordinarylittleme said:
Henry would have no reason to, as his brother would be a male heir, after all his concern was female succession and he was the last male Tudor alive, something that is not true here
Click to expand...
It's a bit more complicated than that. Female succession per se wasn't an issue in Tudor England, despite what's often claimed; the issue was that Henry saw his lack of a son as a sign God was displeased with him, which would still apply even if he had other living male relatives.
 

Kellan Sullivan

Avrorrange said:
The strange part should have been Edmund and Henry tolerating each other for such a long time without actually trying to knife each other.
Click to expand...
depends. Henry VIII after his jousting accident in 1536? Sure. Prior to that, unless Edmund is openly disloyal- plotting with [insert enemy's name here] or commits outright treason- Henry doing anything because his brother has a son and he doesn't is going to lead into the exact situation that Harry was terrified of OTL: war of the Roses 2.0.

ordinarylittleme said:
Clarence was also actively supporting Edward's enemies and had initially been reconciled...simple personal mistrust between brothers would not have led to murder.
Click to expand...
more like Edward's enemies were actively supporting Clarence. And Clarence's execution was because he genuinely "contemplated the death of the king" (i.e. treason). It was not a bogus charge like most of Henry VIII's. Although, pre-1530, the only person Henry VIII executed on "flimsy" ground (and most contemporaries believed he was guilty in thought, if not in deed) was the duke of Buckingham.

Avrorrange said:
Princes supporting their brother’s enemies or is explicitly said enemy (whether overtly or not) because of hatred is hardly an unusual outcome in monarchies of this period.
Click to expand...
name one? Joao III's brothers were pretty loyal to him. Karl V and Ferdinand's issues were unique due to the fact that unlike most royal brothers, they didn't share an upbringing or common experiences growing up. They were practically strangers when they met. In France, no king had had a brother since Louis XI. And Berri's "rebellions" can be equated to both Clarence's in England and to the duc d'Alençon's against Henri III (namely they were a convenient figure to rally around to give a rebellion some legitimacy). How much Berri, Clarence and Alençon actively plotted against their brothers how much it was standard-waving is debatable.
Avrorrange said:
Personal mistrusts generally do balloon into brothers trying to kill each other or raise rebellions as a way of protest(even if the rebelling brother isn’t really trying to kill the king, only to cause trouble)
Click to expand...
again, name one scenario aside from Joao II and Edward IV where a king actually executed his brother for rebelling against him? Joao II's murder of most of the Viseu line was because they were genuinely plotting against him (case of better to strike than be struck). Edward IV's execution of Clarence I've covered above. Louis IX and Henri III both "tolerated" their brothers' rebellion. The accusation of Louis IX's poisoning of Berri should be taken with a grain of salt, since a) nobody mentioned the rumour until a few years after Berri's death, and b) the source of the rumours is a Burgundian courtier and the Milanese ambassador (the first had no reason to like Louis, the second wasn't even around at the time, but gives, as his source, the duc de Bourbon's father confessor*)

*why would he know?
 

isabella

Avrorrange said:
ASB literally meant aliens, magic etc. Your also statement completely underestimates the length and type of madness/pettiness kings in real life go to when it comes to trying to deny their rivals the throne. Henry in real life deliberately added parliamentary clauses barring his Scottish nephews’ lines from taking the throne for example, and then also debarred his daughters on various occasions before finally inserting back into the line of succession again. He simply doesn’t care about the potential chaos he could have caused. All hell could have potentially broken lose because of the succession law changes when the Tudors died out IOTL for example. In the worst case scenario, kings have completely purged their families in a fit of paranoia,especially if said brother is specifically a rival.Like how Edward IV killed George of Clarence. The strange part should have been Edmund and Henry tolerating each other for such a long time without actually trying to knife each other.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning would made sense only if Henry VIII was mad since the beginning (something absolute false at least until the jousting accident of 1536)
Henry VIII was scared by two things OTL: another civil war and seeing England falling under Scottish control and his OTL actions were dictated by that (also keep in mind who Mary I had no male rival when she ascended on the throne and before that no woman had been able to get the English crown (see Empress Matilda or Elizabeth of York herself) and the Tudor dynasty was still too new and with many enemies for being seen as stable). The presence of a younger living brother (and later legitimate male nephews) would change a lot things for Henry as he would have little reasons for fearing for the succession (still keep in mind who Henry VIII was seriously considering to ask an annulment of his marriage to Catherine already in 1514)
 
Happiness

Happiness

eliamartin65 said:
I don't remember reading anything about that. Mind sharing your source?
Click to expand...
I found this now:

https://tudortreasures.net/henry-viii-and-katherine-of-aragons-anullment/

In September, 1514, a Venetian diarist and historian, Marino Sanuto wrote in his diary:

"Si dize eiiam che il re d’Ingaltera, voi lassar la moglie che rha, fia del re di Spagna, qual fo moglie di suo fra- delo, per non poter haver con lei alcuna heredità, e voi tuor per moglie una fia dil ducha di Barbon francese."

Roughly translated:" It is said that the king of England will leave the wife he has, who is the daughter of the king of Spain, as the wife of his brother, for not being able to have any heir with her, and will marry a daughter of the French Duke of Bourbon."
 
eliamartin65

eliamartin65

Happiness said:
I found this now:

https://tudortreasures.net/henry-viii-and-katherine-of-aragons-anullment/

"In September, 1514, a Venetian diarist and historian, Marino Sanuto wrote in his diary:

‘Si dize eiiam che il re d’Ingaltera, voi lassar la moglie che rha, fia del re di Spagna, qual fo moglie di suo fra- delo, per non poter haver con lei alcuna heredità, e voi tuor per moglie una fia dil ducha di Barbon francese."

Roughly translated:" It is said that the king of England will leave the wife he has, who is the daughter of the king of Spain, as the wife of his brother, for not being able to have any heir with her, and will marry a daughter of the French Duke of Bourbon."
Click to expand...
THANKS for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top