Mary I conceives an heir

[greenhert]

What if Mary I of England and Phillip II of Spain had managed to conceive an heir to the throne? In real life she thought she was pregnant when in fact she was not.

Would the impact of such an event have been long enough to undo the Protestant Reformation in England, given Mary I's efforts in doing so during her five year reign?

[markgoodair]

Would the child be King or Queen of England or would they also hold the throne of Spain as well ?

[Adam in Stroud]

Apr 29, 2021 19:12:30 GMT markgoodair said:

Would the child be King or Queen of England or would they also hold the throne of Spain as well ?

Interesting question.

Firstly, Mary was married to Philip from 1554 to her death in November 1558. Until 1556 the King of Spain was Philip's father, Charles V, who did not actually die until September 1558 so until Charles V's abdication in 1556 any son could not succeed to the Spanish throne since there was no vacancy, although on checking I find it happens that Philip had been made King of Naples (that being one of Charles V's spare titles) with King of Jerusalem (another one) thrown in as a bonus, presumably to bring him up to her in rank, so presumably the child could have inherited Naples. But since Charles V did in fact abdicate and split his empire between Philip and Charles V's brother Ferdinand, presumably he could have come up with all sorts of other options if he wanted to take account of Philip and Mary's child. Territory in The Netherlands would have been the most sensible option if he'd wanted to.

Secondly, Philip did already have a son and heir (Carlos) by his first marriage, but unfortunately Carlos went mad and died in 1568 after a year of confinement. But his mental instability seems to have followed a fall and head injury (while chasing a servant girl!) in 1562, so presumably during Mary's lifetime he'd have still been seen as a viable heir to the Spanish and Portuguese thrones (his mother having been a Portuguese princess)

[Adam in Stroud]

On greenhert's question, I think it is possible if Philip had been able to be Regent for the child.  But that depends on whether there was enough wider political support in England for such a regency.

A similar situation arose with Philip's ancestor Maximilian who, after the death of his wife Mary of Burgundy, married Burgundy in the name of their son Philip the Handsome

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Apr 29, 2021 16:26:03 GMT greenhert said:

What if Mary I of England and Phillip II of Spain had managed to conceive an heir to the throne? In real life she thought she was pregnant when in fact she was not.

Would the impact of such an event have been long enough to undo the Protestant Reformation in England, given Mary I's efforts in doing so during her five year reign?

I doubt a child of 5 or less would have been accepted by all over Elizabeth. So unless those in favour of the child made way easily we are probably looking at some kind of civil war in the offing.

[Adam in Stroud]

Apr 29, 2021 20:26:41 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Apr 29, 2021 16:26:03 GMT greenhert said:

What if Mary I of England and Phillip II of Spain had managed to conceive an heir to the throne? In real life she thought she was pregnant when in fact she was not.

Would the impact of such an event have been long enough to undo the Protestant Reformation in England, given Mary I's efforts in doing so during her five year reign?

I doubt a child of 5 or less would have been accepted by all over Elizabeth. So unless those in favour of the child made way easily we are probably looking at some kind of civil war in the offing.

I think you'd be looking at almost a "1066" situation, with several possible heirs and no clear-cut obvious choice and lots of opportunity for plots and rebellion, (which was to some extent true in reality, with some arguing that Mary Queen of Scots was heir, not to mention the whole Lady Jane Grey episode which was after all only 5 years previous.)

The upshot would depend on whether there was (a) enough political support for a continued Catholic regime and (b) a competent government able to maintain that support. Philip II was an effective king overall, so that's why I think if he'd been able to reign as regent (with Spanish financial and military support if needed) it is a possibility if there was the political support in England. And since the church establishment in place at Mary's death was Catholic I don't think we can rule out there being support for such a regime, rather than overthrowing it and going back to a Protestant regime which itself had been marked by frequent rebellions (and was a foreign policy headache in putting England into the minority camp in European religious conflicts). The Dutch Revolt didn't start until 1566, so at Mary's death our main trading partner in The Netherlands was under Catholic Spanish rule, a plus point for a Catholic pro-Spanish regime in England rather than a Protestant one. (And there is the question of whether the Dutch Revolt would have succeeded without Elizabeth''s support.)

Whereas in real history Elizabeth was the continuity candidate, retaining the Tudor dynasty, and moving (as she did) to a relatively moderate form of Protestantism which executed fewer opponents per year than Mary had and didn't go out of its way to piss off the religious establishment about bishops, it was anyone arguing for a Catholic Stuart regime who was proposing more turbulence.

Overall in early Tudor times a binary split between Catholic and Protestant is perhaps misleading and you could think in terms of a continuum of Christians, some of whom were conservatives wanting little or no change, while others wanted more or less radical Reform. Mary, for example, never was able to restore monasteries while Elizabeth did not try to abolish bishops, so you can see that either way the English government did not go as far as some on either side would have wanted. A lot would depend on whether the government of this imaginary Catholic heir managed to win the religious middle ground.

[J.G.Harston]

Apr 29, 2021 20:26:41 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Apr 29, 2021 16:26:03 GMT greenhert said:

What if Mary I of England and Phillip II of Spain had managed to conceive an heir to the throne? In real life she thought she was pregnant when in fact she was not.

Would the impact of such an event have been long enough to undo the Protestant Reformation in England, given Mary I's efforts in doing so during her five year reign?

I doubt a child of 5 or less would have been accepted by all over Elizabeth. So unless those in favour of the child made way easily we are probably looking at some kind of civil war in the offing.

If Mary had birthed a life heir, there's a good probability that she wouldn't have died in 1658, so it wouldn't be a 5-year-old heir. Most theories posit Mary's death and her inability to conceive to be down to the same factor, probably something like ovarian cancer.

So, a successful birth at 38/39 could well manage another before 42. Mary's father lived to 57, her sister to 70, so if Mary managed 60 she would have a 20-year-old heir, with a 43-year-old pretender Elizabeth.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

OK accept that.

Do you think this means no civil war in the 17th Century?

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Important question, if Mary had lived what would the Bloody Mary drink be now called?

[slon]

Apr 30, 2021 5:52:30 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

OK accept that.

Do you think this means no civil war in the 17th Century?

Possibly .... although there might have been in the 16th.
Or maybe both

[carlton43]

This thread has a poor title.

The contention is that Mary 'Gives Birth' to a 'Live' (preferably male) healthy heir who survives into childhood in a good mental and physical state.

Further assumption that said child raised as a Roman Catholic with a view to changing the CofE back to a normal part of the wider RC hierarchy with subservience to the Pope in matters spititual and giving up the Royal control of all church and religious affairs.

That would be unacceptable to a large enough proportion of the English public to give the Royal Family pause for thought. It would be imposition of the new order by force and with the import of Spanish military or a firm and stubborn resistance leading to rebellion, or an actual civil war a bit earlier than that of the 17thC but with the same result because most of the nation would rally against the foreign imposed foe.

That in turn would probably result in either the whole RC branch of the Royal Family escaping to Spain or being executed. The resulting position might be a severely curtailed Protestant Constitutional Monarchy with a new church under control of Parliament and probably without bishops or royal involvement. Possibly a Republic. But definitely an end result being Lower Church Protestant.

[carlton43]

Apr 30, 2021 5:53:10 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Important question, if Mary had lived what would the Bloody Mary drink be now called?

Sedition and a reason to execute the imbiber.

[adlai52]

Apr 30, 2021 10:09:57 GMT carlton43 said:

This thread has a poor title.

The contention is that Mary 'Gives Birth' to a 'Live' (preferably male) healthy heir who survives into childhood in a good mental and physical state.

Further assumption that said child raised as a Roman Catholic with a view to changing the CofE back to a normal part of the wider RC hierarchy with subservience to the Pope in matters spititual and giving up the Royal control of all church and religious affairs.

That would be unacceptable to a large enough proportion of the English public to give the Royal Family pause for thought. It would be imposition of the new order by force and with the import of Spanish military or a firm and stubborn resistance leading to rebellion, or an actual civil war a bit earlier than that of the 17thC but with the same result because most of the nation would rally against the foreign imposed foe.

That in turn would probably result in either the whole RC branch of the Royal Family escaping to Spain or being executed. The resulting position might be a severely curtailed Protestant Constitutional Monarchy with a new church under control of Parliament and probably without bishops or royal involvement. Possibly a Republic. But definitely an end result being Lower Church Protestant.

This depends on the extent to which the perception at the end of Mary’s reign is that the religious issue is ‘settled’ and the how pragmatic any heir of Mary’s would be.

This lecture from Alec Ryrie provides a really interesting view on what the contemporary perspective of Mary’s reign and the return of Catholicism might have been - 

Popular support for a type of Protestant English nationalism is something that you only see in the later Stuart period and would be unlikely to emerge after Mary died if she had had an accepted heir - so I don’t think you can transpose the experience of James II to the situation Mary’s heir might have found themselves in.

James II remember was trying to rehabilitate Catholicism in a nation that had be come deeply Protestant and indeed defined its self in opposition to catholic Europe - something that would become even more entrenched during the late 17th and 18th centuries.

In contrast Mary’s heir would have inherited a country where Catholicism remained the majority religion and where Protestantism was concentrated in London and among the lesser nobility (and in Scotland).

It’s possible that Mary’s heir - if they inherited as a child - ends up launching an aggressive counter reformation or alienates the nobility with a attempt to restore land to the church, but this would be unlikely - indeed this is exactly what the Spanish advisers to Mary argued against!

The Spanish link is also interesting, if the heir is the son of Philip then it seems reasonable that Charles V might include them in the divvying up of his vast holdings at the end of his reign - but popular antipathy towards Spain at this point seems unlikely.

Ultimately under a Marian Heir, England probably goes down a route similar to France - accommodating the church in a subservient role to the Crown (a very Tudor approach).

Where it leaves England diplomatically is harder to judge - economically England will continue to do well from trade with the Low Countries and there will be an incentive to compete with Spain for the new world trade, but then there are likely to be dynastic links to Spain which could complicate this.

Eventually something like the 30 years war will happen, pitting the Habsburgs agains the other continental powers - does England side with their Hapsburg relatives here or make a pragmatic play with France and the north German princes?

[WJ]

We wouldn't have has the Stuarts ruling south of the border. If, by 1707 the Tudors and Stuarts were still going strong in their respective countries, would it have made the Act of Union less likely?

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Apr 29, 2021 20:52:31 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

I think you'd be looking at almost a "1066" situation, with several possible heirs and no clear-cut obvious choice and lots of opportunity for plots and rebellion, (which was to some extent true in reality, with some arguing that Mary Queen of Scots was heir, not to mention the whole Lady Jane Grey episode which was after all only 5 years previous.)

Or indeed something that looked rather like the Scottish Reformation – look how the regency of Mary of Guise turned out.

[adlai52]

May 25, 2021 13:21:36 GMT WJ said:

We wouldn't have has the Stuarts ruling south of the border. If, by 1707 the Tudors and Stuarts were still going strong in their respective countries, would it have made the Act of Union less likely?

In long term some type of Union seems likely, if England continues to build up a mercantile empire - but does an England that isn't as openly opposed to Spain do that?

England and Scotland were at loggerheads for religious reasons under Charles I - if England stays majority catholic (albeit with a powerful Protestant minority) then the tension between the two is going to be much worse.

Would a majority catholic England mean the Scottish reformation continues along the same path? I don't know enough about the reformation in Scotland to say, you could see Mary Queen of Scots caught up in English attempts to combat Protestantism in Scotland

In reality Mary Queen of Scots never attempted anything like that while she was Queen, although there was a base of pro-catholic sentiment in some parts of Scotland during her reign.

Of course if Mary Tudor has an heir would Mary Queen of Scots end up married to that heir? She is probably too old, but it might be a possibility.

Another scenario is that Scotland and Ireland swap places with Scotland becoming a protestant version of what Ireland was for England in our world?