@@theghosthero6173 I don't know when the shift from the French pronunciation happened but it is certainly Beecham now. Place names in the UK are just as strange. Care to guess how to say Cogenhoe or Happisburgh?
@@morgantaylor517 Well, legitimate kids. Liz I, of course, was not a virgin, and was as randy as her father. Supposedly, she had several illegitimate children, including the Earl of Southhampton, made famous by Shakespeare's Sonnets. The Tudor family is truly a line of conniving, murderous rats.
@@Mooseman327 I didn't know that!!! I find that period of history so fascinating. I loved Hillary Mantel's books about Cromwell, I wish she'd write about QE1.
@@Mooseman327 Did she have affairs? Ah, possibly, but an intense level of discretion would have been required. As the daughter of Anne Boleyn, half of Europe considered her a bastard. She had to keep her reputation seemingly spotless. As for illegitimate children… no. NO WAY she could hide that like she could plausibly hide a lover.
@@yem3321 there's no proof that Henry had any illegitimate children other than Henry Fitzroy. And even if those children were actually his, he never claimed those children and never intended them to be on the throne like he intended Mary and the others to be, and his precious dynasty ended
@@yem3321 Henry Fitzroy didn’t die as a child as shown in the show “The tudors” if that’s what your referring to. He ended up dying at 17 with no children of his own, then the son he had with his third wife Jane Seymour Edward who died at 15 but became king at 9 with no children.
Well Edward VI died when he was only 15 so he didn’t really have time and Mary tried it’s actually quite sad when she died it’s believed she thought she was pregnant because she wanted to be SO badly but she actually had cancer in her stomach or ovaries that made her stomach expand. As we Elizabeth was just a boss and didn’t want to be ruled by anyone so yeah haha
Useful charts - “As a side note I should make a note that the title queen of England doesn’t currently exist” Me - “Ahh yes yes. Cause she’s dead.” Useful Charts - “Queen Elizabeth the second is actually not the queen on England. She’s the queen of the United Kingdom” Me - “oh.”
No she isn't a proper queen, she only has a curtesy title as wife of the king, she isn't a reigning queen in her own right, and her kids from previous marriages aren't royal or in the line of succession. The monarchy is inherited as a mystical instalation instantly on the death of the previous monarch, it can't be just given away, the next in line is a birthright! @@real_nosferatu
Imagine you're an unemployed lazy dude chillin' on his bed while watching this and suddenly, your name shows up as the true king of England: "I got a conquest to do fellas!"
I guess that this lazy unemployed dude would quickly realize that being the legitimate King of England robs him from all his privacy and that being rich and famous isn't something to envy of haven't got the time to enjoy it. Nah, he would skip to the next recommendated video. Way too much work!
It is very strange to me that Henry regarded Edward so highly that he declared his own two daughters illegitimate, because he was so desperate to secure his lineage with his only male heir, but at the end, even his 15 year old son didn't follow his wishes. And Henry made his daughters hate him and the legacy of the Tudor name so much that Mary died childless pining over a man who never loved her, because rather than keeping the Tudor name alive, she preferred to honor her mother's Spanish blood instead; and Elizabeth sacrificed her chance to marry and have children because she wanted to end the Tudors completely. I think Elizabeth always knew James was gonna be the next monarch; and iirc, she *did* declare him her heir in one of her letters for him, but it is still very interesting to see the "what if" scenarios. Tudor Dynasty didn't last very long compared to, say, Habsburgs or Ottomans but I feel like there is still so much we don't know about them. Big respect to all who worked to preserve history and those who are teaching us today. And thank you very much for this video.
Yes, Elizabeths father was not the most encouraging of male role models and its not unusual for adults who had traumatic childhoods to not want families of their own. Can't imagine all the scheming and assassination plots did her already Warranted trust issues any favours either. She probably turned out pretty well considering.
@@simhedgesrex7097 I think he, just like all women and men of the 16th century, was too embraced in his gender roles. It's weird saying good things about him because nearly no one does, but I don't think he was a man who hated women. He wouldn't have married 6 times if he hated women. He believed it wasn't a woman's place or in a woman's nature to rule but he didn't believe that because he was sexist, but because that was the norm back then. (Even female monarchs wanted male heirs.) And slightly off topic but look at Henry's treatment of Catherine Parr, for example, it was clear he respected her and admired her as a person. He demanded in *his will* that she still get treated as if she were queen consort and not queen dowager. Anne of Cleves, after the divorce; and Catherine Parr after Henry's passing, became two of the wealthiest women in the country because Henry cared for them and didn't want them to struggle to provide for themselves or depend on others to survive. Man clearly had issues no one can deny that; and it is sickening how he treated his daughter Mary, his ex wives, or just pretty much everyone around him but he did have an understanding of love, albeit a warped one.
I specialised in the Tudor dynasty, when I did my history degree. It was unique in how the courtiers manipulated procedures. Henry changed the course of this country, by wanting a male heir and changing what had always been a Catholic country, into the Church of England. What a unique history we have!
"Known to history as Queen Elizabeth the First." Only for the last 69 years and 50 weeks, in fact. It's actually strange to realise that for nearly 400 years she was actually known to history simply as Queen Elizabeth - just like Queen Anne and Queen Victoria.
regarding Victoria, under the clockfaces of Big Ben was the inscription "Domine salvam fac Reginam nostrum *Victoriam primam* " (Lord doth preserve the queen our *Victoria the first* )
Virginia was colonized in the name of Elizabeth I, thus her identity of her being the "Virgin Queen" already existed during her reign. If I am wrong then please provide proof of your "69 years and 50 weeks".
I love these alternate scenario videos. I've suggested before, and do again, that you do one on: Who Would be King of England Today, if England had had Absolute Primogeniture since William the Conqueror? Interesting because the UK now does have absolute primogeniture. Should be an interesting chase down the genealogy trees.
that would be hard to do, because often the birthdates of girls where not recorded proberly. Sometimes it is unsure if there where daughters born before the heir. and if they where, if they where older or not. Specialy in the first centurys soeties only boys names and dates where recorded. I tried that once but ended in a lot dead ends whne it says: probly older daughter who maaried and had issus... but you never know who they where. And depending on if you go with catolics or just by dna... but ou probply end up in some German/austrian small old royal lines. Wich hardly can be followed sometimes. Becuase of mentioned reasons. You maybe have to dig deep in some unknown family trees and then end up in deadlines. I tried it and gave up
Interestingly though, the current Queen Elizabeth is still a direct descendant of Mary Tudor (Henry the 8th’s sister) through her mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. So in a way, Henry the 8th’s will was technically still followed, a descendant of his sister Mary is sitting on the throne today.
@@carolinacocula9119Mary Boylen was Henry's lover before he took up with her sister, she had 2 children that were officially her husband's but many believe that the eldest one Catherine Carey was Henry's but are not sure about her brother as the Careys were living away from the Royal Court when he was born. Catherine went on to become Elizabeth I's chief lady in waiting and was given an almost state funeral at Westminster Abbey a rare privilege for someone not of Royal blood. Catherine's daughter Lettice Knollys became a rival to Elizabeth when she married Royal favourite Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Lettice was banished from court though her husband wasn't neither was her son by her 1st husband Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex who was another of Elizabeth's favourites. The present monarch is descended from Lettice through the late Queen Mother.
I don’t know why Henry’s will would be needed to followed to this extent anyway. If all heirs had died with him or there was some other chaos then his will would have been relevant for so many heirs that were named. But all the heirs who became monarchs had their own ability to make legal wills. And Henry wasn’t exactly a role model as a king. .
Here's an even freakier scenario, let's say Henry's younger sister had produced a male heir during her brief marriage to the King of France, (that or one of Henry's many attempts to have his daughter Mary wed the dauphin): we might have seen the United Kingdom of England, Ireland, and France instead. Wow, imagine how much bigger the British [sic] Empire would have been in that scenario and maybe even still existing...that kinda screws up North American history too
Only if none of the other world powers complained. I can't remember which royals in particular, but there were definitely cases where certain heirs were chosen or supported over the others to avoid exactly such things happening. Charles V Holy Roman Emperor inherited Castile, Aragon, Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. but strategically divided them up between his two sons when he abdicated those thrones. (supposedly so they'd be more flexible and easier to govern)
@@freesiaoriental actually Charles divided his dominons up between his son Philip and his brother Ferdinand not his 2 sons in fact Philip was his only surviving legitimate son
@@thewanderingcrusader it was Edward III who was the first English king to claim the French throne and started the 100 years war not Richard I. The war started in 1337 and Richard I had died in 1199
There’s a documentary on the would-be Australian King, Michael Edward Abney-Hastings which is also interesting. He died in 2012 but after a historian did all the work to find him, he already had a family tree and knew he had royal lineage. He was a Uk ex-pat and loved living here in Australia.
People seem to forget Edward was in fact not Henry's only son, excluding illegitimate children he had one other. The son of Catherine of Aragon: Henry Duke of Cornwall, who died a few months after being born. Edward was his only living legitimate son not his only son nor his only legitimate son.
@@dawnmrodgers He does not get a look in because of his illegitimacy.. That was the way of the times. In any case Henry VIII outlived Fitzroy by several years.
Thank you for sharing your research with us. I know you worked hard putting this presentation together. I love British History. My husband taught genealogy at the University as sort of a extra class for those that were interested. He was on the faculty and was the University Bibliographer for the library system. His under grad was in European history . He was working on his own genealogy when he had his first round of cancer at thirty two . Sadly he never finished his own genealogy. He died at 43 of brain cancer. We had two young children. I really do enjoy European History and read a lot of literature on the history of Europe
@@UsefulCharts That's interesting - so all six of Henry VIII's wives descended from Edward I and Eleanor of Castile...who are my [double] 23rd great-grandparents LOL. I shall have to add them to my family tree.
@@UsefulCharts And now I want portraits of all of them so I can see if there are any interesting traits that became way too pronounced... kind of like the Hapsburgs and their famous chins.
@@spearshake4771 people glorify the past humans have alway been the same cruel creatures nothing has changed Except the difference today is people are held accountable u think he would’ve done that if it was right on the coast of Europe no he did it on the other side of the world cuz he never thought anyone would find out
Russia would be good. But hard. The red army did a good job scrubbing them out... who would be the real queen or king. Also Germany tecnicly still has a Keiser, bit hitler passed the leadership 2 weeks after the Keiser of ww1 passed. So.. they have one tecnicly but never really looked into it...
Fun fact from someone studying the Tudors at A-Level, Lady Jane Grey wasn’t executed after her arrest. It was only when a rebellion sparked up during Mary’s reign (Wyatt’s Rebellion in 1554, happened due to Mary’s insistence on marrying Phillip of Spain (who referred to her as an aunt). People in England didn’t particularly like that. The rebellion got really close to London, actually.) that demanded to put Jane back on the throne. So, her and her husband were executed to remove any threat then. This was about a year after she came to the throne, so yeah!
Lady Jane should have been spared for after Elizabeth 1, thus continuing the TUDORS. although giving the fact that Jane's siblings could also be successors
@@rogerturner1881 Unfortunately Lady Jane was a candidate for the throne whether she wanted it or not. So she became a focus for plotters who did not care for Mary. As did Elizabeth later. Thing about being a focus-plotters can drag you down with them. You will be suspected whether or not you are guilty. That is why claimants often die young.
One of the problems in UK monarchy inheritance is that despite high sounding claims to succession, the claim to the throne was originally decided by might of arms, and later by Parliament. Most "rightful" heirs tended to die conveniently or kept very very quiet.
@@wardenblack9734 when I studied history back in the 70's the period after 1485 (Reign of Henry 7th) was regarded as modern history. History like time, is relative lol.
@@daistoke1314 people usually consider the medieval time to be succeeded by the modern time by the time constantinople fell or america was discovered or especially in countries like germany when the protestant reformation began
This is what most of these "Who is the rightful Monarch?" arguments appear to forget. Direct heir inheritance is only an approximation and, every now and then, the Monarch is effectively chosen / existing one is dumped by "the people". Thus what variously happened to Charles I, James II and Edward VIII - all of which were pushed out successfully. Let alone attempts to push Monarchs out unsuccessfully. If others had succeeded Edward VI, I think we can assume it would not be direct inheritance to this day.
8:43 Anne Stanley's claim is also very strong, as it was the Stanley's that won the Battle of Bosworth field for King Henry VII, saving his life and even crowning him on the field.
@@pedanticradiator1491 Your right if you mean r-UK minus scotland. There has never been a king or queen of scotland as no monarch has domain over the land in scotland. They would only be king or queen of scots. This is why if you buy land in scotland it's freehold not leasehold
One error I noticed. Lady Jane Grey was not executed right away (after nine days as stated in the video). She lived for seven months after being deposed. Mary didn’t want to execute Jane because she knew that Jane was just a political pawn. However, after a rebellion that tried to overthrow Mary and restore Jane, Mary realised that Jane needed to die to help secure her position.
and it is through Jane's sister Catherine that I come from meaning I have a stronger claim to the throne the Liz because if you count Jane as a legit queen (which she was) her sister Catherine would have become queen after her, not Mary
@@scotteysteinsson7435 unfortunately Scott. The law was changed in 1701. Only descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover can claim the throne. So you don’t have a stronger claim than the Late Queen Elizabeth II
@@aaronpatton15 Electress of Hanover sounds like a pretty bitchin' punk band, though. Maybe club music. In the U.S. we have "Snyders of Hanover" but that's a pretzel company.
The only problem with these scenarios is that had the throne passed to Edward Seymour, his children all would have married differently with different children. So, near impossible but fun to imagine anyway.
These are always so interesting. By the time you get to the current claimants, they've devolved to being basically normal people --though still among the privileged class of course. I'd love to hear more from Beatrice and William, etc. Are they even aware of their claim? Was it something their family talked about?
that's the thing, people have so many kids that henry has thousands of descendants, it's just she happens to be the direct line, but the wealth of her ancestors was spread between a lot of people, and obviously the government + the royal family have a lot of it, but even besides that. "who do you think you are" is always funny because yes, that person is your great great great great great great great grandfather, but thousands and thousands of people can say the same, which is why ancestory websites can work and not just be untenable
I always have this thought too. Myself, alongside millions of others I’m sure, found through ancestry that the royal line are my distant grandparents etc, but I’m just a normal middle class girl in Gloucestershire. It’s weird how life works lol. Like imagine if things went differently
I've been deep diving on classical Japanese history lately, in particular the Heian period. If you know anything about that subject, you'll recognize the name Fujiwara and the influence they had over the imperial lineage. It's wild watching this and seeing how this same basic pattern plays out over and over again in different cultures all over the world that had no direct contact with each other.
9:57 "And this is where things get quite interesting" LOLOLOLOLOLOL like it hasn't already. New HBO series 2022 "Henry VIII fucks everything up for 100s of years". Game of Thrones doesn't have anything on this stuff.
Maybe you've done something akin to this before, I don't remember, but it would be interesting to see what the line of succession would be if the UK had opted for absolute primogeniture far earlier--say, during the reign of Elizabeth I.
He did it for the scenario in which absolute primogeniture would've been introduced after the death of Queen Victoria. In this case, Victoria would've been followed by her eldest daughter, also named Victoria, but she died only seven months after her mother. Next in line would've been her son, German Emperor Wilhelm II.
(Warning, Long text coming forward!) Ok, so had Elizabeth I changed the rules of succesion to absolute primogeniture we still would have had James VI of Scotland become James I of England since the claim for the descendants of Margaret Tudor would have taken presedence. James's reign would've been nearly identical to his real life one except that at his death he would have been succeded by his eldest surving child, his daughter Elizabeth Stuart, briefly Queen consort of Bohemia (1596 - 1662), she would have reigned as Elizabeth II from 1525 to 1662. Now we run into a bit of a problem, Elizabeth had many children and it is through her that the current Queen has her claim to the throne, however this claim comes only from Elizabeth's 5th daughter Sophia of Hannover since the act of settlement of 1707 issued by Queen Anne bared catholics from inheriting the throne. However in this reality there is no Queen Anne nor James II (since it was him being a Catholic that influenced the act), thus Elizabeth would have been succeded by her eldest surviving son Charles I Louis (Charles I), Elector Palatine (1617 - 1680). Charles I Louise would have been succeded by his eldest son Charles II, (Charles II) Elector Palatine (1651 - 1685) however he died childless so he would be succeded by his sister Elizabeth Charlotte (Elizabeth III), duchess of Orléans (1652 - 1722) who would have been then succeded by her eldest son Philippe II (Philip II), duke of Orléans and regent of France (1674 - 1723) who would have been succeded by his eldest surviving daughter Louise Adelaide d'Orléans (Louise I), Abess of Chelles (1698 - 1743), since she didn't have any children she would have been succeded by her sister Charlotte Aglaé (Charlotte I), duchess of Modena and Reggio (1700 - 1761) who would have been succeded by her grandson Louis Alexandre (Louis I), Prince of Lamballe (1747 - 1768) and since he was childless he would have been succeded by his sister Louise Marie Adélaïde (Louise II), duchess of Orléans (1753 - 1821). Louise Marie Adélaïde's eldest child was Louis Philippe I (Louis II), the last king of the French (1773 - 1850), thus England and France would have been on a personal union from 1830 to 1848 when he was forced to abdicate the French throne. Louis would then be succeded by his 12 year old grandson prince Philippe (Philip III), count of Paris (1838 - 1894) who would have been succeded by his daughter Amélie (Amelia I), the last Queen consort of Portugal (1865 - 1951) and since she had no surviving descendants by the time of her death she would have been succeded by her sister's grandaughter Margherita (Margaret I) who is the dowager duchess of Austria-Este (1930). Margherita would have thus been the current queen of England for 70 years having as her heirs her eldest daughter Archduchess Maria Beatrice (1954) and Maria Beatrice's eldest daughter Countess Anna Therese Marie (1981). Thus the line would be this: - James (House of Stuart) - Elizabeth II (House of Stuart) - Charles I (House of Palatinate-Simmern) - Charles II (House of Palatinate-Simmern) - Elizabeth III (House of Palatinate-Simmern) - Philip II (House of Orléans) - Louise I (House of Orléans) - Charlotte (House of Orléans) - Louis I (House of Bourbon) - Louise II (House of Bourbon) - Louis II (House of Orléans) - Philip III (House of Orléans) - Amelia (House of Orléans) - Margaret (House of Savoy-Aosta) 14, monarchs, 2 less than in real life (and no lord protector lol), 5 royal houses, 7 kings and 7 queens. Edit: In the case that somehow Sophia of Hannover and her descendants took presedence over Elizabeth Stuart's other children the succecion would have been changed to this. Sophia of Hanover (1630 - 1714) Electress of Hanover, never became queen since she died just a month before whom would have been her predecesor, Queen Anne, however in this line Sophia would have became queen in 1662 after her mother's death thus reigning during 52 years. Now we pretty much come back to the original order, Sophia would have been succeded by her son George (1660 - 1727), Elector of Hanover who just as in real life reigned as George I, then he would have been succeded just as in real life by his son George II (1683 - 1760), who outlived his eldest son Frederick, Prince of Wales but instead of being succeded by his grandson George III he would have been succed by his grandaughter Augusta (1737 - 1813), duchess of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. Augusta would have been succed by her grandson William I (1781 - 1864), King of Württemberg, leading to the U.K entering in a personal union with the recently formed kingdom of Württemberg from 1813 to 1864. William would have been succeded by his eldest daughter Marie (1816 - 1887) however she died childless and would have been succeded by her half-sister Catherine (1821 - 1898) who would have been succeded by her son William II (1848 - 1921) who just as his granfather was also king of Württemberg leading to another personal union lasting from 1898 untill 1918 when he was deposed from the throne of Württemberg. William would have been succeded by his daughter Pauline (1877 - 1965), Princess of Wied, who would have been succed by her grandaughter Osterlind (1939) who would have been the current queen from 56 years and her heirs would have been her daughter Sophie von Klitzing (1965) and Sophie's daughter Viktoria von Mackenthun (2000). This line would be something like this: - James (House of Stuart) - Elizabeth II (House of Stuart) - Sophia (House of Palatinate-Simmern) - George I (House of Hanover) - George II (House of Hanover) - Augusta (House of Hanover) - William III (House of Württemberg) - Mary II (House of Württemberg) - Catherine (House of Württemberg) - William IV (House of Württemberg) - Pauline (House of Württemberg) - Osterlind (House of Wied-Neuwied) 12 monarchs, 5 royal houses, 5 kings and 7 queens (Seems like independent of the succesion there would always be a current queen)
@@alcachofa6863 that would be great although it may cone far from reality since this is the era where male are still dominant and if this will came true then the UK will be the most queen regnant to be produced in their years as a kingdom
16:25 actually you would actually end up with his father's half sister Caroline since William's father's father's 3rd marriage was considered null and void because his divorce from his 1st wife was not valid therefore making William's father illegitimate taking him out of line
Favorite wife to Henry VIII is a super relative thing. They were all his favorites at beginning, at least first 3, and Katherine Howard. Seymour only stayed that way because of her very early death and her “gift” to him, he would have tired of them all, eventually.
ACTUALLY, so wait, if everyone DID honor Henry's wishes, including his son Edward VI, Jane Grey (or her descendants) would have become Queen after Elizabeth, since she would not have claimed the throne before Mary and been executed.
The Henrician acts of succession and his will _did_ place his three surviving children before the Greys. Edward's desire to have Jane Grey succeed him deviated from this.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned: a duke's domain is a duchy, not a dukedom. Chandos is pron. Chan-doss. Not Chandose. That aside, a wonderful study.
Jane was not beheaded after the nine days. She went to Jail and was actually as good as pardoned and could have lived if her father wasnt so stupid to go against Mary again.
Yes her father doesn't seemed to have had much sense. Had he not rebelled a 2nd time Jane and Guildford could have lived a relatively normal life as I believe Mary would have eventually released them
Henry VII. still had a claim to the crown through his mother Margaret Beaufort oldest child of the grandson of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. this claim may seem less strong, but as you say that he won the crown through conquest, and also, considering that Henry VII was self exiled for most of his life as he was in danger due to his claim to the throne. However nebulous some people say a claim may be, this relation took over his whole young life. He survived due to the protection of his uncle Jasper Tudor, who smuggled him away to safety on the continent, and the fact that his mother Margaret was unable to see him most of his youth, as she stayed in England in order to consolidate power and to try to help bring him to power. Either that , or live in obscurity all his life in exile,
It reminds me of Harry Potter. Arabella Figg is Harry’s neighbor that babysits him and has a bunch of cats that she likes to show him pictures of. I think about her quite frequently when my cat almost trips me because in the books one of hers makes her fall and break her leg lol. I think it’s a really pretty name though
Her mom knew, apparently. > When Debrett's informed [Beatrice Mary] she would have been Queen but for a quirk of history, Lady Kinloss was unimpressed. "I wouldn't take the job for all the tea in China," she apparently retorted. "I have quite enough to do looking after a family of three while attending the Lords three times a week."
An interesting extra on the Dukedom of Buckingham: it's been created and extincted four times, and the fourth family to own it are the Dukes & Duchesses of Buckingham named in the video, but the second family to have owned it are the Villiers family, to which William Child-Villiers belongs. Incidentally, the third family to have owned the Dukedom are the ones after whom Buckingham Palace is named.
The problem with this analysis is that the Will is only good in the immediate aftermath of Henry’s death and succession. Once Edward VI became King, the Will of his predecessor becomes irrelevant. The succession goes according to prior law. In any case, this was all rendered moot by the Glorious Revolution, English Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement 1701. The Succession is and has been for some time, determined by Act of Parliament.
There's some room for argument, regarding the right of a King to determine who would succeed him after his death, at least before the Act of Settlement. Mary Tudor rallied popular support, and claimed the throne, imprisoning the young queen Jane, and her supporters. Vox populi, vox Dei.
From what I had read, Edward VI had been barred from making any changes to the succession. I don't remember if that was only during his minority (his entire reign was spent under a regency, as he was only 9 when he became King).
The Glorious Revolution/Williamite War was my thought. Does it still happen? If it does we still end up with Charles the Third. What about the Civil War? Without Charles the First do we still get Oliver Cromwell? And are different decisions made after his death? Could be a Republic from the 1660s...
I find it interesting that people think this way about Henry's temperament - that he was just looking for a reason to kill his wives. I'm not saying Henry was a standup guy by any means, but I AM saying that he probably truly did believe Anne Boleyn was guilty of adultery. There is evidence of him breaking down crying to his son Henry Fitzroy upon Anne's arrest; he truly felt he had been betrayed, he did not simply devise a way to be rid of Anne because she "irritated" him. Furthermore, he was devoutly religious and probably truly DID believe he was being punished by God for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Jane was specifically chosen because she was rather demure and conservative. I can't imagine Henry would have found many issues with her had she survived childbirth, although her brothers were quite obviously power-hungry and might have invented trouble for her.
Henry would never have divorced Jane; it would have further muddied the already messed up succession. Depending on why she might have been divorced, it might also have cast doubts on Edward's paternity. Henry would have little reason to kill her; after securing the succession he might very likely, had she lived, taken mistresses--no need to get rid of her really.
A descendent of Mary Tudor Brandon is on the throne of "England." King Charles, through his maternal grandmother, is a descendent of Mary Tudor Brandon and her granddaughter, Katherine Grey.
I've tried to calculate the most senior heir to William the Conqueror by absolute primogeniture a while back and it was a real mess. (I briefly thought it was Talleyrand but that line turned out to be based on a misunderstanding.) I don't recall if I've tried Charlemagne but it would probably be way worse; there's just not a lot of data on 9th century royal daughters. Then there was that one time I tried to figure out the most senior heir of Harold Godwinsson by male preference, and got hopelessly lost in very confusing 18th and 19th century Polish family trees...
i love your charts, matt. it makes it so easy to visualize the connections when they are laid out in this manor. i wonder if these individuals are aware of who they might have been in that altnernative history
Sometimes they are. Usually they don't make much of it. The current Jacobite pretender, for example, is willing to discuss his claim, but says that it is "merely hypothetical".
I’d love to see a chart of the line of succession if Henry VIII had not chopped off the head of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (he was a cousin with possibly the strongest claim to the throne if Henry’s own line died out, and was executed for saying it out loud - aka ‘imagining the death of a king’)
There is a book "Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal" which traces all Plantagenet descendants down to about the 1970s. I know it's on Ancestry, not sure if you can actually buy it though
Incorrect re Jane Grey. The "Nine Days' Queen" was actually spared by Mary I Tudor after her initial accession to the Crown, along with her husband Guilford Dudley. Mary was quite aware that neither of them had been the driving force behind the attempted usurpation of her inheritance, and was inclined to forgive them their (figurehead) participation in it. Guilford's father, the Duke of Northumberland (allegedly the main plotter) was executed on 22/08/1553, but matters seemed to settle down afterward; while both remained under arrest in the Tower, Lady Jane especially was accorded extra liberties, such as the privilege of walking unescorted through the Tower gardens in December 1553. What changed matters? The Wyatt Rebellion, launched in protest against Mary's plans to marry Philip of Spain. Jane Grey's father took part in it, as did two of Guilford's brothers. This convinced Mary that the pair were a major political, security and military liability simply by existing, and that her duty as Queen was to place the realm's security above her cousinly sympathy for Jane Grey. Accordingly, she reluctantly signed the writ of execution for Lady Jane and her husband on 19/01/1554 - a full six months after taking the Crown from her. The execution took place on 12/02/1553; Guilford was executed on Tower Hill, Lady Jane in the Tower itself. Re Mary Queen of Scots. What convinced Elizabeth to finally have her cousin executed was not any single plot, so much as it was the accumulated weight of many, many plots and treasons using Mary (sometimes willingly, sometimes unknowingly) as a figurehead/rallying point. The Pope's backing of these treasons (via the papal bull 'Regnans in Excelsis', issued 1570) did not help matters; it only lit a fire underneath would-be rebels, and prompted (the mostly-Protestant) Parliament to crack down on Catholicism. It was not until 1586, however, when Elizabeth finally sanctioned the investigation and indictment of Mary Stuart for treason on the basis of the Babington Plot, more specifically letters written by Mary to the plotters, in which Mary gave her assent to the proposed assassination of Elizabeth. Unknown to Elizabeth at the time, the Babington Plot was actually an entrapment operation by her spymaster Walsingham.
Great video! thank you. Just one niggle. Derby is phonetically pronounced D'ah'by as in B'ar'bie. (say it like a pirate but breathing out - lol ) Not to be confused with the spelling of D'er'by with the phonetic vowel sound of 'urr' as in f'urr'by. I hope this helps with future videos. All the best from a native of D'ah'byshire :)
I would find a chart listing all potential alternative UK monarchs alive today quite interesting if only for one reason. It would be interesting to speculate on the possibility of relationships that might tie them all together so that, going forward, all the alternatives are unified.
I’ve gone down a rabbit hole in search of my Native American ancestors instead I found my royal family! What a shock and a very interesting journey it’s been up to this point! I only plugged in myself and my parents to connect to my grandparents and there it was a family tree that I could not have imagined!! If all information is correct, I’m 14th generation descendant of Mary Queen of Scots through the line of King Charles II.
A couple of problems with this, though: 1. Is "right of conquest" an official legitimate way of gaining the throne? Because if so, none of the Yorkists were legitimately on the throne. Henry IV would have legitimately succeeded Richard II. So the question about Edward IV's legitimacy and George of Clarence's descendants would be completely moot. There would be no Wars of the Roses and the Lancastrian branch would have continued, Henry VI would have still been succeeded by AN "Edward IV" but it would have been HIS son Edward. 2. Kings don't get to choose their successors. The line of succession after Edward VI, even if against H8's wishes, was in my mind, the legitimate way to do things. However even if we accept H8's will, like I said in #1, it should never even have come to this. If Right of Conquest is legitimate, then the Lancastrians would have been rightful rulers, there'd be no Wars of the Roses, ergo the Yorkists, and eventually the Tudors, would never have been on the throne in the first place, and there'd be no Henry VIII. Now that I think of it, *could you do an alternate history if the Lancastrians won the Wars of the Roses?*
If "right of conquest" is an official legitimate way of gaining the throne, then yes, Henry IV was legitimately king, but Edward IV also became king by conquest, so he would have been legitimate too. I think Edward's father used his lineage as an excuse to fight against Henry VI, but the real reason was that Henry VI's ineptitude motivated others to rebel. I think that the point on the succession to Henry VIII is that it wasn't just that Henry's will specified certain things, but that Parliament had ratified what was in his will, so the act of Parliament was the more significant fact.
@@otisdylan9532 Agreed. But I also think that if Henry IV was seen as legitimate and H6 was a stronger king, there would have been no rebellion by Richard of York or E4.
"Kings don't get to choose their successors" - that is quite literally why Henry wrote the legislation which ALLOWED him to choose his own successor. It was ratified in Parliament.
I just stumbled upon your channel so I don’t know if you already made a video like that, but I’d love to see who’d be king if Richard iii had won the wars of the roses!
I actually figured this out once! After Richard III died the throne would have gone to: Elizabeth I (Richard III's sister) Edmund (Son of Elizabeth I) Elizabeth II (Daughter of Edmund) William III (Brother of Edmund) Margaret (Cousin of William III) Reginald (Son of Margaret) Arthur I (Nephew of Reginald) Geoffrey I (Brother of Arthur I) Arthur II (Son of Geoffrey I) Geoffrey II (Brother of Arthur II) Edward VI (Geoffrey II's first cousin one removed) Henry VII (Son of Edward VI) Mary (Sister of Henry VII) Henry VIII (Son of Mary) William IV (Nephew of Henry VIII) William V (Son of William IV) Which brings us up to 1751. After that I ran out of Wikipedia. This is assuming that they keep their dates of death, which given some of them were executed by the monarch at the time, wouldn't be the case if they were on the throne
Very interesting! Thank you for taking your time to do this work! I have been wondering who were supossed to be Queen of King instead of Elizebeth II's line🤣😁
If you make the argument against Tony Robinson's theory that Henry VII took the throne by right of conquest, you can pretty much say the same thing against your own theory because of Mary II and her husband, William of orange, who ruled Britain following the Glorious Revolution. Also, the Hanovers as well as Charles II were appointed by invitation, ow does that affect your theory?
queen jane only held the tower of london for nine days but she was executed quite some time later, not right when mary's forces took the tower. she could have been spared but she refused multiple offers to convert/repent and eventually it looked bad that she was still alive.
The problem you have is that if Henry the Randy’s will had been followed then Queen Jane wouldn’t have been executed and the crown would descend to her children.
@@Little_Lotta If Henry VIII will had been followed on the death of Edward VI then Bloody Mary becomes Queen not Jane Grey, followed by Elizabeth and then either Jane Grey or one of her children (she was already married at the death of Edward VI) as she isn’t executed in her teens.
I'm not sure that's how wills work, regardless of the testators' intentions. The testator has one last chance to choose who inherits their property. Once inherited, the new owner has complete control, and can use it or dispose it off in any way they choose. They are _not_ bound by the previous owner's wishes. If the testator wants to continue to exert control even afterwards-from _beyond the grave,_ so to speak-they should not hand it over outright. Rather, you create a Trust that owns the property and continues to maintain control over it. Even that's not foolproof. The trustees have a lot of discretion on how to run the trust, and the testator is no longer alive to oversee them ⚰. Further, the trust can amend its charter, get dissolved, go bankrupt etc. Short-lived trusts - like _"until my daughter turns 25"_ - have a better chance of succeeding in their goals. On the other hand, trusts 'in perpetuity,' after several years, won't look like the way the testator hoped. Look at the Nobel Prize for an example! So poor Henry VIII didn't really have a chance that his last will would be obeyed beyond his immediate successor. It would have required all his successors to have less power than him. And which monarch would voluntarily relinquish their power to honor a dead one's wishes? (There's only one that I know of-King Rama of Ayodhya-and people deify him and sing his praises to this day.) It would also require that Parliament would not change its own prior laws. Again, that's an impractical ask. In fact, the British Parliament _has_ changed the succession laws several times after Henry VIII died, most recently in 2013. Even having it enshrined in a Constitution wouldn't make it fail-safe. After all, Constitutions too get amended, replaced, or outright abolished.
I’m actually a bit surprised that they even followed it through to Elizabeth. Henry was such an egoist he really thought he could just say who would be regnant down several generations.
That was what I have been actually thinking since even if Henry VIII had made a will saying that the descendant of his sister.. Mary, Duchess of Sullfok would be next in line after Elizabeth I, what would have happened if Elizabeth did make a will that doesn't follow Henry VIII's wishes for the succession of the throne? Would Elizabeth's will be overridden by Henry VIII?
@@mangot589 You forget, I think, the tremendous personal popularity Henry Tudor enjoyed during his lifetime. The common people loved him. After his death, and his son's death, Mary was his eldest daughter, and the daughter of Katherine of Aragon - a lady who enjoyed some personal popularity in her own right. Mary lost some of that personal popularity when she began her persecution of Protestants, but lost even more when she married Phillip of Spain. Elizabeth was far more aware of her personal image than Mary, and she had personal charisma. Like Henry, she cultivated her relationship with her people, and maintained it carefully. It served her well throughout her life. I personally think that her stated view - that she *was* married to the people of England - was both canny public image management, and a sincere pledge to her people that she would put no foreign prince ahead of them.
Especially the balancing act of keeping power while holding on to moral values. There are certain forms of initiation, held in secret when bloodlines, power, and money are involved. There's a tradition in Britain to merge secret societies with the strategies of those in power, ruling Britain. Not for the benefit of the people.
Interestingly, Frances Devereux is an ancestor of Elizabeth II as well (and a descendent of Mary Boleyn herself) ... So everything kept in the family, I guess :)
King James 6/1 is a descendant of Robert Bruce, so the incident at 11:14 is not special, in-fact the current monarchy, as descendants of James 6/1 (including Elizabeth 2) are all from House of Bruce
As a fan of alternate history, I use this alternate succession in my scenarios, but a bit differently: By the time of the second William Seymour's (called William IV) death in 1671, I instigate a return of the rule of male preference to follow the succession of the Dukes of Somerset. And thus William IV would be succeeded by his uncle John (as John II, 1671 - 1675), son of the first William Seymour (William III). And after him the succession follows: Francis I Seymour (second-cousin once removed to John II and grandson of Francis Seymour, younger brother of William III): 1675 - 1678 Charles I Seymour (younger brother of childless Francis I): 1678 - 1748 Algernon I Seymour (second son of Charles I): 1748 - 1749 Elizabeth II Seymour (daughter of Algernon I and here we switch back to allowing females again because of the Pragmatic Sanction has happend in the HRE and Maria Theresa shows the way forward): 1749 - 1776 Hugh I Percy (son of Elizabeth II and Duke Hugh I Percy of Northumberland): 1776 - 1817 Hugh II Percy (son of Hugh I): 1817 - 1847 Algernon II Percy (younger brother of childless Hugh I): 1847 - 1865 George I Percy (cousin of childless Algernon II as son Algernon, brother of Hugh I): 1865 - 1867 Algernon III Percy (son of George I): 1867 - 1899 Henry IX Percy (son of Algernon III): 1899 - 1918 Alan I Percy (son of Hugh IX): 1918 - 1930 Henry X Percy (son of Alan I): 1930 - 1940 Hugh III Percy (younger brother of childless Henry X): 1940 - 1988 Henry XI Percy (son of Hugh III): 1988 - 1995 And since 1995: Ralph I Percy (younger brother of childless Henry XI and known today as the 12th Duke of Northumberland), with his heir being his daughter Catherine Percy born in 1982.
The problem there is England never followed the continental "Salic Law" in which only males could inherit the throne. Its version of "male preference primogeniture", followed until the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (implementing the 2011 Perth Agreement), allowed legitimate daughters to inherit if there were no legitimate sons; thus Mary I & then Elizabeth I were his rightful heirs. (That is, except for the fact that Henry VIII annulled his marriages to Catherine of Aragon & Anne Boleyn, though he had Boleyn executed shortly thereafter. But that's another story.) Interestingly, if "absolute primogeniture" (the rule of the Perth Agreement for those born after 28 October 2011) had applied to the present line when the Jacobite line was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, there would never have been a revolution as his Protestant daughter Mary II (of William & Mary fame) would have inherited over his Catholic son James Francis Edward Stuart. (William, however, would have been left out; Queen Anne would have taken over immediately after Mary II.) When Queen Anne died without surviving children, however, the throne would have gone back to the Jacobite line... except that direct line died out when Henry Stuart (called Henry IX by Jacobites) became a priest & died without issue. Perhaps it's just better to recognize that Parliament has had the power to designate the line of succession since at least 1660, thus the current line from Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James VI & I's granddaughter & George I's mother) under the Act of Settlement 1701 (only slightly tweaked in the future by the Perth Agreement) is the correct one. God save King Charles III!
Fascinating hearing about "Monte Python".... I believe it was on September 11 or 12 that CNN was doing a live "tribute" and remarked several times that it all reminded them of Monte Python....
@JiWiK. It's my belief that abuse of power and loss of integrity, also the effects of inbreeding, are the cause of that decline. Losing moral values. My mother used to say "It must be a pair of strong legs that will be able to carry the weight of wealth"
Yea, my Grandmother's last name is Bruce, directly descended from Robert the Bruce, and we're a very middle-class ordinary family living in New Zealand.
The problem with this, of course, is that Arbella would not have died if James had not been King because he would not have been imprisoned. She would have stayed married to William Seymour and their line would have then followed.
Fascinating. There is a great trilogy of books by Randall Garrett featuring a character named Lord Darcy, who is a Sherlock Holmes-like detective. The premise of the books is that Richard the Lionhearted did not die in 1199 but returned to England to continue the Plantagenet line. History is VERY different in that time line.
The Lord Darcy books are brilliant, I agree, but they are fantasy, rather than alternative history, since Garrett also included magic in his stories. If the Plantagenet line continued (whether or not Richard stepped up to the plate, there was John Lackland) it might have been interesting to see how different England might be. Almost certainly, Great Britain would still be a Catholic country.
Little tip about British names... Beauchamp is pronounced Beecham and Derby is actually Darby. Makes no sense but just the way things are.
Beecham? Yeah, I never would have guessed!
@@UsefulCharts one of the oddest is Featherstonhaugh which is pronounced Fanshaw
@@si29uk And Godmanchester is pronounced Gumster, and Blackpool is pronounced Hell-on-Earth
Beauchamp isn't pronounced Bochan? I guess they distanced themselves from French pronunciation
@@theghosthero6173 I don't know when the shift from the French pronunciation happened but it is certainly Beecham now. Place names in the UK are just as strange. Care to guess how to say Cogenhoe or Happisburgh?
“Elizabeth quickly understood the threat” sums up her reign fairly well
No wonder she never had kids!!!
@@morgantaylor517 Well, legitimate kids. Liz I, of course, was not a virgin, and was as randy as her father. Supposedly, she had several illegitimate children, including the Earl of Southhampton, made famous by Shakespeare's Sonnets. The Tudor family is truly a line of conniving, murderous rats.
@@Mooseman327 I didn't know that!!! I find that period of history so fascinating. I loved Hillary Mantel's books about Cromwell, I wish she'd write about QE1.
Someone enters the throne room wearing purple "Elizabeth quickly understood the threat"
@@Mooseman327 Did she have affairs? Ah, possibly, but an intense level of discretion would have been required. As the daughter of Anne Boleyn, half of Europe considered her a bastard. She had to keep her reputation seemingly spotless. As for illegitimate children… no. NO WAY she could hide that like she could plausibly hide a lover.
Henry was so damn obsessed with ensuring his lineage that his children didn't have any children of their own
karma
His illegitimate children did I believe. I know Henry Fitzroy’a child did die as a baby, the others had some adult children’s
@@yem3321 there's no proof that Henry had any illegitimate children other than Henry Fitzroy. And even if those children were actually his, he never claimed those children and never intended them to be on the throne like he intended Mary and the others to be, and his precious dynasty ended
@@yem3321 Henry Fitzroy didn’t die as a child as shown in the show “The tudors” if that’s what your referring to. He ended up dying at 17 with no children of his own, then the son he had with his third wife Jane Seymour Edward who died at 15 but became king at 9 with no children.
Well Edward VI died when he was only 15 so he didn’t really have time and Mary tried it’s actually quite sad when she died it’s believed she thought she was pregnant because she wanted to be SO badly but she actually had cancer in her stomach or ovaries that made her stomach expand. As we Elizabeth was just a boss and didn’t want to be ruled by anyone so yeah haha
Useful charts - “As a side note I should make a note that the title queen of England doesn’t currently exist”
Me - “Ahh yes yes. Cause she’s dead.”
Useful Charts - “Queen Elizabeth the second is actually not the queen on England. She’s the queen of the United Kingdom”
Me - “oh.”
FR my reaction
Oh so i'm not alone
Camilla is the Queen of the UK
No she isn't a proper queen, she only has a curtesy title as wife of the king, she isn't a reigning queen in her own right, and her kids from previous marriages aren't royal or in the line of succession. The monarchy is inherited as a mystical instalation instantly on the death of the previous monarch, it can't be just given away, the next in line is a birthright! @@real_nosferatu
😂@@real_nosferatu
Beatrice, Lady Kinloss was informed of this theory about the succession, and she said she "wouldn't want to be queen for all the tea in China".
Fair enough
how about for all the tea in China AND India?
Well that's not very Bri'ish of her
@@marcinkrz3140 c'mon, even for a Brit that's more tea than anyone needs. 😆
Not if he could sing like a bird? Not for all North Carolina?
Imagine you're an unemployed lazy dude chillin' on his bed while watching this and suddenly, your name shows up as the true king of England: "I got a conquest to do fellas!"
Thatd be awesome
I guess that this lazy unemployed dude would quickly realize that being the legitimate King of England robs him from all his privacy and that being rich and famous isn't something to envy of haven't got the time to enjoy it. Nah, he would skip to the next recommendated video. Way too much work!
Cassus Belli: I want a throne
Liz: Bring it on
You mean the plot for the movie "King Ralph"?
It is very strange to me that Henry regarded Edward so highly that he declared his own two daughters illegitimate, because he was so desperate to secure his lineage with his only male heir, but at the end, even his 15 year old son didn't follow his wishes.
And Henry made his daughters hate him and the legacy of the Tudor name so much that Mary died childless pining over a man who never loved her, because rather than keeping the Tudor name alive, she preferred to honor her mother's Spanish blood instead; and Elizabeth sacrificed her chance to marry and have children because she wanted to end the Tudors completely.
I think Elizabeth always knew James was gonna be the next monarch; and iirc, she *did* declare him her heir in one of her letters for him, but it is still very interesting to see the "what if" scenarios.
Tudor Dynasty didn't last very long compared to, say, Habsburgs or Ottomans but I feel like there is still so much we don't know about them. Big respect to all who worked to preserve history and those who are teaching us today.
And thank you very much for this video.
Yes, Elizabeths father was not the most encouraging of male role models and its not unusual for adults who had traumatic childhoods to not want families of their own. Can't imagine all the scheming and assassination plots did her already Warranted trust issues any favours either. She probably turned out pretty well considering.
We don't ask much from our Kings, but a son and heir is a full expectation.
"It is very strange to me that Henry regarded Edward so highly that he declared his own two daughters illegitimate"
Henry VIII was a sexist. Who knew?
@@simhedgesrex7097 I think he, just like all women and men of the 16th century, was too embraced in his gender roles.
It's weird saying good things about him because nearly no one does, but I don't think he was a man who hated women. He wouldn't have married 6 times if he hated women. He believed it wasn't a woman's place or in a woman's nature to rule but he didn't believe that because he was sexist, but because that was the norm back then. (Even female monarchs wanted male heirs.)
And slightly off topic but look at Henry's treatment of Catherine Parr, for example, it was clear he respected her and admired her as a person. He demanded in *his will* that she still get treated as if she were queen consort and not queen dowager. Anne of Cleves, after the divorce; and Catherine Parr after Henry's passing, became two of the wealthiest women in the country because Henry cared for them and didn't want them to struggle to provide for themselves or depend on others to survive.
Man clearly had issues no one can deny that; and it is sickening how he treated his daughter Mary, his ex wives, or just pretty much everyone around him but he did have an understanding of love, albeit a warped one.
I specialised in the Tudor dynasty, when I did my history degree. It was unique in how the courtiers manipulated procedures. Henry changed the course of this country, by wanting a male heir and changing what had always been a Catholic country, into the Church of England. What a unique history we have!
"Known to history as Queen Elizabeth the First." Only for the last 69 years and 50 weeks, in fact. It's actually strange to realise that for nearly 400 years she was actually known to history simply as Queen Elizabeth - just like Queen Anne and Queen Victoria.
regarding Victoria, under the clockfaces of Big Ben was the inscription "Domine salvam fac Reginam nostrum *Victoriam primam* " (Lord doth preserve the queen our *Victoria the first* )
@@盧璘壽로인수 You mean the clock faces of what is now called the Elizabeth Tower, after Elizabeth II. Big Ben is the name of the main bell in that tower.
@@盧璘壽로인수 that’s just future-proofing in case there’s ever a Victoria II but nobody says the First part right now
Everyone else talking about the actual comment then 12 year old brain me 69 nice😂
Virginia was colonized in the name of Elizabeth I, thus her identity of her being the "Virgin Queen" already existed during her reign.
If I am wrong then please provide proof of your "69 years and 50 weeks".
I love these alternate scenario videos. I've suggested before, and do again, that you do one on: Who Would be King of England Today, if England had had Absolute Primogeniture since William the Conqueror? Interesting because the UK now does have absolute primogeniture. Should be an interesting chase down the genealogy trees.
that would be hard to do, because often the birthdates of girls where not recorded proberly. Sometimes it is unsure if there where daughters born before the heir. and if they where, if they where older or not. Specialy in the first centurys soeties only boys names and dates where recorded. I tried that once but ended in a lot dead ends whne it says: probly older daughter who maaried and had issus... but you never know who they where.
And depending on if you go with catolics or just by dna... but ou probply end up in some German/austrian small old royal lines. Wich hardly can be followed sometimes. Becuase of mentioned reasons. You maybe have to dig deep in some unknown family trees and then end up in deadlines.
I tried it and gave up
@@Lord_Skeptic Why Edward I ?
Interestingly though, the current Queen Elizabeth is still a direct descendant of Mary Tudor (Henry the 8th’s sister) through her mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. So in a way, Henry the 8th’s will was technically still followed, a descendant of his sister Mary is sitting on the throne today.
She is also possibly a descendant of Henry himself through the daughter of Mary Boylen who many believe was Henry's
@@pedanticradiator1491 OMG, I wanna know more now. I havent have heard of this before.
@@carolinacocula9119Mary Boylen was Henry's lover before he took up with her sister, she had 2 children that were officially her husband's but many believe that the eldest one Catherine Carey was Henry's but are not sure about her brother as the Careys were living away from the Royal Court when he was born. Catherine went on to become Elizabeth I's chief lady in waiting and was given an almost state funeral at Westminster Abbey a rare privilege for someone not of Royal blood. Catherine's daughter Lettice Knollys became a rival to Elizabeth when she married Royal favourite Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Lettice was banished from court though her husband wasn't neither was her son by her 1st husband Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex who was another of Elizabeth's favourites. The present monarch is descended from Lettice through the late Queen Mother.
I don’t know why Henry’s will would be needed to followed to this extent anyway. If all heirs had died with him or there was some other chaos then his will would have been relevant for so many heirs that were named. But all the heirs who became monarchs had their own ability to make legal wills. And Henry wasn’t exactly a role model as a king. .
@@sarasamaletdin4574 it's because his will had been turned into an act of Parliament
Here's an even freakier scenario, let's say Henry's younger sister had produced a male heir during her brief marriage to the King of France, (that or one of Henry's many attempts to have his daughter Mary wed the dauphin): we might have seen the United Kingdom of England, Ireland, and France instead. Wow, imagine how much bigger the British [sic] Empire would have been in that scenario and maybe even still existing...that kinda screws up North American history too
Only if none of the other world powers complained. I can't remember which royals in particular, but there were definitely cases where certain heirs were chosen or supported over the others to avoid exactly such things happening. Charles V Holy Roman Emperor inherited Castile, Aragon, Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. but strategically divided them up between his two sons when he abdicated those thrones. (supposedly so they'd be more flexible and easier to govern)
Reminds me how Richard the 1st was supposed to inherit france but the french lords just said nah, causing the 100 year war
@@freesiaoriental actually Charles divided his dominons up between his son Philip and his brother Ferdinand not his 2 sons in fact Philip was his only surviving legitimate son
@@pedanticradiator1491 Ah yeah you're right, got it mixed up. Thanks
@@thewanderingcrusader it was Edward III who was the first English king to claim the French throne and started the 100 years war not Richard I. The war started in 1337 and Richard I had died in 1199
There’s a documentary on the would-be Australian King, Michael Edward Abney-Hastings which is also interesting. He died in 2012 but after a historian did all the work to find him, he already had a family tree and knew he had royal lineage. He was a Uk ex-pat and loved living here in Australia.
Yeah,he seemed a nice bloke and his kids were a bit bogan (in a good way) or maybe just ockers.
Imagine a royal family that was 100% Aussie 🤣
I saw the program, he seemed a lovely man, said he wasn't interested in becoming the next monarch. He had a good life where he was, why change it?
@@mypointofview1111 exactly. He seemed very down to earth and a good sport 🤩
@@alisonholland7531 😂 absolutely! Ha ha I was watching it thinking ‘soooo bogan…!’ 😅 but in a country kinda way 😁
@@user-oh6xq8lx3z Why ruin a good discussion with talk of the Sky Fairy? ? ?
People seem to forget Edward was in fact not Henry's only son, excluding illegitimate children he had one other. The son of Catherine of Aragon: Henry Duke of Cornwall, who died a few months after being born. Edward was his only living legitimate son not his only son nor his only legitimate son.
There was Henry Fitzroy who would have been next in line but this list doesn’t even mention him because he was illegitimate…
@@dawnmrodgers though he had a chance of being legitimised by Henry which is interesting
True. Little Henry really should have survived. Very unfortunate
@@dawnmrodgers He does not get a look in because of his illegitimacy.. That was the way of the times. In any case Henry VIII outlived Fitzroy by several years.
Nope, Henry the VIII outlived his illegitimate son so it never could have happened
I love these alternate succession videos. You end up learning about many of the minor nobles in british history that aren't talked about enough.
I'd say they're being talked about more than they deserve. No disrespect to them, but after all, they're *minor* nobles.
What if they ARE being talked about enough. Every family has its slouches. :D
Thank you for sharing your research with us. I know you worked hard putting this presentation together. I love British History. My husband taught genealogy at the University as sort of a extra class for those that were interested. He was on the faculty and was the University Bibliographer for the library system. His under grad was in European history . He was working on his own genealogy when he had his first round of cancer at thirty two . Sadly he never finished his own genealogy. He died at 43 of brain cancer. We had two young children. I really do enjoy European History and read a lot of literature on the history of Europe
How about a chart on how Henry VIII is related to all his wives outside of marriage?
A fan made a chart about that: www.reddit.com/r/UsefulCharts/comments/qltgwy/i_am_a_huge_six_the_musical_fan_so_i_made_a_chart/
@@UsefulCharts That's interesting - so all six of Henry VIII's wives descended from Edward I and Eleanor of Castile...who are my [double] 23rd great-grandparents LOL. I shall have to add them to my family tree.
@@frankhooper7871 could you consider that as a loose claim to the throne or too far of a reach? lmao
😎
@@UsefulCharts And now I want portraits of all of them so I can see if there are any interesting traits that became way too pronounced... kind of like the Hapsburgs and their famous chins.
I love the alternative succession charts, could you do some other countries as well?
I'll love to see who would be the Inca today although that might be hard and I'm not sure usefulcharts has made an Inca family tree chart yet.
@@spearshake4771 hell probably they sacrificed millions of people for their “gods” there was no undoing what they had coming to them
@@spearshake4771 The British and French may take possession instead !
@@spearshake4771 people glorify the past humans have alway been the same cruel creatures nothing has changed Except the difference today is people are held accountable u think he would’ve done that if it was right on the coast of Europe no he did it on the other side of the world cuz he never thought anyone would find out
Russia would be good. But hard.
The red army did a good job scrubbing them out... who would be the real queen or king. Also Germany tecnicly still has a Keiser, bit hitler passed the leadership 2 weeks after the Keiser of ww1 passed. So.. they have one tecnicly but never really looked into it...
Fun fact: William Child-Villiers is the father of Amelie Child-Villiers, who plays Galadriel as a child in Rings of Power
Fun fact from someone studying the Tudors at A-Level, Lady Jane Grey wasn’t executed after her arrest. It was only when a rebellion sparked up during Mary’s reign (Wyatt’s Rebellion in 1554, happened due to Mary’s insistence on marrying Phillip of Spain (who referred to her as an aunt). People in England didn’t particularly like that. The rebellion got really close to London, actually.) that demanded to put Jane back on the throne. So, her and her husband were executed to remove any threat then. This was about a year after she came to the throne, so yeah!
I'm doing tudors at A Level too! Alongside I'm doing US 1945-80 and that's incredible
I believe she still remained imprisoned in the Tower though?
And it was the suspicion that her sister was a backer of Wyatt that motivated Mary to imprison Elizabeth.
Lady Jane should have been spared for after Elizabeth 1, thus continuing the TUDORS. although giving the fact that Jane's siblings could also be successors
@@rogerturner1881 Unfortunately Lady Jane was a candidate for the throne whether she wanted it or not. So she became a focus for plotters who did not care for Mary. As did Elizabeth later. Thing about being a focus-plotters can drag you down with them. You will be suspected whether or not you are guilty. That is why claimants often die young.
One of the problems in UK monarchy inheritance is that despite high sounding claims to succession, the claim to the throne was originally decided by might of arms, and later by Parliament. Most "rightful" heirs tended to die conveniently or kept very very quiet.
Supreme power always belongs to whomever is supported by supreme force. Sometimes force follows law, sometimes not.
Long long ago!
@@wardenblack9734 when I studied history back in the 70's the period after 1485 (Reign of Henry 7th) was regarded as modern history. History like time, is relative lol.
@@daistoke1314 people usually consider the medieval time to be succeeded by the modern time by the time constantinople fell or america was discovered or especially in countries like germany when the protestant reformation began
This is what most of these "Who is the rightful Monarch?" arguments appear to forget. Direct heir inheritance is only an approximation and, every now and then, the Monarch is effectively chosen / existing one is dumped by "the people". Thus what variously happened to Charles I, James II and Edward VIII - all of which were pushed out successfully. Let alone attempts to push Monarchs out unsuccessfully. If others had succeeded Edward VI, I think we can assume it would not be direct inheritance to this day.
8:43 Anne Stanley's claim is also very strong, as it was the Stanley's that won the Battle of Bosworth field for King Henry VII, saving his life and even crowning him on the field.
15:00 "There is no Santa Claus. There is no Easter Bunny. And there is no Queen of England."
No there is no Queen of England but there is a Queen of the UK
Its a Megamind reference
Holy shit, Tighten was right all along!
@@pedanticradiator1491
Your right if you mean r-UK minus scotland. There has never been a king or queen of scotland as no monarch has domain over the land in scotland. They would only be king or queen of scots. This is why if you buy land in scotland it's freehold not leasehold
@@rainblaze. the Stuarts changed the title to Scotland during the personal Union
One error I noticed. Lady Jane Grey was not executed right away (after nine days as stated in the video). She lived for seven months after being deposed.
Mary didn’t want to execute Jane because she knew that Jane was just a political pawn.
However, after a rebellion that tried to overthrow Mary and restore Jane, Mary realised that Jane needed to die to help secure her position.
and it is through Jane's sister Catherine that I come from meaning I have a stronger claim to the throne the Liz because if you count Jane as a legit queen (which she was) her sister Catherine would have become queen after her, not Mary
Why do you know such information? i bet you're a right gossip in the neighborhood watch meetings lol ;)
@@scotteysteinsson7435 unfortunately Scott. The law was changed in 1701. Only descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover can claim the throne. So you don’t have a stronger claim than the Late Queen Elizabeth II
@@aaronpatton15 Electress of Hanover sounds like a pretty bitchin' punk band, though. Maybe club music. In the U.S. we have "Snyders of Hanover" but that's a pretzel company.
@@AJHart-eg1ys yeah it was actually pretty boring though,just meant you could elect a holy roman emperor if i’m remembering correctly
The only problem with these scenarios is that had the throne passed to Edward Seymour, his children all would have married differently with different children. So, near impossible but fun to imagine anyway.
Yes, nearly impossible to surmise.
And the butterfly effect would take over
But useful for anyone who wants to start a civil war. "For God and Queen Teresa!"
These are always so interesting. By the time you get to the current claimants, they've devolved to being basically normal people --though still among the privileged class of course.
I'd love to hear more from Beatrice and William, etc. Are they even aware of their claim? Was it something their family talked about?
As someone said above, Beatrice was informed about her claim and said that she wouldn't want to be Queen "even for all of the tea in China".
@@RockNRollHorrorshow what about Teresea? does she know?
that's the thing, people have so many kids that henry has thousands of descendants, it's just she happens to be the direct line, but the wealth of her ancestors was spread between a lot of people, and obviously the government + the royal family have a lot of it, but even besides that.
"who do you think you are" is always funny because yes, that person is your great great great great great great great grandfather, but thousands and thousands of people can say the same, which is why ancestory websites can work and not just be untenable
I always have this thought too. Myself, alongside millions of others I’m sure, found through ancestry that the royal line are my distant grandparents etc, but I’m just a normal middle class girl in Gloucestershire. It’s weird how life works lol. Like imagine if things went differently
I'd say they've evolved into normal people instead, but that's me :P
I've been deep diving on classical Japanese history lately, in particular the Heian period. If you know anything about that subject, you'll recognize the name Fujiwara and the influence they had over the imperial lineage. It's wild watching this and seeing how this same basic pattern plays out over and over again in different cultures all over the world that had no direct contact with each other.
The Fujiwara clan. Famous for marrying their daughters into the Imperial Family, allowing them control over the Heian court for 200 years.
@@barli7153 a fellow Linfamy viewer? 😂
Curious what pattern you've seen in the multiple cultures? I'm not well read on other royal histories and interested in hearing more.
@@foreverfriendsg my thoughts exactly 😂
It is human nature. Not royal nature.
This was AWESOME! Kudos on how much research you had to do.
9:57 "And this is where things get quite interesting" LOLOLOLOLOLOL like it hasn't already.
New HBO series 2022 "Henry VIII fucks everything up for 100s of years". Game of Thrones doesn't have anything on this stuff.
So a remake of The Tudors?
Maybe you've done something akin to this before, I don't remember, but it would be interesting to see what the line of succession would be if the UK had opted for absolute primogeniture far earlier--say, during the reign of Elizabeth I.
He did it for the scenario in which absolute primogeniture would've been introduced after the death of Queen Victoria. In this case, Victoria would've been followed by her eldest daughter, also named Victoria, but she died only seven months after her mother. Next in line would've been her son, German Emperor Wilhelm II.
(Warning, Long text coming forward!)
Ok, so had Elizabeth I changed the rules of succesion to absolute primogeniture we still would have had James VI of Scotland become James I of England since the claim for the descendants of Margaret Tudor would have taken presedence. James's reign would've been nearly identical to his real life one except that at his death he would have been succeded by his eldest surving child, his daughter Elizabeth Stuart, briefly Queen consort of Bohemia (1596 - 1662), she would have reigned as Elizabeth II from 1525 to 1662.
Now we run into a bit of a problem, Elizabeth had many children and it is through her that the current Queen has her claim to the throne, however this claim comes only from Elizabeth's 5th daughter Sophia of Hannover since the act of settlement of 1707 issued by Queen Anne bared catholics from inheriting the throne. However in this reality there is no Queen Anne nor James II (since it was him being a Catholic that influenced the act), thus Elizabeth would have been succeded by her eldest surviving son Charles I Louis (Charles I), Elector Palatine (1617 - 1680).
Charles I Louise would have been succeded by his eldest son Charles II, (Charles II) Elector Palatine (1651 - 1685) however he died childless so he would be succeded by his sister Elizabeth Charlotte (Elizabeth III), duchess of Orléans (1652 - 1722) who would have been then succeded by her eldest son Philippe II (Philip II), duke of Orléans and regent of France (1674 - 1723) who would have been succeded by his eldest surviving daughter Louise Adelaide d'Orléans (Louise I), Abess of Chelles (1698 - 1743), since she didn't have any children she would have been succeded by her sister Charlotte Aglaé (Charlotte I), duchess of Modena and Reggio (1700 - 1761) who would have been succeded by her grandson Louis Alexandre (Louis I), Prince of Lamballe (1747 - 1768) and since he was childless he would have been succeded by his sister Louise Marie Adélaïde (Louise II), duchess of Orléans (1753 - 1821).
Louise Marie Adélaïde's eldest child was Louis Philippe I (Louis II), the last king of the French (1773 - 1850), thus England and France would have been on a personal union from 1830 to 1848 when he was forced to abdicate the French throne.
Louis would then be succeded by his 12 year old grandson prince Philippe (Philip III), count of Paris (1838 - 1894) who would have been succeded by his daughter Amélie (Amelia I), the last Queen consort of Portugal (1865 - 1951) and since she had no surviving descendants by the time of her death she would have been succeded by her sister's grandaughter Margherita (Margaret I) who is the dowager duchess of Austria-Este (1930). Margherita would have thus been the current queen of England for 70 years having as her heirs her eldest daughter Archduchess Maria Beatrice (1954) and Maria Beatrice's eldest daughter Countess Anna Therese Marie (1981).
Thus the line would be this:
- James (House of Stuart)
- Elizabeth II (House of Stuart)
- Charles I (House of Palatinate-Simmern)
- Charles II (House of Palatinate-Simmern)
- Elizabeth III (House of Palatinate-Simmern)
- Philip II (House of Orléans)
- Louise I (House of Orléans)
- Charlotte (House of Orléans)
- Louis I (House of Bourbon)
- Louise II (House of Bourbon)
- Louis II (House of Orléans)
- Philip III (House of Orléans)
- Amelia (House of Orléans)
- Margaret (House of Savoy-Aosta)
14, monarchs, 2 less than in real life (and no lord protector lol), 5 royal houses, 7 kings and 7 queens.
Edit:
In the case that somehow Sophia of Hannover and her descendants took presedence over Elizabeth Stuart's other children the succecion would have been changed to this.
Sophia of Hanover (1630 - 1714) Electress of Hanover, never became queen since she died just a month before whom would have been her predecesor, Queen Anne, however in this line Sophia would have became queen in 1662 after her mother's death thus reigning during 52 years.
Now we pretty much come back to the original order, Sophia would have been succeded by her son George (1660 - 1727), Elector of Hanover who just as in real life reigned as George I, then he would have been succeded just as in real life by his son George II (1683 - 1760), who outlived his eldest son Frederick, Prince of Wales but instead of being succeded by his grandson George III he would have been succed by his grandaughter Augusta (1737 - 1813), duchess of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel.
Augusta would have been succed by her grandson William I (1781 - 1864), King of Württemberg, leading to the U.K entering in a personal union with the recently formed kingdom of Württemberg from 1813 to 1864.
William would have been succeded by his eldest daughter Marie (1816 - 1887) however she died childless and would have been succeded by her half-sister Catherine (1821 - 1898) who would have been succeded by her son William II (1848 - 1921) who just as his granfather was also king of Württemberg leading to another personal union lasting from 1898 untill 1918 when he was deposed from the throne of Württemberg.
William would have been succeded by his daughter Pauline (1877 - 1965), Princess of Wied, who would have been succed by her grandaughter Osterlind (1939) who would have been the current queen from 56 years and her heirs would have been her daughter Sophie von Klitzing (1965) and Sophie's daughter Viktoria von Mackenthun (2000).
This line would be something like this:
- James (House of Stuart)
- Elizabeth II (House of Stuart)
- Sophia (House of Palatinate-Simmern)
- George I (House of Hanover)
- George II (House of Hanover)
- Augusta (House of Hanover)
- William III (House of Württemberg)
- Mary II (House of Württemberg)
- Catherine (House of Württemberg)
- William IV (House of Württemberg)
- Pauline (House of Württemberg)
- Osterlind (House of Wied-Neuwied)
12 monarchs, 5 royal houses, 5 kings and 7 queens (Seems like independent of the succesion there would always be a current queen)
@@alcachofa6863 that would be great although it may cone far from reality since this is the era where male are still dominant and if this will came true then the UK will be the most queen regnant to be produced in their years as a kingdom
@@untruelie2640 The German Kaiser as the king of the UK? That sounds like a crazy alt history.
@@tranidite That's the point at which the succession would be disallowed by Parliament, and the Throne would just have to suck it.
16:25 actually you would actually end up with his father's half sister Caroline since William's father's father's 3rd marriage was considered null and void because his divorce from his 1st wife was not valid therefore making William's father illegitimate taking him out of line
Favorite wife to Henry VIII is a super relative thing. They were all his favorites at beginning, at least first 3, and Katherine Howard. Seymour only stayed that way because of her very early death and her “gift” to him, he would have tired of them all, eventually.
ACTUALLY, so wait, if everyone DID honor Henry's wishes, including his son Edward VI, Jane Grey (or her descendants) would have become Queen after Elizabeth, since she would not have claimed the throne before Mary and been executed.
Yes, I think that's correct, assuming that Jane either lived until 1603 or had living descendants at that time.
The Henrician acts of succession and his will _did_ place his three surviving children before the Greys. Edward's desire to have Jane Grey succeed him deviated from this.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned: a duke's domain is a duchy, not a dukedom. Chandos is pron. Chan-doss. Not Chandose. That aside, a wonderful study.
Jane was not beheaded after the nine days. She went to Jail and was actually as good as pardoned and could have lived if her father wasnt so stupid to go against Mary again.
Yes her father doesn't seemed to have had much sense. Had he not rebelled a 2nd time Jane and Guildford could have lived a relatively normal life as I believe Mary would have eventually released them
I love this video. I am a Tudor history lover and I'm so glad you did this video. ❤
This is by far, my favourite youtube channel
Henry VII. still had a claim to the crown through his mother Margaret Beaufort oldest child of the grandson of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. this claim may seem less strong, but as you say that he won the crown through conquest,
and also, considering that Henry VII was self exiled for most of his life as he was in danger due to his claim to the throne. However nebulous some people say a claim may be, this relation took over his whole young life. He survived due to the protection of his uncle Jasper Tudor, who smuggled him away to safety on the continent, and the fact that his mother Margaret was unable to see him most of his youth, as she stayed in England in order to consolidate power and to try to help bring him to power. Either that , or live in obscurity all his life in exile,
I’ve never heard the name Arbella before, but I imagine if we’d had a queen it would’ve risen massively in popularity.
Me too. I'm going to put it on my list of potential future children's names.
Arabella, perhaps?
It reminds me of Harry Potter. Arabella Figg is Harry’s neighbor that babysits him and has a bunch of cats that she likes to show him pictures of. I think about her quite frequently when my cat almost trips me because in the books one of hers makes her fall and break her leg lol. I think it’s a really pretty name though
I saw someone do an interesting deep dive on her. Maybe Reading the Past? I don’t think she and Queen Elizabeth got along very well.
It's a shortening of Arabella
How have I missed this channel? I LOVE charts.
the one problem with these videos... had the person become King or Queen, they probably would have married different people and had different heirs.
Now who is going to tell Teresa about her claim?
I'd suppose she is already aware of that.
@@PauxloE Or maybe she sees this video and starts raising an army. 🤣🤣
Hold up she probably doesn't care and she wants William to take over after both his grandma and Bastard father dies
Her mom knew, apparently.
> When Debrett's informed [Beatrice Mary] she would have been Queen but for a quirk of history, Lady Kinloss was unimpressed. "I wouldn't take the job for all the tea in China," she apparently retorted. "I have quite enough to do looking after a family of three while attending the Lords three times a week."
An interesting extra on the Dukedom of Buckingham: it's been created and extincted four times, and the fourth family to own it are the Dukes & Duchesses of Buckingham named in the video, but the second family to have owned it are the Villiers family, to which William Child-Villiers belongs.
Incidentally, the third family to have owned the Dukedom are the ones after whom Buckingham Palace is named.
"Extinguished".
The problem with this analysis is that the Will is only good in the immediate aftermath of Henry’s death and succession. Once Edward VI became King, the Will of his predecessor becomes irrelevant. The succession goes according to prior law.
In any case, this was all rendered moot by the Glorious Revolution, English Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement 1701. The Succession is and has been for some time, determined by Act of Parliament.
There's some room for argument, regarding the right of a King to determine who would succeed him after his death, at least before the Act of Settlement. Mary Tudor rallied popular support, and claimed the throne, imprisoning the young queen Jane, and her supporters. Vox populi, vox Dei.
And the Will only relevent as an act of Parliament made it official.
@@RedRocket4000 The whole issue has been up to Parliament for a long time.
From what I had read, Edward VI had been barred from making any changes to the succession. I don't remember if that was only during his minority (his entire reign was spent under a regency, as he was only 9 when he became King).
The Glorious Revolution/Williamite War was my thought. Does it still happen? If it does we still end up with Charles the Third. What about the Civil War? Without Charles the First do we still get Oliver Cromwell? And are different decisions made after his death? Could be a Republic from the 1660s...
imagine someone being a fan of this channel and sitting down to watch this and then their own name pops up at the end
Thank you! I’ve always been curious about all of this
The William Child-Villiers part is funny since he's part of a line that gave two royal mistresses and at least five illegitimate royal children.
See now THIS is a video I need. Monarchical history is so fascinating, especially when you're from a country that has never had a monarchy.
@@blueashke Well, if you're from the US, we gave you two opportunities to establish one. Both princes married US women.
Jane was Henry’s favorite only because he gave him a son who lived and died before she could irritate him enough to have her killed.
Or divorced.
@@deespaeth8180 For Henry, same thing.
I find it interesting that people think this way about Henry's temperament - that he was just looking for a reason to kill his wives. I'm not saying Henry was a standup guy by any means, but I AM saying that he probably truly did believe Anne Boleyn was guilty of adultery. There is evidence of him breaking down crying to his son Henry Fitzroy upon Anne's arrest; he truly felt he had been betrayed, he did not simply devise a way to be rid of Anne because she "irritated" him. Furthermore, he was devoutly religious and probably truly DID believe he was being punished by God for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Jane was specifically chosen because she was rather demure and conservative. I can't imagine Henry would have found many issues with her had she survived childbirth, although her brothers were quite obviously power-hungry and might have invented trouble for her.
Henry would never have divorced Jane; it would have further muddied the already messed up succession. Depending on why she might have been divorced, it might also have cast doubts on Edward's paternity. Henry would have little reason to kill her; after securing the succession he might very likely, had she lived, taken mistresses--no need to get rid of her really.
A descendent of Mary Tudor Brandon is on the throne of "England." King Charles, through his maternal grandmother, is a descendent of Mary Tudor Brandon and her granddaughter, Katherine Grey.
the William Seymour - Arbella Stuart union probably would have been the beginning of the new line, as it would have tied up a lot of knots.
Please do who is the most senior heir to Charlemagne if we use male preference or absolute primogeniture
YES MY EMPEROR WE WILL SLAY THE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE HERETICS
I've tried to calculate the most senior heir to William the Conqueror by absolute primogeniture a while back and it was a real mess. (I briefly thought it was Talleyrand but that line turned out to be based on a misunderstanding.) I don't recall if I've tried Charlemagne but it would probably be way worse; there's just not a lot of data on 9th century royal daughters.
Then there was that one time I tried to figure out the most senior heir of Harold Godwinsson by male preference, and got hopelessly lost in very confusing 18th and 19th century Polish family trees...
Interesting and well-researched, like all videos on this channel.
You can't say there definitely wouldn't be a UK without the Crown's merging beforehand. It's less likely but not impossible.
Even if there wasn't an Act of Union with Scotland, there could have been one with Ireland.
i love your charts, matt. it makes it so easy to visualize the connections when they are laid out in this manor. i wonder if these individuals are aware of who they might have been in that altnernative history
Some are. And its Manner (though each of the Duke has a manor no doubt)
@@highpath4776 And it's "it's".
Sometimes they are. Usually they don't make much of it. The current Jacobite pretender, for example, is willing to discuss his claim, but says that it is "merely hypothetical".
@@thomasburke9060 Far more entertaining to watch King Ralph - and as relevant.
I’d love to see a chart of the line of succession if Henry VIII had not chopped off the head of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (he was a cousin with possibly the strongest claim to the throne if Henry’s own line died out, and was executed for saying it out loud - aka ‘imagining the death of a king’)
Clever wording for that act of treason.
The dumb princes stupid wife allegedly stated they were a plane crash away from the crown... Thankfully for them this law is no longer enforced
Are you going to do a video about surviving members of the Plantagenets. I tried to do it on my own but it got to confusing...
There is a book "Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal" which traces all Plantagenet descendants down to about the 1970s. I know it's on Ancestry, not sure if you can actually buy it though
Can you do a chart on the Japanese emperors if they switched away from having sons as successors?
no way in hell any asian country would have done that
@@grav8241 numerous Asian countries allowed female succession
you mean if Japan introduced absolute prinogeniture?
Incorrect re Jane Grey. The "Nine Days' Queen" was actually spared by Mary I Tudor after her initial accession to the Crown, along with her husband Guilford Dudley. Mary was quite aware that neither of them had been the driving force behind the attempted usurpation of her inheritance, and was inclined to forgive them their (figurehead) participation in it. Guilford's father, the Duke of Northumberland (allegedly the main plotter) was executed on 22/08/1553, but matters seemed to settle down afterward; while both remained under arrest in the Tower, Lady Jane especially was accorded extra liberties, such as the privilege of walking unescorted through the Tower gardens in December 1553.
What changed matters? The Wyatt Rebellion, launched in protest against Mary's plans to marry Philip of Spain. Jane Grey's father took part in it, as did two of Guilford's brothers. This convinced Mary that the pair were a major political, security and military liability simply by existing, and that her duty as Queen was to place the realm's security above her cousinly sympathy for Jane Grey. Accordingly, she reluctantly signed the writ of execution for Lady Jane and her husband on 19/01/1554 - a full six months after taking the Crown from her. The execution took place on 12/02/1553; Guilford was executed on Tower Hill, Lady Jane in the Tower itself.
Re Mary Queen of Scots. What convinced Elizabeth to finally have her cousin executed was not any single plot, so much as it was the accumulated weight of many, many plots and treasons using Mary (sometimes willingly, sometimes unknowingly) as a figurehead/rallying point. The Pope's backing of these treasons (via the papal bull 'Regnans in Excelsis', issued 1570) did not help matters; it only lit a fire underneath would-be rebels, and prompted (the mostly-Protestant) Parliament to crack down on Catholicism. It was not until 1586, however, when Elizabeth finally sanctioned the investigation and indictment of Mary Stuart for treason on the basis of the Babington Plot, more specifically letters written by Mary to the plotters, in which Mary gave her assent to the proposed assassination of Elizabeth. Unknown to Elizabeth at the time, the Babington Plot was actually an entrapment operation by her spymaster Walsingham.
I’m so happy to hear Matt’s voice
I had just completed my GCSE module on Elizabeth I, which I enjoyed. This was very informative and this History geek loved this random knowledge.
Wish we had done Elizabeth I when I did my GCSEs many years ago instead of the History of Medicine
Great video! thank you. Just one niggle. Derby is phonetically pronounced D'ah'by as in B'ar'bie. (say it like a pirate but breathing out - lol ) Not to be confused with the spelling of D'er'by with the phonetic vowel sound of 'urr' as in f'urr'by. I hope this helps with future videos.
All the best from a native of D'ah'byshire :)
I love your family trees! Keep up the good work 👍
You forgot to mention the dukes of B&C had the awesome surname of Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville.
Just got me to thinking, I wonder if there's any of these hyphenated surnames that actually spells out a word? That would be interesting to find!!
“Elizabeth quickly understood the threat” sums up her reign fairly well. “Elizabeth quickly understood the threat” sums up her reign fairly well.
It’s absolutely insane how a family that has legitimate titles works to track milk records.
She's the true Dairy Queen!
I would find a chart listing all potential alternative UK monarchs alive today quite interesting if only for one reason. It would be interesting to speculate on the possibility of relationships that might tie them all together so that, going forward, all the alternatives are unified.
They're all related to one another, Alan. As are quite a few "ordinary" folk.
I’ve gone down a rabbit hole in search of my Native American ancestors instead I found my royal family! What a shock and a very interesting journey it’s been up to this point! I only plugged in myself and my parents to connect to my grandparents and there it was a family tree that I could not have imagined!! If all information is correct, I’m 14th generation descendant of Mary Queen of Scots through the line of King Charles II.
Stanley would’ve had the strongest claim because Edward was considered illegitimate
At points so were Mary I and Elizabeth I tbh, it's possible things could have changed in that regard too
A couple of problems with this, though:
1. Is "right of conquest" an official legitimate way of gaining the throne? Because if so, none of the Yorkists were legitimately on the throne. Henry IV would have legitimately succeeded Richard II. So the question about Edward IV's legitimacy and George of Clarence's descendants would be completely moot. There would be no Wars of the Roses and the Lancastrian branch would have continued, Henry VI would have still been succeeded by AN "Edward IV" but it would have been HIS son Edward.
2. Kings don't get to choose their successors. The line of succession after Edward VI, even if against H8's wishes, was in my mind, the legitimate way to do things. However even if we accept H8's will, like I said in #1, it should never even have come to this. If Right of Conquest is legitimate, then the Lancastrians would have been rightful rulers, there'd be no Wars of the Roses, ergo the Yorkists, and eventually the Tudors, would never have been on the throne in the first place, and there'd be no Henry VIII.
Now that I think of it, *could you do an alternate history if the Lancastrians won the Wars of the Roses?*
If "right of conquest" is an official legitimate way of gaining the throne, then yes, Henry IV was legitimately king, but Edward IV also became king by conquest, so he would have been legitimate too. I think Edward's father used his lineage as an excuse to fight against Henry VI, but the real reason was that Henry VI's ineptitude motivated others to rebel.
I think that the point on the succession to Henry VIII is that it wasn't just that Henry's will specified certain things, but that Parliament had ratified what was in his will, so the act of Parliament was the more significant fact.
@@otisdylan9532 Agreed. But I also think that if Henry IV was seen as legitimate and H6 was a stronger king, there would have been no rebellion by Richard of York or E4.
@@tomservo75 I agree with that. In fact, I think that if H6 was a stronger king, that alone would have probably prevented the rebellion.
It's not like right of conquest is going to be disputed, if there was anything to dispute right of conquest wouldn't have been attained.
"Kings don't get to choose their successors" - that is quite literally why Henry wrote the legislation which ALLOWED him to choose his own successor. It was ratified in Parliament.
great information~! love this!
I just stumbled upon your channel so I don’t know if you already made a video like that, but I’d love to see who’d be king if Richard iii had won the wars of the roses!
I actually figured this out once! After Richard III died the throne would have gone to:
Elizabeth I (Richard III's sister)
Edmund (Son of Elizabeth I)
Elizabeth II (Daughter of Edmund)
William III (Brother of Edmund)
Margaret (Cousin of William III)
Reginald (Son of Margaret)
Arthur I (Nephew of Reginald)
Geoffrey I (Brother of Arthur I)
Arthur II (Son of Geoffrey I)
Geoffrey II (Brother of Arthur II)
Edward VI (Geoffrey II's first cousin one removed)
Henry VII (Son of Edward VI)
Mary (Sister of Henry VII)
Henry VIII (Son of Mary)
William IV (Nephew of Henry VIII)
William V (Son of William IV)
Which brings us up to 1751. After that I ran out of Wikipedia. This is assuming that they keep their dates of death, which given some of them were executed by the monarch at the time, wouldn't be the case if they were on the throne
A King that produces Monty Python would be GRAND, JUST GRAND!!!!!!!!!
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
@@108asf If I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away.
@@jamesclendon4811 Come see the violence inherited in the system
@@BelcarrigFarm Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
@@jamesclendon4811 bloody peasant
Great presentation! Thank you for your efforts❤
Very interesting! Thank you for taking your time to do this work! I have been wondering who were supossed to be Queen of King instead of Elizebeth II's line🤣😁
If you make the argument against Tony Robinson's theory that Henry VII took the throne by right of conquest, you can pretty much say the same thing against your own theory because of Mary II and her husband, William of orange, who ruled Britain following the Glorious Revolution.
Also, the Hanovers as well as Charles II were appointed by invitation, ow does that affect your theory?
Tony Robinson. 😑 He’s interesting enough I guess if he just narrates. He’s not a historian. He’s an actor.
Seriously my favorite UA-cam channel ever!!!
queen jane only held the tower of london for nine days but she was executed quite some time later, not right when mary's forces took the tower. she could have been spared but she refused multiple offers to convert/repent and eventually it looked bad that she was still alive.
Exactly what I was going to nitpick.
Not just Britain. QE2 is also officially the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and New Guinea. To name the big ones.
Yeah she’s on our 5 dollar bill- canada
@@kyacase1109 WTF? No, she is not. She's on the $20. It's Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the $5.
In the ENGLISH (not American) language Derby is pronounced as 'Darby' also I believe you will find Beauchamp is pronounced as 'Beecham'.
Currently. Do you know how it was pronounced in the Tudor era?
@@thomasburke9060 A very good point because the current (12th) Duke of Beaufort STILL pronounces his title "Bofort"!
The problem you have is that if Henry the Randy’s will had been followed then Queen Jane wouldn’t have been executed and the crown would descend to her children.
Could you explain a little more? I’m not sure what you mean.
@@Little_Lotta If Henry VIII will had been followed on the death of Edward VI then Bloody Mary becomes Queen not Jane Grey, followed by Elizabeth and then either Jane Grey or one of her children (she was already married at the death of Edward VI) as she isn’t executed in her teens.
@@davidwright7193 Oh I’m sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you said that Queen Jane Seymour would have been executed.
@@Little_Lotta Jane Seymour was never Queen Regent, Jane Grey was.
@@davidwright7193 I know, which is why I was confused.
I'm not sure that's how wills work, regardless of the testators' intentions. The testator has one last chance to choose who inherits their property. Once inherited, the new owner has complete control, and can use it or dispose it off in any way they choose. They are _not_ bound by the previous owner's wishes.
If the testator wants to continue to exert control even afterwards-from _beyond the grave,_ so to speak-they should not hand it over outright. Rather, you create a Trust that owns the property and continues to maintain control over it.
Even that's not foolproof. The trustees have a lot of discretion on how to run the trust, and the testator is no longer alive to oversee them ⚰. Further, the trust can amend its charter, get dissolved, go bankrupt etc. Short-lived trusts - like _"until my daughter turns 25"_ - have a better chance of succeeding in their goals. On the other hand, trusts 'in perpetuity,' after several years, won't look like the way the testator hoped. Look at the Nobel Prize for an example!
So poor Henry VIII didn't really have a chance that his last will would be obeyed beyond his immediate successor. It would have required all his successors to have less power than him. And which monarch would voluntarily relinquish their power to honor a dead one's wishes? (There's only one that I know of-King Rama of Ayodhya-and people deify him and sing his praises to this day.)
It would also require that Parliament would not change its own prior laws. Again, that's an impractical ask. In fact, the British Parliament _has_ changed the succession laws several times after Henry VIII died, most recently in 2013.
Even having it enshrined in a Constitution wouldn't make it fail-safe. After all, Constitutions too get amended, replaced, or outright abolished.
I’m actually a bit surprised that they even followed it through to Elizabeth. Henry was such an egoist he really thought he could just say who would be regnant down several generations.
That was what I have been actually thinking since even if Henry VIII had made a will saying that the descendant of his sister.. Mary, Duchess of Sullfok would be next in line after Elizabeth I, what would have happened if Elizabeth did make a will that doesn't follow Henry VIII's wishes for the succession of the throne? Would Elizabeth's will be overridden by Henry VIII?
Good point.
@@mangot589 You forget, I think, the tremendous personal popularity Henry Tudor enjoyed during his lifetime. The common people loved him. After his death, and his son's death, Mary was his eldest daughter, and the daughter of Katherine of Aragon - a lady who enjoyed some personal popularity in her own right. Mary lost some of that personal popularity when she began her persecution of Protestants, but lost even more when she married Phillip of Spain. Elizabeth was far more aware of her personal image than Mary, and she had personal charisma. Like Henry, she cultivated her relationship with her people, and maintained it carefully. It served her well throughout her life. I personally think that her stated view - that she *was* married to the people of England - was both canny public image management, and a sincere pledge to her people that she would put no foreign prince ahead of them.
Really fun and interesting. Ty for putting that all together.
I'm on a Tudor kick at the moment, so this was great timing for me.
Are you also binge watching Simon Schama - amazing historian
These videos just show how fragile succession was when the UK was ruled by absolute monarchies
Especially the balancing act of keeping power while holding on to moral values. There are certain forms of initiation, held in secret when bloodlines, power, and money are involved. There's a tradition in Britain to merge secret societies with the strategies of those in power, ruling Britain. Not for the benefit of the people.
I stumbled upon your channel by accident and found it rlly interesting - ty for y’all your hard work
Another slight error: Teresa, 13th Lady Kinloss is currently 64 not 55. She was born on the 20th July 1957.
Interestingly, Frances Devereux is an ancestor of Elizabeth II as well (and a descendent of Mary Boleyn herself) ... So everything kept in the family, I guess :)
It always is...kept in the family😁 Following those families relationships is like trying to pry apart a bowl of spaghetti!!
Anyone else seeing this after the Queen died? R.I.P. Liz 🖤
King James 6/1 is a descendant of Robert Bruce, so the incident at 11:14 is not special, in-fact the current monarchy, as descendants of James 6/1 (including Elizabeth 2) are all from House of Bruce
Theresa seems to be oddly house-shaped in her portrait
One assumes that she's mighty mighty... 😁
@@Vonn_Loren They did try to find a photo of her, but there actually are people who manage to keep themselves out of Google image searches.
Great clip I feel very enlightened.
This just provides to me the whole thing is a bigger farse then ever.
As a fan of alternate history, I use this alternate succession in my scenarios, but a bit differently:
By the time of the second William Seymour's (called William IV) death in 1671, I instigate a return of the rule of male preference to follow the succession of the Dukes of Somerset. And thus William IV would be succeeded by his uncle John (as John II, 1671 - 1675), son of the first William Seymour (William III). And after him the succession follows:
Francis I Seymour (second-cousin once removed to John II and grandson of Francis Seymour, younger brother of William III): 1675 - 1678
Charles I Seymour (younger brother of childless Francis I): 1678 - 1748
Algernon I Seymour (second son of Charles I): 1748 - 1749
Elizabeth II Seymour (daughter of Algernon I and here we switch back to allowing females again because of the Pragmatic Sanction has happend in the HRE and Maria Theresa shows the way forward): 1749 - 1776
Hugh I Percy (son of Elizabeth II and Duke Hugh I Percy of Northumberland): 1776 - 1817
Hugh II Percy (son of Hugh I): 1817 - 1847
Algernon II Percy (younger brother of childless Hugh I): 1847 - 1865
George I Percy (cousin of childless Algernon II as son Algernon, brother of Hugh I): 1865 - 1867
Algernon III Percy (son of George I): 1867 - 1899
Henry IX Percy (son of Algernon III): 1899 - 1918
Alan I Percy (son of Hugh IX): 1918 - 1930
Henry X Percy (son of Alan I): 1930 - 1940
Hugh III Percy (younger brother of childless Henry X): 1940 - 1988
Henry XI Percy (son of Hugh III): 1988 - 1995
And since 1995: Ralph I Percy (younger brother of childless Henry XI and known today as the 12th Duke of Northumberland), with his heir being his daughter Catherine Percy born in 1982.
KING RALPH!!!!
The problem there is England never followed the continental "Salic Law" in which only males could inherit the throne. Its version of "male preference primogeniture", followed until the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (implementing the 2011 Perth Agreement), allowed legitimate daughters to inherit if there were no legitimate sons; thus Mary I & then Elizabeth I were his rightful heirs. (That is, except for the fact that Henry VIII annulled his marriages to Catherine of Aragon & Anne Boleyn, though he had Boleyn executed shortly thereafter. But that's another story.)
Interestingly, if "absolute primogeniture" (the rule of the Perth Agreement for those born after 28 October 2011) had applied to the present line when the Jacobite line was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, there would never have been a revolution as his Protestant daughter Mary II (of William & Mary fame) would have inherited over his Catholic son James Francis Edward Stuart. (William, however, would have been left out; Queen Anne would have taken over immediately after Mary II.) When Queen Anne died without surviving children, however, the throne would have gone back to the Jacobite line... except that direct line died out when Henry Stuart (called Henry IX by Jacobites) became a priest & died without issue.
Perhaps it's just better to recognize that Parliament has had the power to designate the line of succession since at least 1660, thus the current line from Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James VI & I's granddaughter & George I's mother) under the Act of Settlement 1701 (only slightly tweaked in the future by the Perth Agreement) is the correct one. God save King Charles III!
Imagine wanting to watch some random video and chill and finding out you are Queen of England
Fascinating hearing about "Monte Python".... I believe it was on September 11 or 12 that CNN was doing a live "tribute" and remarked several times that it all reminded them of Monte Python....
It is interesting how such a important families fell so deep through the history to a level of people from next door.
@JiWiK. It's my belief that abuse of power and loss of integrity, also the effects of inbreeding, are the cause of that decline. Losing moral values. My mother used to say "It must be a pair of strong legs that will be able to carry the weight of wealth"
Yea, my Grandmother's last name is Bruce, directly descended from Robert the Bruce, and we're a very middle-class ordinary family living in New Zealand.
The problem with this, of course, is that Arbella would not have died if James had not been King because he would not have been imprisoned. She would have stayed married to William Seymour and their line would have then followed.
Exactly the point I was planning on making!
I think James's reign was actually a manifestation of Henry the fourth's wishes - he wanted to unite Scotland and England
“We may have had a Queen Elizabeth the seco the several centuries after the current one”
May our queen forever rest in peace
:
Fascinating.
There is a great trilogy of books by Randall Garrett featuring a character named Lord Darcy, who is a Sherlock Holmes-like detective. The premise of the books is that Richard the Lionhearted did not die in 1199 but returned to England to continue the Plantagenet line. History is VERY different in that time line.
The Lord Darcy books are brilliant, I agree, but they are fantasy, rather than alternative history, since Garrett also included magic in his stories. If the Plantagenet line continued (whether or not Richard stepped up to the plate, there was John Lackland) it might have been interesting to see how different England might be. Almost certainly, Great Britain would still be a Catholic country.
@@Chrisiant You just sold me. I have got to check these books out.
Thanks for the info.
Henry VIII didn’t get too lucky on his CK playthrough
15:50 you should do a video expanding on that genealogy