Moral of the story: probably not the best idea to let your head of state play a sport where players try to stab each other while riding horses at high speed 🗡️🏇🪦
I few years later king Henri II of France died in a jousting accident: a lance shattered and a splinter punctured his eye, killing him by septicemia when it got infected. This left three young sons, and his wife, Catherine de Medici, as regent.
I think it's interesting to think about a Queen Mary who ascends while young and, apparently, not sickly, insanely vengeful, and less trauma by her father. She may well have been a kinder, smarter, more able leader. ✨️
I agree! I also think the implied paranoia relating to her sister Elizabeth would not have been so severe as Mary still would have been the more known and beloved daughter of the (in this case late) King.
At this point, Mary is still out of the succession. She would have had to battle the Council and the Boleyns. Henry had wanted her to sign a document stating that her parents' marriage was unlawful; she refused. She eventually signed, but not till Jane Seymour was Queen.
Mary was 20 years old at the time of the accident. If she had gained the throne after her father's death, she might have been married within the year and might have married someone other than her cousin Phillip and had a successful pregnancy of her own. (In the historical timeline, she was 38 when she married Phillip of Spain, so her fertility was not good.) Most likely, Ann B would have been put in a nunnery and Elizabeth might have been raised in the convent as well. Another possibility is that Mary could have become pregnant and died in childbirth, in which case Elizabeth would have been brought to the throne and Ann B. would have returned to court as Queen Mother.👑👶 or 👑👼.
@@whatsupdoc1075 I don't think that Mary would have kept Anne alive if she managed to take the throne at that earlier age. Anne would have been tried and executed for treason and Catherine of Aragon would have been retroactively (and posthumously) reinstated as queen. Elizabeth would have been declared illegitimate - possibly raised in exile or a convent. Alternatively, if he had enough of a power base Cromwell may have played lord protector as Elizabeth grew up - with Anne Boleyn as a background dowager queen. Maybe.
Given that Mary had been delegitimised, it would have been Elizabeth who had been queen, at just 3 years old. Her reign, had she still lived to 1603, would have only been surpassed by Elizabeth II in 2019 or 2020!
@@fabulouschild2005 They would have tried to do that, but, just as Lady Jane Grey didn't have enough support to hold the throne after Edward VI changed the line of succession, I don't think there would have been enough support for Elizabeth, especially with Anne Boleyn poised to be regent. She wasn't well-liked in her own time.
@@SunnyMorningPancakes I believe with high confidence, Mary would have had Anne Boleyn executed, no doubt. I don't have an idea what she would have done with Elizabeth though, but Mary was so damaged I tend to think she would have got rid of her as well.
This is one of the most interesting alternate/counterfactual history theories I've ever seen proposed. If Henry had actually died in 1536, I'm not sure England would have made it through in one piece. First, the claimants to the throne all had their own problems. Elizabeth would have been the declared heir at the time, but her youth, the shaky position of her title and the questionable legality of her parents' marriage - especially considering that Anne Boleyn was widely hated and would not have been in any position to advocate for her daughter - would probably rule her out first. Mary would be more senior and could probably have good chances of claiming the throne, but being the first female ruler in English history would have made her queenship shaky - and she would have faced opposition from the Boleyn and reformer factions. I think the solution would have lain in the extended Tudor family. Henry's older sister Margaret was dowager queen of Scots at the time. Perhaps her son James could have been put forward? I wonder if Mary claimed the throne as a 19-year old in 1536, might she have suggested a marriage alliance between herself and her cousin James V, King of Scots? After all, there was no Act of Succession or will from Henry disinheriting the Scots line. Could Scotland and England have been joined in a union of the crowns 67 years before real life? Both of them were also committed Catholics loyal to the pope as well. Mary, without suffering the humiliation and trauma of being declared illegitimate for most of her life, might have had a different character entirely. Not to mention, if she had married younger, she would probably have had children of her own who would eventually inherit the throne after her. Perhaps there would never have been a full Scottish or English Reformation? And what would Henry Fitzroy have done? His father had lauded him with titles and there were rumours that he was to be named heir to the throne. He would have gotten support from the Howards through his wife. Would there have been a civil war? A second war of the roses, this time between half siblings Mary and Henry? If it had turned out that way, it would have further incentivized Mary to push for a marriage alliance for support and legitimacy - and I still think James of Scotland would have been her best chance. She might also have had chances for support from the Holy Roman Emperor. Not to mention the other claimants available. Henry's younger sister Mary had died in 1533, but she had left behind issue in the form of her two daughters. Would Charles Brandon have plotted to push their claims forward if he saw a chance for profit? Margaret Douglas was around and she - like her half-brother James V - would not have been disinherited either, would she have been able to marry her choice without being forced to get Henry's consent on fear of being accused of treason? And don't forget about the Plantagenet cousins, the remnants of the old House of York. Any serious hope of restoration probably died with the destruction of the Plantagenet dukes of Suffolk, but a decent number of branches were still kicking around at the time since Henry hadn't yet gone full turant and murdered all of them (the Poles, Courtenays, and Staffords were still alive). Not powerful enough to usurp the crown, but enough to cause problems to a Mary who would probably have been jittery about her security in the wake of a civil war to claim her throne - considering the actions she took after the Wyatt uprising (which incidentally implicated Edward Courtenay and resulted in his exile and Elizabeth's imprisonment). Come to think of it, I think Reginald Pole may have been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury much earlier too on this timeline. There's so much to imagine, so many hypotheticals. My honest opinion is that Mary Tudor and James Stewart would have won out as co-monarchs (a la Mary II and William III) and founded a catholic Tudor-Stewart dynasty, but it's anyone's guess and I'm eager to hear your opinion when I get a chance to watch this video! Edit after watching - I agree with most of the points made. I am surprised that Margaret Douglas and James V were never specifically mentioned, but I think you've got it spot on for Anne and Elizabeth's fates. Unlike what some people in the comments are suggesting, Mary at this point wouldn't be nearly as fiercely hateful and distrustful of her sister. I think the two would have grown to love each other, and Mary may have chosen to spare Anne to retirement in a nunnery for her sister's sake.
I think Elizabeth would have been knocked out of the running early, no matter the efforts of her kin, by dint of being both female and, y'know, a toddler at the time.
I love these "what if" takes on history and in Henry VIII's case, it was so complex. ON another note: hope you sweet bebeh Dominic are doing well and that Gabriel is adjusting well to being a Big Brother!
We love these 'what if?' moments in time. Thank you for the exercise, much appreciated. Hubby suggested a counter-factual look at what if William Adelin had survived the White Ship disaster, apart from the obvious no anarchy would there have been much difference in politics, wars, religion/s, fashion, music, even? xxx
I so appreciate your self-imposed rules for counterfactual analysis! It really keeps the speculation rooted in historical fact and so better helps us parse the all important question of causation. I love a good “what if,” but you go further than a bit of idle fun and bring real value added to the table.
Thanks Dr. Kat. I love playing these scenarios in my head so I love this type of video. I have learned a tremendous amount from you over the years. I do wonder if Cromwell would have used his network to be rid of Mary though. I just don’t see him going down without a fight. Would they have had a Cromwell ruling in everything but name sooner? The mind boggles.
I think his early death would’ve really benefited Mary not just be becoming queen, but I think she would have thrived in a more positive and healthy way. He really made her suffer horribly.❤ and of course, if she had children, Elizabeth would be out of succession, so there would be huge differences in the country religiously and otherwise.
Wonderful video! I really enjoyed the what ifs you presented here. It would be interesting to see your take on what would have happened if the "Glorious Revolution" had not succeeded or ever taken place.
Hi Dr. Kat this was sooo good. I agree and Mary in the end would have won out. Look how the people supported and rallied behind her in real life all those years later, now younger and her mother so much loved and admired. She would have won out as the legitimate heir. Though I think she’d so be Bloody Mary!
I'd love to see a counterfactual on if Prince Henry, Duke of Cornwall, had lived. I feel like his death is a pivotal what-if that could significantly change history.
There had ready been the loss of an heir to the throne, when most of the young nobility of England including Henry I’s son William, drowned in the White Ship disaster. Henry I made his daughter Matilda heir, which led to a war between her and her cousin Stephen, which went for several years, before a compromise was reached. Who knows how this one would have ended?
What if Anne had not had a miscarriage and had given birth to a son. I think there would then have been a good deal of support for Anne and her children's rights to the throne.
I think it would have been over by then. Six months until the birth and with Anne in confinement and the baby so young. The baby would have been the threat to Mary's reign though and would have had a precarious future.
You forgot Mary's cousin Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter of Margaret Tudor from her second marriage. Margaret had two sons as heirs and was also a friend of Mary Tudor, unlike Mary Stewart. These factors could have caused Mary to name her as her heir and prepare the country for her succession.
I think Margaret Douglas would be a good option - she was Catholic, Mary knew her and she was English born. In this timeline, there's no settlement ruling out Margaret Tudor's kids.
Personally, i think the reformation would only be slowed by Mary I early accession. I think Elizabeth would have enough support to be recognised as Queen once Mary dies, if only to prevent a Scot from sitting on the English throne.
Thank you Dr Kat. It was most interesting. Ive always been an avid fan of the tudors & to hear your version of what could have happened if Henry had died . Thank you for sharing 😊
I love these mind expanding what if videos! They are so useful not only as a brain tease but also for re=examination of what we are told happened, Thank you so much! Such a treat!👑
I love your counterfactual history videos! You make a good argument for Mary reigning and coming to the thrown in a similar manner after her brother’s passing earlier in this alternate timeline.
TY Dr. Kat for another excellent video! I enjoyed it immensely. While I am in almost complete agreement with your conclusions, I feel that Mary's natural inclination towards religious zealotry isn't being taken into enough consideration as to how it would effect her rule. No matter what, Mary would've seen the growing Protestant movement as a threat to be eradicated and would've instituted an English version of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (yes, an English Inquisition) soon after her ascension to the throne IMHO. There are many reasons why I think she would do this including as a way to honor her mother and maternal grandparents, Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon who established it in the first place "in order to maintain the Catholic Orthodoxy in their kingdoms". This would also serve to make amends with Rome and show her intentions of returning to the fold to the Pope. I also think Mary would derive great pleasure from making Anne publicly renounce her faith or burning her alive if she refused. I think it's important to remember that it was Mary, not Phillip who began burning Protestants alive if they wouldn't convert to Catholicism as Phillip wanted a more moderate approach to religion in England at that time. I think that Mary would still end up with an unpopular marriage to either Phillip of Spain or even possibly the Holy Roman Emperor, which, combined with the new "English Inquisition" could've triggered enough discontent for an uprising or worse. In sum, I feel that Mary might've been popular and loved when she took the throne, but she still would've become fairly loathed shortly thereafter because she always felt her ascension was a sign that God wanted her to eradicate Protestants by whatever means necessary. All that would also mean that she would've hated/feared Elizabeth the same as the real timeline because even if Elizabeth were raised Catholic, she would still be the daughter of a Protestant Queen Consort, thus an alternative monarch for any opposition groups. Sorry that got so long, but that's my two cents on the matter. 🤷👑💜
Fascinating - so glad I “stumbled” across this video. And I had a great time trying to see the books behind you. I own and have read several and will make note of others. 📖👑
I really feel that this event of Henry viii was life altering. He has a neurological injury as well as a physical injury. He probably counted on court members and things went sideways. Haha I'm a cowgirl in America's wild West. I love Tudor history. I just think that Henry's injuries aren't really considered when it comes to his actions afterwards. 💕 Dr. Kat
In my opinion, as he would not yet have married either Madeleine of France or Marie de Guise, James V might really have focused his marital ambitions on marrying his first cousin Mary I, thereby uniting Scotland and England under Catholic rule.
Daughters back then didn't extend dynasties. Their children would usually take their husbands' surnames, even Queen Victoria's children, who took their father's House.
@SunnyMorningPancakes They were cousins, yes. But Victoria was a Hanover, Albert was a Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld later changed to Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Their children took on the name Saxe-Coburg Gotha. They were *not* the same House.
@@juliancain3872 King George V demonstrated that the name of the royal house is whatever the sovereign says it is. And it's still the House of Windsor, not Mountbatten, even though Charles has now inherited. Whether that would/could have been the case in the 16th Century is another matter. But sovereigns held much more sway then than they do now -- Mary could have carried it off, had she been in a position to do so.
@samanthafordyce5795 Yes... King George V... do you not understand that these were different times? Like very very different times? Mary I wrote her will with the phrase, oh, what was it? "With consent of my lord and husband" or something to that effect... yeah, no. It would *not* have been another matter. Those kids would have taken her husband's name just as Queen Victoria's children used their father's name. Queen *Anne's* children (also after *both* Mary I and Elizabeth) were of the House *Oldenburg* her *husband's* House. People back then had a difference in was the order of things.
I can’t see political factions supporting Elizabeth, given she was a toddler at the time and child mortality was so high. Mary would’ve had quite a bit of support and if she had made the correct marriage alliance she would’ve had a foreign army behind her. Likely Henry Fitzroy would’ve made his claim but would die shortly afterwards in mid 1536 and Mary would be Mary I 20yrs earlier. Mary would’ve given Anne the option to get the hell out of dodge keeping Elizabeth as a hostage until it was clear Henry had no sons. If Anne had miscarried as in the cannon timeline, I think Mary would’ve given her the option of taking Elizabeth and moving to France with a settlement, but she wouldn’t have allowed them to stay in England.
Mary was very vengeful. She had Cranmer burned alive in spite of his conversion to Catholicism. I think she would have done the same to Anne, especially as her mother Katherine had just died, and Mary blamed Anne for all her problems.
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 true, but Mary here is younger without a life time of suffering, being denied a marriage and children, only a few terrible years behind her rather than two decades. I can see her being softer as she could afford to be as a clear winner in the fight.
@@Natalie_11188 I see your point but Mary really hated Anne. With the power to put her to death and the firm conviction that she was justified in doing so, I don't see why Mary would pass up the opportunity for revenge.
@@dz-zz2nf That toddler dies suddenly and you’re back to square one (especially since Anne didn’t have other children by Henry). Being a figure head only is a good bet if you can hold onto your power. Given they were both female, adult Mary with her foreign support was always going to be a better choice than toddler Elizabeth, who would need another decade plus to be able to secure the succession.
I've always wondered about what if Anne had given birth to a son in 1536. Would Henry's disillusionment with her have vanished? How would Cromwell have maneuvered differently if Anne was back in Henry's favor as mother of his son?
Interesting video, I love a historical ‘what if’ 🧐 How about another what if video focused on Jane Seymour? I’ve often wondered what might have happened to her if, after a few years of marriage to Henry they had healthy daughters, but still no son…. 👍🏻
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 Yes, I don’t think it would have ended well for Jane. By this time Henry was obsessed with having a male heir 😬 She must have been frightened, considering what was at stake…
👑🏰 I think the powers that be would have done anything to have a male on the throne, but it would be interesting to see what Mary could have done if she'd been on the throne earlier in life.
I very much doubt that Mary would have allowed Anne Boleyn to survive. Just like Lady Jane Grey, Anne and Elizabeth would have been the focus of resistance to Mary and her Counter Reformation. She most likely would have resorted to executing Anne as she did Lady Jane and then ensuring that Elizabeth was raised with no ambitions to the throne.
Love this what if! My gut tells me a lot would ride on what Cromwell decided to do. If he decided that it was fruitless to try to hold the throne for a child/infant monarch and deflect to Mary she most likely would and won the throne. If he stayed with Anne and her child/children they would have a better chance. I don’t think he would underestimate Mary and her popularity like John Dudley did when he was trying to place Jane Grey on the throne in 1553. If he managed to contain the news of Henry’s death without Mary learning about it and give her time to muster support he would have had a better chance of taking custody of her. I think they would then have her quietly murdered and claim illness as they’d know there would like.y be an outcry if she was publicly executed. Maybe I’m overestimating Cromwell not sure, but in my opinion he was one of the brightest minds of the period, so whoever he ultimately backed would have a have a good ally. I suppose it could also depend on how Spain reacted. I agree that they most likely wouldn’t invade England to help Mary as like you said they’d done nothing to help her yet so why would they now? Who knows so many outliers could change the outcome.
I can still see Elizabeth having a chance at the throne. Had Mary raised her Catholic, a faction would have suggested that after Mary's death, she should be next in line. Their relationship would have been quite different since Elizabeth would not be seen as a threat from a political or religious standpoint. By raising Elizabeth at the court, she could make sure that no Protestant factions could manipulate her. Although I have to wonder if Elizabeth would have been as effective with a different upbringing.
Yes it dose I was a CNA I had patient who fell off a horse and it landed on top of her needless to say she couldn't move from her neck down she lived for about4yrs and passed on due to injuries which caused by the paralysis.
@ Well unless she goes into exile, I 100% believe Mary would have tried and executed Anne for treason. Similar to what she did to Cranmer. I don't see Mary keeping calm and carrying on where her father's "great whore" is concerned.
A few what ifs from a history loving American: what if Henry had never looked to Anne and stayed with Mary Boleyn? What if Anne had managed to marry Henry Percy? What if Henry VI's faction had triumphed over Edward IV?
Possibly a strange question, but: does anyone know the title of the book behind Dr. Marchant's shoulder that has a picture of Elizabeth I at the top of the spine? Just beside the Geoffrey Moorhouse book. 📙
You have put together a very clear alternate path. The only thing I would add, is I think a lot more people would have waited to see if Ann had a son. They may have even put her in house arrest to wait and see. No, I don't think Ann would have been a leading role in her son's regency council. Yes, she would have fought for it, but I think she would have lost. And, yes, with so many thinking each child was illegitamate, in one way or other, a lot would have gone to Fitzroy as male heir. 👑
I think it would be interesting too to consider some other ripples. Henry never marries Jane, Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, or Katherine Parr in this scenario. Katherine Parr would probably have married Thomas Seymour sooner, and not played such a role in Elizabeth’s life and education. The others? It’s hard to say.
Hi Claire. I've been watching Magnificent Century recently, and I was wondering if it would be possible to make some videos on The Sulatante of Women. There are some common misconceptions that people believe that come from the show.
@ReadingthePast Hi yes Dr Kat I'm so sorry I did indeed have the wrong person. It was the wrong name but right channel I'm so sorry. Thank you for taking my suggestion.
My request might be a bit of a stretch. I remember you saying in one of your earlier videos, that there was a suggestion, at one point, that Mary might be married to her half brother Henry Fitzroy, in order to give Fitzroy a side-door to the throne. I want to know if there was any precedent for a marriage of half siblings (outside Egypt), and what you think the outcome of that union would have been? Would he have still set aside Catherine and married Anne if he’d had what he considered a solid succession plan?
I can certainly look into this, thank you for the suggestion. No half sibling marriages are springing to mind for me; however, if I have understood correctly, the double cousin marriages of the Hapsburgs were genetically more inbred than Mary/Fiztroy would have been. Not that they would have been thinking about genetics, of course.
Speaking from experience any head injury causing behavioral alterations for more a few minutes is a TBI that can definitely cause what followed next futher exahabrated by the pain from old leg injury opening up and refusing to heal. Ad extreme pain can also alter the he mind. Another thing a mild TBI can worsen as one ages curiousty of the mind slowing as one ages.
As well as the damage from repetitive 'mild' head traumas as we see in football (English) players from heading the ball over their career (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy). I have a feeling Henry probably had more (and perceived milder) hits to the head in addition to this specific one.
But there is something called “line of succession’. The current monarch dies, his or hers eldest child succeeds them. If that child has no children then the crown goes the next child if there is one. If there is no children or grandchildren of monarch then it gets muddle. For example, when Elizabeth I died there were a few options available but I believe they chose James because he was already a monarch.
Hi! Love your videos! One question I've always wondered is why don't we know more birthdays for women who became famous later in life? Wouldn't their mothers/families know when they were born and it could be recorded much later? Did royals never celebrate birthdays?
Yes, this is something that's always bothered me, not knowing the actual date of birth of characters in history. No mention in family bibles etc or even written in passing in court records, referring to Anne Boleyn in particular but also other Queens of England. No birthday parties or gifts presented to the spouse of the monarch??? Disappointing not knowing.
Moral of the story: probably not the best idea to let your head of state play a sport where players try to stab each other while riding horses at high speed 🗡️🏇🪦
At least not without a really good backup head of state! 😅
We know Henry was head-strong and did what he wanted. How would he be stopped?
At 44, he was way too old to be jousting at all. But as king he did what he wanted when he wanted.
I few years later king Henri II of France died in a jousting accident: a lance shattered and a splinter punctured his eye, killing him by septicemia when it got infected. This left three young sons, and his wife, Catherine de Medici, as regent.
Ha!Ha!
I think it's interesting to think about a Queen Mary who ascends while young and, apparently, not sickly, insanely vengeful, and less trauma by her father. She may well have been a kinder, smarter, more able leader. ✨️
❤️
I agree! I also think the implied paranoia relating to her sister Elizabeth would not have been so severe as Mary still would have been the more known and beloved daughter of the (in this case late) King.
At this point, Mary is still out of the succession. She would have had to battle the Council and the Boleyns.
Henry had wanted her to sign a document stating that her parents' marriage was unlawful; she refused. She eventually signed, but not till Jane Seymour was Queen.
Mary was 20 years old at the time of the accident. If she had gained the throne after her father's death, she might have been married within the year and might have married someone other than her cousin Phillip and had a successful pregnancy of her own. (In the historical timeline, she was 38 when she married Phillip of Spain, so her fertility was not good.) Most likely, Ann B would have been put in a nunnery and Elizabeth might have been raised in the convent as well. Another possibility is that Mary could have become pregnant and died in childbirth, in which case Elizabeth would have been brought to the throne and Ann B. would have returned to court as Queen Mother.👑👶 or 👑👼.
I came to say precisely the same thing! ❤😊.
@@whatsupdoc1075 I don't think that Mary would have kept Anne alive if she managed to take the throne at that earlier age.
Anne would have been tried and executed for treason and Catherine of Aragon would have been retroactively (and posthumously) reinstated as queen. Elizabeth would have been declared illegitimate - possibly raised in exile or a convent.
Alternatively, if he had enough of a power base Cromwell may have played lord protector as Elizabeth grew up - with Anne Boleyn as a background dowager queen.
Maybe.
Given that Mary had been delegitimised, it would have been Elizabeth who had been queen, at just 3 years old. Her reign, had she still lived to 1603, would have only been surpassed by Elizabeth II in 2019 or 2020!
@@fabulouschild2005 They would have tried to do that, but, just as Lady Jane Grey didn't have enough support to hold the throne after Edward VI changed the line of succession, I don't think there would have been enough support for Elizabeth, especially with Anne Boleyn poised to be regent. She wasn't well-liked in her own time.
@@SunnyMorningPancakes I believe with high confidence, Mary would have had Anne Boleyn executed, no doubt.
I don't have an idea what she would have done with Elizabeth though, but Mary was so damaged I tend to think she would have got rid of her as well.
This is one of the most interesting alternate/counterfactual history theories I've ever seen proposed. If Henry had actually died in 1536, I'm not sure England would have made it through in one piece.
First, the claimants to the throne all had their own problems. Elizabeth would have been the declared heir at the time, but her youth, the shaky position of her title and the questionable legality of her parents' marriage - especially considering that Anne Boleyn was widely hated and would not have been in any position to advocate for her daughter - would probably rule her out first.
Mary would be more senior and could probably have good chances of claiming the throne, but being the first female ruler in English history would have made her queenship shaky - and she would have faced opposition from the Boleyn and reformer factions.
I think the solution would have lain in the extended Tudor family. Henry's older sister Margaret was dowager queen of Scots at the time. Perhaps her son James could have been put forward? I wonder if Mary claimed the throne as a 19-year old in 1536, might she have suggested a marriage alliance between herself and her cousin James V, King of Scots? After all, there was no Act of Succession or will from Henry disinheriting the Scots line. Could Scotland and England have been joined in a union of the crowns 67 years before real life? Both of them were also committed Catholics loyal to the pope as well. Mary, without suffering the humiliation and trauma of being declared illegitimate for most of her life, might have had a different character entirely. Not to mention, if she had married younger, she would probably have had children of her own who would eventually inherit the throne after her. Perhaps there would never have been a full Scottish or English Reformation?
And what would Henry Fitzroy have done? His father had lauded him with titles and there were rumours that he was to be named heir to the throne. He would have gotten support from the Howards through his wife. Would there have been a civil war? A second war of the roses, this time between half siblings Mary and Henry? If it had turned out that way, it would have further incentivized Mary to push for a marriage alliance for support and legitimacy - and I still think James of Scotland would have been her best chance. She might also have had chances for support from the Holy Roman Emperor.
Not to mention the other claimants available. Henry's younger sister Mary had died in 1533, but she had left behind issue in the form of her two daughters. Would Charles Brandon have plotted to push their claims forward if he saw a chance for profit? Margaret Douglas was around and she - like her half-brother James V - would not have been disinherited either, would she have been able to marry her choice without being forced to get Henry's consent on fear of being accused of treason?
And don't forget about the Plantagenet cousins, the remnants of the old House of York. Any serious hope of restoration probably died with the destruction of the Plantagenet dukes of Suffolk, but a decent number of branches were still kicking around at the time since Henry hadn't yet gone full turant and murdered all of them (the Poles, Courtenays, and Staffords were still alive). Not powerful enough to usurp the crown, but enough to cause problems to a Mary who would probably have been jittery about her security in the wake of a civil war to claim her throne - considering the actions she took after the Wyatt uprising (which incidentally implicated Edward Courtenay and resulted in his exile and Elizabeth's imprisonment). Come to think of it, I think Reginald Pole may have been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury much earlier too on this timeline.
There's so much to imagine, so many hypotheticals. My honest opinion is that Mary Tudor and James Stewart would have won out as co-monarchs (a la Mary II and William III) and founded a catholic Tudor-Stewart dynasty, but it's anyone's guess and I'm eager to hear your opinion when I get a chance to watch this video!
Edit after watching - I agree with most of the points made. I am surprised that Margaret Douglas and James V were never specifically mentioned, but I think you've got it spot on for Anne and Elizabeth's fates. Unlike what some people in the comments are suggesting, Mary at this point wouldn't be nearly as fiercely hateful and distrustful of her sister. I think the two would have grown to love each other, and Mary may have chosen to spare Anne to retirement in a nunnery for her sister's sake.
Henry Fitzroy was still alive at the time. A bastard, but a boy-bastard. He died later that year, but maybe he could have entered the fray.
@@octavianpopescu4776 I kinda forgot about Fitzroy when I was writing the comment 😂 I edited it to include him now.
I think Elizabeth would have been knocked out of the running early, no matter the efforts of her kin, by dint of being both female and, y'know, a toddler at the time.
Oh, my - the whole Mary & james thing makes a LOT of sense!!!
@@octavianpopescu4776 I don't see anyone putting him forward ahead of mary, *except* the Howards.
I really enjoy these what ifs. It's not only creative but thoght provocing as well. Hope the family is well and happy Dr. Kat.
future generations will be doing what ifs about the failed assassination of Donald Trump
I love these "what if" takes on history and in Henry VIII's case, it was so complex. ON another note: hope you sweet bebeh Dominic are doing well and that Gabriel is adjusting well to being a Big Brother!
We love these 'what if?' moments in time. Thank you for the exercise, much appreciated. Hubby suggested a counter-factual look at what if William Adelin had survived the White Ship disaster, apart from the obvious no anarchy would there have been much difference in politics, wars, religion/s, fashion, music, even? xxx
I so appreciate your self-imposed rules for counterfactual analysis! It really keeps the speculation rooted in historical fact and so better helps us parse the all important question of causation. I love a good “what if,” but you go further than a bit of idle fun and bring real value added to the table.
Your counterfactual videos are my favorites, they're so thought provoking.
Thanks Dr. Kat. I love playing these scenarios in my head so I love this type of video. I have learned a tremendous amount from you over the years. I do wonder if Cromwell would have used his network to be rid of Mary though. I just don’t see him going down without a fight. Would they have had a Cromwell ruling in everything but name sooner? The mind boggles.
I think his early death would’ve really benefited Mary not just be becoming queen, but I think she would have thrived in a more positive and healthy way. He really made her suffer horribly.❤ and of course, if she had children, Elizabeth would be out of succession, so there would be huge differences in the country religiously and otherwise.
ooo i do love these suppositional videos, excited to watch this tomorrow while i work
i was right i did love this! thanks dr. kat, made for a nice work flow
Always fun to imagine how things could have been, thanx Dr. Kat! 👸🤴🏰👑
im so happy to see a new video from you. congratulations on another beautiful baby ❤❤
Wonderful video! I really enjoyed the what ifs you presented here. It would be interesting to see your take on what would have happened if the "Glorious Revolution" had not succeeded or ever taken place.
I really like your videos and the way you explain and present things. Greetings from France. :)
I totally agree. Greetings from the USA
Love these exploration of alternative possible timelines! 👸🏻
Fascinating discussion and I hope you will continue to do more of these.
Wonderful and interesting video, as always! Thank you for covering something I have often thought about. I fully agree with your conclusions 👑
Hi Dr. Kat this was sooo good. I agree and Mary in the end would have won out. Look how the people supported and rallied behind her in real life all those years later, now younger and her mother so much loved and admired. She would have won out as the legitimate heir. Though I think she’d so be Bloody Mary!
I really love theses counterfactual thought processes. Thanks Dr. Kat!
Such an interesting thought experiment! Thanks Dr Kat!
Fascinating idea of Queen Mary with kids! And a successful counter reformation! How things would have been so difficult! 👑
An excellent analysis as usual.
Thank you again for a very interesting thought experiment! 👑
I'd love to see a counterfactual on if Prince Henry, Duke of Cornwall, had lived. I feel like his death is a pivotal what-if that could significantly change history.
There had ready been the loss of an heir to the throne, when most of the young nobility of England including Henry I’s son William, drowned in the White Ship disaster. Henry I made his daughter Matilda heir, which led to a war between her and her cousin Stephen, which went for several years, before a compromise was reached. Who knows how this one would have ended?
This is my favorite type of video! Thank you for another great one!
What if Anne had not had a miscarriage and had given birth to a son. I think there would then have been a good deal of support for Anne and her children's rights to the throne.
I think it would have been over by then. Six months until the birth and with Anne in confinement and the baby so young. The baby would have been the threat to Mary's reign though and would have had a precarious future.
I thought that in this game, one is only allowed to change one major historical fact? (e.g., the death of Henry in January 1536)
Another interesting video. Best wishes to you and your family. 😃
Brilliant as ever
You forgot Mary's cousin Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter of Margaret Tudor from her second marriage. Margaret had two sons as heirs and was also a friend of Mary Tudor, unlike Mary Stewart. These factors could have caused Mary to name her as her heir and prepare the country for her succession.
I think Margaret Douglas would be a good option - she was Catholic, Mary knew her and she was English born. In this timeline, there's no settlement ruling out Margaret Tudor's kids.
Personally, i think the reformation would only be slowed by Mary I early accession. I think Elizabeth would have enough support to be recognised as Queen once Mary dies, if only to prevent a Scot from sitting on the English throne.
would te country be so anti- Scot though if they had a Catholic Queen on the throne for 20 years?
That was interesting and thank you for being so thorough with the possible scenarios😊.
Always love your podcast, Dr. Kat. I'm doing a history PGCE, and I've gained so much from this.
Thank you Dr Kat. It was most interesting. Ive always been an avid fan of the tudors & to hear your version of what could have happened if Henry had died . Thank you for sharing 😊
Love your videos!
I love these mind expanding what if videos! They are so useful not only as a brain tease but also for re=examination of what we are told happened, Thank you so much! Such a treat!👑
Very cool thought experiment! 👑
I love your counterfactual history videos! You make a good argument for Mary reigning and coming to the thrown in a similar manner after her brother’s passing earlier in this alternate timeline.
TY Dr. Kat for another excellent video! I enjoyed it immensely. While I am in almost complete agreement with your conclusions, I feel that Mary's natural inclination towards religious zealotry isn't being taken into enough consideration as to how it would effect her rule. No matter what, Mary would've seen the growing Protestant movement as a threat to be eradicated and would've instituted an English version of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (yes, an English Inquisition) soon after her ascension to the throne IMHO. There are many reasons why I think she would do this including as a way to honor her mother and maternal grandparents, Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon who established it in the first place "in order to maintain the Catholic Orthodoxy in their kingdoms". This would also serve to make amends with Rome and show her intentions of returning to the fold to the Pope. I also think Mary would derive great pleasure from making Anne publicly renounce her faith or burning her alive if she refused. I think it's important to remember that it was Mary, not Phillip who began burning Protestants alive if they wouldn't convert to Catholicism as Phillip wanted a more moderate approach to religion in England at that time. I think that Mary would still end up with an unpopular marriage to either Phillip of Spain or even possibly the Holy Roman Emperor, which, combined with the new "English Inquisition" could've triggered enough discontent for an uprising or worse. In sum, I feel that Mary might've been popular and loved when she took the throne, but she still would've become fairly loathed shortly thereafter because she always felt her ascension was a sign that God wanted her to eradicate Protestants by whatever means necessary. All that would also mean that she would've hated/feared Elizabeth the same as the real timeline because even if Elizabeth were raised Catholic, she would still be the daughter of a Protestant Queen Consort, thus an alternative monarch for any opposition groups. Sorry that got so long, but that's my two cents on the matter. 🤷👑💜
👑 This was fascinating! A great idea
What a great video thank you!👑
I love these counter factual histories! 💜👑
If he had died Anne would have lived and died of old age
Absolutely.
Not necessarily. If Mary had succeeded as Queen, I'm 100% convinced she would have had Anne executed as a heretic or witch.
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 I'd like to think that Anne would have had the sense to run away to France or to Austria.
@@Morna777 yes, if she wasn't prevented.
She almost certainly would’ve survived past May 1536.
As an American I dont have enough background to specilate intelligently, but I find it all fascinating. Thank You!❤
😊Fantastic and educational as usual!
Love your content! Thanks For this ❤❤❤❤
Fabulous! A topic to keep my mind busy for quite a while. Thank you. 😎 🏰
Fascinating - so glad I “stumbled” across this video. And I had a great time trying to see the books behind you. I own and have read several and will make note of others. 📖👑
Dr Kat, this was an amazing episode! My mind is blown!!❤❤❤👑👑👑
So fascinating! I really enjoyed this❤👸🏻
Great "What If?" Video, Dr. Kat!
Love your counter factual history videos! 👑
You’re such a great storyteller!
Another interesting topic, thank you Dr. Kat! smooches to the bebe. 🏰
👸👑 another amazing video thank you for sharing this with us!!
👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐EXCELLENT!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION.
I really feel that this event of Henry viii was life altering. He has a neurological injury as well as a physical injury. He probably counted on court members and things went sideways. Haha I'm a cowgirl in America's wild West. I love Tudor history. I just think that Henry's injuries aren't really considered when it comes to his actions afterwards. 💕 Dr. Kat
I hadn’t fully considered the neurological injuries.
Brilliant observation, cowgirl!
In my opinion, as he would not yet have married either Madeleine of France or Marie de Guise, James V might really have focused his marital ambitions on marrying his first cousin Mary I, thereby uniting Scotland and England under Catholic rule.
Loved this alternative time-line web you've woven.
I imagine Mary reigning earlier and producing a daughter or two who extended the Tudor monarchy
Daughters back then didn't extend dynasties. Their children would usually take their husbands' surnames, even Queen Victoria's children, who took their father's House.
@@juliancain3872 I mean technically Victoria's house and Albert's house were very close to being the same house.
@SunnyMorningPancakes They were cousins, yes. But Victoria was a Hanover, Albert was a Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld later changed to Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Their children took on the name Saxe-Coburg Gotha. They were *not* the same House.
@@juliancain3872 King George V demonstrated that the name of the royal house is whatever the sovereign says it is. And it's still the House of Windsor, not Mountbatten, even though Charles has now inherited. Whether that would/could have been the case in the 16th Century is another matter. But sovereigns held much more sway then than they do now -- Mary could have carried it off, had she been in a position to do so.
@samanthafordyce5795 Yes... King George V... do you not understand that these were different times? Like very very different times? Mary I wrote her will with the phrase, oh, what was it? "With consent of my lord and husband" or something to that effect... yeah, no. It would *not* have been another matter. Those kids would have taken her husband's name just as Queen Victoria's children used their father's name. Queen *Anne's* children (also after *both* Mary I and Elizabeth) were of the House *Oldenburg* her *husband's* House. People back then had a difference in was the order of things.
I can’t see political factions supporting Elizabeth, given she was a toddler at the time and child mortality was so high.
Mary would’ve had quite a bit of support and if she had made the correct marriage alliance she would’ve had a foreign army behind her.
Likely Henry Fitzroy would’ve made his claim but would die shortly afterwards in mid 1536 and Mary would be Mary I 20yrs earlier.
Mary would’ve given Anne the option to get the hell out of dodge keeping Elizabeth as a hostage until it was clear Henry had no sons. If Anne had miscarried as in the cannon timeline, I think Mary would’ve given her the option of taking Elizabeth and moving to France with a settlement, but she wouldn’t have allowed them to stay in England.
Mary was very vengeful. She had Cranmer burned alive in spite of his conversion to Catholicism. I think she would have done the same to Anne, especially as her mother Katherine had just died, and Mary blamed Anne for all her problems.
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 true, but Mary here is younger without a life time of suffering, being denied a marriage and children, only a few terrible years behind her rather than two decades. I can see her being softer as she could afford to be as a clear winner in the fight.
@@Natalie_11188 I see your point but Mary really hated Anne. With the power to put her to death and the firm conviction that she was justified in doing so, I don't see why Mary would pass up the opportunity for revenge.
A toddler? Even better! I can rule behind the throne.
It's more a matter of having a figurehead for a faction.
@@dz-zz2nf That toddler dies suddenly and you’re back to square one (especially since Anne didn’t have other children by Henry). Being a figure head only is a good bet if you can hold onto your power.
Given they were both female, adult Mary with her foreign support was always going to be a better choice than toddler Elizabeth, who would need another decade plus to be able to secure the succession.
Trying to think of other plausible scenarios, but can't come up with any that would make more sense than these! An interesting exploration.
Thanks Kat!!
I've always wondered about what if Anne had given birth to a son in 1536. Would Henry's disillusionment with her have vanished? How would Cromwell have maneuvered differently if Anne was back in Henry's favor as mother of his son?
great ideas Dr Kat. TY
Interesting video, I love a historical ‘what if’ 🧐 How about another what if video focused on Jane Seymour? I’ve often wondered what might have happened to her if, after a few years of marriage to Henry they had healthy daughters, but still no son…. 👍🏻
@@thehistory_student 🪓🪓🪓
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 unfortunately I think you may be right 😬 But would Henry have tried that again so soon after Anne Boleyn… 🤔
@@thehistory_student I think Jane would have found her way to the block within two years, had she not produced a son that survived infancy.
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 Yes, I don’t think it would have ended well for Jane. By this time Henry was obsessed with having a male heir 😬 She must have been frightened, considering what was at stake…
👑🏰 I think the powers that be would have done anything to have a male on the throne, but it would be interesting to see what Mary could have done if she'd been on the throne earlier in life.
Fascinating ❤
Fascinating!👑
I really liked this video. ❤👑
I very much doubt that Mary would have allowed Anne Boleyn to survive. Just like Lady Jane Grey, Anne and Elizabeth would have been the focus of resistance to Mary and her Counter Reformation. She most likely would have resorted to executing Anne as she did Lady Jane and then ensuring that Elizabeth was raised with no ambitions to the throne.
Hi Dr Kat❤ Hugs for the family
👑👑👑
Love this what if! My gut tells me a lot would ride on what Cromwell decided to do. If he decided that it was fruitless to try to hold the throne for a child/infant monarch and deflect to Mary she most likely would and won the throne. If he stayed with Anne and her child/children they would have a better chance. I don’t think he would underestimate Mary and her popularity like John Dudley did when he was trying to place Jane Grey on the throne in 1553. If he managed to contain the news of Henry’s death without Mary learning about it and give her time to muster support he would have had a better chance of taking custody of her. I think they would then have her quietly murdered and claim illness as they’d know there would like.y be an outcry if she was publicly executed. Maybe I’m overestimating Cromwell not sure, but in my opinion he was one of the brightest minds of the period, so whoever he ultimately backed would have a have a good ally. I suppose it could also depend on how Spain reacted. I agree that they most likely wouldn’t invade England to help Mary as like you said they’d done nothing to help her yet so why would they now? Who knows so many outliers could change the outcome.
Cromwell really dropped the ball with Anne of Cleves. He was more an opportunist than a brilliant strategist, in my opinion.
Another thought provoking video ❤👑🫅👸❤
Dr. Kat is the queen!
I think you're spot on 👍🏻
I can still see Elizabeth having a chance at the throne. Had Mary raised her Catholic, a faction would have suggested that after Mary's death, she should be next in line. Their relationship would have been quite different since Elizabeth would not be seen as a threat from a political or religious standpoint. By raising Elizabeth at the court, she could make sure that no Protestant factions could manipulate her.
Although I have to wonder if Elizabeth would have been as effective with a different upbringing.
In 1987, Then-Secretary of Commerce of the USA, Malcolm Baldridge, died after his horse fell on him at a rodeo. It happens.
Yes it dose I was a CNA I had patient who fell off a horse and it landed on top of her needless to say she couldn't move from her neck down she lived for about4yrs and passed on due to injuries which caused by the paralysis.
Condolences. Sad. Thanks for the info.
“What if “ scenarios are fun to consider. Thanks for sharing! 😸🇬🇧
I also think Mary would have ensured that Elizabeth would be brought up Catholic. Imagine that. Almost insane to think about.
With Anne Boleyn still alive, I have serious doubts as to the firmness of Elizabeth’s Catholic faith.
@ Well unless she goes into exile, I 100% believe Mary would have tried and executed Anne for treason. Similar to what she did to Cranmer. I don't see Mary keeping calm and carrying on where her father's "great whore" is concerned.
Only logical
@@amysbees6686
Not if Anne was separated from Elizabeth can you remember what your parents were saying or doing at the age of 2 ?
A few what ifs from a history loving American: what if Henry had never looked to Anne and stayed with Mary Boleyn? What if Anne had managed to marry Henry Percy? What if Henry VI's faction had triumphed over Edward IV?
Wonderful video. 🤴 👑
👑🤷♀👑 So interesting! Thanks for another fascinating take on "what if...?" 😄👍💖
Possibly a strange question, but: does anyone know the title of the book behind Dr. Marchant's shoulder that has a picture of Elizabeth I at the top of the spine? Just beside the Geoffrey Moorhouse book. 📙
You have put together a very clear alternate path. The only thing I would add, is I think a lot more people would have waited to see if Ann had a son. They may have even put her in house arrest to wait and see. No, I don't think Ann would have been a leading role in her son's regency council. Yes, she would have fought for it, but I think she would have lost. And, yes, with so many thinking each child was illegitamate, in one way or other, a lot would have gone to Fitzroy as male heir. 👑
Very interesting! I think the Reformation would have been a lot different.
I think it would be interesting too to consider some other ripples. Henry never marries Jane, Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, or Katherine Parr in this scenario. Katherine Parr would probably have married Thomas Seymour sooner, and not played such a role in Elizabeth’s life and education. The others? It’s hard to say.
Hi Claire. I've been watching Magnificent Century recently, and I was wondering if it would be possible to make some videos on The Sulatante of Women. There are some common misconceptions that people believe that come from the show.
Heya, I think you have the wrong person - I'm Kat but I love this suggestion so will add it to my list, thank you!
@ReadingthePast Hi yes Dr Kat I'm so sorry I did indeed have the wrong person. It was the wrong name but right channel I'm so sorry. Thank you for taking my suggestion.
Imagining the kings death? Someone go get Cromwell
My request might be a bit of a stretch. I remember you saying in one of your earlier videos, that there was a suggestion, at one point, that Mary might be married to her half brother Henry Fitzroy, in order to give Fitzroy a side-door to the throne.
I want to know if there was any precedent for a marriage of half siblings (outside Egypt), and what you think the outcome of that union would have been?
Would he have still set aside Catherine and married Anne if he’d had what he considered a solid succession plan?
I can certainly look into this, thank you for the suggestion.
No half sibling marriages are springing to mind for me; however, if I have understood correctly, the double cousin marriages of the Hapsburgs were genetically more inbred than Mary/Fiztroy would have been.
Not that they would have been thinking about genetics, of course.
👑 interesting
Speaking from experience any head injury causing behavioral alterations for more a few minutes is a TBI that can definitely cause what followed next futher exahabrated by the pain from old leg injury opening up and refusing to heal. Ad extreme pain can also alter the he mind. Another thing a mild TBI can worsen as one ages curiousty of the mind slowing as one ages.
And mental and behavioral changes as side effects of the treatments and medications.
That too did not help his case in the slightest.
As well as the damage from repetitive 'mild' head traumas as we see in football (English) players from heading the ball over their career (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy). I have a feeling Henry probably had more (and perceived milder) hits to the head in addition to this specific one.
Definitely possible considering the times.
Fantastic discussion. Slightly alarming, had he died so early, but still fun. 👑
Before the Grey girls, and depending on the year, their mother Frances Brandon would have been an option as a claimant. She outlived Queen Mary I.
But there is something called “line of succession’. The current monarch dies, his or hers eldest child succeeds them. If that child has no children then the crown goes the next child if there is one. If there is no children or grandchildren of monarch then it gets muddle. For example, when Elizabeth I died there were a few options available but I believe they chose James because he was already a monarch.
Hello, Reading The Past. I’d like to know was Henri wearing his armor, and did it protect him from the weight of the horse during his fall?🤔
👸🏻 great what if. Thanks for making.
What if Guy Fawkens plot did kill King James I
Thought provoking episode
Hi! Love your videos! One question I've always wondered is why don't we know more birthdays for women who became famous later in life? Wouldn't their mothers/families know when they were born and it could be recorded much later? Did royals never celebrate birthdays?
Yes, this is something that's always bothered me, not knowing the actual date of birth of characters in history. No mention in family bibles etc or even written in passing in court records, referring to Anne Boleyn in particular but also other Queens of England. No birthday parties or gifts presented to the spouse of the monarch??? Disappointing not knowing.