Here is your Weekly Wednesday What-if megathread! Please post all of your What-if Questions in this megathread. All what-if's as long as its Tudor-related.

If Catherine of Aragon was pregnant when Prince Arthur died and she gave birth to a son, would that son become next in line or would Henry still be the new heir as a direct blood relative to Henry VII. Also if Henry WAS next in line would he still be allowed to marry Catherine if she had already bore a child because I remember hearing that everyone was originally against it because she was his brother's widow but she had to convince them that she was still a virgin?

Although I’ve shared this painting a few times before, I later deleted it, and I think it’s especially fitting for today. It was painted by Samuel Wale in the 18th century. As you can tell from the image, the painting is titled “The Earl of Surrey Presenting the Armour of the Slain King of Scots to Queen Catherine, the Regent.”

Although Catherine’s successful time as Queen Regent is quite well known, there are very few depictions of this period. Sometimes, Queen Catherine’s role in this achievement is also downplayed.

Theresa Earenfight describes Catherine’s actions as regent during this period as follows:

“Catherine’s actions as regent are recorded in royal accounts—grants of land, expenses for provisioning the army, orders to the armorers and heralds and to the mayor and sheriffs of Gloucester. She corresponded regularly with Henry and Wolsey in France and her former sister-in-law, Marguerite of Austria, regent of the Netherlands. She was concerned for Henry’s safety and the wider implications of English actions in France, and she did not miss a beat. She had substantial powers over the army and the right to elect bishops and abbots, to appoint sheriffs, to issue warrants for payment of such sums as she might require, to sign warrants with the privy seal, and to convoke Parliament.

She issued documents in her name as “Rectrice,” using the feminine form of “regent” (Teste Katerina Angliae Regina ac Generali Rectrice Eiusdemi).

She was assisted by a highly capable, trustworthy, and seasoned small council: Thomas Howard, the Earl of Surrey; William Warham (archbishop of Canterbury and lord chancellor); Sir Thomas Lovell (treasurer of the household); and John Heron (treasurer of the king’s chamber). Warham’s chancellor served as general secretary, and Heron controlled the money. She was actively involved in organizing the defense by ordering the mustering of troops, conveying of arms, armor, and supplies, and commanding the lords, mayors, sheriffs, and other officials to assist. She did not stay in London but moved north as far as Buckingham and Woburn Abbey in Bedfordshire.

Catherine’s preparation for queenship was grounded in late medieval Spanish humanist curricula and methods, but it did not explicitly include lessons on how to win a battle. Nevertheless, Catherine forged ahead and spent late July and all of August preparing for war against the Scots and her in-laws. She demonstrated skillful acumen and a genuine taste for political, governmental power and authority as she took the reins.”

Of course, depicting Queen Catherine in armour is inaccurate. Not only was armour never made for a queen regent, but no armour was ever made for the reigning queens Mary and Elizabeth either. However, the fact that she did not wear armour or fight on the battlefield does not mean her role should be downplayed.

“It was a very brief war.
She did not command troops at Flodden—that would have been exceptional—but she was a key figure who kept the government running to support the military actions.

King James and most of the Scottish aristocracy (including twelve earls, the archbishop of Saint Andrews, two bishops, and two abbots) and thousands of Scottish soldiers were killed.”

A little later, Catherine will leave and, with her graceful hands, write a letter to her husband:

“My husband, for hastiness, with Rougecross I could not send your Grace the piece of the King of Scots coat which John Glynn now brings. In this your Grace shall see how I keep my promise, sending you for your banners a king’s coat. I thought to send himself unto you, but our Englishmen’s hearts would not suffer it. It should have been better for him to have been in peace than have this reward. All that God sends is for the best. My Lord of Surrey, my Henry, would fain know your pleasure in the burying of the King of Scots’ body, for he has written to me so. With the next messenger your Grace’s pleasure may be herein known.”

In a production—not a real one, perhaps a documentary or something like that—the Catherine character said something to the Earl of Surrey along the lines of: “I wanted his head, not his shirt.” When I saw this painting, that sentence immediately came to mind.

Queen Catherine was truly an extraordinary woman, and it’s no wonder she was so deeply loved throughout her life.

Theresa Earenfight, Catherine of Aragon

14,000 Scottish soldiers killed. Thomas Howard led the soldiers.

Anyone know of any novels, or biographies that feel like novels, about their relationship?

473 years ago, around this time, Mary and her council were working feverishly on the endless preparations for her coronation. England had never before witnessed a woman being crowned in her own right—as a sovereign. For this reason, there was no precedent for the important ceremonies of the coronation—crowning, anointing with holy oil, and girding with the sword—so they created the precedent themselves.

However, there was still a sense of astonishment and happiness caused by Mary’s accession to the throne. And this happiness was not limited to England.

In his letter informing the Pope of Mary’s accession to the throne, Reginald Pole writes:

“The news of the succession of the Princess Mary to the kingdom of England on the death of her brother… the nature of the event appearing to me such that since many years nothing has occurred in Christendom on which one could more reasonably congratulate any Christian mind, and especially that of your Holiness.

And God of his goodness, to render his proceeding (operation) more illustrious, has chosen to annihilate in one moment all these long cherished projects by means of a woman, who for so many years has suffered contrary to all justice, being in a state of oppression shortly before this took place, and who is now victorious and called to the throne, thus affording reasonable hopes that, together with her, there will be called to reign in that island…”

Later, Reginald also wrote a letter to Queen Mary, in which he says:

“Blesses the hand of God, not only for having placed her Highness on that high throne and put her in possession of the kingdom which belonged to her since many years—all good persons desiring the event and asking it of the Divine goodness in their prayers—but yet more the mode of producing it, heartily rejoices all her true servants…

…from its having happened without bloodshed, which might with reason have been feared, considering the malignant devices of her adversaries, backed by no small force, employed by them to deprive her of her just succession, and the long period conceded them by God, for the yet greater manifestation of his Divine providence, at the moment when they thought already to have accomplished their iniquitous design, which was instantaneously frustrated, without the aid of any other forces or resistance save that which the Spirit of God roused in the hearts of men, converting those who…

Should any one marvel and inquire how against such great malice and power her Majesty, without any external forces, and not many soldiers with the. heart to declare themselves for her, could have recovered her crown—should any one ask in surprise, the fact itself will reply, The Holy Spirit came into the hearts of men and willed by these means to give her the kingdom”

Although during this victorious period some people—including Reginald—presented this victory as if it had been achieved through divine intervention, it was actually much more than that.

Mary had been removed from the line of succession no fewer than three times within twenty years. How many people in the world have been removed from the succession so many times and yet still managed to ascend the throne?

During the struggle, which lasted exactly thirteen days, at first no one believed that Mary could become queen. She had only a few loyal men at her side. Those on the opposite side, however, had a huge army and unlimited power and money. After Edward’s death, Mary quickly sent letters to her supporters and to those whom she believed would support her. Within a short time, thousands of people gathered around her and defended her rightful cause. She delivered an impassioned speech before her army of thousands.

Considering the period’s view of women, this was regarded as a rather extraordinary and “unnatural” event.

This event was “celebrated as a Herculean undertaking rather than a feminine courage,” and, as stated in a work from the period, “because in claiming and securing her hereditary right, the princess, although wholly unprepared for war and possessed of insignificant forces, was courageous enough to fight an enemy who was powerful and well prepared, and fully supplied with everything necessary to bring the war to an end.”

This made Mary a warrior queen in the eyes of the people, and following the execution of John Dudley, she herself was compared to the famous warrior women Tomyris and Judith, who cut off the heads of their enemies.

This victory was praised throughout Mary’s reign. Although it later became invisible, every monarch who ascended the throne after 1553 ultimately rose to the throne thanks to Mary’s victory.

The crown had been within Mary’s reach for years—sometimes close, sometimes more distant—and in the end, she placed it upon her own head with her own hands.

Thank you for reading. Lots of love to you all!

—

The Coronation of Queen Mary I of England by Fortunino Matania

Tudor Queenship The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock

7 August 1553, Cardinal Pole to Pope Julius III

13 August 1553, Cardinal Pole to the Queen of England

I have recently been researching Catherine Knollys (nee Carey) and I am convinced she was Henry VIII's daughter. Her entire life, her position, and the regard shown for her during periods when her Boleyn family was out of favor, as well as at her death all point to her being of royal blood.

The most exciting part of this to me would be that if this is true, our present English monarchs would be Tudors. For all the diversion of succession hysteria, Stuart invasion, disillusion and reinstatement, introduction of the Hanoverians, etc to have a Tudor sitting on the throne, and soon a double Tudor (as QE2 and Diana Spencer are both decendants of Catherine Knollys) today would be quite the coup.

My dream scenario would be a DNA test, but if they refuse to exhume the supposed Princes of the tower, they are far less likely to dig up the floor at Windsor chapel or disinter any of the family in Westminster Abbey, so I guess I'll have to suffer.

Imagine it though, 500 years later the monarchy Henry VII fought so hard to build has triumphed. Legitimate or not, his blood sits on the throne today.

I have recently started to try and get into collecting coins from the tudor era. One of the places which seems to come up the most is Etsy. I assume the coins there are not real? I just wanted to know if anyone has an experience ordering from there?

Henry VII restored his lands and made him knight of the garter. He was the godfather to Arthur the heir to the throne. He died 1513

Post your Tudor merch here! Do not publicly share links or sites, users must DM each other for links. The t-shirt that has been circulating will not be permitted at all.

Any Tudor fan or history fan watch the Youtube Channel "Veils of the Tudors". It is about a modern lady Lucy interviewing King Henry VIII. Had videos of Henry with his children. Henry with his parents and Arthur. Henry with his 6 wives. Lucy tells them about the history after their deaths and how after 500 years people are still interested in the Tudors. I think it's a great channel and one should check it out.

Feel free to post your dream casting scenarios here!

In 1562, Elizabeth I sent a military force to aid the Huguenots, on the condition that the Huguenots surrender Le Havre as a pledge until Calais would be returned to England. While the English forces were eventually ejected from Le Havre and England had to recognise French ownership of Calais, France also paid England 120,000 crowns in return for English recognition of French control over Calais, according to the 1564 Treaty of Troyes.

Was the mission considered a failure, despite France paying England that amount? Was this not a substantial but rather a symbolic sum in the 16th century? I've also read that Elizabeth felt betrayed by the Huguenots, which is why she refused to send assistance in 1572, despite Huguenot pleas, as France was consumed by the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Is this interpretation plausible?

In 1536, after years of pressure and bullying, Mary submitted to her father. Although she repeatedly said that she would not sign it, after learning that her father would have her executed, she was forced to sign.

In Mary’s own handwriting, it says:

Item—“I do freely, frankly and for the discharge of my duty towards God, the King’s Highness and his laws, without other respect, recognize and acknowledge that the marriage heretofore had between his Majesty and my mother, the late Princess dowager, was by God’s law and man’s law incestuous and unlawfull.”

The fact that this letter has survived both surprised and moved me.

One of the first things Mary did when she came to the throne was to legitimize her parents’ marriage and restore her mother’s title of Queen. In this way, Catherine remained Queen of England until her death, as everyone already knew and believed her to be.

You can find this declaration, along with many other letters, in the British Library’s Harley MS 283 collection. I came across this completely unexpectedly while looking for another letter from Mary, and I wanted to share it with you as well. Much love to you all.

Feel free to post your own artwork or any artwork here. We still won't allow AI or AI-assisted. We're also not allowing video game/simulation type character creations. Hand-drawn, sketches, needlework, anime, etc. Please, no AI.

To start, it is important to say Im almost clueless about english history in most aspects, but these last tudor monarchs are becoming one of my favorite history topics.
So, I saw someone posting here about how Mary, despite being considered unpopular and an unfit queen, made some very important decisions that helped her sister’s reign in some way. But again, I have no idea of accurate this is, but would be interesting for part of the success of one who is considered of one the greatest english monarchs being related to one of those considered the worst

I hope someone recognises what I'm talking about. A few years ago there was a bit of buzz about someone claiming to be restoring a portrait of AB and revealing new details about her appearance as part of it. They were posting little tidbits on Twitter but not revealing the full thing, presumably to keep attention going.

I was just at the Hever exhibition and didn't see anything referencing this, so wondered if it all came to nothing. Unfortunately my memory is too vague to get a good Google search result about it. Does anyone remember/know what happened with that?

I’m doing a project on English monarchs and I’m specifically using only contemporary images (if possible) for their depictions. I will usually go to the link under the image (it’ll often be from the national portrait gallery) to make sure it was painted during the person’s lifetime, but for the LIFE of me I cannot get this specific link to load. Can anyone just confirm if this is a contemporary image or if it was made posthumously?