Alt English History: Whose Survival Might have had the most effect? Whose death?

Great Debates
1

I’ve been thinking of alternative English history a bit recently, and was thinking about certain instances where someone died unexpectedly, and how history could have developed if that person had survived. Often, it’s hard to say that one person’s death truly changes the course of history, but there were a couple that came to me.

The one that I think had the most impact was the death of Edward, the Black Prince. He predeceased his father, King Edward III, leaving his son, Richard, a minor, who eventually succeded his grandfather as Richard II, at age 10. The first part of his reign was dominated by the regency council of his uncles, and when he tried to reign himself, he got into serious trouble, leading to his deposition by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, who became Henry IV. That set off the entire sequence of the Wars of the Roses.

By contrast, if Edward had survived, he would have succeeded his father as Edward IV. He was a tough and ruthless military man, trained in the art of kingship. I can’t see Bolingbroke having a chance of deposing him. Young Richard would have been raised by his father, trained in the art of kingship, likely sired his own children, and eventually succeeded Edward as your typical medieval monarch, secure on the throne, in part because his uncles would all have been fairly elderly by then. No Henry V and Agincourt, no Yorkists and Lancastrians, no Wars of the Roses, no Princes in the Tower, and in all likelihood, no Tudors.

The second possibility that occurred to me was Arthur, Prince of Wales, eldest son of King Henry VII, and first husband of Catherine of Aragon. If he hadn’t died prematurely, his younger brother, Henry, Duke of York, would have likely been pushed into the church, possibly reaching high rank there. If Arthur and Catherine had issue, the English alliance with Spain likely would have continued. Would England have stayed Roman Catholic during the Reformation as a result, possibly under the ecclesiastical leadership of Henry, Cardinal Duke of York? No golden age under Gloriana, who never would have been born?

Then, the other side of the coin. Which historical figure whose survival had the greatest impact? I think the key one here has to be William the Conqueror. If he had died at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, all of England’s subsequent history would have been different. England wouldn’t have had the Norman influence, and likely would have stayed in the Scandanavian sphere of influence. Our language would not exist, since Old English would have evolved differently as the language of the ruling class, instead of being driven underground for two centuries by Norman French. (Note that I don’t think Harold II’s death was as significant. If both William and Harold had survived Hastings, there may have been a long-running conflict, with a good chance that the Normans would have succeeded anyway. It’s only if William had died that it’s clear the outcome would have changed, given his strong leadership.

A possible runner-up, much more recent: what about Winston Churchill, earning a V.C. (posthumous) in the Boer War? Would there have been anyone else who could have given the lion’s roar and kept Britain fighting in World War II? Would Prime Minister Halifax have sued for peace in the spring of 1940? No US intervention in Europe? The Third Reich survives?

(I’ve put this in Great Debates because while it doesn’t seem to have a clear factual answer, I think it’s sufficiently fact-based that it can qualify as a debate. I don’t think its MPSIMS, but if the mods want to move it there or to IMHO, so be it.)

2

I agree that Churchill was irreplacable. There was no other politician of sufficient stature to be a plausible candidate for Prime Minister who was as determined to defy Germany against unreasonable odds as he was. I don’t think Churchill’s loss would have necessarily meant a complete British surrender but there almost certianly would have been an armistice and a negotiated settlement to the war.

On your other question, I’d offer Edward VI as somebody who would have had a major effect if he had lived a full life. Suppose he had lived a normal seventy year lifespan and had died in 1607 instead of 1553. No Mary. No Elizabeth. Probably no Stuarts and no union with Scotland. Maybe no Virginia Colony, no Battle of Gravelines, no English Reformation, no Shakespeare, no Cromwell, no Walpole.

3

I agree, all of the survivals in the OP would be history-changing in an enormous way. Also, Edward VI’s early death certainly put England through the wringer.

I wonder what would have happened if Henry VIII had died from his jousting injury, rather than surviving with a chronically bad leg and never-healed open wound. Anne Boleyn would not have been executed, but many of the Tudor turmoil would still have existed. The switch to protestantism would have already happened, but was really young. Due to the annulment of marriage with Catherine, Mary at that time I THINK was considered illegitimate, so Elizabeth (as a toddler) would have succeeded. (Maybe, who knows what grabs for the throne might have occurred/succeeded. I’m sure the Dudleys would have been working overtime, and probably Mary Stuart as well.) So, perhaps no back-and-forth on religion, no “six wives,” no Edward VI, no Philip of Spain as royal consort, no Lady Jane Grey’s 9 days’ reign.

If Elizabeth held on to the throne, her reign would have looked completely different than the one we know. Since she didn’t live through the turmoil of her father’s and Mary’s reigns, her outlook on the world and even her personality might have been different. She might have married a prince of Europe and had children. If Mary had won the throne after all, her reign might have different with the same reason. She might not have been so bitter, turned so cruel. She would have married Philip (or whoever) much younger, had a better chance at having children.

4

If Oliver Cromwell had been able to hang on for a few more years and establish a viable alternate form of government, thus preventing the restoration of the monarchy, I think British history might have taken a profoundy different path.

5

And, well, let’s go back a ways. What if Boudica had won? The Romans were waffling about sticking it out in Britannia; Suetonious Paulinus was just too stubborn to give in.

6

If Prince Albert had succumbed two weeks earlier to his ultimately losing bout with typhoid, he wouldn’t have been able to soften Lyons’ ultimatum and the event known as the Trent Affair could have continued its spiral all the way to England going to war with the Union.

7

Yeah, but would Batman still be a Holy Terror?

8

If Henry VIII would have died before he divorced Catherine that would’ve been pretty significant in world history. Probably about as significant as it comes.

9

She’d also be her daughter’s regent (sharing power with her father) and need to deal with a mostly Catholic Europe that considered her a whore and Elizabeth a bastard. England would be facing an invasion to put Mary on the throne. If Anne would be screwed unless she could keep France on her side.

10

Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon had several sons who died in infancy. If just one had made it then England might still be a Catholic country and Gene Robinson would be just another gay priest.

As for deaths, if James VI of Scotland had died in infancy or anytime before begetting children it would have been interesting. I suppose the succession would have passed back to one of Jane Grey’s nephews or nieces or their descendants, though conceivably it could have gone to Henry IV of France since like the Tudors he was a descendant of John of Gaunt, which would have been interesting since he was a Protestant who had converted to Catholicism to rule France but may have reconverted for England.

A bit off topic but related, I mentioned in another thread that what I think would really have put history on its head would have been if “Bloody” Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain had produced an heir. Consider that the child would have inherited Spain, Burgundy, the Netherlands, and other bits and pieces of Habsburg hand-me-downs from Sicily to Naples and sometimes Portugal through his father, and England, Wales, Ireland, Calais and other bits and pieces of places from his mother, considerable in and of itself and enough to make France scream “Merde sainte!” since they’d have been pretty much surrounded by one crown.
More importantly perhaps, Spain controlled most of South America- Incan and Aztec gold had filled the coffers and silver from Potosi was nowhere near exhausted. With Spain and England united there would have been no reason for the Spanish Armada (which cost a bloody fortune or 16) and assuming the North American settlement by the English had still gone forth this would have left one crown in charge of a New World Empire from what’s now Newfoundland down to Tierra del Fuego (minus perhaps Brazil- I can’t remember offhand what happened to make Portugal independent).
Had they produced an heir who was capable (not a weakling like Eddie 6 or a total freakshow like Carlos II[whose mother was also his first cousin]) history would have been very much different.

11

If Henry V had lived longer, he might have put his Anglo-French empire on a lasting footing. The countries might have remained joined until the rise of nationalism in the 19th Century (assuming it would rise then).

12

Victoria lived so long, that people still talk about the Age of Victoria.
:::: ducking ::::

13

What about the infant son of King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, who died young (about a month old) in - I think - 1511? Had he lived into adulthood Henry VIII would have had a male heir and would have been very unlikely to pursue an annulment of his marriage. The ramifications for the English Reformation would have been significant.

14

ooooh good one, I forgot about him. Actually Catherine had a lot of pregnancies, with Mary the only one born live and lived to adulthood. So, any one of those babies could have been a game changer. Anne Boleyn also had a miscarriage after Elizabeth that was male … that was sort of the last straw as far as Henry was concerned, it was not long after that he started moving against her.

15

Leo Amery? Duff Cooper? Anthony Eden, if he had grown a pair?

16

ahem… post 10.:wink:

17

Another candidate is William Adelin, the only legitimate son of Henry I, who drowned when the White Shipsank. This was the direct cause of the long struggle between Stephen and Matilda, and the consequent fixation of later kings such as Henry VIII on having a son to avoid a similar struggle for the throne. William would possibly have continued his father’s strong rule in place of the anarchy resulting from Henry’s death, which would have inevitably been better for England.

An even greater effect, however, would have been the removal of Matilda’s son Henry II and the whole Plantagenet line from the throne. No Richard the Lion-Hearted. No King John and no Magna Carta. No Wars of the Roses. No Tudors.

18

A few more questions…

What if Harold Godwinson had been defeated at Stamford Bridge?

What if the Spanish armada hadn’t of been beaten off at sea and successfully landed an army?

What if Napoleon had conquered Britain?Hitler?

19

People worried about the Tudor succession, with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, etc., need to go back a few years to 1485. If Richard III had defeated Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth Field, and either killed him in the battle or had him hung in the market square in Leicester as a traitor, English history would have been very different.

It’s difficult to predict, however, since Richard’s only son had died the previous year, but Richard was young enough to produce heirs. If he didn’t, the next in line was probably Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk, executed in 1513 by Henry VIII, since he was at that stage the Yorkist pretender to the throne.

20

If he, or his brothers, had lived, they would have regrouped and continued to fight and you would have a three-sided war,with the Godwinsons ( excluding their rebel brother Tostig ) having the advantage of superior local resources. If killed as happened at Hastings, it’s Harold Hardraada ( now firmly in control of northern England at least ) vs. William the Bastard and it becomes very hard to predict what happens next. I’d be inclined to think the Saxo-Danish nobility would have preferred Hardraada, but that’s a pretty weak inclination on my part. In a straight-up fight, William’s cavalry might give him an edge, but how long could he keep his heterogenous army together if it became a long grind?

The plan was a bit of a cock-up by Philip II. He took two seperate good ideas, Santa Cruz’s ( better ) idea for a full-fleet naval descent ( not making use of or requiring the assistance of the army of Flanders ) and Parma’s for a surprise landing of an army at Kent ( not requiring linkage with a fleet ) and combined them to weaken the overall enterprise. Under the best of circumstances it is pretty unlikely Parma could have pulled off the main landing.

If he had however, the veteran army of Flanders under the greatest commander of his day would have been a nightmare for the English. London was probably doomed. An ultimate failure of the Spanish venture would then probably hinge on just how much the populace and nobility continued to rally to Elizabeth if she managed to escape to flee north. Parma was hoping for a Catholic uprising - that may have been unrealistic. But at the very least he would have tied England down for years and left the country in chaos in its wake.