# Henry 8th heir **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 8, 2020, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231 "2020-06-08T05:04:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/1 "2020-06-08T05:04:19Z")
When Henry VIII died, his son,Edward VI of England was crowned, and 'ruled" until he died at the age of 15 or 16. Edward picked Lady Jane Grey. But the Powers that Be Cut Janes head off and put Mary on the throne. The first English ruling Queen (Or perhaps Empress Matilda, but that is very disputed). Some evidence that Mary and Liz were both technically bastards, too. So, if the English hadnt put any woman on the throne (and Mary was a very poor choice as they found out, but Liz was one of the best)- who would it have been? Henry VII was very good at killing off any other possible claimants. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley? The Father of James I and VI? ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/2 "2020-06-08T05:33:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Some evidence that Mary and Liz were both technically bastards, too. I think it was more a case of arguing that they were if it suited you. Much of this was power play between various great families with various links to past royalty which could be played up or down as convenient to other interests. The Stuart claim arose through Mary Stuart’s grandmother: Darnley’s family had no such link, so it’s hard to imagine any powerful interest in England choosing him (it was by no means guaranteed that James VI would be accepted after Elizabeth, and he had that link, a male heir, a scholarly reputation and years of experience in kingcraft). There really doesn’t seem to be any male contender close enough. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/3 "2020-06-08T05:38:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > When Henry VIII died, his son,Edward VI of England was crowned, and 'ruled" until he died at the age of 15 or 16. > > Edward picked Lady Jane Grey. But the Powers that Be Cut Janes head off and put Mary on the throne. The first English ruling Queen (Or perhaps Empress Matilda, but that is very disputed). Some evidence that Mary and Liz were both technically bastards, too. > > So, if the English hadnt put any woman on the throne (and Mary was a very poor choice as they found out, but Liz was one of the best)- who would it have been? Henry VII was very good at killing off any other possible claimants. > > Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley? The Father of James I and VI? Could a male inherit through the female line, in your theoretical? Lord Darnley was the son of Margaret Douglas, daughter of Margaret Tudor, who was Henry VIII’s older sister. Darnley and his younger brother were the closest living male relatives of the Tudors at the death of Edward VI, but all of Margaret Tudor’s descendants had been excluded from the throne by the Second Succession Act (1536) and by Henry VIII’s will. Henry’s younger sister Mary had no living male descendants at the time of Henry’s death, although her granddaughter Katherine Grey later married into the Seymour family and had two sons, while another granddaughter married the Earl of Derby and likewise had male heirs. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/4 "2020-06-08T05:40:35Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > The Stuart claim arose through Mary Stuart’s grandmother: Darnley’s family had no such link, so it’s hard to imagine any powerful interest in England choosing him (it was by no means guaranteed that James VI would be accepted after Elizabeth, and he had that link, a male heir, a scholarly reputation and years of experience in kingcraft). Au contraire: Darnley’s maternal grandmother was Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister, so Darnley had about as good a claim as his son’s. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/5 "2020-06-08T06:46:34Z")
I stand corrected, apologies. But Darnley was a child, and would therefore have come with another set of family interests (and Scottish, therefore foreign, to boot) to compete with all the others wrangling around the Tudor court. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/6 "2020-06-08T07:01:42Z")
there were some that said that if the “war of the roses” hadn’t happened the Tudors wouldn’t have been royalty at all as one of them would have been on the throne ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/7 "2020-06-08T07:08:23Z")
Interesting that the Queen of Scots and her 2nd husband Darnley were first-(half-)cousins. > [@slash2k](#): > > Au contraire: Darnley’s maternal grandmother was Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister, so Darnley had about as good a claim as his son’s. Not really. Mary’s father (King James V) was not only born before his half-sister (Darnley’s mother) but was _male_. Before marrying Darnley, Mary (Queen of Scots almost at birth and eventually Heiress to England) was married to the Dauphin (and briefly King) of France! What would have happened had she borne him a male heir? Union of France and England?? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/8 "2020-06-08T07:59:07Z")
missed the edit :there were some that said that if the “war of the roses” hadn’t happened the Tudors wouldn’t have been royalty at all as one of them would have been on the throne the Tudors just took advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/9 "2020-06-08T08:59:06Z")
Dudley and Seymour were hardly going to be popular after losing Scotland and Boulogne as Regents. No doubt there was a strong push from the Catholics to get (Bloody) Mary on the throne. A lot of powerful people jockeying for position and no clear line of succession - it was always going to end in tears. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/10 "2020-06-08T08:59:29Z")
The [climate data for the South Pole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole#Climate_and_day_and_night), as reported by Wikipedia, indicates that the average annual precipitation there is 2.3 mm, with an average of 1.6 precipitation days and 203.0 “snowy days”. How is the word “snowy day” defined here? I thought it would be “a day where there is precipitation in the form of snow”, but doesn’t make light in sense of the precipitation statistics. It also can’t be “a day when there is snow on the ground”, because then I would expect the number of snowy days to always be 365 (in a non-leap year). Is it possibly “a day when there is snow in the air”, which admits the possibility of snow from the ground being blown up by the wind? If so, how does one distinguish (for the purposes of measurement) between precipitated snow and blown-up snow? I mean, presumably they have some sort of device on or near the ground that collects snow. Is there some way of constructing such a device such that it collects only that snow that falls directly from the clouds, as opposed to ground snow that is returning to the earth after being blown up by the wind? How would that work on days when it is both windy and snowing? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/11 "2020-06-08T09:08:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > (Or perhaps Empress Matilda, but that is very disputed). There is no dispute about Mathilda, really. She was never was crowned by anybody and never held the title of queen, not even when she briefly had Stephen in captivity after the battle of Lincoln in 1141. It was a difficult circumlocution because though she claimed to be her father’s heir, her claim had already been ruled against by the Papacy and Stephen had been crowned and was alive. Medieval law didn’t really make room for simultaneous and opposed legal monarchs. Instead during her brief ascendancy she was given the title _domina Anglorum_, “lady of the English”, which is how she thereafter often referred to herself in charters. Instead her royal claim was yielded to her son the future Henry II. Mathilda lived until 1167, but she never held the actual titles she was heir to - neither duke of Normandy( passed to Henry from 1150 ), nor king of England( held by Henry from 1154 ). ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/12 "2020-06-08T09:24:40Z")
A Darnley succession in England wasn’t a completely ridiculous idea. Mary I did toy with the idea of naming Darnley’s mother, the Countess of Lennox, as her successor. Her advantage, in Mary’s eyes, was that she was both Catholic and not-French. The Countess could then have stepped aside in her son’s favour. There was, after all, an obvious precedent for a man to claim the throne via his mother while that mother was still alive. OK, Henry VII’s accession had required a number of legal bodges. But so would Darnley’s, which doubtless would also have been contested. Darnley’s Scottishness was also not as much of a barrier as it might have been. His family had been in exile in England since before he was born. More importantly, although she too had spent most of her life abroad, the other Catholic claimant was more obvious Scottish, in the sense that she was already the Queen of Scots. But there were powerful arguments against any Lennox claim. Mostly that it was very difficult to see how they could have a better legal claim than the Queen of Scots. Their best option would therefore have been for Mary I to have changed the line of succession in their favour. Which she could have done. But there was a very good reason why Mary I was reluctant to do so. Her own claim to the throne was based on the simple fact that she was the eldest surviving child of Henry VIII and that this trumped all the shenanagins which by her father and her brother had tried meddling with the succession. That anyway ceased to be an option as soon as Mary died. The Lennoxes then had a brutal choice - either support Mary, Queen of Scots, on the basis that they would then be the next in line, or support Elizabeth. Darnley’s parents were smart enough to do the latter, immediately and unambiguously. That at least secured them their existing position in England for the time being. They would more clearly have risked everything if they had instead done the former. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/13 "2020-06-08T09:28:09Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > I think it was more a case of arguing that they were if it suited you. Much of this was power play between various great families with various links to past royalty which could be played up or down as convenient to other interests. Yes, I fully agree with this. The succession was _always_ about power and politics (and religion after the Reformation) in the final analysis. ‘Rules’ of succession were made by people, and ‘rules’ were changed by people, and ‘rules’ were followed or ignored or bent by people as it suited them. It’s always easy to think up reasons to justify what you want. That was invariably the case until modern times when royalty no longer had political influence. It’s a category error to think too legalistically about it. The Duke of Northumberland had control over Edward VI, and he wanted to keep power by putting Jane Grey on the throne and marrying her to his son. He was a fundamentalist Protestant, and she was a suitable Protestant candidate for his purposes. But the rest of the ‘powers that be’ didn’t want Northumberland in charge, and the general public wouldn’t accept her as queen because her claim to the throne was too remote and fanciful. As for the legitimacy of Mary and Elizabeth, that depended mostly on whether you were a Protestant or a Catholic. For many people who didn’t feel strongly about religion, Mary was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII, and that was enough. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/14 "2020-06-08T10:34:35Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > I(it was by no means guaranteed that James VI would be accepted after Elizabeth, and he had that link, a male heir, a scholarly reputation and years of experience in kingcraft). The options besides James were 1. [Lady Arabella Stuart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Arbella_Stuart) 2. [Lady Anne Stanley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Stanley,_Countess_of_Castlehaven) Two young and unmarried women… a very bad thing in that era. Jimmy brought with him the fact he was i) male, ii) had heirs iii) descended from a King and iv) Had his own power base. Ok, he was technically ineligible, since his Great Grandmother’s marriage negotiations had expressly removed her descendants from having a claim to the throne of England, but for the last decade of Elizabeth’s life, it was never in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/15 "2020-06-08T10:38:59Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > The [climate data for the South Pole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole#Climate_and_day_and_night), as reported by Wikipedia, indicates that the average annual precipitation there is 2.3 mm, with an average of 1.6 precipitation days and 203.0 “snowy days”. > > How is the word “snowy day” defined here? I thought it would be “a day where there is precipitation in the form of snow”, but doesn’t make light in sense of the precipitation statistics. It also can’t be “a day when there is snow on the ground”, because then I would expect the number of snowy days to always be 365 (in a non-leap year). Is it possibly “a day when there is snow in the air”, which admits the possibility of snow from the ground being blown up by the wind? If so, how does one distinguish (for the purposes of measurement) between precipitated snow and blown-up snow? I mean, presumably they have some sort of device on or near the ground that collects snow. Is there some way of constructing such a device such that it collects only that snow that falls directly from the clouds, as opposed to ground snow that is returning to the earth after being blown up by the wind? How would that work on days when it is both windy and snowing? What the ever loving fuck? Maybe Jimmy had the right idea about witchcraft? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/16 "2020-06-08T12:34:47Z")
An interesting genealogical tidbit, though I doubt it had any effect on the politicking circa 1600 AD, is that the Kings of Scotland (and hence the double-numbered James) were apparently the heirs to the Old English throne of King Alfred the Great! In that sense the ascension of the Stuarts restored the legitimate lineage that had been usurped by William the Bastard. King David the Saint (14-gt grandfather of James VI and I) was the grandson and heir of Edward the Outlaw (son and heir of King Edmund II of England). (IIRC there is some alternative genealogical line making Scottish Kings also heir to a different Wessex claimant, but I’ve forgotten details. Help?) ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/17 "2020-06-08T13:23:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > An interesting genealogical tidbit, though I doubt it had any effect on the politicking circa 1600 AD, is that the Kings of Scotland (and hence the double-numbered James) were apparently the heirs to the Old English throne of King Alfred the Great! In that sense the ascension of the Stuarts restored the legitimate lineage that had been usurped by William the Bastard. > > King David the Saint (14-gt grandfather of James VI and I) was the grandson and heir of Edward the Outlaw (son and heir of King Edmund II of England). (IIRC there is some alternative genealogical line making Scottish Kings also heir to a different Wessex claimant, but I’ve forgotten details. Help?) The last Saxon king of England was Edgar Atheling, chosen to succeed Harold Godwinson after the battle of Hastings, but never crowned. Edgar’s sister Margaret was the mother of David I of Scotland. But… a) Even though James VI was a descendant of David I, there were probably hundreds of people descended from David I, and various disruptions to the direct descent of Scottish monarchs, so it’s not at all clear that James VI was the _closest_ living blood relative of Edgar Atheling. b) The succession of the kings of Wessex didn’t work by bloodline, anyway. After the death of the king, a council of powerful people, the Witan, elected the next king. He didn’t have to be the oldest son of the previous king, or even a blood relative of the previous king. Edgar Atheling was the closest blood relative of Edward the Confessor, but Harold Godwinson was chosen to succeed Edward the Confessor instead. After Harold’s death, Edgar Atheling was chosen as his successor, in preference to any of Harold’s sons. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/18 "2020-06-08T13:35:37Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Interesting that the Queen of Scots and her 2nd husband Darnley were first-(half-)cousins. > Not really. Mary’s father (King James V) was not only born before his half-sister (Darnley’s mother) but was _male_. > > Before marrying Darnley, Mary (Queen of Scots almost at birth and eventually Heiress to England) was married to the Dauphin (and briefly King) of France! What would have happened had she borne him a male heir? Union of France and England?? :eek: Why is that shocking? Henry VIII himself claimed to be “King of England, Ireland, and France.” ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/19 "2020-06-08T13:38:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > When Henry VIII died, his son,Edward VI of England was crowned, and 'ruled" until he died at the age of 15 or 16. > > Edward picked Lady Jane Grey. But the Powers that Be Cut Janes head off and put Mary on the throne. The first English ruling Queen (Or perhaps Empress Matilda, but that is very disputed). Some evidence that Mary and Liz were both technically bastards, too. > > So, if the English hadnt put any woman on the throne (and Mary was a very poor choice as they found out, but Liz was one of the best)- who would it have been? Henry VII was very good at killing off any other possible claimants. > > Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley? The Father of James I and VI? Edward didn’t really “pick” Lady Jane Grey – John Dudley,the ambitious Duke of Northumberland did. He was Edward’s advisor (and friend and confidant to Elizabeth and others). He saw an opportunity for Lady Jane to advance to the throne when he saw that Edward was failing, so he married his son Guilford to Jane (intending him to eventually become King) and got Edward to declare Jane his heir. But when Edward died, Dudley still found it necessary to clumsily insert lines in the will that allowed his son to attain the throne. Then he put on a big showy procession down the Thames to announce that Lady Jane Grey was the new queen. The Londoners were totally confused - they had no idea who Jane Grey was, expecting Mary to be the next ruler. The people didn’t like having a queen forced on them, and the Council declared Mary the Queen. And that was the end of that. (Until Thomas Wyat’s revolt against Mary in favor of Jane. Mary had hoped to just put Jane away where people could forget about her, but this proved that she was a dangerous rallying point. So Jane got axed.) Jane would’ve been a rotten queen, but she didn’t want the throne i the first place, and had to be talked into it. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231/20 "2020-06-08T15:27:24Z")
Some earlier threads that may be of interest: > **[England 1558: Why didn't Queen Mary have Elizabeth killed?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=641325)** > > She’s on her deathbed or near to it, she’s aware her popularity is already pretty much gone since marrying the King of Spain and persecuting Anglicans, and she knows or should know that Elizabeth is going to return England to Protestantism once more.... [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=871680](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=871680) > **[Question About Elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771110)** > > I am watching the Cate Blanchett film…which is brilliant…and Mary has just died. Why didnt Sussex and the other Catholic nobles just kill Elizabeth? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-8th-heir/855231.md?page=2)