For a King of England, as such, I believe that’s true; while the last King of Great Britain to personally lead troops in battle was George II: George II - Wikipedia
Did he really? I’d like to read about that, I hadn’t heard about it. I figured it was one thing to declare him a duke, and quite another to declare an illegitimate child the heir to the throne. Sure, he had Mary and Elizabeth declared illegitimate, but I’m not sure that fooled anyone.
You know, I thought he was always sickly, but I looked in Alison Weir’s The Children of Henry VIII and she said that while that’s a common idea, he was a reasonably healthy kid, though slightly built and not interested in athletics. So yep, I was wrong.
I think Weir is where I read that about Edward. If anyone wants to read about exactly how they decided on Elizabeth’s successor I strongly recommend the book After Elizabeth: The Rise of James of Scotland by Leanda de Lisle. She looks at the leading contenders and details what happened right after Elizabeth’s death. James was welcomed by the people as a male but towards the end of his reign the people decided he was rather too much of a spendthrift and foreign with a superficial understanding of the English. Naturally they began to long for Elizabeth again.
Not to put a too-fine point on it, but I would (and do) consider this to be the founding of the modern Anglican Church and the start of modern Anglicanism. Before Henry, the Church of England was part of the catholic Church (lower “c” intended). After Henry, the C of E was its own entity, still Roman but no longer administered by Rome. The Via Media from Elizabeth and influence of Richard Hooker further defined the C of E as a separate theological entity from the Roman church while still retaining some catholic theology. So, while the C of E existed as an odd child of the Roman Church in the previous 1000 years, its present form and theology can be arguably traced to Henry the VIII’s actions.
God’s Secretaries by Adam Nicolson, about the writing of the King James Bible, also offers an interesting look at the last days of Elizabeth and the early reign of James. Nicolson is more down on Elizabeth (for caring little about the succession, for being very isolated from the people towards the end, and for ongoing religious repression) than any other historian I’ve read.
There were several female rulers or Egypt long before the famous Cleopatra, especially in the Ptolemaic dynasty- her own sister had ruled before her, as had several other women, including at least one other Cleopatra… It’s pretty hard to work out, in the era of multiple co-regents and incestuous name confusion, exactly who was ruling sometimes, but it’s fairly clear that some of them were female.
Female rulers elsewhere were rare, but before Henry VIII’s reign there was known to be at least one ruling Byzantine Empress, a slightly confusing female King of Poland, a Queen who ruled half of Scandinavia, (admittedly with a slightly legally tenuous title) and one ruling Queen of Judah mentioned in the Bible.
Also, though they were unlikely to have been heard of by the British at that time, Japan had 7 female Empresses pre-dating Henry VIII, there was also one early female Empress of China, and even a female Sultan in Delhi.
If I’m not mistaken, the famous Cleopatra was Cleopatra VII. So, it seems there has been quite a lot of Cleopatra(s) ruling Egypt.
Most of the others were wives or co-regents with their sons, rather than rulers in their own right; though some of them did rule, it certainly wasn’t all 6. Or however many of them there were- the numbers were added later, and as all wives and daughters in the dynasty used one of three names, it’s all a bit of a muddle. V and VI are now thought to be the same person.
Isabella of Castille, mother of Henry VIII’s wife Catherine, for starters (she was far, uh). She was Queen Regnant of Castille and Consort of Aragon (and Navarre); her husband Ferdinand was King Regnant of Aragon (and Navarre) and Consort of Castille. She was crazy about him, but attempts on his part to order her how to rule (rather than advise, which is among a Consort’s duties) didn’t go well.
Ferdinand was the son of John II of Aragon and his second wife, Juana Enríquez. John’s first wife had been Blanca, Queen Regnant of Navarre; John’s refusal to behave like a proper Consort to Navarre was a source of troubles throughout their marriage and beyond, as was his refusal to acknowledge that Blanca’s heir was their son Carlos (IV), first Prince of Viana, and not John himself, thus earning the epiteth The Usurper (which I’m reasonably sure isn’t in any king’s wishlist). Ferdinand claimed kingship of Navarre as John’s son; this year sees the 500 anniversary of the invasion of Navarre by Castillian troops working as mercenaries for Aragon (i.e., Ferdinand had to pay his daughter Juana for it, something he wouldn’t have had to do if he’d been King Regnant of Castille).
Isabella and Ferdinand’s daughter Juana was Queen Regnant of Castille, but she’d never been trained for the job. She was able to push some interesting laws past her father, her husband and Parliament (such as the one stating that women had to be allowed to study at University) but was eventually declared mentally incapable after her adored husband’s death and Ferdinand made her Regent. Emperor Charles (Phillip II’s father) was her son.
The heir of Carlos of Viana was his eldest sister, Leonor. She only got to rule the part of Navarre which wasn’t under Aragonese control (now part of France); her husband remained King Consort.
Cleopatra VII ruled with a succession of male co-rulers, as was Ptolemaic tradition. These included her father Ptolemy XII, her younger brother/husband Ptolemy XIII, her even younger brother/husband Ptolemy XIV and her son Ptolemy XV Caesarion ( her probable son by Julius Caesar ). Of course Cleo VII was the actual power behind the throne under all but the first, except when her first mentioned brother briefly de-throned her to seize sole power.
Her elder sister Berenice IV attempted to rule without husbands, but was repeatedly forced to marry, such was the strength of tradition. So while a few of the female Lagids ( Ptolemaic dynasty ) did rule in a de facto fashion, they were almost always saddled with a male co-ruler, usually a brother. The females of that line were numbered because it was tradition for them to be named co-ruler with their husbands, whatever their actual power status was.
As far as queen regnants go there have been a moderate number ( another Macedonian outside Egypt was the Seleucid queen Cleopatra Thea, who however was also a Lagid, as the name may indicate 
). In Europe the Iberian penninsula in particular had a relative slew of them. A wiki list - some of those names I’m sure can be argued as to their actual status ( or even existence in some cases ).
The two first Joans of Navarre were co-Regnants, both of their husbands had been crowned at the same time. How they split power and duties is something which would take months of scouring through the Anales and other documents to decipher; I certainly do not have the information. The ones I listed had husbands who were not crowned as Kings of their wives’ realms.
I have always been of the opinion that Henry married Catherine in part to spite his old mans ghost, the two dud not get along after Henry VIII mother died and the elder Henrys treatment of Catherine was nothing short if disgraceful. Henry VIII sent the first few years of his reign busy breaking with his fathers style, executing his fathers advisers, removing attainders his father had issued, invading Scotland and generally doing everything which said “I am not Henry VII”.
Fascinating thread, thank you all!!!
Would there even have been Protestants for her to persecute if Henry and Catherine has stayed together? Presumably, Henry would not have left the church.
Leaving aside the fact that Henry went out of his way to emphasize that it was the same religion, just sans the Pope’s authority, there would have been many. Protestantism was a movement and it was growing in England even aside from the Kings great matter. What would have changed is that most likely the devout Henry would have cracked down on it. How this effects relations with Scotland is interesting. You historically had a situation north of the border where a reformation occurred inspire of official sanction, how it would have effected the future course of history is anyones guess, as unlike our timeline, the Scots would not have had any reason to consider Protestant England an ally.
I think this is the key point. Henry knew that a female heir would lead to England being ruled by some guy who married into the royal family and Henry didn’t want to see the Tudor dynasty becoming mere figureheads.
History proved Henry’s concerns were justified. His daughter Mary was dominated by her husband Philip and England became a subsidiary to Spain. You’ve also got the examples of Mary Stuart and Jane Grey. It was a reversal of how it works in chess: queens tending to get demoted to pawns.
Elizabeth avoided this fate but she did so at the cost of never marrying and producing no heir. To Henry, this was even worse - the Tudor line becoming extinguished rather than subsumed.
To this day Henry VII’s decedent sits on the throne.
But not Henry VIII’s.
While Margaret was born a Tudor, she married a Stuart. And when her descendants become the monarchs, they were considered the start of a new Stuart dynasty and not the continuation of the old Tudor dynasty.
Which it the point I was making. Henry VIII wanted to see his family line - the Tudors - continuing in power. Not being replaced by some other family line, which is what he would regarded the Stuarts as. Especially when the Stuarts were a foreign family line.
Unclear. Perhaps I shouldn’t nitpick, but it is something I’m good at. :smack:
King Henry VIII is alleged to have left bastards other than Henry Fitzroy, including Katherine Carey, Chief Lady of Queen Elizabeth’s Bedchamber. She was certainly Elizabeth’s 1st cousin (Catherine’s mother being Elizabeth’s aunt), but was she also Elizabeth’s half-sister? She was born at the height of Henry VIII’s dalliance with Mary Boleyn, and her resemblance to the young Elizabeth was said to be striking.
And Queen Elizabeth II is the 7-great granddaughter of Dorothy Spencer, daughter of Dorothy Sydney, daughter of Dorothy Percy, daughter of
Dorothy Devereux, daughter of Lettice Knollys, daughter of Katherine Carey, daughter of Mary Boleyn.
If this descent is unsuitable, Henry VIII may still end up in the future Royal Pedigree: John Perrot, Lord Deputy of Ireland, is also alleged to be a bastard child of Henry VIII, and he appears in the pedigree of the late Princess of Wales, whose son William is heir apparent to the same throne once held by Henry VIII.
septimus, that’s fascinating! I had no idea that the current Queen and her family have those connections to Henry VIII. Thanks.