I wonder what would happen if Anne died before getting married and Louis didn't immolate himself against the Ottomans? The Jagiellons could survive or Hungary would descend into a violent succession war with a constant threat of Ottoman invasion.
Anno Obumbratio: A 16th Century Alternate History
- Thread starter DrakeRlugia
- Start date
Burgundy is certainly possible if Charles manages to have a second son. His bad luck in that situation saw the Low Countries was basically attached to Spain, which wasn't a good fit for either country. Brittany would be a bit more difficult, Claude could certainly die without issue, leaving the Duchy to Renee, but Renee also renounced her claims in favor of the Duchy of Chartres. Not saying it's bound, of course, but this is what it's likely to happen a) Claude dies, Renee is still unmarried... Francis would probably marry her in that case. b) Claude dies, Renee has already married abroad... in this case, Francis would probably lean on her renunciation and hamstring Claude into leaving Brittany to him. Brittany was already being ran by French administrators in Claude's reign, so regaining independence for the Duchy is very unlikely.
Thank you so much! I feel like people lose sight of this. AH is meant to be entertainment, after all. No one wants to read a strict retreading of what actually happened... that's what history books are for. I get obviously that we want things to make sense; but even in our own history, unlikely things have happened.
And within a year, in 1516, her father was also dead (Vladislaus II). I wouldn't say this was a binding agreement, considering nearly six years passed before Ferdinand and Anne were properly married. Once Vladislaus II was dead and Maximilian had Anne as his ward, he could really do as pleased. The Habsburgs were in no hurry to make this marriage, and Maximilian didn't hold up his end of the bargain by marrying her when the year passed.
This. A second son would be granted Burgundy, but would still maintain it's ties to the empire, IMO.
Certainly not impossible. One of Charles' sisters, Isabella, who married the King of Denmark, happily embraced the Protestant cause during her time as queen, but I believe she conformed once her husband was deposed and she was back close to her family. The ultra-Catholicism of the Habsburgs haven't been entrenched yet.
If Anne dies, then there's no clear connection to the Habsburgs, though they have their own claims to Hungary and Bohemia. Louis could certainly survive, though Hungary's position in the 1520s was not... ideal. The magnates basically ran the country and had severely impoverished the royal administration. Louis didn't even have funds for his own court and had to pawn things. If he doesn't die in battle, then he'd probably continue to rule Bohemia and the rump of Hungary, as it's likely he'd still lose a great portion of Hungary. You'd probably see him move his court out of Hungary and into Prague as it'd be a more defensive position.
Now, if Anne died AND Louis died...that would probably be a mess. Both Hungary and Bohemia are theoretically elective monarchies. In the crisis of the Ottoman invasion and the lack of a clear heir, they may invite the Habsburgs in regardless or attempt to elect a native monarch. They only other Jagiellon would be Sigismund the Old. Not sure if either state would be willing to elect him king.
According to the treaty of Vienna the Habsburgs would be the next rulers, but as you pointed out both monarchies are elective in theory…
I think the Habsburgs being elected would be the most likely, too, since they'd be in a position to better defend those territories versus a native prince. Was there really anyone who could step into the shoes of the other native monarchs of the late 15th century, like George Podebrady or Matthias Corvinus c. 1520?
Thanks for answering. If I had to choose, I would prefer the second scenario just to see how things turn out later, although it would not be bad to read how Jagiellon try to reverse their poor situation.
Last edited:
Renee would get back Brittany if Claude died childless, she would never renounce to it... If Claude died while Renee is still too young (and she would not be yet 14 if Claude died as OTL so kill her heirless between 1517 and 1520 and see who Francis will remarry elsewhere renouncing to Brittany). If Claude died leaving only daughters then the separation between France and Brittany would be guaranteed
At that point (after the year of time was over) Anne‘s husband was Ferdinand and waiting for them to be older before another more binding ceremony and consummation was quite normal as they were already legally married (Louis and Mary married in the same proxy ceremony, with both of them presents, but their proper marriage was also delayed until 1521, some months after the one of Anna and Ferdinand)
Last edited:
She renounced IOTL for the Duchy of Chartres. Not sure of the time frame, but she did. Some say she held the title as early as 1510, while others say Francis gave her the title. Regardless, it likely happened when she was underage. One might argue if such a renunciation was legal, but it did occur and was considering binding. She was likely forced into it. Regardless, if Claude dies without any issue, Francis will likely marry Renee despite the renunciation in order to keep Brittany tied to France. If Claude leaves daughters, yes, there is certainly a possibility of Brittany separating from France, but given Claude's position as Duchess, it wouldn't surprise me if she was forced to make over the Duchy to Francis before she died. We have to remember that even when Claude died IOTL and left the Duchy to her son the Dauphin, Brittany didn't suddenly regain it's independence. It still had French administrators and the successions were merged in 1532. Even after the Valois line died out, Claude's closest agnates weren't able to lay claim to Brittany, and it passed to Henry IV.
If she leaves behind any daughters, they would probably be given other appanages or large dowries in lieu of inheritance rights to Brittany. Claude didn't govern the duchy as her mother had; the French administrated it. Breaking Brittany away at this late stage would be very difficult, France isn't going to let it go, and they certainly aren't going to let one of their princesses take it as a dowry to a foreign prince, or worse, raise up a French noblemen to such a position. It's opening a backdoor into the French heartland. They can't allow it. We find often in this period that what is legal or customary was often dispensed with for a wide variety of reasons.
I'm not denying the legality of such a match. It happened quite frequently in this time period. Proxy marriages were common when one or both parties might be young, to delay consummation, for whatever reason. But proxy marriages were also more easily broken than a union that actually performed, such as Anne of Brittany and Emperor Maximilian.
Thank you! I'm hoping to have the next chapter out in the next few days.
Renee had full rights on Brittany until 1528 and tried to reclaim it as her birthright as her mother had willed it to her. Francis had no way to get Brittany BEFORE the union of 1532. Considering who Francis III of Brittany was only 18 years old at his death and only 6 at his mother’s death (and was hostage in Spain for more than four years when he was 8 to 12 years old and that practically ruined him) is not so strange who he had not an independent rule on Brittany.
Claude‘s eldest daughter would be fully entitled to the succession of Brittany and Francis would have no way to prevent it… The only thing who he could do is marrying her to a Prince of Blood for keeping Brittany under France…
They were broken ONLY if existed a reason for doing it and was pretty unusual seeing that happening (Anne of Brittany was a particular case, specially as Charles also was already married by-proxy to Margaret of Austria…
That did not stop the French crown from keeping Champaign after the bloodline of Joan of Navarre split off from that of the crown. They gave Joan the second a nice stache of lands next to Navarre as compensation.
Yes, and we see how that happened. Renee had no chance or reclaiming her inheritance. Her own mother's will was disregarded because handing it off to Renee and possibly a foreign prince was not a good idea for France. France was already essentially governing Brittany at the time that Claude became Duchess. He didn't need to get his hands on it because he already essentially possessed it. The perpetual union just solidified that fact. Claude was /not/ an active ruler in that aspect, and her reign as Duchess only sped up the process of integration into France. IMO, it's too late to stop that. 1520s vs 1530s is not a big jump. If for some reason his daughter did inherit Brittany, he isn't going to marry her to a Prince of the Blood and risk rising up a rival.
I wouldn't say it was unusual. Anne of Brittany's marriage was broken for the exact reason that France taking Brittany was more important than the Habsburg marriage. Louis XII had his marriage broken so he could marry Anne of Brittany, as well. There are plenty of stories of marriages or even betrothals being broken up for political reasons.
Exactly. Just because a will is written, or something is stipulated, doesn't mean it's going to happen. France is pretty famous in this period for wills getting annulled, even monarchs would have their wills annulled.
She's okay! This is theoretical discussion. She isn't going anywhere yet.
Chapter 7. Queen Mary's Youth – The Buckingham Revolt
Chapter 7. Queen Mary’s Youth & the Buckingham Revolt
1516-1521 – England
“Conduct your own rule as if you were striving to ensure that no successor could be your equal, but all the time prepare your children for their future reign as if to ensure that a better man could indeed succeed you.”
— Erasmus, Education for a Christian Prince
Music Accompaniment: My Lady Careys Dompe
Queen Mary of England, c. 1516.
The end of the conflict with Scotland and France finally gave England the necessary breathing room which it so desperately needed. Queen Mary, the infant daughter of Henry VIII was now three years old, and steadily growing—with the regency still firmly in the hands of her mother, Catherine of Aragon. Catherine, always popular amongst the English commons for her piety and charitable good works, had seen her reputation cemented among the English nobility and statemen for her steady hand in dealing with the crises left in the death of their beloved sovereign. Not only that, but she had also competently steered the ship of state, a difficult situation which any well-trained monarch might find difficult.
Agreements with Parliament gave the queen-regent sole say over the composition of the young queen’s household, as well as a free hand to arrange her education as she saw fit. In her earliest years, the young queen remained formally attached to Catherine’s household, albeit with her own servants who wore the royal livery, and her own nurses. Catherine always kept the young queen close to her, and her privy chambers were often attached, if not near to Catherine’s own. Though Catherine found herself handling the heavy duties of the state, she was an involved mother—an anomaly for the era. Still, it was little surprise that Catherine took such great interest in her daughter: Mary was the sole heir to Henry VIII, and Queen of England. How she was raised and educated would impact how she would reign and rule and was of the utmost importance.
Though the little queen was present at some court appearances from a young age, such as the wedding of Princess Mary to Charles of Burgundy, but her appearances were often limited and time sensitive, with Catherine not wishing to overburden so young a child with the minutiae of court. “The little queen made an appearance at the wedding of the Princess Mary, dressed in a little dress of black velvet. She is a pretty creature, with blue eyes and red-gold hair—the spitting image of her late father and her mother, the queen-regent. She sat calmly on the lap of one of her gentlewomen, in complete awe of the spectacle… she is a quiet child who does not cry often.”
At the age of four, Catherine appointed Margaret Pole, the Countess of Salisbury as Mary’s governess, and a small formal court was organized for her. Several young children would eventually be attached to the court of the young queen, as friends rather than attendants, such as Anne Parr, the daughter of one of Catherine’s ladies in waiting and Elizabeth Darrell, daughter of Catherine’s vice chamberlain; later additions included Charles Blount, the son of Catherine’s chamberlain, and Catherine Willoughby, the daughter of the queen-regent’s most favored lady-in-waiting, Maria de Salinas. Mary made one of her first formal court debuts in 1518, when at the age of four she entertained the several foreign ambassadors with a musical performance. “Queen Mary is growing steadily,” Venetian ambassador Sebastian Giustiniani wrote in a report to the Venetian Signoria. “Despite her youth, she often has a solemn expression as if she is aware of the great weight of the crown that already sits upon her head. She is deftly charming, and able to put anyone at ease—from the lowliest chambermaid to the greatest noble.”
Painting of the Tudor Court, unknown date.
Catherine paid great attention to Mary’s education. Given her position as Queen of England, the queen-regent understood her daughter would need an education much different than the education devised for most royal princesses. Deportment, dancing, music, and etiquette—all would be important for the young queen, but more importantly, she would need to know how to reign and govern. Catherine consulted heavily with Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives, who assisted Catherine in devising an educational regime for the young queen, which he called Plan of Study for Girls. In it’s time, it was a revolutionary educational document, especially for woman. It emphasized not only a knowledge of Latin and Greek, but also suggested writings by other Humanist authors, such as Thomas More and Erasmus, as well as classical writers such as Plato. In other ways, it was still somewhat traditional, Mary had a slew of tutors for her various studies—John Colet served briefly before his death in 1519; she was taught Greek by William Latimer, and Polydore Virgil served as a tutor for both Latin, Italian, and English history. John Fisher, the Bishop of Winchester tutored the young queen in matters of government, and she received other instruction from Richard Hyrde, an associate of Thomas More. Though Queen Mary had an intense educational regime, it was not all work, for the queen-regent wished for her daughters to have recreational lessons as well—a dance master from Paris helped the young queen with both deportment and dance lessons, and she enjoyed musical lessons as well. When Catherine had time to spend personally with her daughter, she often instructed her in the art of sewing—much as her own mother, Queen Isabella, had with her. The young queen was also encouraged to get plenty of fresh air, and daily treks were suggested—first by foot, and later horseback as the little queen grew older.
In some ways, the queen’s education was still quite traditional. Though she was tutored in topics that were normally outside the purview of women and young girls, she was still taught the traditional feminine arts that might be expected out of woman of her age. Religion also played a vital role—given Catherine’s own piety and connection to the church, it was little surprise that she wanted her own daughter to be vested in those same teachings and to appreciate them as she did. Her education on a whole, was wholly Humanist, of the late Renaissance—and she was perhaps one of the first English monarchs to receive such an outstanding education, and certainly one of the first English women to do so.
By 1518, there were obvious frays in England’s relations with Scotland. Despite the Treaty of Richmond and a renewal of the perpetual peace, which stipulated a marriage between the two young monarchs of England and Scotland, it seemed clear to many in England that such a marriage might not be feasible. When Margaret Tudor’s regency was toppled and the Duke of Albany took control of the reigns of state, it was obvious to many in England that Scotland would once more turn to France—and when Albany embarked for France, it was then that many knew the Anglo-Scottish marriage was dead. Albany, in secret negotiations with King François, signed the Treaty of Rouen which arranged for the maintenance of the Auld Alliance. It was furthermore agreed that Alexander IV would marry a French princess—decided at that time to be either the Princess Louise or Princess Charlotte, with the final choice to be left to Alexander IV when he came of age. News of the Treaty of Rouen reached England in due course, and a Scottish delegation arrived in the winter of 1518 to end marriage negotiations between the crowns. For England, it was a bitter pill to swallow—the council had little desire to see their country ruled by the Scottish Stewarts, but there were grave concerns that peace could be maintained without the marriage.
Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham.
For some, such as Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, the breaking of the little queen’s marriage meant opportunity. The Duke of Buckingham was one of England’s premier dukes and counted his descent from Edward III; Stafford’s mother had been Catherine Woodville, which gave him a connection to the Yorkists, while his grandmother had been Margaret Beaufort, daughter of the Duke of Somerset—connecting him in blood to the Tudors, as well. He had an indisputable royal lineage and saw himself as the most likely successor to the crown should something befall the Tudors—whose line was now limited to three women, two of whom had already married abroad, and one who was still a young girl. Buckingham’s connection with the Tudors had been tenuous—though he had always had a connection at court and had played an important role in Henry VIII’s coronation, he had always been outside the royal circle of favorites. In 1510, the duke became embroiled in a scandal when his sister, Anne, the Countess of Hastings was found entertaining one of Henry VIII’s favorites in her private chambers. Tongues wagged that perhaps the king had sought the countess as a mistress, and Anne was duly sent away from court by her husband to a convent. Despite Buckingham’s high status, he had never held any true influence in Henry’s reign, nor did he belong to his inner circle.
The death of Henry VIII had not changed this. Though Catherine was sympathetic to the cause of the nobility and certainly favored them over the so-called new men that Henry VIII had preferred, Catherine’s regency saw no great boons for the Duke of Buckingham nor for his family. He remained on the outlier of the Privy Council. His most substantial appointment was in 1514, when he—along with other marcher lords—where tasked with maintaining order in the Welsh March. It is said that Buckingham handled the task poorly, and Catherine sent a note to Buckingham in 1518: “We ask that you continue to work diligently at the task given to you—any aid that you should desire will be granted to you by Bishop Blythe and the Council of Wales.” Despite the light tone of the note, some said Buckingham was enraged that the queen would dare critique him; others said that Buckingham’s tenuous relations with the queen-regent began in 1519—following the end of the Scottish betrothal, it was said that Buckingham advocated for a match between the young queen and his eldest son, Henry Stafford, the Earl of Stafford. “A match betwixt our houses would be good for all of England—all claims and divisions could be united through such a union,” One such letter is believed to be written stated. “The queen shall need a worthy hand to manage this great realm, and none would be better than my own son.” Catherine was reportedly irritated at such a direct proposal, especially at the idea that Stafford’s son should govern in place of the queen. While it was not an uncommon thought—many believed that eventually the young queen would be married and the heavy duties of government would eventually pass to her husband, it was certainly not what Catherine intended for Mary; her daughter was being raised to reign as well as rule, just as her grandmother, the great Isabella had.
Catherine demurred from Buckingham’s proposal, citing the great age difference between the pair. Though she knew of Buckingham’s lineage, she had little desire to up-jump an English subject further—giving Buckingham this boon would only encourage issues among the nobility. Hoping to soothe Buckingham’s pride, she instead suggested that the Earl of Stafford should marry Ursula Pole, the Countess of Salisbury’s sole daughter. Catherine promised an additional £1000 to Ursula’s already substantial dowry of £4500. The queen also agreed that certain lands held by the crown would be returned to the Countess of Salisbury, allowing her to add an extra £1500 to her daughter’s dowry. The total dowry of £7000 was quite generous, though Buckingham still smarted at the rejection; the generous marriage did not make up for the possibility of his son being King of England and the House of Stafford coming to reign over England. With his peaceful means frustrated, Buckingham decided that he must look for another way. After all—why could Buckingham himself not be king now?
Buckingham began to openly plot against Catherine’s regency. Some say that he was urged toward this ruin by unscrupulous men who provided Buckingham with prophecies that involved the death of Queen Mary and his assumption of the crown. Others said that Buckingham plotted to murder the little queen. Whatever the reasoning, Buckingham seemed intent on following through with his new path. He began to illegally fortify his castle at Brecon, and associates aided him in procuring shot and gunpowder, which would be hidden away in parts of southern Wales, where Buckingham intended to begin his revolt. Though Buckingham attempted to enlist foreign support, both the French and Scots were decidedly cool to the prospect and adopted a wait and see approach—for France, François’ attitude was simple: let Buckingham cause all the trouble he desired; should his strike aim true and manage to disturb Catherine of Aragon’s regency and the reign of the little queen, he was prepared to throw in his support, not to Buckingham, but to a pretender whom France had already supported: the Earl of Suffolk, Richard de la Pole: one of the last undisputed Yorkist claimants to the English throne. France had previously offered the Earl of Suffolk aid during the War of the League of Cambrai; he had been provided with ships and a mercenary army with which to invade England with—but poor weather and sickness amongst the troops had scuttled the plan and dashed the earl’s hopes. With Buckingham’s foolishness, France saw an opportunity. Scotland, under the aegis of the Duke of Albany and struggling with its own internal issues, had little stomach to lend aid to Buckingham. Though Buckingham’s envoy was sent away coldly by the council, the Sieur de la Bastie, Albany’s lieutenant, gladly gave the envoy a small sum of £1000 and agreed to provide the rebels with several wagonloads of equipment from Dunbar Castle’s armory.
Chronicle of England, Buckingham's Rebellion.
Buckingham's preparations for his rising against the crown were most significant in 1519. Using his official position in southern Wales, Buckingham used his influence not only to recruit men sympathetic to his cause, but also to ensure that those loyal to him would inhabit positions of authority—from sheriffs to constables of some of the royal fortifications that fell under his purview. He also neglected his duties purposely, allowing robbers and highwaymen to go free to foment unrest amongst the crown—taxing the criminals to further fund his rebellion. The first news of troubles in Wales came out in the spring of 1520, when some of Welsh gentry in southern Wales lodged complaints with Buckingham’s dereliction of his duties, and the absence of order within their territories. When the news of the complaints reached the duke, he knew that it was now or never. Buckingham’s Rebellion formally broke out in May of 1520, when Buckingham hoisted his standard over Brecon Castle and seized the hamlet of Brecon—declaring himself King of England. The Duke of Buckingham had managed to assemble a force of 4000 men, and though Buckingham had declared himself King of England, the revolt also took on a Welsh characteristic—most of Buckingham’s troops were Welsh, with banners of the Welsh dragon flying freely with Stafford’s royal banner. One of Buckingham’s first acts before the Welsh gentry was to declare the Statute of Brecon, where he promised a repeal of the penal laws against the Welsh, the return of sums that communities had paid for charters in the time of Henry VII, and most radically of all, to assemble a Welsh Parliament to readdress supposed grievances against the crown.
From Brecon, Buckingham marched forth to Ludlow—where news of Buckingham’s rebellion had already spread. Ludlow opened its gates to Buckingham with no resistance, but it was an empty victory: Bishop Blythe, already aware of Buckingham’s advance, had vacated Ludlow along with the Council of Wales and retreated to Shrewsbury—where news was sent to London of Buckingham’s perfidy. Ludlow’s armory had also been emptied, including guns and artillery that Buckingham had wished to seize. When word reached London, the queen-regent ordered the militia in the Welsh March to be mustered, while tasking the Duke of Norfolk to raise an army in the midlands. Despite Buckingham’s attempts to rally the Welsh to his side, he found support for his cause lukewarm, and his support remained centered around his lands in Brecon. Pembroke Castle and Cardiff Castle remained safely in the hands of royal constables, while George Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury assisted the queen-regent in raising a thousand men from his own estates. After the seizure of Ludlow, some amongst Buckingham’s entourage encouraged him to march towards Birmingham; others believed they should strike towards south to open the route towards London. Squabbling amongst Buckingham and his council denied the duke the momentum that he needed. When he finally decided to make a strike southward, it was too late.
Buckingham’s army meandered southwards Worcester, where the town refused Buckingham entry. Even amongst Buckingham’s most ardent supporters, discontent had begun to set in. The support that Buckingham wished for did not arise, and the mood to him was openly hostile. Royal troops and a small group of militias under the command of the Duke of Norfolk, set upon Buckingham’s troops near the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon. The Battle of Stratford saw Buckingham’s rebellion snuffed out—the Duke of Norfolk, despite having around 5000 men at his disposal, also had several artillery pieces, which allowed him to make quick work of the rebel forces. The Duke of Buckingham was captured by royal troops while attempting to flee from the battlefield. Put into chains, the traitor was soon returned to London—where he was paraded through the streets before being locked into the Tower of London. The Council of Wales was soon able to return to Ludlow—though Catherine deprived Bishop Blythe of his office and named George Talbot as his replacement. Talbot was tasked with not only restoring order in Wales but ensuring that those sympathetic to Buckingham were dealt with. Talbot, in due course, would recommend that Wales be brought closer to England and it’s anomalous situation righted.
For Catherine, the choice was simple: Buckingham had rebelled against his rightful queen, and for that, he must die. Buckingham was first examined before a panel of his peers, who voted unanimously that the duke was guilty of high treason. A bill of attainder was introduced before parliament in the winter of 1520, which stripped Buckingham of his title, wealth, and lands—which would now revert to the crown, rather than pass to his heirs. An execution date was set for early December—on December 5th, 1520, Buckingham was taken to Tower Hill. The execution sentence was heavily severe: “You are to be laid upon a hurdle and so drawn to the place of execution, and there to be hanged and cut down alive. Your members are to be cut off and cast into the fire. Your bowels are to burn before you and your head smitten off, your body quartered and divided at the queen’s will, and God have mercy on your soul.” The former Duke of Buckingham approached the scaffold calmly—he made no great speech, stating: “I ask no pardon for my crime against the queen’s majesty; I have flown too close to the sun and must pay the price for it. I ask heavily for God’s grace and forgiveness, and that the queen show mercy unto my family. I am the one who erred, and I ask only that they suffer no punishment on my part.” Shortly after, the duke was executed. Catherine had weathered another major storm for her daughter’s realm—snuffing out a great traitor and a potential claimant to her crown.
1516-1521 – England
“Conduct your own rule as if you were striving to ensure that no successor could be your equal, but all the time prepare your children for their future reign as if to ensure that a better man could indeed succeed you.”
— Erasmus, Education for a Christian Prince
Music Accompaniment: My Lady Careys Dompe
Queen Mary of England, c. 1516.
The end of the conflict with Scotland and France finally gave England the necessary breathing room which it so desperately needed. Queen Mary, the infant daughter of Henry VIII was now three years old, and steadily growing—with the regency still firmly in the hands of her mother, Catherine of Aragon. Catherine, always popular amongst the English commons for her piety and charitable good works, had seen her reputation cemented among the English nobility and statemen for her steady hand in dealing with the crises left in the death of their beloved sovereign. Not only that, but she had also competently steered the ship of state, a difficult situation which any well-trained monarch might find difficult.
Agreements with Parliament gave the queen-regent sole say over the composition of the young queen’s household, as well as a free hand to arrange her education as she saw fit. In her earliest years, the young queen remained formally attached to Catherine’s household, albeit with her own servants who wore the royal livery, and her own nurses. Catherine always kept the young queen close to her, and her privy chambers were often attached, if not near to Catherine’s own. Though Catherine found herself handling the heavy duties of the state, she was an involved mother—an anomaly for the era. Still, it was little surprise that Catherine took such great interest in her daughter: Mary was the sole heir to Henry VIII, and Queen of England. How she was raised and educated would impact how she would reign and rule and was of the utmost importance.
Though the little queen was present at some court appearances from a young age, such as the wedding of Princess Mary to Charles of Burgundy, but her appearances were often limited and time sensitive, with Catherine not wishing to overburden so young a child with the minutiae of court. “The little queen made an appearance at the wedding of the Princess Mary, dressed in a little dress of black velvet. She is a pretty creature, with blue eyes and red-gold hair—the spitting image of her late father and her mother, the queen-regent. She sat calmly on the lap of one of her gentlewomen, in complete awe of the spectacle… she is a quiet child who does not cry often.”
At the age of four, Catherine appointed Margaret Pole, the Countess of Salisbury as Mary’s governess, and a small formal court was organized for her. Several young children would eventually be attached to the court of the young queen, as friends rather than attendants, such as Anne Parr, the daughter of one of Catherine’s ladies in waiting and Elizabeth Darrell, daughter of Catherine’s vice chamberlain; later additions included Charles Blount, the son of Catherine’s chamberlain, and Catherine Willoughby, the daughter of the queen-regent’s most favored lady-in-waiting, Maria de Salinas. Mary made one of her first formal court debuts in 1518, when at the age of four she entertained the several foreign ambassadors with a musical performance. “Queen Mary is growing steadily,” Venetian ambassador Sebastian Giustiniani wrote in a report to the Venetian Signoria. “Despite her youth, she often has a solemn expression as if she is aware of the great weight of the crown that already sits upon her head. She is deftly charming, and able to put anyone at ease—from the lowliest chambermaid to the greatest noble.”
Painting of the Tudor Court, unknown date.
Catherine paid great attention to Mary’s education. Given her position as Queen of England, the queen-regent understood her daughter would need an education much different than the education devised for most royal princesses. Deportment, dancing, music, and etiquette—all would be important for the young queen, but more importantly, she would need to know how to reign and govern. Catherine consulted heavily with Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives, who assisted Catherine in devising an educational regime for the young queen, which he called Plan of Study for Girls. In it’s time, it was a revolutionary educational document, especially for woman. It emphasized not only a knowledge of Latin and Greek, but also suggested writings by other Humanist authors, such as Thomas More and Erasmus, as well as classical writers such as Plato. In other ways, it was still somewhat traditional, Mary had a slew of tutors for her various studies—John Colet served briefly before his death in 1519; she was taught Greek by William Latimer, and Polydore Virgil served as a tutor for both Latin, Italian, and English history. John Fisher, the Bishop of Winchester tutored the young queen in matters of government, and she received other instruction from Richard Hyrde, an associate of Thomas More. Though Queen Mary had an intense educational regime, it was not all work, for the queen-regent wished for her daughters to have recreational lessons as well—a dance master from Paris helped the young queen with both deportment and dance lessons, and she enjoyed musical lessons as well. When Catherine had time to spend personally with her daughter, she often instructed her in the art of sewing—much as her own mother, Queen Isabella, had with her. The young queen was also encouraged to get plenty of fresh air, and daily treks were suggested—first by foot, and later horseback as the little queen grew older.
In some ways, the queen’s education was still quite traditional. Though she was tutored in topics that were normally outside the purview of women and young girls, she was still taught the traditional feminine arts that might be expected out of woman of her age. Religion also played a vital role—given Catherine’s own piety and connection to the church, it was little surprise that she wanted her own daughter to be vested in those same teachings and to appreciate them as she did. Her education on a whole, was wholly Humanist, of the late Renaissance—and she was perhaps one of the first English monarchs to receive such an outstanding education, and certainly one of the first English women to do so.
By 1518, there were obvious frays in England’s relations with Scotland. Despite the Treaty of Richmond and a renewal of the perpetual peace, which stipulated a marriage between the two young monarchs of England and Scotland, it seemed clear to many in England that such a marriage might not be feasible. When Margaret Tudor’s regency was toppled and the Duke of Albany took control of the reigns of state, it was obvious to many in England that Scotland would once more turn to France—and when Albany embarked for France, it was then that many knew the Anglo-Scottish marriage was dead. Albany, in secret negotiations with King François, signed the Treaty of Rouen which arranged for the maintenance of the Auld Alliance. It was furthermore agreed that Alexander IV would marry a French princess—decided at that time to be either the Princess Louise or Princess Charlotte, with the final choice to be left to Alexander IV when he came of age. News of the Treaty of Rouen reached England in due course, and a Scottish delegation arrived in the winter of 1518 to end marriage negotiations between the crowns. For England, it was a bitter pill to swallow—the council had little desire to see their country ruled by the Scottish Stewarts, but there were grave concerns that peace could be maintained without the marriage.
Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham.
For some, such as Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, the breaking of the little queen’s marriage meant opportunity. The Duke of Buckingham was one of England’s premier dukes and counted his descent from Edward III; Stafford’s mother had been Catherine Woodville, which gave him a connection to the Yorkists, while his grandmother had been Margaret Beaufort, daughter of the Duke of Somerset—connecting him in blood to the Tudors, as well. He had an indisputable royal lineage and saw himself as the most likely successor to the crown should something befall the Tudors—whose line was now limited to three women, two of whom had already married abroad, and one who was still a young girl. Buckingham’s connection with the Tudors had been tenuous—though he had always had a connection at court and had played an important role in Henry VIII’s coronation, he had always been outside the royal circle of favorites. In 1510, the duke became embroiled in a scandal when his sister, Anne, the Countess of Hastings was found entertaining one of Henry VIII’s favorites in her private chambers. Tongues wagged that perhaps the king had sought the countess as a mistress, and Anne was duly sent away from court by her husband to a convent. Despite Buckingham’s high status, he had never held any true influence in Henry’s reign, nor did he belong to his inner circle.
The death of Henry VIII had not changed this. Though Catherine was sympathetic to the cause of the nobility and certainly favored them over the so-called new men that Henry VIII had preferred, Catherine’s regency saw no great boons for the Duke of Buckingham nor for his family. He remained on the outlier of the Privy Council. His most substantial appointment was in 1514, when he—along with other marcher lords—where tasked with maintaining order in the Welsh March. It is said that Buckingham handled the task poorly, and Catherine sent a note to Buckingham in 1518: “We ask that you continue to work diligently at the task given to you—any aid that you should desire will be granted to you by Bishop Blythe and the Council of Wales.” Despite the light tone of the note, some said Buckingham was enraged that the queen would dare critique him; others said that Buckingham’s tenuous relations with the queen-regent began in 1519—following the end of the Scottish betrothal, it was said that Buckingham advocated for a match between the young queen and his eldest son, Henry Stafford, the Earl of Stafford. “A match betwixt our houses would be good for all of England—all claims and divisions could be united through such a union,” One such letter is believed to be written stated. “The queen shall need a worthy hand to manage this great realm, and none would be better than my own son.” Catherine was reportedly irritated at such a direct proposal, especially at the idea that Stafford’s son should govern in place of the queen. While it was not an uncommon thought—many believed that eventually the young queen would be married and the heavy duties of government would eventually pass to her husband, it was certainly not what Catherine intended for Mary; her daughter was being raised to reign as well as rule, just as her grandmother, the great Isabella had.
Catherine demurred from Buckingham’s proposal, citing the great age difference between the pair. Though she knew of Buckingham’s lineage, she had little desire to up-jump an English subject further—giving Buckingham this boon would only encourage issues among the nobility. Hoping to soothe Buckingham’s pride, she instead suggested that the Earl of Stafford should marry Ursula Pole, the Countess of Salisbury’s sole daughter. Catherine promised an additional £1000 to Ursula’s already substantial dowry of £4500. The queen also agreed that certain lands held by the crown would be returned to the Countess of Salisbury, allowing her to add an extra £1500 to her daughter’s dowry. The total dowry of £7000 was quite generous, though Buckingham still smarted at the rejection; the generous marriage did not make up for the possibility of his son being King of England and the House of Stafford coming to reign over England. With his peaceful means frustrated, Buckingham decided that he must look for another way. After all—why could Buckingham himself not be king now?
Buckingham began to openly plot against Catherine’s regency. Some say that he was urged toward this ruin by unscrupulous men who provided Buckingham with prophecies that involved the death of Queen Mary and his assumption of the crown. Others said that Buckingham plotted to murder the little queen. Whatever the reasoning, Buckingham seemed intent on following through with his new path. He began to illegally fortify his castle at Brecon, and associates aided him in procuring shot and gunpowder, which would be hidden away in parts of southern Wales, where Buckingham intended to begin his revolt. Though Buckingham attempted to enlist foreign support, both the French and Scots were decidedly cool to the prospect and adopted a wait and see approach—for France, François’ attitude was simple: let Buckingham cause all the trouble he desired; should his strike aim true and manage to disturb Catherine of Aragon’s regency and the reign of the little queen, he was prepared to throw in his support, not to Buckingham, but to a pretender whom France had already supported: the Earl of Suffolk, Richard de la Pole: one of the last undisputed Yorkist claimants to the English throne. France had previously offered the Earl of Suffolk aid during the War of the League of Cambrai; he had been provided with ships and a mercenary army with which to invade England with—but poor weather and sickness amongst the troops had scuttled the plan and dashed the earl’s hopes. With Buckingham’s foolishness, France saw an opportunity. Scotland, under the aegis of the Duke of Albany and struggling with its own internal issues, had little stomach to lend aid to Buckingham. Though Buckingham’s envoy was sent away coldly by the council, the Sieur de la Bastie, Albany’s lieutenant, gladly gave the envoy a small sum of £1000 and agreed to provide the rebels with several wagonloads of equipment from Dunbar Castle’s armory.
Chronicle of England, Buckingham's Rebellion.
Buckingham's preparations for his rising against the crown were most significant in 1519. Using his official position in southern Wales, Buckingham used his influence not only to recruit men sympathetic to his cause, but also to ensure that those loyal to him would inhabit positions of authority—from sheriffs to constables of some of the royal fortifications that fell under his purview. He also neglected his duties purposely, allowing robbers and highwaymen to go free to foment unrest amongst the crown—taxing the criminals to further fund his rebellion. The first news of troubles in Wales came out in the spring of 1520, when some of Welsh gentry in southern Wales lodged complaints with Buckingham’s dereliction of his duties, and the absence of order within their territories. When the news of the complaints reached the duke, he knew that it was now or never. Buckingham’s Rebellion formally broke out in May of 1520, when Buckingham hoisted his standard over Brecon Castle and seized the hamlet of Brecon—declaring himself King of England. The Duke of Buckingham had managed to assemble a force of 4000 men, and though Buckingham had declared himself King of England, the revolt also took on a Welsh characteristic—most of Buckingham’s troops were Welsh, with banners of the Welsh dragon flying freely with Stafford’s royal banner. One of Buckingham’s first acts before the Welsh gentry was to declare the Statute of Brecon, where he promised a repeal of the penal laws against the Welsh, the return of sums that communities had paid for charters in the time of Henry VII, and most radically of all, to assemble a Welsh Parliament to readdress supposed grievances against the crown.
From Brecon, Buckingham marched forth to Ludlow—where news of Buckingham’s rebellion had already spread. Ludlow opened its gates to Buckingham with no resistance, but it was an empty victory: Bishop Blythe, already aware of Buckingham’s advance, had vacated Ludlow along with the Council of Wales and retreated to Shrewsbury—where news was sent to London of Buckingham’s perfidy. Ludlow’s armory had also been emptied, including guns and artillery that Buckingham had wished to seize. When word reached London, the queen-regent ordered the militia in the Welsh March to be mustered, while tasking the Duke of Norfolk to raise an army in the midlands. Despite Buckingham’s attempts to rally the Welsh to his side, he found support for his cause lukewarm, and his support remained centered around his lands in Brecon. Pembroke Castle and Cardiff Castle remained safely in the hands of royal constables, while George Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury assisted the queen-regent in raising a thousand men from his own estates. After the seizure of Ludlow, some amongst Buckingham’s entourage encouraged him to march towards Birmingham; others believed they should strike towards south to open the route towards London. Squabbling amongst Buckingham and his council denied the duke the momentum that he needed. When he finally decided to make a strike southward, it was too late.
Buckingham’s army meandered southwards Worcester, where the town refused Buckingham entry. Even amongst Buckingham’s most ardent supporters, discontent had begun to set in. The support that Buckingham wished for did not arise, and the mood to him was openly hostile. Royal troops and a small group of militias under the command of the Duke of Norfolk, set upon Buckingham’s troops near the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon. The Battle of Stratford saw Buckingham’s rebellion snuffed out—the Duke of Norfolk, despite having around 5000 men at his disposal, also had several artillery pieces, which allowed him to make quick work of the rebel forces. The Duke of Buckingham was captured by royal troops while attempting to flee from the battlefield. Put into chains, the traitor was soon returned to London—where he was paraded through the streets before being locked into the Tower of London. The Council of Wales was soon able to return to Ludlow—though Catherine deprived Bishop Blythe of his office and named George Talbot as his replacement. Talbot was tasked with not only restoring order in Wales but ensuring that those sympathetic to Buckingham were dealt with. Talbot, in due course, would recommend that Wales be brought closer to England and it’s anomalous situation righted.
For Catherine, the choice was simple: Buckingham had rebelled against his rightful queen, and for that, he must die. Buckingham was first examined before a panel of his peers, who voted unanimously that the duke was guilty of high treason. A bill of attainder was introduced before parliament in the winter of 1520, which stripped Buckingham of his title, wealth, and lands—which would now revert to the crown, rather than pass to his heirs. An execution date was set for early December—on December 5th, 1520, Buckingham was taken to Tower Hill. The execution sentence was heavily severe: “You are to be laid upon a hurdle and so drawn to the place of execution, and there to be hanged and cut down alive. Your members are to be cut off and cast into the fire. Your bowels are to burn before you and your head smitten off, your body quartered and divided at the queen’s will, and God have mercy on your soul.” The former Duke of Buckingham approached the scaffold calmly—he made no great speech, stating: “I ask no pardon for my crime against the queen’s majesty; I have flown too close to the sun and must pay the price for it. I ask heavily for God’s grace and forgiveness, and that the queen show mercy unto my family. I am the one who erred, and I ask only that they suffer no punishment on my part.” Shortly after, the duke was executed. Catherine had weathered another major storm for her daughter’s realm—snuffing out a great traitor and a potential claimant to her crown.
Last edited:
Not surprised at all that Buckingham got too big for his britches. Might be wise though for Catherine and her advisors to take into consideration some aspects of the Statute of Brecon because there are obviously some sore points between the English and the welsh and as we’ve seen here, they could prove a threat to little Mary’s throne…
Last edited:
Actually after Claude died, Francis at first kept styling himself Duke of Brittany and the Estates immediately demanded that he stop using that title, as the duchy was now his son's. So if Claude dies leaving only daughters, the Estates will do as OTL and refuse to have anyone else but the eldest one claim the title of duke/duchess. The heiress will certainly be betrothed to a prince of the blood, preferably Francis's closest male relative in case he has no sons from his next wife. In this case, I think the closest in age would be Charles III de Bourbon's son François, Count of Clermont (b.1517) if he doesn't die in infancy or Antoine de Bourbon, who are third and fourth in line as long as Francis has no sons.
dcharles
Banned
This is very good work, I must say.
I'm always skeptical of stories where one royal is swapped out for another, especially in the distant past. A King Charles and Queen Diana premise is reasonable. We know a *lot* about both of them. Changing X claimant for Y claimant in the 1300s--especially when Y claimant was a child--is usually just an excuse for wish fulfillment. (Because we just don't know enough about Y claimant to say anything intelligent about what their reign might have been like.) Y claimant never turns out to be a King Joffrey--they're always Aegon the Conquerer.
Well here, you've really managed to thread the needle. Very well done. On my watchlist.
I'm always skeptical of stories where one royal is swapped out for another, especially in the distant past. A King Charles and Queen Diana premise is reasonable. We know a *lot* about both of them. Changing X claimant for Y claimant in the 1300s--especially when Y claimant was a child--is usually just an excuse for wish fulfillment. (Because we just don't know enough about Y claimant to say anything intelligent about what their reign might have been like.) Y claimant never turns out to be a King Joffrey--they're always Aegon the Conquerer.
Well here, you've really managed to thread the needle. Very well done. On my watchlist.
Last edited:
Only if Mary is betrothed to the Dauphin, which...pretty sure Catherine of Aragon would die before she lets that happen.