Anno Obumbratio: A 16th Century Alternate History
- Thread starter DrakeRlugia
- Start date
It would be nice for her to marry someone from the heart instead of just because parliament told her too. I mean I know she and John we're fond of each other and they did love each other but the marriage didn't start off as a mana from heaven
It would be very Tudor of her to go headfirst into a poorly thought out marriage. It would also mean that she’d be forced to share power again, which she has no desire to. Also she’s had 5-6 healthy kids, so the succession is secure. But not impossible that she goes all Mary, Queen of Scots/Margaret Tudor
who's to say it'd be poorly thought out if she loves and he loves her than let them be happy. And it doesn't necessarily mean they would have to share power he could surprise everyone and say that Mary is the sole Queen of England. I know I know very slim chance of that happening but still.
Also speaking of Tudors, it would be very interesting to see what The Tudors tv show would look like ITTL
I’m still saying Lotte Verbeek for adult Queen Mary and maybe Morten Hee Andersen for adult John II (I went with a Danish actor for him heh). Maria Doyle Kennedy for a later Queen Catherine will always be my go to (just with her natural red hair ofc)
Last edited:
Oh that’s an amazing idea! Obviously Shakespeare himself may not exist IATL, but I could see it becoming a popular story.
Unfortunately, no scandalous marriage here. Given what we've seen of her, that's not really in her character. She remains a widow for the rest of her life. That doesn't mean that she doesn't perhaps receive some marriage offers, but she's already thirty-six. The widow for a second marriage is incredibly narrow.
Exactly. There's no real reason for her to remarry. At the very least, if she chose to remarry it'd be her choice. But she has no interest in doing so. John becomes a Jane Seymour, or perhaps a more apt figure, Prince Albert. With his death, all his faults and troubles are washed away and he becomes lionized and sainted just as Catherine thought of Henry VIII. So she doesn't remarry. She knows well John in his death has given her the greatest give: that of her sovereignty as a sole queen regnant. Why would she dare remarry and trap herself in another marriage?
I think sometimes people equate my Mary with the OTL Mary, but they are different figures. This Mary isn't desperate for a husband and child: she had a husband and has children in abundance. She sees no reason to go down the aisle a second time.
Unfortunately the main issue is that she's not any normal woman seeking to remarry, she's the Queen of England. While her inheritance has seen some changes to English law, there still remains the fact that her first marriage received Parliamentary sanction, mainly because of English inheritance law. At this time, anything that a woman brought into a marriage became her husband's. Many, similarly to when Mary I of OTL fame married, believed that this meant whoever the queen would marry would become king through that marriage and might even be able to pass it off onto different heirs.
Specific Parliamentary Acts had to be passed to ensure the crown was vested in Mary's person, both IOTL and here IATL.
A domestic marriage carries risk because you're raising up a subject above all others, while a foreign marriage carries the risk of entanglements as seen in her marriage to John. I can guarantee that any man that would seek to marry her now would be thinking of the possibility of the power and prestige, not necessarily out of love and affection. I cannot see any nobleman or foreign suitor agreeing to be the second fiddle.
Well, without Henry VIII the show likely centers around Mary. Season 1 would probably open with the death of Henry VIII, with Catherine as the main character. Season 2 would likely show Queen Mary's youth and adolescence, probably culminating with her coronation. Season 3 could open with her reaching her majority, and her eventual marriage to John, probably closing out with Catherine's death. Season 4 would likely deal with part of the 1540s, perhaps with the Italian War of 1542-44 being the finale. And Season 5 could close out with the remainder of the 1540s, ending with John's death and Mary's widowhood.
Obviously there's room for even more seasons, but I think Mary's reign is likely split into distinct periods of her marriage and then her widowhood. Her widowhood would be completely different, and would likely be another TV series.
I like those actors. I love that you went with Danish actor for John. Wonder where at what point the show would start like at.
Okay I understand. My problem is that I'm a romantic I'd like for everybody to have their happily ever after, though after hearing you're reasons I will concede that it's probably better that she doesn't remarry. By the way how many years exactly we're Mary and John married for.
I can see the TV show being like that. It would be an exciting and interesting watch. I also agree that they would probably make a separate TV show for her widowhood.
I definitely get it, but I'd say Mary has gotten her happily ever after. She had a good marriage with John, even if they had her troubles, they did love each other: it was just a very difficult love at times that was mingled with their duty. They could be a great support to each other, or their own worst enemies. We've seen snippets of both.
Part of Mary's story has long been her position as a headstrong / independent woman in a very patriarchal society that others have attempted to put into the box of being a wife or mother, with the hopes that having a husband would reduce her in effect to a queen consort. A big part in John's death is her being able to step into her own light, so to speak. Mary's happily ever after is being recognized for her own brilliance and eventually being accepted as a queen who can reign without a husband or man by her side. Not saying that her years with John were terrible - they were not - but her story isn't defined by a man or a marriage, so to speak. She has a life after her marriage that is just as exciting.
They married in 1534, so they were married for about fifteen years.
Oh no, please no Howards.
Phew, thank you so much.
Our best girl!
So: I have been thinking about this and I cannot remember the answer...Do Mary's kids carry the Tudor name or the Oldenburg name? Because an English house of Oldenburg might be a hard sell in this xenophobic era...
That is, an, uh... complicated question. It has never been answered within the TL, but I'll provide some answers.
If we're going to get in depth, during Mary's marriage and the time that John was alive, you certainly would have seen heraldic elements of Denmark present. John himself likely used some form of his father's arms, seen here that would have been quartered with England's arms. Mary would've used those arms as well, alongside the typical English arms seen here. So their married arms would've been a quarter of Denmark/Norway/Sweden with England/France. Certainly there was florid talk of Denmark coming into England, and a new branch: either the House of Tudor-Oldenburg or Oldenburg-Tudor. When Mary I married IOTL, she quartered her arms with Philip's, used his titles (as he used hers) and her children likely would've been Habsburgs / House of Austria. Mary here likely did the same, and had John succeeded his father, she would have been Queen of Denmark and Norway. If he had lived, we probably would have a proper branch of the Oldenburg's, especially if a second son (or even the first) succeeded John in Denmark and Norway.
Mary's children are Oldenburg's through the male line. They are technically Princes and Princesses of Denmark alongside being Princes and Princesses of England. But the truth her children are culturally English; they speak English as their primary language and do not speak Danish or really have any connection to Denmark. Heck, John himself hardly had a connection there, since he spent most of his life in exile and abroad before his marriage. Her children will likely to continue to use the Plantagenet Arms of 1406 like their mother, and will likely use their maternal surname over their paternal one.
In short: They are Oldenburgs. This branch is likely known as the branch of Tudor-Oldenburg / Oldenburg-Tudor by genealogists. Mary's children continue to use the Tudor name and are "of England," not "of Denmark and England."
I gotta say (and it’s not just me being very pro-Danish) that they would just be known as Oldenburgs. The children take their surname from their father. Even the house of Habsburg-Lorraine was just referred to as Lorraine during the 1700s iirc. Their coat of arms would feature elements of both the English and the Danish coat of arms, but given that they’ve focused more on their English claims, the English parts might be more prominent. Even if they are raised English, they also hold claims to Scandinavia, and they will maintain those in their titles. That was the way it was done. For simplicity’s sake we don’t necessarily mention all of them all the time, but they were there. Just look at how long the English dynasties had France as one of their titles
They absolutely do, but the House of Habsburg always remained known as just that: the House of Habsburg, or Habsburg-Lorraine. Any mention of the House of Lorraine referred to the remaining branches in France, which there were many. It is true that Maria Theresa adopted part of the House of Lorraine's CoA, just as Francis Stephen adopted hers. It was an absolutely very unique situation, just as this is a unique situation here. They definitely still are Oldenburgs, and you may hear talk of the House of Oldenburg-Tudor, but they will still likely be known as the Tudors colloquially, just as the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg became known as just the House of Glücksburg.
England's councilors were looking for king for their queen to reign as their king, not one to create an empire. They never expected his father to be restored or there to be this mess of potential claims. Mary likely reverts to her original arms, or at best a simplified CoA where one of the French quarterings get replaced with a Danish one. But there's also no need to do so, as her arms as sovereign can remain the same, especially since there's no chance of her becoming Queen of Denmark-Norway now. The children would have personal COAs that might incorporate elements of Denmark-Norway, but it's also not a requirement. We're talking hundreds of years later, but Victoria marrying a Coburg didn't change her future children's CoAs, though they were part of the House of Saxe-Coburg. They continued to use previous arms with a small Saxon escutcheon, but the sovereign arms remained the same as they had been. In this case, Mary's son will still use England+France quartered when he becomes king, there would only be a change if he directly ruled over another kingdom.
I'm not saying anything further, but there is a reason why there's a Danish War of Succession after Christian's death and there is no smooth succession. All I'll say is that Mary's children do not retain those claims in Scandinavia. Any of them. I'll leave it at that.
I've whipped this up quickly, but here is a possible personal coat of arms for Mary's children. It's a blanket CoA, so there would be adjustments for Henry as Prince of Wales, Charles as York, Edward as Somerset, ect. But the Princesses will bare this likely:
I am unsure about the Lorraine vs. Habsburg-Lorraine part. I’m fairly certain that the usage of Habsburg-Lorraine as a name only was decidedly adopted later, but I must admit that I can’t find my sources atm. As for the Glucksburgs, that’s a later case too, so I would be careful with comparing them. If we look at the Habsburgs, they were known just as Habsburgs/of Austria in Spain, not as Trastamara-Habsburgs for example
Once again, that was way in the future, and under different circumstances, and you yourself brought up that otl Mary’s children would likely have been Habsburgs and likely would have also have Habsburg aspects to their CoAs
It seems like you have made your choice on the matter, but I will say that I don’t find it completely accurate, even if you have plot reasons. But I won’t belabour the point <3
Well for one, the House of Trastamara was essentially replaced with that of Habsburg. In a way the Habsburgs of Spain essentially incorporated the Trastamara CoA into their own, because they gained new territories. There's absolutely no reason for Mary to make any change to the sovereign's arms: she hasn't gained any territories through her marriage, and now she definitely won't. She'll likely continue to use John's arms personally, and perhaps in her royal standard. You'll likely still see Danish lions crop up in English architecture.
Had he lived, I'd say absolutely the arms would merge, but this situation leaves it murky. Usually changes to the sovereign's CoA required some change in territory; England's COA for instance didn't have any formal change until James VI/I. If England and Denmark entered into a personal union, then absolutely, we'd make a change.
But I've made it pretty clear at this point that this doesn't happen. No North Sea Empire, no Anglo-Danish union.
And Mary's children likely would've inherited Burgundy and perhaps even Spain.
But Mary's children in this scenario don't stand to inherit anything, and they don't inherit anything from their father.
I agree that their personal arms will include elements and they absolutely are Oldenburgs, but for reasons of simplicity this branch continues to be known as (Oldenburg)-Tudor. Now for their histography ITTL? Well, it's hard to say. But to save my readers a headache, that's what we're going with.
Even if you don't agree with it, it's what I've chosen. For me, entertainment is paramount.