The Tudor's Hydra - What if Henry VIII had practiced polygamy?

[ArtosStark]

If polygamous relationships become more accepted or legalized in secular society, it might create a tension between the Church's teachings and the lived realities of its members. This tension could prompt a reevaluation of the Church's position and a potential shift towards accepting polygamy. Or perhaps if there were significant ecumenical efforts to find common ground and promote unity among different faith traditions, it might lead to a reexamination of the Church's teachings on marriage and potentially open the door to the acceptance of polygamy.

Maybe, but that requires a totally different cultural situation than that which existed at the time. You would need basically a wholesale rejection of Church law and norms in a nation where Christian life effectively was still central to culture. Or the church leadership defying their own superiors to make common cause with the tiny percentage of non-Christians who exist within their territories and are generally seen as outsiders.

Henry’s actions worked partially because it didn’t massively affect the part of Christian life and experience that most people engaged with. Later Protestent uprisings promised improvements in the part of Christian life that most people engaged with. Adding polygamy to the Anglican creed would do little for the average Christian but require a significant upheaval that would affect them. Just so the King could have more women.

It’s unlikely to go down smoothly.

 

[CaesarKhan]

That not true. Look at debate and infighting about various position of Church of England. CoE eventually removes several Kings.

Emphasis on the word eventually, in Henry's day he pretty much had free reign to do what he wanted (granted there were a few lacklustre rebellions, but these were put down).

OK, plausible so far but... if they can't inherit, then what's the point?

I meant to say use morganatic marraige as a base from which to build a polygamous legal framework, as if a man has 50 wives (unlikely obviously, but bear with me) all having kids at the same time, it would become exceedingly hard to build a proper line of succession. Thus, there would be one wife (the first, realistically) who themselves and their children would take precedence, and then any second, third, so-on marraiges would come below them;

Akin to concubinage, though not quite the same.

 

[mrmandias]

Why was Henry just having a number of mistresses and legitimating any sons he wanted to, why wasn't that an option?

I think Henry being bigamous and every one just saying yeah, its a sin, oh well, is a lot more plausible than polygamy.

 

[CaesarKhan]

Why was Henry just having a number of mistresses and legitimating any sons he wanted to, why wasn't that an option?

I think Henry being bigamous and every one just saying yeah, its a sin, oh well, is a lot more plausible than polygamy.

Because while that would honestly be the best bet for a ruler (have a slew of children with no real claims of their own, then pick and choose those best suited for power), it whittles away at the foundation of succession. If Henry chooses a mistresses 4th son to legitimatise, you can garuntee his 3 older brothers will rebel against him when he takes the throne while claiming they are higher in the order of precedence.

Plus, opening things up to a meritocracy weakens the authority of the throne in the long run, as as soon as you have a weaker ruler people will try and overthrow them with much more justification than before - Alexander the Great, being an example that comes to mind.

 

[Aluma]

If you want a religious justification the israelite kings had plenty of wives and concubines while the kingdom itself was generally monogamic, with the explanation being that being God's annointed puts much more stress and responsability over the shoulders of someone than the average person and so it was tolerated(but not endorsed) as a way to keep the monarch grounded
Not sure if that could ever fly in England, but the religious precedent is there along with the aforementioned historical ones

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Plus, opening things up to a meritocracy weakens the authority of the throne in the long run, as as soon as you have a weaker ruler people will try and overthrow them with much more justification than before - Alexander the Great, being an example that comes to mind.

Then implement mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in the monarchy. This can include regular reporting on the monarch's activities, financial audits, and mechanisms for addressing grievances or complaints from the public....
Or is this too modern a concept for the Tudor era?

 

[CaesarKhan]

Then implement mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in the monarchy. This can include regular reporting on the monarch's activities, financial audits, and mechanisms for addressing grievances or complaints from the public....
Or is this too modern a concept for the Tudor era?

I think the era is around the time something like that could be realistically implemented, though I don't think the Tudors actually would... without some sort of rebellion/revolution, it's extremely rare for a monarchy to willingly relinquish power to the people, or happens much more slowly over centuries like it did in real world Britain

 

[Andristan]

Though, it does run counter to the trend for monarchs to increasingly centralize and absolutize, as doing thatbis nasically setting up something superior to the monarch, in this instance the public/or maybe just the nobility who would the ones receiving these reports and holding the king responsible

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Before @Kynan posts family trees, let me first try....

Henry VIII, King of England (1491-1551) m. a) Katherine, Infanta of Aragon and Castile (1485-1540), b) Elizabeth Blount (1498-1521), c) Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke (1501-1533), d) Jane Seymour (1508-1537)

1a) Mary, Princess of England (1516-1558) m. a) John, Prince of Denmark (1518-1534), b) Francis III, Duke of Brittany (1518-1536), c) James V, King of Scotland (1512-1542)
2b) Henry, Prince of Wales (1519-1536) m. Maria, Duchess of Viseu (1521-1577)
3b) Margaret, Princess of England (1521-1577) m. Sigismund II, King of Poland (1520-1572)
4c) Cecily, Princess of England (1527-1591) m. Philip II, King of Spain (1527-1598)
5c) Anne, Princess of England (1529-1582) m. Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor (1527-1576)
6c) Thomas, Duke of York (1531-1597) m. Dorothy Stafford (1526-1604)
7c) George, Duke of Somerset (1532-1590) m. Amy Robsart (1532-1588)
8c) Elizabeth, Princess of England (1533-1603) never married
9d) Edward, Duke of Richmond (1537-1553) m. a) Jane Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1537-1555), b) Jane Seymour (1541-1561)


Due to butterflies, John III and Catherine of Austria have lots of surviving sons, meaning that Philip II does not see the attraction in a Portuguese bride. Also, OTL's Elizabeth of Austria (b. 1526) died earlier, and the next girl is too young for Sigismund. Instead the son of Sigismund and Margaret marries a younger daughter of Ferdinand and Anna. And yes, I left Elizabeth unmarried IOTL....perhaps due to dowry issues, perhaps due to her own volition, totally not because I can't find someone for her here.

 

[CaesarKhan]

Before @Kynan posts family trees, let me first try....

Henry VIII, King of England (1491-1551) m. a) Katherine, Infanta of Aragon and Castile (1485-1540), b) Elizabeth Blount (1498-1521), c) Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke (1501-1533), d) Jane Seymour (1508-1537)

1a) Mary, Princess of England (1516-1558) m. a) John, Prince of Denmark (1518-1534), b) Francis III, Duke of Brittany (1518-1536), c) James V, King of Scotland (1512-1542)
2b) Henry, Prince of Wales (1519-1536) m. Maria, Duchess of Viseu (1521-1577)
3b) Margaret, Princess of England (1521-1577) m. Sigismund II, King of Poland (1520-1572)
4c) Cecily, Princess of England (1527-1591) m. Philip II, King of Spain (1527-1598)
5c) Anne, Princess of England (1529-1582) m. Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor (1527-1576)
6c) Thomas, Duke of York (1531-1597) m. Dorothy Stafford (1526-1604)
7c) George, Duke of Somerset (1532-1590) m. Amy Robsart (1532-1588)
8c) Elizabeth, Princess of England (1533-1603) never married
9d) Edward, Duke of Richmond (1537-1553) m. a) Jane Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1537-1555), b) Jane Seymour (1541-1561)


Due to butterflies, John III and Catherine of Austria have lots of surviving sons, meaning that Philip II does not see the attraction in a Portuguese bride. Also, OTL's Elizabeth of Austria (b. 1526) died earlier, and the next girl is too young for Sigismund. Instead the son of Sigismund and Margaret marries a younger daughter of Ferdinand and Anna. And yes, I left Elizabeth unmarried IOTL....perhaps due to dowry issues, perhaps due to her own volition, totally not because I can't find someone for her here.

I like this, though my only question is did all three of Henry's mistresses here die in childbirth? 😨 I guess it isn't a HVIII timeline without his lovers suffering some untimely fate or another

 

[piratedude]

And yes, I left Elizabeth unmarried IOTL....perhaps due to dowry issues, perhaps due to her own volition, totally not because I can't find someone for her here.

I mean, there's plenty of indication that the OTL Elizabeth was what we'd now call ace (asexual), despite all the later media insisting that she simply  must have been f*cking somebody.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

I like this, though my only question is did all three of Henry's mistresses here die in childbirth? 😨 I guess it isn't a HVIII timeline without his lovers suffering some untimely fate or another

Oh, in this timeline they're his four wives....and yes, I sort of implied they died in childbirth. As you can guess, the Tudor era was not great with maternal mortality...

I mean, there's plenty of indication that the OTL Elizabeth was what we'd now call ace (asexual), despite all the later media insisting that she simply  must have been f*cking somebody.

I don't know if she was asexual - though I would be glad to see what indication you picked up - but I do think she truly was a virgin. It's not so unusual to live a long life without having sex.

 

[Brita]

If you want a religious justification the israelite kings had plenty of wives and concubines while the kingdom itself was generally monogamic, with the explanation being that being God's annointed puts much more stress and responsability over the shoulders of someone than the average person and so it was tolerated(but not endorsed) as a way to keep the monarch grounded
Not sure if that could ever fly in England, but the religious precedent is there along with the aforementioned historical ones

That's just what I was thinking about: tolerate polygamy for rulers but not for the rest of the population.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

Before @Kynan posts family trees, let me first try....

Henry VIII, King of England (1491-1551) m. a) Katherine, Infanta of Aragon and Castile (1485-1540), b) Elizabeth Blount (1498-1521), c) Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke (1501-1533), d) Jane Seymour (1508-1537)

1a) Mary, Princess of England (1516-1558) m. a) John, Prince of Denmark (1518-1534), b) Francis III, Duke of Brittany (1518-1536), c) James V, King of Scotland (1512-1542)
2b) Henry, Prince of Wales (1519-1536) m. Maria, Duchess of Viseu (1521-1577)
3b) Margaret, Princess of England (1521-1577) m. Sigismund II, King of Poland (1520-1572)
4c) Cecily, Princess of England (1527-1591) m. Philip II, King of Spain (1527-1598)
5c) Anne, Princess of England (1529-1582) m. Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor (1527-1576)
6c) Thomas, Duke of York (1531-1597) m. Dorothy Stafford (1526-1604)
7c) George, Duke of Somerset (1532-1590) m. Amy Robsart (1532-1588)
8c) Elizabeth, Princess of England (1533-1603) never married
9d) Edward, Duke of Richmond (1537-1553) m. a) Jane Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1537-1555), b) Jane Seymour (1541-1561)


Due to butterflies, John III and Catherine of Austria have lots of surviving sons, meaning that Philip II does not see the attraction in a Portuguese bride. Also, OTL's Elizabeth of Austria (b. 1526) died earlier, and the next girl is too young for Sigismund. Instead the son of Sigismund and Margaret marries a younger daughter of Ferdinand and Anna. And yes, I left Elizabeth unmarried IOTL....perhaps due to dowry issues, perhaps due to her own volition, totally not because I can't find someone for her here.

I doubt Henry could go 11 years (or 14, assuming he and Catherine aren't close later in later life which seems appropriate) without someone at his side, the longest he went in reality was 2 years... I definitaly feel he will remarry again after Catherines death, if not Jane's

 

[ordinarylittleme]

I doubt Henry could go 11 years (or 14, assuming he and Catherine aren't close later in later life which seems appropriate) without someone at his side, the longest he went in reality was 2 years... I definitaly feel he will remarry again after Catherines death, if not Jane's"

Fair enough, I am just uncertain on who that could be. I doubt he could get any foreign prestigious princess with his "heretic polygamous ways", but at the same time he hasn't broken with the church here...

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

Fair enough, I am just uncertain on who that could be. I doubt he could get any foreign prestigious princess with his "heretic polygamous ways", but at the same time he hasn't broken with the church here...

Katherine Willoughby seems a good choice? Granted I can't really think of any others

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Katherine Willoughby seems a good choice? Granted I can't really think of any others

She's still married to Charles Brandon in 1537, no?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If you want a religious justification the israelite kings had plenty of wives and concubines while the kingdom itself was generally monogamic, with the explanation being that being God's annointed puts much more stress and responsability over the shoulders of someone than the average person and so it was tolerated(but not endorsed) as a way to keep the monarch grounded
Not sure if that could ever fly in England, but the religious precedent is there along with the aforementioned historical ones

Henry (or Philipp of Hesse, ICR which) did actually use the argument that "since King Solomon had five hundred wives why was the pope objecting to him taking a second one?" Needless to say, it went over as well as can be expected

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If 1526 is a wife, I'd say Henry's likelier to "marry" Agnes Edwardes or Joan Dingley/Jane Dobson, who he sired children with at the time. My money is on Agnes for producing a son (Richard Edwardes) in 1525 who was purported to be Henry's

 

[CaesarKhan]

If 1526 is a wife, I'd say Henry's likelier to "marry" Agnes Edwardes or Joan Dingley/Jane Dobson, who he sired children with at the time. My money is on Agnes for producing a son (Richard Edwardes) in 1525 who was purported to be Henry's

Definitely fair choices, and makes more sense with the morganatic version of the polygamy system - Agnes, Joan and Bessie Blount were all commoners or very low nobility, compared to the Boleyn's etc. which were English elites