#also i've recently learned from that book: apparently bigod

[fideidefenswhore]

My understanding is that when the Princes died in 1483, Elizabeth of York was technically heir to the throne but no one actually considered installing her as Queen Regnant as the system just wasn't set up for that. And yet 70 years later, being a woman didn't seem such a big deal (in comparison) and everyone's major concern was the female heir's religion. Do you think that was nothing but the fluke of all Edward VI's available heirs being women (no one, afaik, thought of skipping all of them for Darnley say) or was there also something about the upheaval in Henry's reign that changed perceptions of female rule, even if subconsciously? I'm not saying it was an ideal situation, but the fact it became even feasible, compared to less than a century ago, I find really interesting. I was thinking that, given how long it took for Henry to have a male heir, and the Pilgrimage of Grace's call for Mary to be reinstated, plus her initial popularity as queen, maybe the average person had accepted by c 1527 that they would have a queen next, and even that kind of uncharted territory was preferable to all the turmoil that came trying to get a male heir. I mean, to many people, Mary becoming queen was probably better than losing the social safety net monasteries provided. And with Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, no matter if you hated them, they were both impressive, resilient figures so maybe people expected their daughters would be the same.

Imo, it wasn't really a 'fluke' insofar as it was that (although there was some instability in the order changing...at first Elizabeth at the total exclusion of Mary, and then the total exclusion of both, and then the inclusion of both, but with Mary over Elizabeth) Mary and Elizabeth had both been made heirs to the throne by Acts of Parliament, and several Henrician measures had greatly strengthened the power of Parliament by that point. The final Act of Succession included Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, and their heirs. Beyond this, Henry's will did include the proviso that if all of the above died, the throne would pass to the heirs of Frances Grey (but not Frances herself...), and that if all these heirs died, the throne would pass to the heirs of Eleanor Clifford. Margaret Tudor's lineage was not present as potential heirs in either his will or this final Act, and so it doesn't seem Darnley as heir was ever really...bruited.

I was thinking that, given how long it took for Henry to have a male heir, and the Pilgrimage of Grace's call for Mary to be reinstated, plus her initial popularity as queen, maybe the average person had accepted by c 1527 that they would have a queen next, and even that kind of uncharted territory was preferable to all the turmoil that came trying to get a male heir. I mean, to many people, Mary becoming queen was probably better than losing the social safety net monasteries provided.

I mean, I think this depended. The average person, even the average professed religious person, as this book I've been reading recently has argued (Dissolution of the Monasteries, by Clark), also accepted the English supremacy without demur. Entertaining the counterfactual of essentially, what if Henry sat on his hands re: (male) succession 1527-... the court divisions would probably have centered around what marriage alliance their Princess should enter. Or, separate court factions would have emerged supporting Fitzroy versus Mary. The matter wouldn't have necessarily 'settled', even if Henry had been more indecisive about it, for longer.

Those two weren't really inextricably linked, though? Dissolution of the religious houses began on a smaller scale while Princess Mary was still heir, under Wolsey's auspices. Their examination and valuation took place while she had yet to swear to the Oaths, which strengthened her position abroad and emboldened her adherents, the Act for the Dissolution of Smaller Monasteries took place during this period, as well. Their pace was likely to continue regardless of whatever outcome came from her either signing, as she did, the Oaths, or whether she did not.

Tl; dr, while Mary's reinstatement was included on their list of demands, it wasn't necessarily seen in the mind of every person that the Dissolution had only come about due to her disinheritance, particularly because Elizabeth was enshrined as heir two years prior by Parliament, which effectively disinherited Mary.

Again, it would depend on who you asked, there would have also been many that said 'turmoil' over the quest for a legitimate prince was a far better alternative than civil war (especially as it came to pass, and no interdict on trade was actually imposed as consequence for Henry and sundry of pretty much every level of government below him, flipping the bird at the papal briefs being sent). I've mentioned this before, but the Act enshrining Elizabeth as Princess and heir apparent passed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons, which could not have happened had there not been an overall majority vote for both. And in 1536, the Act which barred Mary and Elizabeth from the throne on the grounds of illegitimacy, and vested it in the future children of Henry VIII & Jane Seymour (or any future wife), passed in the same manner. So, as much as this is said to demonstrate that the popular belief was that one Princess was much the same as another, but that Mary would of course always be preferred...well, was it true to the extent that it's argued, that simply wouldn't have passed in Parliament.

I don't think their capability of rule was really assumed based on the characters of their mothers, persay? More that the court factions of their mothers did survive (well, several of them did, several did not), in some sense and form, they made up much of Mary I's adherents and Elizabeth's protectors (mainly, of her maternal family) during the Marian era, and later her own adherents during the Elizabethan era. There was always still the sense that male inheritance was preferred, to wit:

❝ By mid-January 1554, the many rumours circulating about the proposed four-pronged uprising against Mary frequently mentioned Elizabeth’s name. One conspirator thought that although ‘we ought not have a woman bear the sword…[but] if a woman bear a sword, Lady Elizabeth ought to bear it first.’ -Elizabeth I ,Richards, Judith M.

Regardless of whether the person in question was either an adherent of Mary or Elizabeth, that caveat ('a woman ought not to bear the sword [if it could be helped]' or some variation thereof) was almost always either explictly given or implicit. Many of the similar statements recorded during the Henrician era, of dissidents who said that Mary should take the throne, almost always had the detail that she should or would do this after marrying Reginald Pole, or Charles V, or some other named man with some blood claim to either the English throne or another (iirc, Ferdinand, the King of the Romans, was also mentioned, once); just as the conspirators of Wyatt's Rebellion planned for Elizabeth to wed Edward Courtenay.

#anon #also i've recently learned from that book: apparently bigod #had actually planned to proclaim mary england's queen (in 1537) #whiiiich makes henry's reprisals of bigod's rebellion make a lot more sense. #there's not really a way for his daughter to be proclaimed queen unless he's deposed and killed #it should then be considered; imo; comparable with mary's response to wyatt's rebellion #but i digress. #also the treason act of 1547 made it treason to alter henry's succession #and edward vi hadn't had the chance to overturn this... sooooooooo #buh bye jane grey #(sorry. that was dark. but truly. ) #as much as isabella is held up as a counter example; this wasn't exclusive to england either #it's unlikely she could have taken the castilian throne unmarried. that is not in fact a thing that happened. so #mary broke precedent by taking the throne unmarried and elizabeth broke precedent by keeping the throne unmarried