1. Jean Gaherity

    In my humble opinion it wouldn’t have mattered.

    Henry Fitzroy was doomed to the same short lifespan as his Uncle Arthur, and half brother Edward VI.

  2. David Schumacher

    I have indeed wondered actually why Henry did not go for the option of making Fitzroy is heir because the boy was still the son of the King and surely would not have had too much difficulty taking the throne? Better than all the carry on that actually happened. The Pope would have. The parliament would have.

    There would never have been Elizabeth I though… With the benefit of hindsight that would be sad. (The most intelligent person to occupy the throne 1066 – now?)

    • Amy

      Henry seems to have considered it, and not just as a passing thought. The thing is he needed more than one male to follow him, an heir and a spare as the saying goes. Even had he officially installed Fitzroy in the succession he still needed his spare to ensure that the throne would remain in Tudor hands. His own older brother died, and he himself experienced the slim grip the Tudor dynasty stood on while in the tower with his mother durring one of several rebellions. Katherine couldn’t provide an heir or a spare so she would have been out even if he found a prince elsewhere. It is also very questionable that Henry’s nobles would accept a bastard when their were still relations that had royal blood, were true born, and some argued had a better claim to the throne than Henry (though those who made such arguments tended to die). The English nobility of the time is pretty incestuous a group, and more of them had connection by blood to one monarch or another that if a bastard had been left to inherit it is likely the second war of the roses or something similar would have commenced.

Please Login to Comment.