Succession in Tudor times?

Question

I am planning on writing a story about a girl who falls in love with King Edward VI, the son of Henry VIII.

What I would like to know is, if the king dies, and he has a pregnant mistress he isn't married to, would he be able to put her into the succession?

I would like this story to be as factual as possible, so your help is appreciated!

Answer 1

Edward V! was a sickly King,who did not rule for long.

If he'd married(a mistress would not have been recognised),it's possible that his child would be the next monarch-provided that the baby was a boy.

So,he would have to have married and the baby been a boy.

Presuming no accidents...

Answer 2

This is getting a little specific for my knowledge of English history, but I'll take my best shot at it.

If I remember right, the Tudors didn't necessarily have the authority to designate their own successors.  They could, and did, designate who they wanted to follow them, but after they died, the successor was chosen by the nobility (or maybe Parliament).

From what I understand, what you're describing would have been considered unthinkable.  That's not meant to criticize; I'm trying to estimate what people then would have thought of the idea.  The Tudors were succeeded by sons, daughters, or cousins (pretty much standard European-style succession, but more liberal than in other countries like France where women were excluded).  For a Tudor monarch to try to designate a spouse to succeed him/her would have been really pushing it and probably wouldn't have stuck unless circumstances favored it.

Worse yet for a mistress.  Mistresses didn't have any official standing--in practice they could be influential in court, but in something so formal as succession to the throne, I think it would have been out of the question.  It would also have been considered scandalous if it were admitted publicly that the king had fathered an illegitimate child (such things were usually well-known, but never formally announced).

I hate to throw water on your fire, so to speak.  You have an interesting idea for a plot there.

Now, you've chosen an interesting reign, Edward VI.  (Since you're historically-minded, I assume you know that The Prince and the Pauper takes place during his reign.)  What if the mistress you have in mind were Lady Jane Grey, his immediate (and very brief) successor?  That might throw a very interesting twist into the historical timeline.

Answer 3

Someone who's not of Royal descent can't become Monarch. Therefore a pregnant mistress cannot become Queen in her own right. Illegitimate children have never truly inherited the throne. Although Mary I and Elizabeth I were declared illegitimate on annulment of their father's marriages that was never accepted in general, when they were born it was generally accepted that their father was married to their mothers.

Answer 4

Edward's father, Henry VIII, designated his successors in his will, but he had married all three of their mothers.  (Interestingly, he listed them in the order in which they would succeed even today: only son, older daughter, younger daughter.)  However, it was pretty well established that an illegitimate child  could not succeed, so unless Edward VI actually married his mistress, her child would not have succeeded.  However, if they had been married, the country would probably have waited those few months and crowned an infant king or queen.  What Edward would have needed to designate in his will is a competent and trustworthy regent.

Answer 5

As many have answered, the succession of the mistress would not have been allowed regardless if she was pregnant or not. At his death, Lady Jane Grey was placed on the throne and she lasted only 9 days. I doubt a mistress would have lasted that long.

But keep in mind one thing with regards to your story line. Edward died at the age of 15 in July of 1553. He was already sick with his fatal disease by January of 1553. Conception would have had to have taken place just prior to that in order for the mistress to still be pregnant. In fact, some records state he was ill at the beginning of the winter which would mean that the child would have had to be conceived during his illness. It just doesn't seem likely.

Answer 6

You mean allow his pregnant mistress to succeed after him? No, that would be out of the question, since the young Edward's entire rule was mediated through a council of regency, as he never reached maturity. The council was first led by his uncle, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, and then by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland.

When it became clear that Edward's life was to be a short one, the Device to Alter the Succession was drafted. This made Lady Jane Grey, Edward's solidly Protestant cousin, the first in line of succession to the throne by excluding his two half sisters, the devout Catholic Mary and moderate Protestant Elizabeth.

Under the ordinary laws of succession, Mary, Queen of Scot was next in line to the English throne after her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, who was childless. In the eyes of many Catholics, Elizabeth was illegitimate, thus making Mary the true heir. However the Third Succession Act of 1543 provided that Queen Elizabeth I would succeed Mary I of England on the throne.

The English crown must always be passed down from father to son, daughters, sisters, cousins etc. However, it must stay within the family. The crown cannot be passed onto the spouse of the monarch, unless they also have claims to the English crown.

Note: Under ordinary succession laws, illegitimate b******s are cannot ascend the English throne, however, if Edward's mistress gave birth to the boy, there is a possible chance that his privy council might include the boy in the line of succession.

Answer 7

When the Duke of Normandy died in 1035, not having any legitimate children, he named his illegitimate son William (later known as "the Conqueror") as the heir to the Duchy of Normandy. Even back then, when inheritance laws and marriage law  were much vaguer, there were plenty of people who thought an illegitimate son shouldn't inherit. By 1553 when Edward VI died, it had been an absolute legal rule for centuries that b******s had no inheritance rights whatsoever.

Also, Edward VI died aged not-quite-seventeen, after an illness lasting at least six months. The chances of the poor brat having a pregnant mistress at his death are vanishingly remote. But even if he had, nobody would have dreamt of suggesting that the baby would have any rights to the succession.

(And even if you invent a parallel Tudor world where b******s do have succession rights, the b*****d's mother wouldn't figure anywhere - if the child was to be made the next monarch, it would be whisked away from her  to be brought up by suitable noble governors, and she would be pensioned off somewhere.)