First of all I would like to thank Brad V. and TAF for their answers to my question about King Edward IV . I have several questions about Edward IV's Great - Granddaughter , Elizabeth I . I have read that Queen Elizabeth I did not give an immediate
answer as to who would be her successor when she died . My first question is : If her Aunt Margaret had not married King James IV of Scotland , or if she had never existed , would the next candidate automatically have come from her Aunt Mary's heirs ?
Secondly : If there weren't any of those , would the search (if they weren't Catholics) have gone back to descendants of Edward IV's daughters (I know Brad said that there weren't too many of those) , or descendants of his sisters ? I seem to remember
an Earl of Devon and possibly some Dukes of Suffolk . Wasn't there someone referred to as the "White Rose" ? Thanks , M .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 1:50:11 PM UTC-7, Mark Spitler m_spitler@comcast.net wrote:

First of all I would like to thank Brad V. and TAF for their answers to my question about King Edward IV . I have several questions about Edward IV's Great - Granddaughter , Elizabeth I . I have read that Queen Elizabeth I did not give an immediate

answer as to who would be her successor when she died . My first question is : If her Aunt Margaret had not married King James IV of Scotland , or if she had never existed , would the next candidate automatically have come from her Aunt Mary's heirs ?
Secondly : If there weren't any of those , would the search (if they weren't Catholics) have gone back to descendants of Edward IV's daughters (I know Brad said that there weren't too many of those) , or descendants of his sisters ? I seem to remember an
Earl of Devon and possibly some Dukes of Suffolk . Wasn't there someone referred to as the "White Rose" ? Thanks , M .

The Tudors held the crown by right of Henry VII's conquest, so there was no fall-back plan were all of the Tudor descent to become extinct (nor a likelihood one would be needed). The short answer to who would have succeeded were there no more Tudor
descendants is 'whoever came out on top of the chaotic free-for-all that would have resulted'. This would have had a whole lot more to do with the political dynamics in the kingdom than what the 'best' royal descent would have been, and there is no
particular reason this need have been a Yorkist scion.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:50:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Spitler m_spitler@comcast.net wrote:

First of all I would like to thank Brad V. and TAF for their answers to my question about King Edward IV . I have several questions about Edward IV's Great - Granddaughter , Elizabeth I . I have read that Queen Elizabeth I did not give an immediate

answer as to who would be her successor when she died . My first question is : If her Aunt Margaret had not married King James IV of Scotland , or if she had never existed , would the next candidate automatically have come from her Aunt Mary's heirs ?
Secondly : If there weren't any of those , would the search (if they weren't Catholics) have gone back to descendants of Edward IV's daughters (I know Brad said that there weren't too many of those) , or descendants of his sisters ? I seem to remember an
Earl of Devon and possibly some Dukes of Suffolk . Wasn't there someone referred to as the "White Rose" ? Thanks , M .

I personally think it would always have been between the heirs of the two sisters, Margaret and Mary Tudor. Margaret technically should have been preferred, as the elder, but there were qualms about allowing the rulers of a "lesser" country bordering to
the north (Scotland) to come to the English throne. Hence, some plausible thoughts of allowing the descendants of Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, to succeed.

However, they had really ruined their chances, by "jumping the gun" during the nine-day reign of Lady Jane Gray, Mary's granddaughter.

Elizabeth I kept James VI of Scotland guessing, but eventually the throne went to him.

The career of his first cousin, Arbella Stewart, who had one line of descent, not two, from Queen Margaret of Scotland, but none from any Scottish KING later than James II, is instructive. She married in a royal palace, secretly and without James VI/ I'
s consent, to William Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, a remote descendant of Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk. Despite being (almost) past childbearing age and much older than her husband, Arbella's marriage gave extreme offense to James VI/ I, who imprisoned
the couple.

Poor Arbella eventually starved herself to death. Her husband had escaped to the continent, eventually returning after her death in full favor to England where he remarried to a lady not in the line of succession.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07-May-22 6:50 AM, Mark Spitler m_spitler@comcast.net wrote:

First of all I would like to thank Brad V. and TAF for their answers to my question about King Edward IV . I have several questions about Edward IV's Great - Granddaughter , Elizabeth I . I have read that Queen Elizabeth I did not give an immediate

answer as to who would be her successor when she died . My first question is : If her Aunt Margaret had not married King James IV of Scotland , or if she had never existed , would the next candidate automatically have come from her Aunt Mary's heirs ?
Secondly : If there weren't any of those , would the search (if they weren't Catholics) have gone back to descendants of Edward IV's daughters (I know Brad said that there weren't too many of those) , or descendants of his sisters ? I seem to remember
an Earl of Devon and possibly some Dukes of Suffolk . Wasn't there someone referred to as the "White Rose" ? Thanks , M .

Edward IV's daughter Katherine married William Courtenay, earl of Devon,
and their son Henry, marquis of Exeter, was executed in 1539 - his only
son died unmarried in 1556, when the heirs were distant cousins on the Courtenay side.

Edward IV's sister Elizabeth married John de la Pole, duke of Suffolk,
and their third son Richard was known as the White Rose. He was killed
in battle at Pavia in 1525, with no legitimate offspring.

The last troublesome Plantagenet descendants from the potential crown succession angle were the Pole family (not the de la Poles), through
Edward IV's brother George, the "false, fleeting, perjured" duke of
Clarence famously drowned in a butt of Malmsey. His daughter Margaret,
countess of Salisbury, was renowned as the last Plantagenet when she was executed in 1541. Her best-known child was Reginald, cardinal Pole. Her daughter Ursula married Henry, lord Stafford, and their granddaughter reportedly married a joiner having a son who was a cobbler. So much for
royal blood.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A sexta-feira, 6 de maio de 2022 à(s) 22:43:19 UTC+1, ravinma...@yahoo.com escreveu:

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:50:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Spitler m_sp...@comcast.net wrote:

First of all I would like to thank Brad V. and TAF for their answers to my question about King Edward IV . I have several questions about Edward IV's Great - Granddaughter , Elizabeth I . I have read that Queen Elizabeth I did not give an immediate

answer as to who would be her successor when she died . My first question is : If her Aunt Margaret had not married King James IV of Scotland , or if she had never existed , would the next candidate automatically have come from her Aunt Mary's heirs ?
Secondly : If there weren't any of those , would the search (if they weren't Catholics) have gone back to descendants of Edward IV's daughters (I know Brad said that there weren't too many of those) , or descendants of his sisters ? I seem to remember an
Earl of Devon and possibly some Dukes of Suffolk . Wasn't there someone referred to as the "White Rose" ? Thanks , M .

I personally think it would always have been between the heirs of the two sisters, Margaret and Mary Tudor. Margaret technically should have been preferred, as the elder, but there were qualms about allowing the rulers of a "lesser" country bordering

to the north (Scotland) to come to the English throne. Hence, some plausible thoughts of allowing the descendants of Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, to succeed.

However, they had really ruined their chances, by "jumping the gun" during the nine-day reign of Lady Jane Gray, Mary's granddaughter.

Elizabeth I kept James VI of Scotland guessing, but eventually the throne went to him.

The career of his first cousin, Arbella Stewart, who had one line of descent, not two, from Queen Margaret of Scotland, but none from any Scottish KING later than James II, is instructive. She married in a royal palace, secretly and without James VI/ I'

s consent, to William Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, a remote descendant of Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk. Despite being (almost) past childbearing age and much older than her husband, Arbella's marriage gave extreme offense to James VI/ I, who imprisoned the
couple.

Poor Arbella eventually starved herself to death. Her husband had escaped to the continent, eventually returning after her death in full favor to England where he remarried to a lady not in the line of succession.

Henry VIII's will actually gave Mary Tudor's descendants priority in the succession line over Margaret Tudor's descendants. This was because Margaret's descendants were still Catholic. With the Scottish Reformation, this wasn't the case anymore, which is
why it was ignored following Elizabeth I's death.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07-May-22 10:48 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A sexta-feira, 6 de maio de 2022 à(s) 22:43:19 UTC+1, ravinma...@yahoo.com escreveu:

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:50:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Spitler m_sp...@comcast.net wrote:

First of all I would like to thank Brad V. and TAF for their answers to my question about King Edward IV . I have several questions about Edward IV's Great - Granddaughter , Elizabeth I . I have read that Queen Elizabeth I did not give an immediate

answer as to who would be her successor when she died . My first question is : If her Aunt Margaret had not married King James IV of Scotland , or if she had never existed , would the next candidate automatically have come from her Aunt Mary's heirs ?
Secondly : If there weren't any of those , would the search (if they weren't Catholics) have gone back to descendants of Edward IV's daughters (I know Brad said that there weren't too many of those) , or descendants of his sisters ? I seem to remember an
Earl of Devon and possibly some Dukes of Suffolk . Wasn't there someone referred to as the "White Rose" ? Thanks , M .

I personally think it would always have been between the heirs of the two sisters, Margaret and Mary Tudor. Margaret technically should have been preferred, as the elder, but there were qualms about allowing the rulers of a "lesser" country bordering

to the north (Scotland) to come to the English throne. Hence, some plausible thoughts of allowing the descendants of Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, to succeed.

However, they had really ruined their chances, by "jumping the gun" during the nine-day reign of Lady Jane Gray, Mary's granddaughter.

Elizabeth I kept James VI of Scotland guessing, but eventually the throne went to him.

The career of his first cousin, Arbella Stewart, who had one line of descent, not two, from Queen Margaret of Scotland, but none from any Scottish KING later than James II, is instructive. She married in a royal palace, secretly and without James VI/

I's consent, to William Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, a remote descendant of Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk. Despite being (almost) past childbearing age and much older than her husband, Arbella's marriage gave extreme offense to James VI/ I, who imprisoned
the couple.

Poor Arbella eventually starved herself to death. Her husband had escaped to the continent, eventually returning after her death in full favor to England where he remarried to a lady not in the line of succession.

Henry VIII's will actually gave Mary Tudor's descendants priority in the succession line over Margaret Tudor's descendants. This was because Margaret's descendants were still Catholic. With the Scottish Reformation, this wasn't the case anymore, which

is why it was ignored following Elizabeth I's death.

There is no principle in England's unwritten constitution more venerable
than that the reigning monarch does not get to determine who comes next.
Many of them have tried, but once a sovereign is dead his or her wishes
are just an invisible addition to their dust.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)