NotDavidSoslan
Active member
I thought of making a surviving Edward VI TL, what do you think?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Alternate History General Discussion
- Thread starter Elektronaut
- Start date
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
If you have something interesting resulting from this, fine.
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
I've explored this in one of the chapters of my Pen and Sword book 'An Alternative History of Britain: The Tudors', published 2014 HB and 2020 in PB. The possibilities of this one are many, not least butterflying away the Stuart accession to GB in 1603 if Edward has children, and I'd be intrigued as to what someone else can come up with; I was thinking this one out as a teenager. Some of my ideas for ramifications involve:
If Edward marries Elizabeth of Valois , daughter of Henri II, as of the Anglo-French alliance plans of 1550-1, then we have no marriage of Elizabeth and Philip II of Spain in 1559 unless Edward died early. Does Philip marry a wife , French or not, who does not die young in 1568 but provides him with several sons , who are all older than the OTL king Philip III (not born until 1578 and then the son of Philip II by his Austrian niece so this starts to undermine the Spanish royal line's genetics.)
If Mary Queen of Scots is kidnapped by pro-English nobles during Somerset's invasion of Scotland in 1547 to force through the 'Rough Wooing', intellectual and fanatically Protestant Edward ends up with a totally dissimilar wife who was later well known for her emotional mood-swings and political misjudgements. A disaster? And if she's converted to Protestantism, does she go back to Catholicism (and Scotland) once her husband dies and would her nobles accept a son of hers by Edward as her successor?
If Edward survives to adulthood, does he intervene in the French religious wars in the 1560s on the side of the Huguenots and make the crisis even worse, and/or secure control of a port in Normandy (eg Le Havre or Cherbourg) as a base for interference? And if he goes to war in person and dies as a result, as his health was fragile and there was an epidemic in the English army in 1563 in OTL, who succeeds him (1563?). Elizabeth, or a son of Lady Jane Grey (who has never been Queen or been executed in this timeline) and Guildford Dudley? And if Elizabeth has been left unmarried through the 1550s as European princes think her of dubious legitimacy, has she gone off and secretly married Robert Dudley? Do they have children who then succeed her in 1603? (In OTL England, Henry VIII's sister Mary had secretly married Charles Brandon in 1514 and Henry had been furious but eventually accepted it - a precedent for Elizabeth to follow.)
If Edward marries Elizabeth of Valois , daughter of Henri II, as of the Anglo-French alliance plans of 1550-1, then we have no marriage of Elizabeth and Philip II of Spain in 1559 unless Edward died early. Does Philip marry a wife , French or not, who does not die young in 1568 but provides him with several sons , who are all older than the OTL king Philip III (not born until 1578 and then the son of Philip II by his Austrian niece so this starts to undermine the Spanish royal line's genetics.)
If Mary Queen of Scots is kidnapped by pro-English nobles during Somerset's invasion of Scotland in 1547 to force through the 'Rough Wooing', intellectual and fanatically Protestant Edward ends up with a totally dissimilar wife who was later well known for her emotional mood-swings and political misjudgements. A disaster? And if she's converted to Protestantism, does she go back to Catholicism (and Scotland) once her husband dies and would her nobles accept a son of hers by Edward as her successor?
If Edward survives to adulthood, does he intervene in the French religious wars in the 1560s on the side of the Huguenots and make the crisis even worse, and/or secure control of a port in Normandy (eg Le Havre or Cherbourg) as a base for interference? And if he goes to war in person and dies as a result, as his health was fragile and there was an epidemic in the English army in 1563 in OTL, who succeeds him (1563?). Elizabeth, or a son of Lady Jane Grey (who has never been Queen or been executed in this timeline) and Guildford Dudley? And if Elizabeth has been left unmarried through the 1550s as European princes think her of dubious legitimacy, has she gone off and secretly married Robert Dudley? Do they have children who then succeed her in 1603? (In OTL England, Henry VIII's sister Mary had secretly married Charles Brandon in 1514 and Henry had been furious but eventually accepted it - a precedent for Elizabeth to follow.)
ChrisNuttall
Well-known member
If we assume that
A) Mary marries Edward and
B) Edward survives into adulthood
Then there would be a very strong assumption that Edward would be calling the shots and that while Mary would be the titular Queen of Scotland she would have little real power and her husband would be in charge. (Obviously, this sounds terrible to modern ears, but it was very prevalent attitude at the time.) This Mary would be a very different person from OTL, having been raised in England rather than France, and it is not clear how she would have felt about being treated in such a manner. I think the original Mary would certainly have resented being sidelined in her own country - she certainly didn’t like Lord Darnley attempting to act like the King, which he did despite her objections - but it would be great deal harder for her to do anything about it. Lord Darnley had no independent powerbase of his own. (Arguably, neither did Mary). Edward would have an entire kingdom.
Historically, Edward was very much a Protestant Reformer (how much of this was his own personal belief is difficult to say). He would likely throw his support behind the reformers in Scotland, and as a male monarch it would be harder for John Knox to oppose him, and it is quite likely the Catholic Lords would be beaten fairly quickly. If she had been raised in England, Mary might well be a Protestant herself (and again, as a wife of a Protestant, she would certainly be taken to be one). I suspect we would see both England and Scotland as wholly Protestant much quicker than OTL; indeed, if Edward survives longer and sires a male heir, the country would be spared Mary Tudor’s brief attempt to return to Rome.
In this timeline, we could see the Act of Union being forged earlier. We might also see France and Spain trying to meddle in Scottish politics, possibly sending support to the Catholic Lords. Quite how that would work out I don’t know - historically, Philip of Spain married Mary Tudor and she declared war on France on his behalf (which was disastrous for England). In this timeline, there might be a Anglo-Spanish alliance anyway, but is hard to say for sure.
If Edward does die early, after siring a heir, there is at least the possibility that Mary would be the child’s regent. It had happened before, not always successfully.
If Edward doesn’t have a heir, Mary Tudor may still become Queen of England. In that case, Mary may go back to Scotland - a more pacified Scotland, as English resources would have been used to suppress the Catholic Lords. It is hard to say how things would have developed from there. A lot depends on how Edward (and his regents) treated Mary - if they mistreated her, she might develop an understandable hatred of England; if they treated her currently, she might have a great deal of affection for her host country. That said, Mary was in line to the English throne and that would certainly cause trouble as Mary Tudor became more unpopular (assuming she did in this timeline).
Lots of interesting possibilities here.
Chris
I suspect it gets more complex - Mary Stuart as Queen - the Protestants who are now stronger as Edward lives longer would want to keep Mary Tudor off the throne and have Mary Stuart instead of Lady Jane Grey so have added Scottish support.
I think a lot of this video can apply to AH as well.
-The "Detailed = Realistic" fallacy.
-The "Plausible = Automatically Better" fallacy.
And the end is an argument for distinctiveness. IE put lots of radiators on your ships not so you can add one plausible thing to the soft goofiness and then pat yourself on the back for realism but put them on because they look very distinctive and underappreciated. (Similar thing with ship classifications). Likewise for stuff like nuclear shaped charges and energy weapons that aren't traditional sci-fi beams.
For AH, classic space opera is classic soft popular AH, and so on....
Avian Overlord
Mystical American Freedom Bird
The thing is, the dichotomy is not usually between realism and unfettered creativity. It's between realism and cliche.
I am sorry that happens to you.
I don't quite understand the Madagascar comments, I only saw one post from yourself and a single reply?
I am not among the prolific writers of this site, but can offer up two points that have helped me enjoy
1. Write for yourself first. If you enjoy reading and rereading what you wrote, then you’ve achieved something. Not everyone will enjoy what you enjoy just as you and I may differ on what great timelines or stories we enjoy more.
2. Write from what you know about. If what you write is to be taken seriously and plausibly, then if you understand the history, you can understand what happens when you change something. You can learn a lot from decent research, but it's good to start with a decent knowledge of our timeline in that area. Of course, if the piece is not serious, eg Lenin as vampire hunter in the Paris Commune, that doesn't apply as much.
The converse to this is if I write a piece focussed on a time or place that others here know a lot more about than, I should expect criticism from people who can pick up the flaws that I miss.
As above, do you enjoy it? I know which of the things I wrote that I go back to more than others
If you want other peoples' reactions, I have found the vignettes and lists on this site get a reasonable number of comments. And if mu piece doesn't make a dent it was probably too bland or too weird or just randomly didn't attract viewers.
SultanArda
Well-known member
- Location
- Turkey
- Pronouns
- he/him
I enjoy it myself (despite kind of getting bored these days while writing it, but it is largely because I am now on the part I dreaded the most, that being the first chapter in which I had to explain the background without overloading every information.)As above, do you enjoy it? I know which of the things I wrote that I go back to more than others
If you want other peoples' reactions, I have found the vignettes and lists on this site get a reasonable number of comments. And if mu piece doesn't make a dent it was probably too bland or too weird or just randomly didn't attract viewers.
But my problem is that my timeline is about Talat Aydemir’s First Coup Attempt going successful, a topic that only myself really cares about, from a region that most people don’t care about, unless it is about Ottomans or Byzantines. I could do something else, but this idea is the one that always intrigues me, no matter how little interest people seem to have, excluding friends I ask their opinions about, like one and only Time Enough.
I understand the problem, I think.
I suppose part of it is, as @David Flin said to another user above, if it leads to something interesting happening, fine.
It doesn't have to change the grand geopolitical space or things readers know about, it just needs to be interesting. A change that results in a very different government, or that leads to drama in the lives of people you have mentioned can always interest readers, even if they have little knowledge. On the other hand, if it only changes relatively detailed aspects of Domestic politics that need an informed reader, it will have less broader interest.
- Pronouns
- he/him
So as that reply, I can see why that might come over as ratioing.
He said 'hey guys, wouldn't it be fun if someone wrote a story about Radama I ruling longer, queen Ranavalona never taking power and as a result Madagascar westerning quicker and remaining independent'. Presumably hoping that he'd get a bunch of people, going 'yeah that sounds cool man, I'd read that' and liking his post.
Which like no judgement, I've been done that same 'testing the waters' post myself, checking that what I've written has any audience.
But instead he got one like and one reply saying rather brutally pissing on his chips by saying 'um actually i think you'll find that radama and ranavalona were more similar in politics than primary sources tried to make it sound and it was a misreading of Malagasy politics by the british that blamed ranavalona on the switch in economic policy'. And then that reply, which basically was like 'no, that's an unrealistic idea' got 12 likes.
It's not a great response to an idea that you may be excited about writing when more people agree with the nitpick than the idea, especially if you're already struggling with how your ideas have been taken.
Ultimately there is a joy in discovering new history and trying to come up with creative ideas within that, and while there is a place for people who have read more to pass on info, it can be rather morale destroying to just have those ideas dismissed. Ultimately most historical facts are disputed and what one historian takes as granted, another will throw doubt on. We all on here have said a bunch of stuff that isn't true but in good faith. It's entirely possible that the revisionist takes on ranavalona I've read, will be dismissed shortly or have already been.
And we, by which in this instance I mean me, should be kinder about corrections and try and 'yes and' rather than 'no but'.
So in that vein @NotDavidSoslan, I think a Madagascar wank would be fascinating and cool. If you just want it as a setting, feel free to just never explain why european coloniasation didn't happen or remove france from the board via a war in europe. If you just want to write about the merina monarchy coping with the 20th century, write that. I'd certainly read it. The mechanics of how we get there is the least interesting part, so just handwave it.
NotDavidSoslan
Active member
My TL where Brazil has a socialist revolution in 1964–1972 and the United States got mired here (I'm Brazilian) instead of in Vietnam (which is unified earlier, in 1967) fits in the first category, but I realize the rebellion would be crushed if it happened IOTL.
Back into the analysis of and arguments I've had over my TLs, I realize the overwhelming majority of them deal with an alternate political regime (more commonly a 20th-century dictatorship), regardless of how they're written.
NotDavidSoslan
Active member
I called it a "ratio" because the reply analysing the POD I proposed got more likes than the post it was responding to. When this happens on other platforms, it's called a "ratio".
But yes, I need to write more TLs about historical eras I understand instead of ones I just find interesting.
OHC
deep green blue collar rainbow
- Location
- Little Beirut
- Pronouns
- they/she
This is going wildly off-topic but I only just recently learned of the Emperor's naturalist nephew who by all accounts seems to be a cool dude for the period; his scientific exploits were punctuated by his role in the formation of the Roman Republic's 1849 iteration and organising its defence against the French.
Charles Lucien Bonaparte - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Reposting this over here because I want a story where he lives long enough to see his scientific legacy either taken up or overthrown by Henri d'Orleans. Can anyone find a Legitimist adventurer naturalist to complete the set?
NotDavidSoslan
Active member
John Peter Atgeld, if the amendment was passed in the 19th century
NotDavidSoslan
Active member
Democratic Governor of Illinois who pardoned the Haymarket bombers and was a major political figure in the 1890s. He was ineligible to run for POTUS in 1896 due to being born in Germany.