• 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

WI: Elizabeth I has an illegitimate son

Jared

Book 1 - 70%
Published by SLP
Location
Over the rainbow
This is part historical question, part-scenario.

Basic scenario is what if Elizabeth I had an illegitimate son, let's call him Edward, who would have been around 40 at the time of her death. This isn't the claimant Arthur Dudley, of whom the consensus seems to be that he was a fraud, but another illegitimate son of parentage which Elizabeth never officially revealed. Edward accomplished very little in his life up until that point, largely because Elizabeth kept him in the Tower a lot of the time and on a short leash the rest of the time to avoid him being used as a weapon against her.

Assume that the other events of her reign broadly play out as OTL (I know, butterflies), but that Robert Deveraux, 2nd Earl of Essex never ends up leading a coup against Elizabeth, and so is alive and still of some stature at her death.

I'm curious what the claims would be to the succession at this point, and who (if any) of the notables at the English court would favour him for the succession. It would presumably take an Act of Parliament to declare him a valid heir. In OTL, of course, Robert Cecil backed James VI of Scotland. Would Cecil still favour James VI in these circumstances? I presume that given their rivalry, whichever candidate Cecil backs, Deveraux will back the other, though there may be an angle I'm missing.

Disclosure: this is a scenario I'm working on for a short story/novelette for submission to a non-SLP anthology, if I can get things to gel right. Just not sure of all of the players, and trying to untangle the politics of late Elizabethan England is taking me longer to work out that it should.
 
There's a whole conspiracy theory based around claims that the scientist and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon was really Elizabeth I's illegitimate son by the Earl of Leicester - FB was born in January 1561 so would have been 42 at the time of Elizabeth I's death. Bacon, supposedly the younger son of the Queen's 'Lord Keeper of the Great Seal' (ie stand-in for the office of Lord Chancellor) Sir Nicholas Bacon by his second wife (the sister of Robert Cecil's mother) and born when his father was already over 50, was supposed to have been fostered on the Bacons - and at the time of his alleged conception in 1560 there were stories at Court of Leicester, loathed as a show-off and son of executed former 'regent' the Duke of Northumberland (ex 1553), being in the Queen's apartments at night and the two of them openly flirting as Elizabeth considered marrying him. The stories then halted , briefly, and L was sent away from Court in June 1560 after his then wife Amy Robsart, said to be slowly dying, fell 'accidentally' downstairs and was killed - with L accused of having had her pushed down to make way for his marriage to the Queen. Others suggest that his enemies, eg Robert Cecil's father William Cecil, did it to make him seem so sleazy that the Queen would be scared off marrying him - and as Amy was very upset about the Leicester/ Queen relationship and apparently wishing openly that she (A) was dead there was talk of suicide too. An accidental fall was possible - but the only other person in the house in question (Cumnor Place near Oxford) at the time was a crony of Leicester's and the jury at the inquest was filled by the govt with L's supporters so that L was acquitted of any suspicion in a presumed 'cover-up'. A story that I will be referencing in a book out later this year.

The 'Bacon was E's son' story is one of the variants of the 'Baconian' theory that Bacon really wrote the works of Shakespeare; the literature on this is referenced on Google and the theories just don't stand up, not least as one of the gossipy ladies of the Queen's household would have talked if she had been pregnant and the Queen lived all her life in a relatively public atmosphere with people around her all day every day. But it's a good story for authors , if you tweak a few events, and new books on this were circulating in the UK as late as the 1980s when I read one of them. The politics of 1601-3 also suggest that the ruthless R Cecil pushed Essex(who was also alleged to be the Queen's son, as supposedly hinted at by Shakespeare ie Bacon in the storyline of 'Hamlet' with E as Hamlet and the Queen as Gertrude) into revolt in 1601 in order to get rid of him as a rival before the Queeen died. E had been secretly offering to help the Queen's cousin and presumed heir James VI to secure the succession so J might reward him by sacking Cecil and putting Essex in as chief minister once he was King, so Cecil removed him first by playing on the Queen's fears about Essex's 'loose cannon' potential. The 'Essex as Eliz's son ' is also pretty crazy, but stories about this have circulated for decades - and the likeliest real alternative to James if the Queen had chosen another heir was J's cousin Arbella Stuart (b 1575), an English-born daughter of James' father Darnley's younger brother, who the Queen loathed and sidelined. The legal argument against James as successor was that he was not born in England so he was not an English citizen; this had been used by Henry VIII in his will in 1544 to exclude the Stuarts, in this case Mary Queen of Scots, from the succession though they were descended from his elder sister so were genealogically his closest cousins.
 
I think the blunt truth is that it would have been very hard for Elizabeth to get pregnant, then deliver a son without a lot of people knowing. She lived in a bubble, surrounded by people who could and would tattle on her if she did (one of her maids was even paid to monitor her periods, which is supposed to have suggested she was infertile). She lived in a world of grotesque double standards – her father and half-brother could have affairs and bastards all they liked, but wives and daughters were not allowed the same latitude. If she did give birth outside marriage, she would be in deep shit. The only thing that might keep her on the throne is a lack of other possible candidates – Mary Queen of Scots would be the only real possibility, IIRC, and she would be troublesome for various reasons (being formerly married to a French King, now Queen of Scots, plus dubious religious convictions, etc.)

Even if that problem is overcome, however, there would be serious issues in putting a known bastard on the throne. Henry VIII looked into the issue of retrospectively legitimising Henry Fitzroy, but that never got anywhere before the young man’s death. There would be a lot of doubt over the story, to the point there would be people who would claim (and might even believe) that someone just found a random kid and insisted he was Liz’s son. She’s not around to object any longer.) Plus there’d be James VI waiting in the wings.

Or would there? Assuming there was a known heir of Elizabeth’s blood, the Stuart claim would be very weak (assuming over overcame the ‘bastard’ issue.) This would change other things too – the Stuarts might be more aggressive, as the waiting game no longer seems such a good idea. They’d have more motive to cause trouble in ATL.

Assuming everything went ahead anyway, the greatest shift would be that the Stuarts never came to rule England, and thus unite the two crowns.
 
I think I'm with Chris on this, that you've got a big change before her death from X number of people knowing she's got a bastard somewhere. That's a lot of people Elizabeth has to keep sweet (or bump off if she can't). Those people would also know 'Edward' is a legit heir, so he'd also have to make promises to them so they'd back him - if they decide the fallout of King Bastard is better than the Stuarts - and that means you've got two monarchs in quick succession that are weaker than they might otherwise have been.
 
This is part historical question, part-scenario.

Basic scenario is what if Elizabeth I had an illegitimate son, let's call him Edward, who would have been around 40 at the time of her death. This isn't the claimant Arthur Dudley, of whom the consensus seems to be that he was a fraud, but another illegitimate son of parentage which Elizabeth never officially revealed. Edward accomplished very little in his life up until that point, largely because Elizabeth kept him in the Tower a lot of the time and on a short leash the rest of the time to avoid him being used as a weapon against her.

Assume that the other events of her reign broadly play out as OTL (I know, butterflies), but that Robert Deveraux, 2nd Earl of Essex never ends up leading a coup against Elizabeth, and so is alive and still of some stature at her death.

I'm curious what the claims would be to the succession at this point, and who (if any) of the notables at the English court would favour him for the succession. It would presumably take an Act of Parliament to declare him a valid heir. In OTL, of course, Robert Cecil backed James VI of Scotland. Would Cecil still favour James VI in these circumstances? I presume that given their rivalry, whichever candidate Cecil backs, Deveraux will back the other, though there may be an angle I'm missing.

Disclosure: this is a scenario I'm working on for a short story/novelette for submission to a non-SLP anthology, if I can get things to gel right. Just not sure of all of the players, and trying to untangle the politics of late Elizabethan England is taking me longer to work out that it should.

This leads to issues, several issues I do no think you can butterfly away. First and foremost, parliament was hoping Elizabeth would marry and at least sire an heir, This Edward would be of interest to them especially as it makes, Elizabeth's political situation possibly better or worse.

Elizabeth Had Mary Queen locked up in the Tower of London for a considerable period of time as She was pretty much the closest heir to the throne, but also someone in a tricky situation. She never had much power in Scotland, largely due to Elizabeth's shenanigans but she claimed the English throne, and may have had some political capital in France. Also she was Catholic, and that contributed to her get receiving sympathy or at least being seen as legitimate ruler from the realm's Catholics and them causing the Easter Rising because of it. Edward would be born before Elizabeth had her locked up in 1567, and it might change her calculus entirely on this matter. I'm not anyone would approve of having her locked up in the first place. Also the existence of this bastard child, would make Elizabeth look like a complete hypocrite in terms of criticizing Mary's marriage choices, and if you do keep Mary getting imprisoned a thing, those two could interact making a things difficult for Elizabeth. But I don't know how someone of such importance would kept hidden.

Edward would probably be encouraged to be legitimized, especially if preserving the dynasty is important. It would make England more secure in that give or take Mary Queen of Scots. Also the existence of a son, might see him get legitimized if they think he could carry on the dynasty and actually be a way for Elizabeth to have an heir that doesn't entangle England (and Ireland) with another country. Even Poland-Lithuania was willing to accept if Sigismund had a bastard child despite him being a bastard, because his death as the last Jagielleon would leave things in turmoil. Because the alternative is to either accept a then living Mary Queen Scotts who could bring in Scotland or whoever she marries assuming no OTL fate as king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, or James VI who might be seen as a less desirable option now. Because James was only backed because Elizabeth did not marry or have an heir, with a bastard in play and a more than likely known one.

Yeah, as other's have pointed there's a lot of moving parts that may or may not be in play, just by the premise alone. But, depending on the exact premise of the work, your aiming to be published, you might not need to be so mindful of all of those moving parts, a reference here or there, could work.
 
There was, IIRC, an older nobleman in England who basically offered to marry Elizabeth when she came to the throne, more as a pro forma thing than anything more serious. She turned him down and that was that – from what I recall, he died shortly afterwards. What if she did marry him, on the understanding the match would only be temporary, and got impregnated before her husband died? There would be a legitimate child of proven English stock, which would make the succession a little easier at least in the short term.

I’ll look it up if anyone’s interested.

Chris
 
Thanks for the input, everyone.

I take the point which several people have made that practically speaking, it would be impractical for Elizabeth I to have such a child, and that it would probably provoke a storm of butterflies even if it happened.

For the purposes of turning this into a story, I've gone with butterfly-minimalism. This is for a market where butterflies aren't really considered as part of alternate history. As @BBadolato suggested, I've used some points such as the fate of Mary Queen of Scots being referenced without being the core of the story.

To avoid any problems with first publication rights, I'm not posting the story here, even in the Writing Forum. However, if anyone would like to be a beta reader and provide any comments, I can arrange to PM or email it privately for feedback. The story is due at the end of the month, so if anyone is providing feedback I'd appreciate it by then (though can still email the story privately for critique after submission).
 
Back
Top