It is easy to take the long reign of Elizabeth I for granted. But less than four years after Elizabeth ascended the throne, her life was nearly cut short, threatening to bring down the curtain on the Tudor dynasty. What might have ensued is explored by Dr Andrew Thrush, editor of our Lords 1558-1603 section…

On 10 October 1562 Elizabeth I, England’s 29-year old queen, the last of the Tudors, was suddenly taken ill at Hampton Court Palace. By 16 October it was clear she was suffering from smallpox, which had recently claimed the life of the young countess of Bedford. So severe was her condition that her courtiers supposed that her death was imminent. The queen herself shared this fear, as she urged the Privy Council to appoint as Lord Protector her favourite, Lord Robert Dudley, in the event of her demise. Somehow, though, she pulled through. By 25 October she was on her feet again.

What would have happened had Elizabeth, like Mary II in 1694, succumbed to smallpox? Who would have succeeded her, given that she was unmarried, childless and lacked surviving siblings? And what would have been the implications of her death for the recent restoration of Protestantism? Would England have returned to the Catholic fold, as it had in 1553, following the short reign of the Protestant boy king Edward VI? Or would the Elizabethan religious settlement of 1559 have endured in some form?

On paper at least, the rightful successor to Elizabeth was her first cousin once removed, Mary Queen of Scots. Mary was the direct descendant of Henry VIII’s eldest sister, Margaret Tudor, and already considered herself the rightful Queen of England, on the grounds that Elizabeth had been declared illegitimate following the execution of her mother, Anne Boleyn in 1536. However, Mary was a committed Catholic. As such, she posed an existential threat, both to the Elizabethan religious settlement and to the lives and careers of many on the Privy Council, including the queen’s chief minister, Sir William Cecil, who were not eager to return to the persecution of Protestants that had characterized the reign of Elizabeth’s half-sister, Mary I. Pointing to the will of Henry VIII, which specifically barred the descendants of Margaret Tudor from the succession, they therefore resolved to set aside the claims of Queen Mary. This had the effect of forcing one of the leading Catholic members of the Council, the Lord Treasurer, William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester, to advance instead the candidacy of Margaret, Countess of Lennox, the daughter of Margaret Tudor by her second marriage (to the 6th Earl of Angus). Unlike Mary Queen of Scots, whose accession threatened not only the Protestant religious settlement but also the intrusion of Scots into English affairs, the Countess of Lennox had the advantage of being English-born. However, her Catholicism made her no less unacceptable to English Protestants.

Since a Catholic claimant to the throne was ruled out by a majority on the Privy Council, who else was in the running to succeed Elizabeth? Perhaps the strongest candidate was the 25-year-old Henry Hastings, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon. Directly descended from George, Duke of Clarence, the brother of Edward IV and Richard III, Huntingdon was the sole remaining Yorkist claimant to the throne. Huntingdon enjoyed impeccable religious credentials, having been educated alongside Edward VI, which made him acceptable to leading Protestant noblemen like William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke, Francis Russell, 2nd Earl of Bedford and Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk. He was the brother-in-law of the royal favourite, Lord Robert Dudley and the latter’s brother, Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick. Between them, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Pembroke, Bedford, Warwick and Dudley controlled much of the Midlands, East Anglia, South Wales and South-West England.

Huntingdon was not the only Protestant claimant available, though, as Lady Katherine Grey, the eldest surviving great-granddaughter of Henry VII and sister of the nine days’ queen, Lady Jane Grey, also enjoyed widespread support. Her claim was arguably stronger than Huntingdon’s, as she was the direct descendant of Henry VIII’s younger sister Mary, whose heirs were favoured by Henry VIII’s will. Lady Katherine was married to the Wiltshire-based Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. She also enjoyed the backing of the Lord Chamberlain, William Howard, Lord Howard of Effingham, who exercised influence in Surrey. Moreover, when Parliament met in 1563, it also became apparent that she enjoyed considerable support in the House of Commons. However, her candidacy was not without its complications. The legitimacy of her marriage to Hertford was questionable, and she herself was then a prisoner in the Tower for having married without royal approval. Moreover, if Lady Katherine were to be recognized as Elizabeth’s successor, what would be the status of her putative husband, Hertford? Would he accept that he was merely the queen’s consort, or would he demand, like Mary I’s husband, Philip II of Spain, to be recognized as king in his own right?

Because there were two non-Catholic claimants to the throne rather than one, there was a risk that Elizabeth’s death in 1562 would have precipitated civil war. However, mutual self-interest suggests that the two sides were unlikely ever to have come to blows for fear that the ultimate beneficiary would be Mary Queen of Scots. Although Mary had been ruled out of contention by the Privy Council, she might still have tried to take the throne by force. Until recently, she had been married to the French king, François II, who had endorsed her claim to the English throne. Although François was now dead, and his successor was preoccupied with a rebellion of the prince of Condé and Admiral Coligny, this did not mean that Mary would not eventually be able to call upon French support. In March 1563 peace returned to France, in time for the start of the new campaigning season.

Faced with the threat of a Franco-Scottish invasion, the two Protestant candidates for the throne, Huntingdon and Lady Katherine Grey, would either have been forced to bury their differences or fight in the hope of eliminating their rival quickly. In this power struggle, Huntingdon would have quickly gained the upper hand, as his backers were arguably stronger than Katherine’s and Katherine would still have been a prisoner in the Tower on Elizabeth’s death. The outcome of the ensuing struggle between Huntingdon and Mary Queen of Scots is perhaps less certain. However, it is probable that Mary would have been defeated. Her cause would have elicited little support among English Catholics, whose spiritual leaders, the Marian bishops, were under lock and key. Moreover, in the north of England, where Catholicism remained strong, anti-Scottish sentiments would probably have trumped hatred of Protestantism. Mary, too, could not have counted on the solid support of her Scottish subjects. During her absence in France, the Scottish Parliament had embraced the Protestant reformation. In all likelihood, therefore, many of Mary’s countrymen would have taken up arms against her. Of course, Mary’s side would probably have been bolstered by forces provided by France. However, in the recent Anglo-Scottish conflict of 1559-60, the Scots had suffered defeat despite French support. All this means that Elizabeth I’s death in 1562 was unlikely to have resulted in a Stuart succession and an early union of the crowns of England and Scotland.

Elizabeth’s most likely successor, then, was not Mary but Huntingdon. As Huntingdon lived on until 1604, there are reasonable grounds for supposing that he would have held the throne for the next forty years. What might then have occurred we cannot easily guess. However, we do know that Huntingdon’s wife never bore him any children. That alone is grounds for supposing that the early years of Huntingdon’s reign would have been characterized by a succession crisis not dissimilar to the one actually experienced by Elizabeth following her narrow brush with death. Sooner or later, ‘Henry IX’, like Henry VIII before him, would have come under pressure to annul his marriage and take another wife. In that event, his chief supporters, the Dudley brothers, might have experienced a fall akin to the one that had destroyed their father, the Duke of Northumberland in 1553.

ADT

Further reading (for those who enjoy counterfactual history):

Conrad Russell, ‘The Catholic Wind’ in Unrevolutionary England, 1603-1642 (London and Ronceverte, 1990)

Geoffrey Parker, ‘If the Armada had landed’, History, vol. 61, no. 203 (1976)