Philippa of Lancaster, Queen of Portugal

[Bernardino]

Great information...but by then this was not coherent...Once a line is put on the throne...the other lines are left behind, despite they may have more legitimate succession rights...Oh and by then the English were in majority Protestant...

[Prince_Lieven]

Great information...but by then this was not coherent...Once a line is put on the throne...the other lines are left behind, despite they may have more legitimate succession rights...Oh and by then the English were in majority Protestant...

Depends on how you look at it, Bernardino.   We've been discussing it on the Tudor board. Basically, Philippa, Elizabeth and Catalina's descendants all had more right to the throne than Henry VII. But all of Henry's successors were the legitimate heirs of Edward IV through Elizabeth of York.  

[Bernardino]

Philippa's blood intered into the Royal House of England (and Scotland) with Queen Henrietta Maria (whose ruling line died out with Queen Anne)...but also King George I was her descendant through his grand-father Kurfürst Friedrich V (he descendend from Philippa's gr-daughter Infta Leonor, married to Emperor Friedrich III)...

[Bernardino]

Oh and Catherine of Aragon and Queen Mary I also descended from her  

[Eric_Lowe]

No Catherine of Aragon was the great granddaughter of Philippa's half-sister Catalina, who married  back into Castile.  

[Bernardino]

Queen Filippa of Portugal (of Lancaster)
|
Inft John of Portugal, m. Isabella of Braganza
|
Isabella of Portugal, m. King John II of Castile
|
Queen Isabella II of Castile and Aragon
|
Catherine of Aragon
|
Queen Mary I of England and Ireland

Queen Mary descendend from both daughters of John of Gaunt...

[Eric_Lowe]

Yes that is why they say Catherine of Aragon has more right to the throne than the Tudors she married.  

[Bernardino]

Interesting saying indeed...never thought of that...it's ironic  ...

A pitty Mary I had no offspring (hope I haven´t hurt anyone... )...

[ilyala]

with philip?!!   that would have been a disaster!  

no matter how reasonable and kind and whatever the child would have been, imagine the english who *loved* mary and philip so much being accepting of a king/queen that is more spanish than english... at a time when spain was pretty much england's main rival!  

[Bernardino]

I knew this is polemic...

Still, time could change that...Being foreigner wasn't a barrier...

I don´t believe George I was more English than a child of Philipp and Mary...Still the British accepted him...but of course...religion was the key...

[ilyala]

I knew this is polemic...

Still, time could change that...Being foreigner wasn't a barrier...

I don´t believe George I was more English than a child of Philipp and Mary...Still the British accepted him...but of course...religion was the key...

it's not just religion. germans and english were not at war. even more so, german and english are related nations. spanish and english are very different. and, as i pointed out before, the spanish had at the time their colonial empire that the english envied and wanted to be a part of... even before mary, there had begun to exist quite a conflict between the two nations. mary just increased it by marrying a spanish prince. also, at the time that george i came to power, there was a stronger parliament and cabinet that did not necessailly depend on the monarch. the english constitutional monarchy evolved a lot because the first two hannoverian monarchs didn't speak much english. in the 16th century, we were talking about absolutist monarchy, even in england (where it had its limits, but still the monarch had the main power).

[Bernardino]

Surely we cannot change history: Mary I had no children...

But if she had had a surviving child...I think the English would have been strong enough to make the royal baby a true English...such as did the Scotch do to James VI...

But still it didn't happen...

When I pronounced that statement above...I was talking in genealogic terms...and less politically...

[Prince_Lieven]

Interesting saying indeed...never thought of that...it's ironic  ...

A pitty Mary I had no offspring (hope I haven´t hurt anyone... )...

It's an interesting saying, but inaccurate. Through his mother, Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII had perfect right to the throne of England under the laws of primogeniture.   Katherine had a claim, bit it wasn't better than Henry's!

[YaBB_Jose]

unlike Philippa's father John and grandfather Edward III!

Here's a good account of Philippa's life. She sounds very interesting, enterprising and flexible.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/philippa.html

D.João's illegitimate surviving children were by 2 different women.

http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo?lang=pt;i=8987

[ilyala]

Surely we cannot change history: Mary I had no children...

But if she had had a surviving child...I think the English would have been strong enough to make the royal baby a true English...such as did the Scotch do to James VI...

But still it didn't happen...

When I pronounced that statement above...I was talking in genealogic terms...and less politically...

james 1st was scottish. scottish people by that time spoke mostly english and the southern part was pretty much a sattelite autonomous english state. yes, they allied with france a lot and tried to rebel, but culturally and tradtionally and as personalities they were quite close to being english. (i am talking about southern scotland here). also, james adapted quite easily to england because it had a friendlier climate than the scottish one. in scotland he had permanent conflict with the presbiterian church members and then he came to england to discover a church he was heading. talk about good fortune . what i'm saying is that james was predisposed to being english and, also, scots and english are not as different as spanish and english.

mary tudor was english (half by blood and almost entirely by upbringing) and yet she had a spanish personality. this was 1. because in the divorce matters she stayed on her mother's side and she became stubbornly spanish. 2. because she was predisposed to be spanish. i don't mean to offend anyone spanish here, cause there's absolutely nothing wrong with being spanish. but as a person of also latin origin who had contact with germanic people, i have noticed a lot of differences. those differences were even bigger in the 16th century when there was no globalization, no nothing. latin personality and germanic personality do not match. it was clearly seen in the case of catherine of aragon and mary tudor. i sincerely do not think a spanish king on the english throne would have lasted much.