#philip ii didn't want elizabeth to be executed; altho if she were already married i don't know what his feelings about the whole thing woul

[fideidefenswhore]

What if Anne Boleyn had lived to see Mary come to the throne? Do you see Mary doing everything she can to get rid of her? Would Anne suffer from the same fate as Thomas Cramner?

Mm, that's a popular AU to be sure, but I think the political realities would have been rather more complex in such a counterfactual.

First, I'd have to ask the circumstances of them both surviving and Mary coming to the throne-- has Henry had his marriage with Anne annulled, with her being exiled from court? Or has Anne been Queen throughout the remainder of his reign? Has she had a son? Has there been any alteration or reversal to the Act of Succession (1534)? Has there been any alteration or reversal to the Act that declared Anne regent for her children, should Henry die? Have all her child/ren died, or has Elizabeth merely been married abroad (ie, is she currently living at the French court, wed to whichever prince or duke)? Does Mary have a husband, and if so, who is he, and what wealth and power and claims (to the English throne, or others, or merely title) does he have?

Assuming the second, and assuming Mary, as a sole femme, has a successful coup regardless (so, perhaps Anne attempts to assume regency with Elizabeth but is overthrown), again, the political realities are going to be complex. Edward VI's death happening in such secrecy and him altering the succession to make Jane Grey his heir without the approval of Parliament were circumstances that were to her advantage; all bolstered the rhetoric and justification of her coup, accession, and reign (based on the Act of Succession of 1543, even though she reversed her illegitimacy therein). The Marian myth was that John Dudley, out of pure ambition and greed, usurped the royal prerogative (of both HVIII and Edward VI) and forged an altered succession to place his daughter-in-law on the throne (and, as you mentioned, Cranmer as well).

So, in these altered circumstances, Mary's task would be near impossible. How could her propagandists argue that Anne had done the same, when all she had done was adhere to Acts of Parliament which were very well-known by the people? What would the justification be for her arrest in this scenario, much less execution? Historically, after his arrest, Mary petitioned the Pope at the time to have Cranmer excommunicated (likely, she didn't want to have any parallels with her father drawn in the case of the execution of Bishop/Cardinal Fisher) before his execution. In this, she succeeded, and being thus excommunicated, Cranmer was no longer Archbishop of Canterbury upon his day of execution. I would imagine that she would attempt the same in this counterfactual with AB and Cranmer both, and whether she was successful in securing their excommunications might then inform her actions.

Edit: Tbh, what I conceptualize for this scenario would be more like a succession/civil war for the throne with two female claimants (so, Mary and Elizabeth/Anne’s regency), similar in nature to that of Princess Juana vs Princess Isabella in the 1470s (it would be … very difficult for Mary to argue Elizabeth wasn’t Henry’s child had these Acts of Parliament remained and Anne herself remained Queen, though, as Isabella did for Juana re: Henry IV of Castile, since she didn’t really manage to do that even in the aftermath of Anne’s adultery accusations, and she certainly tried) and I think it’d be a toss-up as to who would emerge the victor. Reason being, as I was just reminded of answering another ask, Anne was the greatest landowner among all the Tudor consorts. Mary I was also a great landowner by the time Edward VI died, because the council was at pains to ‘buy her goodwill’… this backfired, though, because it strengthened her base of power (Jeri L. McIntosh has done some fantastic work in this subject, btw), and played a huge part in why her coup succeeded. Simply put, landowning was power, was wealth. That’s probably what it would come down to, had she been granted as many lands during the beginning of the regency council for Elizabeth or whatever son AB might have had.

Another thing that would tip the scales would be if Mary received foreign aid via Imperial forces, but given Charles V never supplied any in 1553…

And again, excommunication, although Elizabeth or whatever son probably wasn’t going to be excommunicated as a minor (just like Edward VI wasn’t), maybe Anne might have been? This could also be a factor in whether or not Mary received foreign aid from any Catholic powers. Although, yk, HVIII and Elizabeth I both were excommunicated and yet they were never ousted from their thrones.

Anyway! Something to think about . Thanks for the intriguing question ☺️