How close was Reginald Pole to becoming the King of England and being elected Pope?

by PlumbumDirigible

First thing's first, I am aware that holding both positions simultaneously would be a huge conflict of interest and would almost certainly never happen. My question is not regarding whether or not that would even be possible.

I had two different professors assert both of these about Reginald Pole:

That he was next in line to inherit the throne of England upon the death of Edward VI. Something happened which prevented him from ascending and instead Mary I became the Queen of England in 1553. This was brought up, but not elaborated on.

I know that there was opposition to Mary becoming queen as she would restore Roman Catholicism as the kingdom's religion after Edward's Protestant reign. Was Pole being an ordained Cardinal an obstacle to him becoming king? Was there a greater fear of potential changes he would institute as a member of the clergy? Or was his denial of the throne more so a 'line of succession' issue?

Pole should have been elected Pope following the death of Paul III but votes were miscounted and he came up just short of the necessary two-thirds. The claim I found curious was not that he was almost elected, but that he actually should have been elected as he had the required number. Again, the assertion was that some mishap occurred and it was not realized that Pole in fact had two-thirds of the votes; the outcome being the conclave would end there with Pole being the new Pope.

As far as I know, it's commonly accepted that Pole was barely short of the requisite two-thirds and fell out of favor as the debate continued. Was there any controversy at the time with regards to Pole almost being elected? Has credible evidence been found that he did have enough support, but was sabotaged or a mistake was made and the votes were not counted correctly? If there is insufficient evidence of this claim, why did Pole come so close and then fall out of favor upon further deliberation?

Both of the professors basically said that Reginald Pole was next in line to become the King of England and Pope, but was prevented (or passed over) for each position. My question seeks to address the veracity of each claim. If I can clarify anything, please let me know. Also, if I can organize this better let me know how.

While I don't know about the Papacy, Pole was definitely nowhere close to the crown of England. His best hereditary claim to the crown came from his being the grandson (in the eldest surviving line) of George of Clarence, younger brother of King Edward IV of the House of York. However, the House of York had been defeated at Bosworth Field by Henry VII of the House of Tudor. One could still theoretically advance Yorkist claims without being called traitor by pointing to Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York daughter of Edward IV; Henry VIII felt threatened enough by these claims to have Reginald Pole's older brother beheaded. Still, that was more a matter for war than for law.

So, no, the crown would not have legally gone to Reginald Pole. By Act of Parliament and Henry VIII's will, Edward IV's heir (as he died without issue) would be his half-sister Mary. Edward himself attempted to change this, ruling her a heretic and bastard (as she was, from an Anglican standpoint). The legal heir then would have been Frances Grey granddaughter of Henry VII, or if she had been excluded on the grounds of her parents' questionable marriage, Mary Queen of Scots. In fact, Edward selected Frances Grey's daughter Jane, who was after nine days' reign arrested and later executed by Mary. But all this goes to say that there were many other heirs - Pole would not have been legally anywhere close to the top of the line.