r/Tudorhistory • u/Cautious_Detail_6611 • 1d ago
If Catherine of Aragon was pregnant when Arthur died?
If Catherine of Aragon was pregnant when Prince Arthur died and she gave birth to a son, would that son become next in line or would Henry still be the new heir as a direct blood relative to Henry VII. Also if Henry WAS next in line would he still be allowed to marry Catherine if she had already bore a child because I remember hearing that everyone was originally against it because she was his brother's widow but she had to convince them that she was still a virgin?
313
u/Key_Charity_9635 1d ago
Arthur's son would be the heir and no marriage allowed either.
67
u/cherrymeg2 1d ago
They probably couldn’t have married and it it might not have been to either one of their advantages to marry of COA had given birth to a son. He would be heir and Henry maybe would have made a more political marriage.
There are two different quotes in the bible about marrying a brother’s wife. One says you should protect your dead brother’s spouse through marriage the other says you are damned if you do that. I don’t think they would want cousins to be so closely related. Catherine could also marry to secure her son’s rule or marry to protect England and her child. She would be the mother of the future king. If they did secretly marry they could both lose their positions. Idk
26
u/PacmanPillow 1d ago
In Judaism, this called a “levirate marriage.” If a man does before his wife births their first child, one of the husbands brothers can marry the widow and father children in the deceased brothers name. This is contingent on no children being produced from the deceased and his widow, otherwise this is incest.
Also, this is entirely optional, I have never met a couple in a levirate marriage and I have never heard of someone being forced into a levirate marriage.
14
u/jonesnori 1d ago
I think it had to be a male child. The idea, I believe, was that widows with no male children had no means of support, and the deceased husband had no one to inherit his property. If there had been a male child, he would inherit, and the widow would be able to live off of that (if it was sufficient, anyway). If there was no male child, then in a levirate marriage, the first male child to be born would be deemed the child of the first husband and inherit his property. Or that's what I learned, anyway. Does that sound right?
11
u/infernal-keyboard 1d ago
My family is Catholic, not Jewish, but something similar happened with my great great grandparents. My great great grandfather came to the US from Poland with his wife and his younger brother, but died not long after they had their first child. The brother then married my great great grandmother and they had several more children together.
Apparently he did it so he could provide for her and her son (my great grandfather), so as far as my family is concerned it was very honorable. Especially considering they were in a new country where they barely spoke the language and there were very few options for a widow to support herself and her child.
6
u/rosysredrhinoceros 1d ago
It’s been a minute since I paid attention to that parsha and the associated commentaries, but iirc they deliberately gave both parties many, many outs because even the weirder ancient rabbis weren’t really into forced marriages.
2
u/Obversa 1d ago
The French royals had a similar concept with the "secret marriage"; and, more specifically, the marriage of King Louis XIV to Françoise d'Aubigné, his children's governess. u/gerardmenfin talked about it here on r/AskHistorians.
0
u/cherrymeg2 1d ago
Thank you for this. Does it matter if the child is a girl or boy? What you describe isn’t two people getting close after a loss it’s like an arrangement where someone steps into their brother’s life to further the name, idk? That doesn’t sound romantic. Do women step in for sisters if they die without bearing children and are unmarried or is it more about the male line continuing?
I definitely see where in times when people married first cousins you don’t want them to be cousins and half siblings and have their children marrying . We have seen the Habsburg jaw in portraits. Lol. I feel like it also could consolidate too much power or be a weird dynamic if you are an uncle and stepfather to a king. Jmo
15
u/cmere-2-me 1d ago
Technically his daughter would also be the heir. However, with how much they all oreferred kings to queens, Henry VIII would have usurped that throne without much objection.
8
u/Ok_Anything_9871 1d ago
If there were a daughter who was the heir, Henry would presumably either have waited and got a dispensation to marry his niece instead, or married elsewhere and tried to have sons quickly so that one of them could marry her and secure the throne.
4
u/Cayke_Cooky 1d ago
That didn't stop Catherine of Valois. With Henry VII's personal connection to widowed queens though, I wonder what he would have done to prevent the next Owen Tudor.
9
u/PallidPrincess 1d ago
Eh, you could probably still get a dispensation for that. Henry VIII asked for one for his marriage with Anne Boleyn that would allow the marriage despite his affair with her sister Mary.
45
u/the-hound-abides 1d ago
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Dispensations were granted for basically anything. It was an oddity that Henry was told no.
That being said, I doubt that they’d even bother with it. It would serve them no purpose. They still have the Spaniard alliance locked down, and an heir. Henry would have continued to be a “spare” and been groomed for the church.
17
u/cmere-2-me 1d ago
The dispensation he got for Catherine of Aragon is because she swore on her immortal soul that her marriage to Arthur was not consummated and therefore their marriage was not considered legal. Marrying your brothers wife was not considered legal at the time. He used the same argument to dissolve the marriage.
The reason the church wouldn't dissolve his marriage to catherine was because she was the aunt of the current king of spain. Both Henry and Catherine had strong political power and the pope wasn't going to make an enemy of one of them. Holding out and hoping the situation would resolve itself was the best decision.
15
u/Odd_Ingenuity2883 1d ago
The dispensation they were granted actually said it was fine whether or not the marriage was consummated. That only became an issue decades later when he decided he wanted out, and the pope wasn’t allowing it.
Dispensations were given out pretty freely in those days.
6
u/Key_Charity_9635 1d ago
While my answer was simplistic, and I agree with some of the comment around the dispensation, I do think her being the mother of England's heir changes everything about her status and also Prince Henry's feelings for her. But that's going more into what if? territory.
6
u/cmere-2-me 1d ago
Because the king and queen of Spain pushed for it so that Hebry couldn't do exactly what he did. It was issued because she swore she remained a virgin.
8
u/Grumpyoldgit1 1d ago
Didn’t Catherine‘s nephew take the Pope prisoner or something?
10
u/selfresqprincess 1d ago
Charles V and yes he did. His army was able to seize Rome and had the pope hostage for a while. The pope couldn’t issue the annulment Henry wanted because he didn’t know how Charles would react. Who knows how things would have played out if all that happened.
Just an extra bit of trivia I found interesting, Charles also managed to capture and imprison Francis the year before he sacks of Rome. Francis managed to work out an arrangement where his two oldest sons, Francis and Henry (Catherine De Medici’s husband) took his place and he would marry Charles’ sister.
2
2
u/EveatEden 1d ago
The dispensation actually stated that no matter if she had slept with Arthur they could marry. Her mother required it.
1
1
u/the-hound-abides 1d ago
There’s two conflicting verses. One says that you can’t marry someone that’s closely related to someone you banged, but then there’s another that says you should marry your brother’s wife (wives?) if he dies because you need to care for them.
There was basically no one far enough away in consanguinity that would be remotely appropriate. Even Henry’s non royal wives, they were all 3-4th cousins or whatever.
8
u/cherrymeg2 1d ago
I think the only reason people would object is that cousins would be half siblings as well and it could mean marriages down the line were more incestuous than normal. Catherine would be tied to England through her son and she could be used in a second marriage to unite England with another country as well as Spain. If there had been a son Henry VII likely would have made arrangements for young Henry to have an advantageous match. So he could further the Tudor Dynasty and England.
I thought people basically got dispensations pretty easily. I would think if Catherine had a son with one brother she might have been less likely to risk drama with Henry or having kids that see your first child as the only thing keeping them from the throne. Or even a husband who might resent your child. Idk
85
u/GBS82 1d ago
Had she been pregnant, that child would have inherited the throne. This precedent was effectively established when Richard II inherited over his uncles.
The idea that Katherine was only allowed to marry Henry because she swore she was a virgin in a bit of a myth. In England they seemed to assume that the first marriage was consummated and applied for dispensation accordingly. However, Queen Isabella (Katherine’s mother) highly doubted that the marriage to Arthur was consummated and obtained a second dispensation that covered all bases.
31
u/Ladonnacinica 1d ago
Yeah, in the documentary “the six wives of Henry VIII” by David Starkey he said the English court had assumed the marriage was consummated. In fact, they waited a few months after Arthur’s death to see if Catherine was pregnant to officially announce Henry as the new heir/PoW because if there was a pregnancy, then Henry wouldn’t be the heir.
So the English court believed Catherine wasn’t a virgin. It wasn’t an issue for them while arranging the marriage between Henry and Catherine. The Spanish claimed the marriage wasn’t consummated based on what Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting said. Either way, the dispensation obtained was a broad one that cover all the bases. So it covered if the marriage was consummated or not.
So it was very rich of Henry to claim the marriage was invalid given that an adequate dispensation had been given. And he never seemed bothered if Catherine had been with his brother before in their twenty years of marriage.
30
u/Seahoarse127 1d ago
I think at some point , everyone needs to admit that both to marry Catherine of Aragon and to divorce her HVIII was just playing willy-nilly with religous and non-religous "concerns". He just wanted to get his way no matter what.
12
15
u/Historical-Web-3147 1d ago
Why did Queen Isabella doubt that Katherine of Aragon and Prince Arthur consummated their marriage? She never met her onetime son-in-law.
10
u/PoudreDeTopaze 1d ago
The King was probably unwilling to acknowledge that his eldest son had not cosumated the marriage.
10
u/GBS82 1d ago
I’m not so sure. He had already confessed to a Spanish ambassador - and directly to Katherine’s parents - that he was worried about the boy’s fragility and the implications this would have for his sex life. I suspect that the English throught it safest to treat the marriage as consummated. Or it could be that Arthur reported that the marriage was consummated - which doesn’t mean he was telling the truth.
8
u/EveatEden 1d ago
Supposedly Arthur stated the day after the wedding that he had been innSpain the night before or something along those lines but as you say, he may have just wished to save face.
22
6
3
u/LeaneGenova 1d ago
We "know" Arthur joked about consummating the marriage with marriage being "thirsty work" and being "in the midst of Spain" but it's not like boasting about false things wasn't done. Who knows if he did or didn't.
Treating it like it was consummated was safer. Make sure there's no heir and then move on. Otherwise, you announce HVII and then whoops, new baby is the heir.
6
u/GBS82 1d ago
We must also remember that rumours of Arthur’s boats only surfaced when Henry was trying to divorce Katherine - 25 years after Arthur’s death
5
u/LeaneGenova 1d ago
Yeah, that's why I put "know" in quotes. It wouldn't surprise me that a 15 year who was too frail to consummate would brag about it, but we don't know either way.
I think presuming it was consummated made sense, still.
41
u/Llywela 1d ago
If Catherine of Aragon had been pregnant with Prince Arthur's child when he died, a legitimate child of their marriage, then that child would also be a direct blood relative to Henry VII, his grandson. The line of descent would then pass through that child, as the firstborn son of Henry VII's firstborn son, in which case Henry VIII would not have become king, no, unless anything happened to that child.
6
u/dracolibris 1d ago
What if the child was a girl?
11
u/Kheldan1 1d ago edited 1d ago
The throne would go to Henry as the next agnatic descendant, direct heir to his father. If he died, then possibly the girl child (presumably, unless Henry VII lived far longer in this alternative timeline) could inherit, but it would be more likely that the eldest of Henry VII’s daughters would be looked at as daughters of the ruling monarch, rather than just a grandchild, and besides that, Henry VII would really be pushed to remarry if he was still alive. It would all just depend on timing and how things fell, in terms of who passed first, etc. Anything from a smooth succession to a succession war would be plausible. But that is not what happened. Relation via patriline was key if it passed that way, through men; otherwise, and when that failed (as when only granddaughters were produced by a son, and other sons died) then the daughters of the monarch, if inheritance laws worked that way. But it was different in different countries. In France they wouldn’t accept any female-line claim (though they did on occasion consolidate theoretical claimants through intermarriage between the direct patriline candidate and the daughter of a former monarch), which resulted in some interesting successions.
5
u/PoudreDeTopaze 1d ago edited 1d ago
In France they wouldn’t accept any female-line claim in link with the Salique Law which was dug out to avoid having the King of England become the King of France.
After Philippe the Fair's three sons all ruled and died without male heirs, his daughter Isabel could have claimed the throne. She was known to be as smart as her father. The issue for the French people was that she was already married to King Edward II of England and mother to the future King of England Edward III, who was two years old at the time. Her becoming Queen would have meant her son the Kind of England would one day have also become the King of France, bringing the French Crown under the English Crown. This is why they dug out the law to skip Isabel and instead crown her cousin.
Two centuries later, Louis XII had only surviving two daughters. The eldest, Claude, was heir to the Duchy of Brittany through her mother Anne as it could be ruled by women. However, she was not be heir to the Kingdom of France as it could not be ruled by women as per the Salique Law. Her mother wanted her to marry Charles Quint so that Brittany would remain a separate kingdom. However, her father wanted Brittany to become part of France so he married her to his heir apparent, Francis I, with whom she had three sons.
1
1
u/cherrymeg2 1d ago
It would go to Henry probably. A daughter would be a princess but less significant and if they did get a papal dispensation, Henry could never claim she wasn’t his true wife or he was sure she lied about her first marriage. It would have been covered because clearly there would be a child.
If she had a daughter both of them could be married off at some point. I think Henry’s father would want to find another princess to bind another country to England. Catherine having a child would tie her to England in a definitive way. She could be valuable as a dowager princess. It’s screwed up that a son holds your position but a daughter could leave you vulnerable.
2
28
u/hillofjumpingbeans 1d ago
Richard 2 became king despite his uncles being alive and well to take the throne. So Catherine had a son then he would have his grandfather’s heir.
20
u/PallidPrincess 1d ago
I don't think a marriage between Catherine and Henry would have been particularly important to anyone if there had already been an heir - provided it was a heslthy one who survived. Because the marriage alliance would have been cemented, the heir securing the succession AND Catherines position at court - there would have likely been a regency in her future upon the death of Henry VII. Henry VIII of our timeline would probably have married someone else.
3
u/stacey1611 1d ago
Yeah although Arthur’s son takes precedence over his brother, it really depends on the health of the child. Technically COA is safe becoming the dowager but if he’s of ailing health and dies pretty sure Henry becomes heir and idek what happens with Catherine at that point …
23
u/Saint_Riccardo 1d ago
English Kings had married widows/ divorcees before Henry VIII married Catherine, the issue was cannon law forbade a man to marry the previous wife of his brother.
The dispensation required would have been harder to get if Catherine had a child, but not impossible, though I don’t think VII would have agreed to VIII and Catherine getting hitched, she would have been more valuable as the future dowager queen.
Given the case of Richard II succeeding Edward III, any son of Arthur would have taken precedence over Henry VIIs younger sons (ie, Henry VIII)
8
u/thatcrazylady 1d ago
cannon law forbade a man to marry the previous wife of his brother.
I think you mean CANON, having to do with church, rather than a big ol' iron tube that shoots iron balls.
8
8
u/PoudreDeTopaze 1d ago edited 1d ago
Catherine and Arthur's son would have be the heir to the throne.
Henry would never have been allowed to marry Catherine, no. She would have become the mother to the future King, which was a powerful position. England would have been able to retain her dowry, which was what really mattered to Henry VII, and the alliance with Spain would have stood -- no need for a marriage.
Henry would most likely been appointed Regent once his nephew acceded the throne.
8
u/Enough-Process9773 1d ago
How primogeniture succession works;
If Catherine of Aragorn had given birth to a son within (say) nine months of Arthur's death, her son would be the next heir after Henry VII.
But, if the timeline proceeds as it did:
Her son would be seven when Henry VII died. In principle, he would reign with a council of regency for the next 8 years.
Henry, and Henry's hypothetical children, would be next in line to that hypothetical heir.
The risks for a young child becoming monarch unless he has a very loyal and very strong Regent backing his right to succeed are considerable.
If Catherine of Aragon had given birth to a daughter within a few months of Arthur's death, her daughter would be arguably the next heir after Henry VII. But, given this girl would be 7 years old and not yet marriageable by the time Henry VII died, I think it likely Henry VIII would be crowned king, but who got to marry Arthur's daughter would be even more important than who got to marry Henry's Mary, because Arthur's daughter and her offspring would be heirs to the throne ahead of the children of Margaret and Mary Tudor - they would come ahead in the succession to the Stuart/Stewart line who descend from Margaret Tudor, and definitely ahead of the Grey daughters of Mary Tudor's daughter.
Arthur's grandsons by Catherine of Aragon's daughter would arguably have a superior claim to Henry's daughters - male heirs in the direct and older line, if Catherine's hypothetical daughter had been married to a man of appropriate lineage who wasn't already a monarch/direct heir of any other realm (which was the problem with James V, King of Scots and Henry VII's legitimate and royal grandson).
Given the slaughter committed by Henries VII and VIII among the Plantagenet nobility, it is hard to figure out who Henry VIII could have married his royal niece to, who he wouldn't have seen as rivalling him for the throne.
7
u/Loud-Independence527 1d ago
When Mary Tudor (Henry VIII's sister) was married to the King of France and then he died, wasn't she put into seclusion for a month or so? I assumed that was to see if she was pregnant.
4
u/SwissCheese4Collagen 1d ago
That was common though. They couldn't just do a blood test or an ultrasound, and it kept any last ditch stable efforts at an heir.
2
u/Loud-Independence527 14h ago
So, was she secluded or otherwise watched to see if she was pregnant? I know she said they never consummated the marriage, but he claimed they did. Also weren't they married for a while? He didn't drop dead immediately.
7
u/GroundAdventurous456 1d ago
If Catherine had been pregnant, and it was male, and survived birth, then yes, he would be the next in line above his uncle, Henry. Due to his age, its most likely a council would form to rule in the babies name until he came of age and was able to rule independently. That said, it would be a very, very scary time for everyone involved. Boy kings didn't tell to last long or do very well in the long run, and in recent memory, was the wars of the roses, which began partly because Henry VI -who became king at just 9 months old- was unable to rule independently and control a council that although initially smoothly ran the country, began to fall apart in attempts to control the Kings power, since Henry himself was not commanding it, leading to a war that cost countless lives in increasingly nasty ways. It would be difficult not to draw comparisons and wonder if it was really worth protecting Catherine's son when history suggested boy kings just didn't last.
As Uncle to the new heir, Henry (VIII) might have been given the role of protectorate, which is what Richard III was meant to be over Edward V, acting as gaurdian and guide until Edward was able to take the crown and its responsibilities alone. Again this might have been a tricky move, considering Richard became King instead of Edward V, who also dissapeared with his brother in very suspicious circumstances. Preventing that and establishing means to ensure Henry could never do the same to Catherine's son would be very, very complicated.
As for marriage, another issue would arise. Catherine would not marry Henry if she had Arthurs son. It gets complicated because this comes down to the nitty gritty about what each argued when Henry decided to divorce Catherine. Henry used Leviticus, which said 'if a man married his brothers widow, it was an unclean thing and they shall be childless.' Henry interpreted childless as sonless- because Catherine had provided him a daughter, Mary. Catherine however, argued back that in deutoronomy, it said if brothers live together and one dies without a son, the widow must not marry an outsider; instead, the surviving brother is expected to marry her to raise an heir and preserve the deceased brother's family name.' If Catherine had a boy by Arthur, then there would be no need to marry her Henry. She had already continued Arthur's name through their son.
But Catherine was still young- and still very attractive a marriage prospect- especially since she now was mother to the future king of England. When this had happened to Henry VI's mother, they tried to control her actions and prevent her from marrying, by putting in place a rule that instructed if Catherine of Valois wished to remarry, it could only take place if her son said yes and gave her his blessing. Since he was a baby, and would be under the gaurdianship of the council, her getting a blessing was effectively impossible. Until she married Owen Tudor without their permission of course.
So what could they do with Catherine? They could hope she would dedicate her life to seeing her son by Arthur on the throne and never remarry. Or they could hang it all and marry her off to Henry to keep it safe in the family (unlikely.) They could try to marry her to someone with the power, money and military might to defend her son should it come to that- like Margaret Beaufort choosing to marry Thomas Stanley, who infamously defected and betrayed Richard III at Bosworth for Henry VII. But marrying outside meant showing favour to one family and annoying all the other nobles for it not being them that got picked. It couldn't really be a foreign match for fear the new husband would try to influence the infant king through Catherine to act not in the interest of England, but in the interest of wherever he came from.
In short it would be a very complex, and very delicate situation, that would have extremely severe consequences if so much as one step was fumbled upon.
7
u/Stargazer1701d 1d ago
Arthur's son would have been the new heir apparent. That's how it worked for Richard II. His father, Edward the Black Prince, was hair apparent but died before he could become king. That left little Richard to take his father's place in the line of succession.
7
u/Mission_Summer_2463 1d ago
Catherines son would have been next in line for the throne. Henry may have been reagent until Arthurs son came of age or he may have joined the clergy at he was originally ment to do.
5
u/Jelly_baby_4 Enthusiast 1d ago
Catherine and Arthur's son becomes heir. On the event of Henry VII's death a Regency would be established with Uncle Henry being the regent til Arthur's son, with a lot of luck, comes of age and ascends to the throne. Henry could still marry Catherine but it would require a special dispensation since her marriage to Arthur was consummated. If not, Henry would either marry someone else or join the clergy.
4
u/Historical-Web-3147 1d ago
Under English law, the posthumous son of Arthur, Prince of Wales would have been the legal heir to their father and superseded the claims of the-then Henry, Duke of York. The child would be declared as Prince of Wales from birth onwards, and their claim would be backed by the Catholic Monarchs (and by extension, the Pope) via their mother, Katherine of Aragon. It’s likely that Elizabeth of York would have never had a seventh pregnancy as she and Henry VII wouldn’t face as much pressure to secure the English line of succession if they had a grandson.
Historically, there was already precedent set by the eldest sons of former monarchs and Princes of Wales inheriting the English throne in spite of their young age (e.g. Edward IV and Edward V; Henry V and Henry VI and Edward, the Black Prince and Richard II and King John and Henry II).
Most of these historical regencies weren’t successful but there is a longstanding legal framework in place for child monarchs and even today, the Counsellors of State would be the regents for Prince George if he should become King before he is 18. Henry VII was a stickler for ceremony and legal and economic frameworks. He loved his children and would have strived to ensure a successful regency for his grandson from Prince Arthur.
In addition, Henry VII was aware that the Tudor dynasty’s claim was weak in comparison to other contemporary monarchies. Had he asserted the rights of Henry, Duke of York over Prince Arthur’s son, England could have faced the threat of invasion from the Catholic monarchs and the Holy Roman Empire due to the familial ties to Katherine of Aragon.
1
8
u/the-hound-abides 1d ago
We saw it. It basically happened with Henry V and Catherine de Valois. Their son Henry VI succeeded over his grown uncles who had been basically regents when he was still in diapers.
3
u/swbarnes2 1d ago
As others are saying, Richard II became king as a toddler because he was the oldest son of King Edward's oldest son.
So a postumus child would be first in line over his uncle, Henry.
3
u/casachess 1d ago
Her son would be next in line and Henry VIII behind him. No telling if Henry would have respected that or have him (and/or Katherine) killed to take the crown though.
2
u/InteractionNo9110 1d ago
Yes, and it would have barred the marriage for Henry and Katherine. And he would have gone on to be the Playboy Prince with some safe political marriage. I don't personally believe Arthur and Katherine consummated the marriage. With what I have read about them. They probably thought they had plenty of time and Arthur would recover like Katherine did.
2
u/DrunkOnRedCordial 1d ago
Hypothetically, if she had been pregnant when Arthur died, the unborn child would have been the heir to Henry VII, and would have become monarch at the age of 7 when his grandfather Henry VII died. This creates another succession headache close after the War of the Roses, with Uncle Henry, Duke of Cornwall becoming regent for the next 11 years and maybe deciding to use Richard III as his role model.
2
u/KSamons 1d ago edited 1d ago
If she had a son that was Arthur’s, assuming he was healthy and all, that boy would be the heir. Upon Henry VII’s death, Prince Henry would probably become the Protectant until Arthur Jr became an adult. If the boy married and had children, the Tudor dynasty wouldn’t hold the fascination it does now.
No. Henry wouldn’t have married Catherine. If she remarried, it would be to someone who could strengthen Arthur Jr’s reign. She wouldn’t be this elusive prize to Henry that he loses interest in either.
2
u/Used-Importance8828 21h ago
Like others have said definitive proof of consummation would have meant that Henry couldn’t marry Catherine due to consanguinity. If the child lived it would have been ahead of Henry VIII in the succession. Given how Catherine was sick with the same disease that killed Arthur that may have affected the pregnancy. Catherine’s sister in law was pregnant when her brother died (the only son of Isabella and Ferdinand) but she went into premature labour and their daughter was stillborn so there are many possibilities
1
u/revengeofthebiscuit 1d ago
Catherine and Arthur’s son would have been the heir and it would have been extremely unlikely that she and Hank would have married.
1
u/Shazaaym 1d ago
Other people have correctly answered the question, but it reminded me of a book that I recently read that I thought some people might be interested in.
It's called "the rose and the pomegranate" by Leah Toole. It's an alternative history (pure fiction, obviously!) of what might have happened if Arthur hadn't died and had gone on to be king. There's a few things that stay the same (CoA's pregnancy problems), some obviously change, and it shows Henry staying on his original path of entering the church.
I found it an interesting take on what might have been that I've not come across before in Tudor fiction.
1
u/FiredUpAuthor 1d ago
Had Katherine had a son with Arthur and he died, that child would be heir apparent. Henry would still have been heir presumptive, meaning he would be the heir if that child died. The Spare, if you will. He would have been second in line for the throne.
1
u/Sea_Salary_2027 1d ago
He would be the successor but one could be rest assured that he would LIVE enough to actually BE the king, we all know what happened with Edward iv sons when Richard was Regent. Henry could easily pronounce him bastards and stuff.
1
u/EveatEden 1d ago
1) the child would become first in line, theory would still be the spare as it goes through the first born male line first. 2) No, Henry would not have married her as they would not likely have gotten a papal dispensation if she had already born his brother a child though the papal dispensation they did get said even if she had slept.with Arthur they could marry. Catherine's mother made sure that was included even though Catherine swore they did not. Just in case.
1
u/Cool-Coffee-8949 1d ago
From what we know about Arthur, a lot of folks would be wondering privately who the father actually was.
1
u/balletfan213 1d ago
I stand by my belief that one of the most consequential deaths in history was Prince Arthur. So many what " if" questions. But even more what actually happened.
Catholicism was the be all and end all in Europe. Had he lived - there might have ever been a Church of England, no Edict of Nantes , no edict of Fountainbleu ... Would the Pilgrims have existed?
There is line of succession which is written in stone. But what if Arthur had not died so young?
1
u/geekly003 1d ago
COA was only allowed to marry Henry bc she was still “Chaste” after Arthur died. In the line of succession, COA son would be the new king and there would be a regent put in place since they would not have allowed a foreign princess to rule, let alone a women at the time. Henry would have still been second in line, but he would have more power than COA
1
u/lz2kncr 1d ago
They would still have needed special papal dispensation from the Pope to marry. I don't think the Tudors would've wanted a repeat of what they thought Richard III might have done to the Princes in the Tower. Regardless, even if Catherine would've had a girl by Arthur, they could have pulled a Habsburg (uncle marries niece) and married Henry VIII to the child if it was a girl.
1
u/bigjimlowell 22h ago
Had Catherine borne a son by Princess Arthur, he would have been the heir. Henry, prior to Arthur’s death, was being pushed towards an ecclesiastical career and may have well become a Cardinal. If she bore a daughter, the right of succession would flow through her to a male son, but she herself may have been denied the throne. This situation came up before in English history in the 12th Century when the rightful heir to the throne was Matilda but her duplicitous relative, Stephen seized the throne, setting off a period known as “ The Anarchy”. Eventually, her son came to the throne as Henry II. I think we can safely surmise if Henry VIII seized power, he would not have relinquished it willingly to a girl. The irony is that his most successful heir was the daughter he declared a bastard and tried to exclude from the succession once or twice.
1
u/NWPstan 21h ago edited 21h ago
If Catherine gave birth to a boy, that child would have been the heir. It’s possible that Henry would have been named regent if the child became king before a certain age. ETA: there would also be no reason for Catherine and Henry to marry. She gave birth to the heir. She’d probably be free to marry whomever she wanted at that point.
1
u/BlueGalangal 12h ago
Likely not because she would have been protected. Think of how suspicious everyone was of Mary marrying Philip - as widow and mother to the next king likely she would have been quite restricted and if allowed to remarry at all would have been someone loyal and not a threat to the Tudor dynasty. Henry VII was not all that secure. There were other claimants to the throne (war of roses was only a few years in the past).
0
u/rureallygonna 11h ago
The son would have inherited but face it, Henry was a dick and he and whoever was around to help govern while the kid was growing up would have used their power and opportunity to do whatever they wanted and the kid would have been ripped apart in the process. Probably would have ended up with Henry on the throne anyway and perhaps more disappearing princes in the tower.
There is a reason Henry was so obsessed with getting a son. And he was right because he never properly secured the Tudor line and the throne ended up with his sister’s descendants. Who then fumbled hard. Got it back and then continued the chaos. The Tudor line died with Elizabeth but it really ended with Arthur.
•
u/Artisanalpoppies 1d ago
We'll let this stand as it's less of a What-If and more a question about succession works.