WI Catherine of Aragon was pregnant?

[American Empire]

What if Catherine of Aragon was pregnant before Arthur Tudor's death? The child's a healthy baby girl and we'll name her Mary. What happens next? Would she become Queen after her grandfather Henry VII died? Is Catherine of Aragon's status secured? Discuss!!!

[jycee]

Don't think she would become Queen.

Surely Henry VIII would still be ahead in succession over a foreign princess. However there might be no need to marry Catherine to Henry. Thus Catherine and Mary might just move back to Spain after Henry VII dies, and Henry VIII marries someone else.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by American Empire

What if Catherine of Aragon was pregnant before Arthur Tudor's death? The child's a healthy baby girl and we'll name her Mary. What happens next? Would she become Queen after her grandfather Henry VII died? Is Catherine of Aragon's status secured? Discuss!!!

What happens next? She obviously can't claim to have not had sex with Arthur, so the issue of marrying Henry becomes more problematic (and its not as if her demotion from her mother's death wasn't a bad thing as is, that plus this makes her status much worse than OTL).

Meanwhile, Henry has another son, who probably will be preferred over his niece - male preference over pure primogeniture.

Mary is probably married off early to someone Henry (whoever is old enough when she's of marriagable age) trusts, and the issue of "who's next in line after Henry VIII?" becomes more complicated with that Tudor-blooded line.

[American Empire]

Originally Posted by jycee

Don't think she would become Queen.

Surely Henry VIII would still be ahead in succession over a foreign princess. However there might be no need to marry Catherine to Henry. Thus Catherine and Mary might just move back to Spain after Henry VII dies, and Henry VIII marries someone else.

Mary would be born in England and her father would be Arthur Tudor, the Prince of Wales. Who the father is, is more important than who the mother is at this time.

[DrakeRlugia]

England had just emerged from the War of the Roses, and England's last memory of a reigning Queen was Empress Matilda -- whose brief reign was disastrous. Even Henry VIII was worried of leaving his throne to his daughter and desired a son above all else to avoid another series of civil wars from breaking out on his death. Whilst England has no laws barring a woman from inheriting, it's likely that upon Henry VII's death that Henry VIII is proclaimed king by the Privy Council -- he's a preferable choice to a young girl. Henry VII might even take steps before his death to ensure his son's succession, such as naming him Prince of Wales, and perhaps arranging a marriage for him instead of dawdling on the issue. Henry VII's main reason for wanting to keep Catherine around was to keep his hands on her dowry. If she has issue by Arthur but he still dies, he can still reasonably claim it and would have no need to remarry her to Henry VIII.

As for Catherine, I doubt she would move back to Spain. Even if Henry VIII becomes King, she's still mother of the heiress presumptive (at least, for now), and would see her status increased. Henry VIII would probably not marry her though. A probable choice might be one of Charles V's sisters, such as Eleanor of Austria, who was IOTL betrothed him for a time. As I stated above, Henry VII may arrange this marriage while he's still alive to boost Henry VIII's status. If his heir has a son before he even becomes king, it would definitely be helpful to his cause.

As for the little Princess Mary, it's probable that Henry would probably marry her to his eldest son. While there would certainly be a small age gap, it would unite Henry's son with Arthur's daughter and further cement the Tudor dynasty on the English throne. Little Mary may end up Queen of England, but not as Queen Regnant.

[Elfwine]

How is a marriage of first cousins going to cement the Tudor dynasty's claim to the throne?

[Velasco]

Well, there are several possibilities:

- Henry, Duke of York (future Henry VIII) is betrothed to his niece the Princess Mary. A Papal dispensation would be necessary but oh well. A twelve year difference is tough but workable. He would marry her in her childhood and consummate the union upon her second period. Obviously if he wanted to marry a foreign princess earlier than that he would already be King and in a position to put her aside without fear; there was also a pretty big possibility of her dieing in infancy and freeing him up.

- Henry, Duke of York, is pushed as royal heir and named Prince of Wales. He marries Catherine of Aragon in order to uphold the Spanish alliance. For the sake of peace, the girl Mary is sidelined in the succession and destined for a religious career. See for example Eleanor of Brittany. If Henry and Catherine have no surviving heirs, Mary is the next female successor, and could provide a childless Henry with an alternative line of succession by marrying one of her Stuart/Grey/Courtenay cousins.

- Henry, Duke of York, is pushed as royal heir and named Prince of Wales. He marries Eleanor of Austria and has the support of Philip, future Emperor and King of Castille. Catherine of Aragon is packed off back to Spain and the girl Mary is placed in a convent, awaiting to marry Henry VIII's eldest son. Catherine probably ends up marrying to her father's advantage: the Emperor Maxmilian I (widowed in 1510) or Charles III of Savoy, who was unmarried and 18 when he became duke in 1504.

- It's all possible that such drama/upheaval would encourage Henry VII to pursue his OTL negotiations for the hand of Joanna of Naples with greater intensity, potentially leaving us with one or two more Tudor heirs.

[Avitus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

How is a marriage of first cousins going to cement the Tudor dynasty's claim to the throne?

I suppose by not letting her run off and give some other ambitious SOB a claim to the throne, though that could certainly be done by either marrying her to someone too far off geographically to be a threat, or sending her to a convent. And that is assuming she lives to adulthood, which the OP didn't say has to happen, and would probably still prevent Henry and Catherine from hooking up.

Gosh I wonder what the world would look like if Henry VIII hadn't lost his marbles.

[Velasco]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

How is a marriage of first cousins going to cement the Tudor dynasty's claim to the throne?

Well it would be a bit like how Isabella and Ferdinand intended to marry their eldest son to La Beltraneja in order to secure the throne of Castille-Léon. Basically tying up loose ends in a nice little dynastic bow

[DrakeRlugia]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

How is a marriage of first cousins going to cement the Tudor dynasty's claim to the throne?

Henry VII's claim to the crown was rather shaky. He had a (tenuous) claim through the Beaufort's, a Lancastrian branch that were considered illegitimate. He claimed the crown by right of conquest technically but also cemented his throne by marrying Elizabeth of York, by tossing out Richard's Titlus Regulus and reactively making her legitimate again, but also making it clear that he was king, not merely reigning with her. Both Henry's son and niece will have this shared Lancastrian (Beaufort) and Yorkist blood, so a union between the two would be attractive for many reasons.

It'd also serve an important role as being an important match as the girl would be of royal blood, and would also not drag England into a costly foreign alliance. Although Henry VIII enjoyed his games on the continent, the English as whole preferred to sit things out; hell, much of Elizabeth's proposed marriages included the weighty discussion of what sort of conflicts they might drag England into. Yes, she was Queen in her own right, but even for a king, a royal marriage could entail an alliance and wars on behalf of your royal in-laws.

Almost immediately upon marrying Catherine, for instance, Ferdinand was pressuring Henry to sign into the League of Cambrai.

[DrakeRlugia]

Originally Posted by Avitus

I suppose by not letting her run off and give some other ambitious SOB a claim to the throne, though that could certainly be done by either marrying her to someone too far off geographically to be a threat, or sending her to a convent. And that is assuming she lives to adulthood, which the OP didn't say has to happen, and would probably still prevent Henry and Catherine from hooking up.

Gosh I wonder what the world would look like if Henry VIII hadn't lost his marbles.

Exactly. Why would Henry VIII marry her off to a foreign Prince unless his succession is secured? At least until he has any children, she'll be right behind him in the succession. It's better from his prospective to marry her to his son or keep her from marrying at all than to arrange a foreign marriage for her. As Velasco stated, he himself could also marry her, but given the Tudor dynasty's shaky footing following Arthur's death, Henry VII isn't going to wait for her to grow up. Given child mortality of the era, it's not even a given that she'll survive infancy/childhood. So Eleanor of Austria makes a much more attractive choice, and Henry VII may persue Joanna of Naples with more gusto, although given his old age and ill health, he may find it better to simply get his son married earlier.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by DrakeRlugia

Henry VII's claim to the crown was rather shaky. He had a (tenuous) claim through the Beaufort's, a Lancastrian branch that were considered illegitimate. He claimed the crown by right of conquest technically but also cemented his throne by marrying Elizabeth of York, by tossing out Richard's Titlus Regulus and reactively making her legitimate again, but also making it clear that he was king, not merely reigning with her. Both Henry's son and niece will have this shared Lancastrian (Beaufort) and Yorkist blood, so a union between the two would be attractive for many reasons.

It'd also serve an important role as being an important match as the girl would be of royal blood, and would also not drag England into a costly foreign alliance. Although Henry VIII enjoyed his games on the continent, the English as whole preferred to sit things out; hell, much of Elizabeth's proposed marriages included the weighty discussion of what sort of conflicts they might drag England into. Yes, she was Queen in her own right, but even for a king, a royal marriage could entail an alliance and wars on behalf of your royal in-laws.

Almost immediately upon marrying Catherine, for instance, Ferdinand was pressuring Henry to sign into the League of Cambrai.

This makes no sense.

Mary has just as shaky a claim to English throne as Henry Jr. (Henry VIII) (the primogeniture argument is separate from the Tudor dynasty's legitimacy), so this doesn't strengthen anything at all - at most it means that her husband or male children can't claim a right through her. And that being a concern is only possible if the claim of her uncle is accepted as rightful - because the claim is from the exact same bloodline. Nothing gets secured here at all.

So where does the dynasty benefit? Nowhere whatsoever.

The foreign entanglement thing is true, but it also doesn't bring England any foreign allies - either for marriage of Mary OR marriage of Henry.

It's a waste of a good chance at political gain, requires a papal dispensation, and might bother Henry's sense of morality (if marrying Katherine raised questions OTL, this is also bad). Marry her to someone trustworthy and find someone fertile for Henry Jr. (Henry VIII)

At least la Beltraneja actually ends a different line's claim.

[Velasco]

Did marrying Catherine really raise any major questions OTL? Everyone was pretty content with the Papal dispensation and Henry VII considered marrying her himself (Ferdinand was not pleased).

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Did marrying Catherine really raise any major questions OTL? Everyone was pretty content with the Papal dispensation and Henry VII considered marrying her himself (Ferdinand was not pleased).

I think it died down pretty nicely after the dispensation (and only really became a huge stink when Henry was looking for excuses to get out of that marriage), but it was a question mark over if she would marry Henry Jr., yes.

It wasn't a huge issue, but it was an issue.

I have my copy of The Six Wives of Henry VIII (by Alison Weir) handy if you want me to elaborate.

[kasumigenx]

I think Mary could marry to a noble or King far away from England and have her give up her claim to the English throne just like what the Austrians and the French did and establish salic law but that would mean the Kings of England need to give up their claims to the French throne.

[Velasco]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I think it died down pretty nicely after the dispensation (and only really became a huge stink when Henry was looking for excuses to get out of that marriage), but it was a question mark over if she would marry Henry Jr., yes.

It wasn't a huge issue, but it was an issue.

I have my copy of The Six Wives of Henry VIII (by Alison Weir) handy if you want me to elaborate.

Yeah, any extra info is definitely welcome. I'd imagine the most recent precedent of her sisters Isabella and Maria both gleefully marrying Manuel of Portugal would be forefront in most people's minds.

kasumigenx, Salic Law has no place in England; Henry VIII's claim to the throne was traced through several female links - Margaret Beaufort, Anne Mortimer, Philippa of Clarence, the Empress Matilda, Edith of Scotland and Margaret Atheling - there's no way he'd adopt a trumped up French law contrary to the general laws and customs of noble inheritance (which generally allowed for female succession or at least transmission of noble fiefs through the female line).

[DrakeRlugia]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

This makes no sense.

Mary has just as shaky a claim to English throne as Henry Jr. (Henry VIII) (the primogeniture argument is separate from the Tudor dynasty's legitimacy), so this doesn't strengthen anything at all - at most it means that her husband or male children can't claim a right through her. And that being a concern is only possible if the claim of her uncle is accepted as rightful - because the claim is from the exact same bloodline. Nothing gets secured here at all.

So where does the dynasty benefit? Nowhere whatsoever.

The foreign entanglement thing is true, but it also doesn't bring England any foreign allies - either for marriage of Mary OR marriage of Henry.

It's a waste of a good chance at political gain, requires a papal dispensation, and might bother Henry's sense of morality (if marrying Katherine raised questions OTL, this is also bad). Marry her to someone trustworthy and find someone fertile for Henry Jr. (Henry VIII)

At least la Beltraneja actually ends a different line's claim.

From the same bloodline, but two different people hold it. In all technicality, Mary would have a superior claim over her uncle, as England didn't practice any form of Salic Law. Because she had been born to the eldest son (Arthur), she is technically the legal heiress to the crown in this situation. Arthur having any children at all keeps Henry VIII in his place as second in line for the throne, or pushes him further back. However, given the period I can't see her succeeding Henry VII. She'd be just a little girl at the time and as I outlined before, England is only a few decades removed from the War of the Roses and their only experience with a female regnant queen was Empress Matilda -- who Henry VIII had some knowledge of, as OTL he feared leaving the crown to a daughter and sparking a civil war. Yet this is a different situation from OTL, following Edward VI's death: there is a viable male successor (Henry VIII), and the technically legal successor (assuming Henry VII dies on schedule) is only a little girl.

Now, a little girl is no threat to a young man. She has no power base, and would have few supporters. But she would still have that valid claim, and you may see those who simply want see the proper order of things carried out (people like William Cecil, who despite being a Protestant, supported Mary I's ascension in 1554) support her right to succeed under a regency (quite possibly Henry VIII, or perhaps Margaret Beaufort, as Henry VII wished for her to be Henry VIII's Regent for a few months until he came of age, but this was ignored). Others would be more pragmatic and prefer Henry VIII because he is a) male and b) an adult.

In the situation that Arthur has a daughter, there represent two possible successors. They are from the same dynasty, yes, but they are two different people. The fact they are from the same dynasty means squat because history totally isn't filled with families squabbling over inheritances, usurping crowns, and killing their relatives who are a threat. Henry VIII wouldn't want to marry her abroad, because if he gets entangled into a war, there's nothing saying her husband might make a go to make good on her claim. He also wouldn't want to marry her a prominent nobleman of the realm, because he might also get certain ideas. Any possible rebellion would already have a ready made figure head.

Marrying her to his son is a good choice, because while it brings no strategic alliance, it unites Mary's legal claim to the crown with his own, neutralizes her, and keeps her from being used against her. Henry VII did much of the same thing by marrying Elizabeth of York. He had won the crown of England by right of conquest, but still saw fit to marry her because following Richard's death she was essentially the Yorkist heiress.

Papal Dispensation? Of course. But you also realize the Pope pretty much gave them out like candy, correct?

As for Henry's morality... the bible passage he found was merely a means to an end. If Catherine had borne him a living son, I'm sure he would've paid no mind to the Leviticus passage, given that he had a Papal Dispensation for his marriage. Henry's qualms were with not having a son. Not because he had married his brother's wife. And marriages between cousins were hardly uncommon in the time period, not to mention the Spanish Habsburgs were practicing much more dubious incest (with nieces giving birth to their uncle's children, thus being their own children's aunt AND mother.)

Remember, Mary and Elizabeth were sisters and of the same house, but Mary still saw her as a threat and swore she behind every Protestant plot and wanted her throne. Henry VIII won't see a little girl as a threat, of course, but as she comes of age, he would certainly want to make sure she makes a marriage on his terms. To his eldest son, or one of his sons at least, would be the most advantagous to him.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Yeah, any extra info is definitely welcome. I'd imagine the most recent precedent of her sisters Isabella and Maria both gleefully marrying Manuel of Portugal would be forefront in most people's minds.

Here goes. Italics on the key bits.

"Ferdinand was certain that the Pope would be only too happy to provide a dispensation if it could be shown that Katherine's marriage to Arthur had not been consummated -and immediately the intimate details of their short-lived union became a matter of international importance.
. . .
Henry VII was not so delicate, and bluntly asked Katherine if she was still a virgin. He, too, had seen the advantages of her marrying Prince Henry, but was also hopeful that she might be pregnant with Arthur's child. She replied, quite candidly, that although she had slept with Arthur for six nights, she remained a virgin, and had confided as mcuh to her duena. Henry told her that he was thinking of suggesting that she be betrothered to Prince Henry, but that he would prefer it if the matter was first broached to her parents. Whatever happened, he wanted to preserve the Anglo-Spanish alliance intact.

Gossip traveled fast in the court, and it was not long before the proposed betrothal was common knowledge. Reaction was swift, especially among some churchmen. William Warham, Bishop of London, who had officiated at Katherine's wedding, though the idea'not only inconsistent with propriety, but the will of God Himself is against it. It is declared in His law that if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. It is not lawful.' This was one of the finer points of canon law, and a heated debate ensued, which resulted in the King being assured by learned divines that the Pope would almost certainly grant a dispensation, since the Princess was still a virgin. Even if she were not, the Pope were he so inclined (and persuaded with financial incentives), still had the power to dispense in such a case: there were predecents. Nevertheless, although their voices were muted, Warham and several other churchmen maintained their stand.
. . .
In August 503, Ferdinand instructed his ambssador in Rome to procure the necessary dispensation from the Pope, saying that while it was 'well known in England that the Princess is still a virgin' he thought it more prudent to provide for the case as though the marriage had been consummated. A watertight dispensation was vital because 'the riight of succession depends on the undoubtedly legitimacy of the marriage'. The Pope, Julius II, was disposed to prevaricate, saying he did not know if he was competent to grant it.
. . .
In the end, ambassadorial pressure persuaded Julius to relent, and on 26 December 1503 he issued the the Bull of Dispensation permitting Henry and Katherine to marry, not withstanding the fact that she had 'perhaps' consummated her first marriage 'by carnal knowledge'."

And its worth noting for completeness's sake that Isabella died before the dispensation was issued - and with reservations about the whole thing.

"On her deathbed, she voiced her inner doubts about the validity of the dispensation issued by the Pope, but these were unresolved and largely ignored when she died on 26 November 1504".

So, there you go.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by DrakeRlugia

From the same bloodline, but two different people hold it.

And your point is . . .?

Potential rebellion is another issue, addressed below. It does nothing to make the Tudors more legitimate to say "See, this Tudor (Generation III, aka Henry VIII's kids) has duplicated the shaky claim of BOTH parents!".

In the situation that Arthur has a daughter, there represent two possible successors. They are from the same dynasty, yes, but they are two different people. The fact they are from the same dynasty means squat because history totally isn't filled with families squabbling over inheritances, usurping crowns, and killing their relatives who are a threat. Henry VIII wouldn't want to marry her abroad, because if he gets entangled into a war, there's nothing saying her husband might make a go to make good on her claim. He also wouldn't want to marry her a prominent nobleman of the realm, because he might also get certain ideas. Any possible rebellion would already have a ready made figure head.

Any possible rebellion would have to want a queen regnant.

Maud's bad reputation would make that rather unlikely.

Marrying her to his son is a good choice, because while it brings no strategic alliance, it unites Mary's legal claim to the crown with his own, neutralizes her, and keeps her from being used against her. Henry VII did much of the same thing by marrying Elizabeth of York. He had won the crown of England by right of conquest, but still saw fit to marry her because following Richard's death she was essentially the Yorkist heiress.

Marrying her to his son is a bad choice, because it wastes a potential political alliance for both her and him, needs a papal dispensation with all the fun that entails (sure, the pope can be persuaded. Speaking from Henry's POV, I have better things to to do with my money.), and unlike the issue with Elizabeth of York, it does not strengthen the claim of the heir at all.

Papal Dispensation? Of course. But you also realize the Pope pretty much gave them out like candy, correct?

Which is why Julius had to be persuaded by Ferdinand into giving one in the Katherine-Henry case?

If he didn't care, he could have written one up as soon as it was mentioned, with "ambassadorial pressure' being unnecessary.

As for Henry's morality... the bible passage he found was merely a means to an end. If Catherine had borne him a living son, I'm sure he would've paid no mind to the Leviticus passage, given that he had a Papal Dispensation for his marriage. Henry's qualms were with not having a son. Not because he had married his brother's wife. And marriages between cousins were hardly uncommon in the time period, not to mention the Spanish Habsburgs were practicing much more dubious incest (with nieces giving birth to their uncle's children, thus being their own children's aunt AND mother.)

I'm not sure - assuming Henry cared about the issue - papal dispensation = clear conscience. I agree he probably wouldn't have brought it up if he didn't have a son, but there were people who actually had feelings about Leviticus.

And between first cousins? The Spanish Hapsburgs stand out here, they're not normal examples of European custom.

Remember, Mary and Elizabeth were sisters and of the same house, but Mary still saw her as a threat and swore she behind every Protestant plot and wanted her throne. Henry VIII won't see a little girl as a threat, of course, but as she comes of age, he would certainly want to make sure she makes a marriage on his terms. To his eldest son, or one of his sons at least, would be the most advantagous to him.

No, it wouldn't be most advantageous to him, because it brings a fat nothing to the Tudors. No inheritance, no new alliance, no nothing. Mary suspecting Elizabeth wouldn't apply here because both TTL Mary and Henry are Catholics - thus why would the princess be behind a plot? There's paranoid, and then there's just delusional.

So frankly I think the best thing to do with her is the same thing that was done with say, Edward II's older sisters (most were married off, one became a nun). Anyone using her as a figurehead for rebellion has to want to promote a woman over Henry VIII, and I don't see widespread enthusiasm for that in 16th century England - yes, I am repeating myself, but I think it bears repeating if we're going to treat her marrying her uncle seriously.

Also, how long is Henry VII willing to put off his son's marriage? How long would Henry VIII put off his marriage? Even at the very youngest, Mary is not going to be able to bear children for 12-13 years, and Henry will be 23-24 - to put this in perspective, OTL Henry married Katherine at 18 (they were supposed to marry four years earlier, but Stuff Not Worth Elaborating On in this context happened).

[DrakeRlugia]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And your point is . . .?

Because when Henry VII kicks the bucket, there represent two potential successors in this case, rather than in just OTL, where there was Henry VIII. I already stated that as a young girl, Mary won't have a power base and certainly won't have tons support, but it doesn't mean people wouldn't want to take advantage of that.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Potential rebellion is another issue, addressed below. It does nothing to make the Tudors more legitimate to say "See, this Tudor (Generation III, aka Henry VIII's kids) has duplicated the shaky claim of BOTH parents!".

Any possible rebellion would have to want a queen regnant.

Maud's bad reputation would make that rather unlikely.

Err, not exactly. Certainly you've heard of the term Jure Uxois: in right of the wife. We don't know how this Mary would grow up, but assuming she gets married off to a foreign prince or a powerful English magnate, they certainly aren't going to raise up a rebellion just so she can be sovereign.

If anything, they'd be using her as a figurehead. Now, in the case of a foreign husband, any sort of revolt like that is going to pitter out quite quickly, because the English of the period were notoriously xenophobic. There's no way they're going to invite Mary and her foreign husband in (hey, it happened in 1688, but that was a different time...) But if Henry made the mistake of marrying her to a prominent English dynasty, like the Staffords, or even had a case of the stupid and married her to a Pole, he'd certainly have a lot of trouble

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Marrying her to his son is a bad choice, because it wastes a potential political alliance for both her and him, needs a papal dispensation with all the fun that entails (sure, the pope can be persuaded. Speaking from Henry's POV, I have better things to to do with my money.), and unlike the issue with Elizabeth of York, it does not strengthen the claim of the heir at all.

I can agree it is a waste of a potential alliance, but I disagree that it's a waste all together, as it would be uniting Mary's legal claim to the crown into Henry's line, thus keeping it in the family so to speak. The only other option would be putting her into a nunnery, or ensuring she doesn't marry at all. Besides, Henry VIII wasn't exactly known for his dazzling political alliances made through marriages, and plenty of other royal marital misalliances have occurred throughout history (Edward IV and Elizabeth IV, Louis XV and Marie Leszczyńska, ect.)

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Which is why Julius had to be persuaded by Ferdinand into giving one in the Katherine-Henry case?

If he didn't care, he could have written one up as soon as it was mentioned, with "ambassadorial pressure' being unnecessary.

I never said he didn't care, but the Papacy in general tended to not have huge qualms in regards to dispensations. I don't have my copy of Alison Weir's Six Wives in front of me ATM, but I believe Julius' wavering came down to the same reason Henry VIII would years later believe his wedding incestuous and invalid: whether or not the marriage had been consummated or not. You also have to account into fact that Ferdinand and Henry VII were having a practical power struggle from the time of Arthur's death. He promised that she would marry Henry, dithered, sought out other martial alliances for him, all while attempting to on to her dowry. It definitely wasn't the typical case of: "This couple is too close in affinity and require dispensation."

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I'm not sure - assuming Henry cared about the issue - papal dispensation = clear conscience. I agree he probably wouldn't have brought it up if he didn't have a son, but there were people who actually had feelings about Leviticus.

And between first cousins? The Spanish Hapsburgs stand out here, they're not normal examples of European custom.

Given Henry's reign in general, I don't really see him as a moral person. He was pretty unscrupulous and did whatever suited Henry at time, at least that's what I seem to get from it.

You're looking at it with too modern of a mind set. Given that royalty at this time were expected to make equal marriages, it was pretty much to avoid marriage to someone you were related too. The Spanish Habsburgs indeed took it a bit further than most, but it was more of an Iberian custom as well as a desire to keep the Habsburg domains within the family should one line go extinct. Even before Charles V came to Spain, the Trastamaras and Aviz very closely intermarried. Admittedly, it wasn't as common as marrying say a second or possibly third cousin, but it still occured:

- Charles V with Isabella of Portugal (a given, of course)
- Gian Galeazzo Visconti with Caterina Visconti
- Philippe d'Orléans with Henrietta Maria of England
- Louis XIV with Maria Theresa of Spain
- Louis XIII with Anne of Brittanny
- Mary, Queen of Scots with Henry, Lord Darnley (Half-First Cousins)
- Mary I with Philip II of Spain (First Cousins, once removed)

It wasn't extremely common, but I wouldn't say it was uncommon either.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

No, it wouldn't be most advantageous to him, because it brings a fat nothing to the Tudors. No inheritance, no new alliance, no nothing. Mary suspecting Elizabeth wouldn't apply here because both TTL Mary and Henry are Catholics - thus why would the princess be behind a plot? There's paranoid, and then there's just delusional.

Pretty much none of Henry's OTL marriages bought him any of these. I'd argue that his first one was the only one that did so. So I don't see why arranging his son (or one of his sons) to his niece would be such a stretch. Henry wasn't exactly the best at selecting the best on the marriage market, after all. Yes, both are Catholic, but that doesn't mean that Henry's reign would be without any oppposition. Even before the reformation, he certainly had his enemies, and it wasn't for religious reasons. I never said the princess had to be a potential enemy based on her religious views.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

So frankly I think the best thing to do with her is the same thing that was done with say, Edward II's older sisters (most were married off, one became a nun). Anyone using her as a figurehead for rebellion has to want to promote a woman over Henry VIII, and I don't see widespread enthusiasm for that in 16th century England - yes, I am repeating myself, but I think it bears repeating if we're going to treat her marrying her uncle seriously.

Also, how long is Henry VII willing to put off his son's marriage? How long would Henry VIII put off his marriage? Even at the very youngest, Mary is not going to be able to bear children for 12-13 years, and Henry will be 23-24 - to put this in perspective, OTL Henry married Katherine at 18 (they were supposed to marry four years earlier, but Stuff Not Worth Elaborating On in this context happened).

Edward II was king in a wholly different period; while some princesses did occasionally marry abroad in the middle ages, the vast majority married powerful local magnates. By the dawn of the 16th century, this was becoming much rarer. Royal families were more desirous of 'equal' matches and thus a princess could no longer just marry a mere nobleman, but someone who also had royal blood. This was not as large of an issue in England, considering Henry VIII had numerous wives that weren't exactly high born, but I don't think Henry would risk marrying Mary abroad or to a nobleman. As I stated above, any local rebellion would certainly be using her as a figure head by the husband would be asserting her powers by right of wife. If Henry VIII decides not to waste a potential alliance by using Mary, he'd probably keep her as a spinster or she might end up a nun.

I don't see widespread enthusiasm for a Queen in early 16th century England either. Mary succeeded in a different time, and also had the law on her side, as she explicitly her brother's successor. It probably also helped that Mary was a grown woman and both Henry VII and VIII had done an excellent job at weeding out potential usurpers in their reigns. Elizabeth was also an adult at the time of her ascension, with the added bonus that she was Protestant. Yet even Mary herself had a flush of popular support over Jane GRey simply because she was the legitimate successor.

Velasco suggested that Henry VIII marry his niece -- I find that the least likely option out of everything. There's really no telling how long Henry VII would put off his son's marriage. After all, IOTL, he did squat. However I feel he'd want to outline his son as a successor and so would arrange a marriage, but the issue is the marriage market was sort of slim in the early 16th century. Plenty of young princesses, but none old enough for child bearing. It would either require a few years wait, or would be a few years older. I suggested Eleanor of Austria as a prime candidate for Henry VIII, but she wouldn't be 14 until 1512, so Henry VIII would still have to do some waiting.

One option might be Anne d'Alençon. She's Henry's age, although she was betrothed to the Marquis of Montferrat in 1501. Yet they didn't marry until 1508. Maybe if Henry VII expresses interest and the Duke of Alençon offers a suitable dowry, they could be married in 1506 or 1507. She's a relative of the Valois dynasty, so it'd bring a French connection, which Henry VII might seek out in lieu of Arthur's death and Katherine giving birth to a daughter. Marguerite of Navarre (sister of François Ier) is also another option; her mother attempted to arrange a marriage between the two in 1502.

Further afield options could be Elisabeth of Brandenburg or Elizabeth of Denmark. The later is the same age of Catherine, but would be readily available for marriage... even though in 1502 Henry VIII is only 11. Still, it would be possible match that Henry VII could arrange quickly.