WI Catherine of Aragon is pregnant by Arthur

[Francisco Cojuanco]

In OTL, if she and the Prince of Wales did consumate the marriage, no children resulted from it. What if instead she gets pregnant, but Arthur dies per OTL, and the child of the union, a son, is born in August of 1502 (let's call him, I dunno, Edward). What happens to the succession? Does Catherine remarry? Does Prince Hal go into the Church - perhaps does he become Archbishop of Cantebury?

What do you guys think?

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Francisco Cojuanco

In OTL, if she and the Prince of Wales did consumate the marriage, no children resulted from it. What if instead she gets pregnant, but Arthur dies per OTL, and the child of the union, a son, is born in August of 1502 (let's call him, I dunno, Edward). What happens to the succession? Does Catherine remarry? Does Prince Hal go into the Church - perhaps does he become Archbishop of Cantebury?

What do you guys think?

The infant, Edward, becomes Edward VI, Henry becomes Prince Regent for the "new-born king". Henry & Catherine clash frequently and ferociously over the child's education and upbringing.

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

The infant, Edward, becomes Edward VI, Henry becomes Prince Regent for the "new-born king". Henry & Catherine clash frequently and ferociously over the child's education and upbringing.

How so? Henry was at this time a good Catholic, and was so OTL before Catherine didn't give him any sons; since Henry and Catherine aren't married, that would be a moot point.

And Henry VII is still alive for another couple of years; Edward won't be a "new-born" king, though he'll be five upon acession.

[kellineil]

Edward becomes Edward VI when Henry VII dies. OTL Henry VIII would most likely become Regent assuming Henry VII dies on schedule. Henry would probably seek to ensure his hold on power by controlling the upbringing and education of Edward. Catherine may well seek to use her position of Queen Mother to oppose Henry.

England would remain Catholic, at least initially. There may well still be a grass roots English Reformation though, possibly along the lines of the OTL Scottish one?

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Francisco Cojuanco

And Henry VII is still alive for another couple of years; Edward won't be a "new-born" king, though he'll be five upon acession.

A five year old still needs a regent, though. OTL's Edward VI became king at the age of nine, died at the age of 15, and had regents throughout.

Henry certainly isn't going into the church, though. Given that he is the only heir after a young child, they need him as a spare. Although i suppose that it would be interesting if Henry had already taken holy orders (would the pope allow him out?).

I see the regency of ITTL Edward VI being a struggle between his mother and uncle for power, but would either of them actually be regent? Mary would have been 31 when her father died, but she never was regent for her half-brother (although there might have been reasons for that...). Henry VIII intended for power to devolve to a council during his son's minority, while in actuality certain nobles governed in the king's name. It seems that, contrary to the custom in, say, france at this time (where the queen mother would be named regent), Catherine and Henry will have to influence by proxy...

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by Atreus

A five year old still needs a regent, though. OTL's Edward VI became king at the age of nine, died at the age of 15, and had regents throughout.

Henry certainly isn't going into the church, though. Given that he is the only heir after a young child, they need him as a spare. Although i suppose that it would be interesting if Henry had already taken holy orders (would the pope allow him out?).

I see the regency of ITTL Edward VI being a struggle between his mother and uncle for power, but would either of them actually be regent? Mary would have been 31 when her father died, but she never was regent for her half-brother (although there might have been reasons for that...). Henry VIII intended for power to devolve to a council during his son's minority, while in actuality certain nobles governed in the king's name. It seems that, contrary to the custom in, say, france at this time (where the queen mother would be named regent), Catherine and Henry will have to influence by proxy...

But the main difference here is that IOTL Edward VI didn't have a male relative to take this role, while ITTL Edward will have his uncle. In the end it would depend on the will of Henry VII.

[chornedsnorkack]

England, unlike France and Spain, had little tradition of queen regents.

After John died (he was the youngest brother and his elders were dead), Henry III was 9. William Marshal was named regent. Isabella of Angouleme left her son and the realm nine months later.

Isabella the She-Wolf of France overthrew her husband Edward II in the name of her 13...14 year old son Edward III, assisted by her lover Mortimer. Isabella seems to have been the only queen regent England ever had.

Richard II was 10 at accession. His mother, Joan the Fair Maid of Kent was not regent. The King had a bunch of uncles but instead of a formal Regent, "continuous councils" were set up. which excluded John of Gaunt, but also Joan.

Henry VI was 8 month old at accession, and a Regency Council was set up, headed by Henry´s uncle Humphrey of Gloucester. Queen Mother Catherine of Valois was not in regency.

Edward V acceded age 12. In April 1483, before Richard of Gloucester carried out his coup to apprehend the Woodvilles and claim regency, it was not Queen Mother Elizabeth acting in her ownname as regent, but her brother and son were claiming regency.

So. Henry VII has a healthy grandson and a younger son living in 1502. What next?

In 1509, the grandson would accede, age 7. What would the regency arrangements be?

[el t]

I see her becoming much like her predecessor, Catherine of Valois. Probably not given much say in the care and upbringing of her son and polically as well as socially pretty much ignored. She could end up re-marrying though.

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by Atreus

A five year old still needs a regent, though. OTL's Edward VI became king at the age of nine, died at the age of 15, and had regents throughout.

Henry certainly isn't going into the church, though. Given that he is the only heir after a young child, they need him as a spare. Although i suppose that it would be interesting if Henry had already taken holy orders (would the pope allow him out?).

Yes, most probably. The Papacy allowed Henry I of Portugal, "the Cardinal-King", to leave holy orders and remarry in a late attempt to prevent Philip II of Spain claiming the throne, only a few decades later. By and large the Papacy were actually quite willing to agree to things like this so long as it put the monarch involved in their pocket to some degree (and barring factional politics, which were largely French-Spanish in this era).

However, it doesn't really change the fact that Henry will likely never enter the Church in this TL due to the early death of his brother. Besides, I'm very skeptical of claims he would have entered the church even if Arthur had lived to the age of 100 and had 50 sons. I just can't think of a precedent for the English royalty sending their younger sons to the church (not that English monarchs were very good at producing more than one son each...)

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by Falastur

Yes, most probably. The Papacy allowed Henry I of Portugal, "the Cardinal-King", to leave holy orders and remarry in a late attempt to prevent Philip II of Spain claiming the throne, only a few decades later. By and large the Papacy were actually quite willing to agree to things like this so long as it put the monarch involved in their pocket to some degree (and barring factional politics, which were largely French-Spanish in this era).

Actually the Pope didn't allow Henry I to leave his orders. When Henry finally decided to ask this favour to Gregory XIII, sending a letter to Cardinal Borromeo to be his defender in this case. Philip II then ordered his ambassadors in Rome to stop it, which much irritated Henry.

[Grey Wolf]

An interesting and unusual POD

Exeter IIRC is a major noble with a claim to be in on the Regency council, maybe Devon, Norfolk etc

IIRC and my memory is an ass of spoons, Devon has royal blood in him

Best Reegards
Grey Wolf

[mcdnab]

England had little tradition of a single regent in recent years - the nearest example for 1509 would have been 1483 which until Richard of Gloucester's coup seemed to be following the example of Henry VI's minority.
There was no regent selected at all - in fact it seemed likely initially that the Council of Edward IV intended to rule in the King's name until his coronation at least. In other words they intended to ignore the late King's will (and it is debateable whether Edward IV named his brother as Protector of the Realm in that will) - in effect the Council was keener to follow the precedent of Henry VI's minority with a regency council largely made up of nobles who'd served on the previous monarch's council.
That is far more likely to have happened in 1509 - there's even a chance that the council would initially exclude the young Henry Duke of York (He wasn't 18 at his father's death) - however the Countess of Richmond, Margaret Beaufort was named executor of Henry VII's will and seems to have exercised considerbale authority in the gap between her son's death and her grandson's coronation (she died a few days later).England had little tradition of a single regent in recent years - the nearest example for 1509 would have been 1483 which until Richard of Gloucester's coup seemed to be following the example of Henry VI's minority.
There was no regent selected at all - in fact it seemed likely initially that the Council of Edward IV intended to rule in the King's name until his coronation at least. In other words they intended to ignore the late King's will (and it is debateable whether Edward IV named his brother as Protector of the Realm in that will) - in effect the Council was keener to follow the precedent of Henry VI's minority with a regency council largely made up of nobles who'd served on the previous monarch's council.
That is far more likely to have happened in 1509 - there's even a chance that the council would initially exclude the young Henry Duke of York (He wasn't 18 at his father's death) - however the Countess of Richmond, Margaret Beaufort was named executor of Henry VII's will and seems to have exercised considerbale authority in the gap between her son's death and her grandson's coronation (she died a few days later).
It was not contemporarily considered that a King's will was thought to bind his heirs or his nobles. Only Henry VIII's will was treated as such and that was actually turned into a Parliamentary Act before his death.

[Grimm Reaper]

That the rights of Richard, later Richard III, were violated wholesale by the Woodvilles is not in dispute, nor that his brother had complete trust in him and thus appointed him to the key position during his son's minority. Of course, this was the fourth time a minor had become king of England in barely a century and the people of England were undoubtedly weeping in horror at the thought of the three previous experiences, now to be followed with the mosted hated family in England surrounding the throne.


If Katherine's marriage to Arthur was consummated to the point of pregnancy then even under Hapsburg duress the Pope may be unable to deny to Henry VIII the divorce he wants. Assuming he would marry Katherine in the first place.

[mcdnab]

Well this is not the thread to discuss Richard of Gloucester - however - there is NO surviving evidence that Edward IV named Richard protector in his will. There was no tradition or law in England that forced the King's Council or Parliament to accept the will of a deceased King even had Edward named Richard as Protector - the same will was ignored by Richard in its bequests to the Queen and the King's daughters. And most of the evidence suggesting that the Woodville's were unpopular post dates Richard III's accession (only a year before Richard knighted the Queen's brother - so the relationship in reality wasn't that bad) or dates to the readaption of 1470/1 from the Lancastrian camp.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

That the rights of Richard, later Richard III, were violated wholesale by the Woodvilles is not in dispute, nor that his brother had complete trust in him and thus appointed him to the key position during his son's minority. Of course, this was the fourth time a minor had become king of England in barely a century and the people of England were undoubtedly weeping in horror at the thought of the three previous experiences, now to be followed with the mosted hated family in England surrounding the throne.


If Katherine's marriage to Arthur was consummated to the point of pregnancy then even under Hapsburg duress the Pope may be unable to deny to Henry VIII the divorce he wants. Assuming he would marry Katherine in the first place.