I am writting a book. More I had an Idea in my head and I wrote stuff down. So twins are born. Mary Tudor, and her brother Phillip. All seems well until an accident at an Easter feast. Soup split on the young man. Hot soup. Sort of like when Baldwin IV had had his arm twisted. A warm bath, overheated and he does not feel the heat makes the confirmation the boy is a leper, what would be done?
Twins born to Henry VIII and Cathrine of Aragon
- Thread starter martinroberts
- Start date
So ur having Henry VIII's son a leper? I don't think lepercy was ever reported in the British Isles so I'm not sure. He would still be the 'official' heir to the throne but if and when a second son was born he'd be made the heir, I assume.
The boy would be named Philip. But that is beside the point. Would there still be a divorce and the whole church thing? The six wives? I think Catherine of Aragon was the best wife for Henry, a very wise woman, and what they seem to ignore in the show the tudors is that Catharine had had several children who died young. I find ill have to reconsider my idea, the leprosy thing was to write something that would make history proceed as normal. Henrys shame.
Last edited:
First, there's no way that Henry would name his son Philip. No English monarch has been named Philip nor are any of Catherine's relatives named that. The name would be Henry, Edward or if U want a foreign name, John or Ferdinand, after Catherine of Aragon's brother and father, respectively.
Second, is there any reported cases of Leprosy reported in the British Isles, in either the royal line or noble families? Because I can't find any.
Third, with a surviving son, regardless of his condition, the Pope would be even less likely to grant a divorce than in OTL. Baldwin IV had Leprosy but he was still able to succeed to the throne and his parents did not divorce because of that reason. They divorced because the wife had no political value.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2179343/
Not sure about royal lines or noble families, but leprosy isn't passed on genetically.
http://diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/what-causes-leprosy.html
Not sure about royal lines or noble families, but leprosy isn't passed on genetically.
http://diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/what-causes-leprosy.html
Arthur is relevant to Kings of England, Eustace was . . . Stephen Thronestealer's son, yes? - and Alfonso was atypical.
The Tudors were boring, though.
No reason that has to be the case in a different timeline though - but you'd need a reason why Philip of all names, and the feast day is perfect.
I think the OTL pregnancy that had Mary would be too early in the year for it, though.
Was there any reported causes of Leprosy in any of the English, Castilian or Aragonese royal ancestors though?
Arthur and Bridget were English names. Arthur from King Arthur and I'm not sure where Bridget came from. Alfonso was the tenth child born to Edward I and Elenor of Castile and Eustace was not born either English or royal. My point son born the heir to the English throne had a foreign name. They were all either born before their family was royal(Eustace) or a very late child (Alfonso). Philip may have been a popular name for french royalty but I feel that Henry VIII was far to egotistical to name his son after anyone but himself, let alone a foreign name like Philip. If U go for a foreign name, it would be a reigning foreign Monarch, like Emperor Charles or King Francis or even John III of Portugal, not a long disused name. (the last Philip died after losing to England in the hundred years war, so the name doesn't inspire confidence.)
There doesn't need to be, that's my point.
On the name Philip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_I_of_Castile Hardly "long disused".
Also, Henry did use the name Edward for one son OTL, so the idea that he was too egoistically to name his son anything but his own name sounds off.
I forgot about Philip of Castile/Burgundy. However both of his son's born to Catherine of Aragon were named Henry so it's easy to assume that a third son would be named Henry. Its likely that the name Edward was influence by Jane Seymour's brother Edward. He was a favorite of Henry at the time of Edward(the son's) birth and was born in later life (21 years separated Edward from his sister Mary and 23 from his brother Henry). Also Henry's illegitimate son was named after him as well, more proof that Henry liked named his sons after himself. Furthermore Edward was an English royal name. Edward IV was Henry VIII's grand-father and Edward V was Henry's uncle.
Ok, ok. I here you about Philip and I think I coiluld make a time line with this idea. I'll probably type it up as a story. Im merely trying towing write a historical fiction.
If U want a good disease try Tuberculosis. A lot of royals suffered from this, IDK if it was prevalent in the renaissance but definitely later.
There are many different strains of TB that attack all areas of the body.
Ok ok thank you, what disease would disfigure the face and scar the body. But not be a thing that has permanet infection.
Well I think smallpox would do the trick. It left, or could leave marks all over the face and body. However I'm not sure how prevalent it was at the time. Syphilis would also do this but that's a permanent infection.
There had been lepers in Britain; Henry IV of England and/or Robert the Bruce may have died from the disease (difference of opinion among modern experts). Lepers were virtually wiped out by the Black Death, though, so it would be unusual for a Tudor prince to come down with the disease.