Exactly. I'm wondering if perhaps we could see an allied Catholic France and England fighting against a league of Protestant nations. That would be very interesting.True, but that does smack (lightly) of historical determinism - i.e. England MUST go Protestant because it did in OTL. Maybe its the Catholic in me, but I find the idea of a Catholic England much more fun to play around with. And its not like many of the regions and nations that stayed Catholic in OTL didn't also have influential Protestant movements (I'm looking at you France, Poland and Hungary!)
WI: Prince Arthur lived?
- Thread starter Gentleman Johnny
- Start date
Unlikely because this is england and france we're talking about.
That being said, this would keep England and Spain aligned, especially since in your colonization thread you mentioned wanting to keep the Habsburgs out of Spain
Not by this time, not that it didn't stop some from using Geoffrey of Monmouth's book for propaganda purposes like john dee did for Elizabeth
If Catherine died instead of Arthur (so at his OTL death date) the only logical choice as Arthur’s second wife is Sidonie of Bavaria (niece of Emperor Maximilian). If Katherine died later (around 1511) her nieces Eleanor and Isabella of Austria are the favorites (if Katherine had already given a son to Arthur also Marguerite of Angouleme has some chances if she is still unmarried)
No, it would be Arthur I. First, King Arthur was considered the King of the Britons, and not the English, meaning that an English King Arthur would be the first of his name to rule over the English people. Secondly and, honestly, way more importantly: the numbering of English Kings begins with the Norman Conquest and doesn't stretch before before that. For instance, Edward Longshanks is considered Edward I, despite the fact that during the Anglo-Saxon period there was: Edward the Greater, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.
I'm not saying that England HAS to go protestant, im just saying that its a possibility.True, but that does smack (lightly) of historical determinism - i.e. England MUST go Protestant because it did in OTL. Maybe its the Catholic in me, but I find the idea of a Catholic England much more fun to play around with. And its not like many of the regions and nations that stayed Catholic in OTL didn't also have influential Protestant movements (I'm looking at you France, Poland and Hungary!)
Heck, even if a King or Queen do go protestant that doesn't mean that the whole country has to as well, they could establish religious tolerance or religious freedom given the right changes.
To shamelessly quote/plug my own timeline I’ve been writing something based on this scenario. In this case Arthur marries Sidonie and, if age appropriate, their son can marry Catherine of Austria (have Germaine of Foix marry Manuel and leave Eleanor for Joao).
Why not? His father being the first king of ALL of England after the wars of the roses heavily promoted the Arturian legends as an example from the last time England was truely United. A new king, the first king actually ascending to the throne of all of England (instead of like his father having to fight for I and then having to reunite the pieces) could do worse then choosing or keeping Arthur as his name.
True, but that does smack (lightly) of historical determinism - i.e. England MUST go Protestant because it did in OTL. Maybe its the Catholic in me, but I find the idea of a Catholic England much more fun to play around with. And its not like many of the regions and nations that stayed Catholic in OTL didn't also have influential Protestant movements (I'm looking at you France, Poland and Hungary!)
Curiously, England was an outlier in that it went through the religious wars that mired the rest of Western Europe. By Henry VIII and later Elisabeth replacing the Roman Catholic Church with the Church of England, it managed to stave off hardline protentantism while at the same time getting rid of the Roman church hyrarchy and it's excesses that the Protestants were rebelling against. The purges against unrelenting Catholics notwithstanding, England went through the religious wars relatively unscathed.
What would happen if king Arthur, or even king Henry VIII would have to deal with rising protestant sentiments? Apart of OTL England, the the nation that had the least trouble was France. But only after it massacred most of it's hugenot Protestants in what was the original Red Wedding and pushed the rest into exile. Germany had it's 30 years war that ended up drawing in Denmark and Sweden. In the Low Countries this period was called the 70-years war because it lasted so much longer and although it established the Netherlands as the next big player, it pretty much bled dry the counties to the West that now make up Flanders so thoroughly it took them centuries to recover. Spain of course was bogged down fighting the Netherlands.
What course would England take? A new civil war as fierce as in the German and Netherland states? England just barely cane out of the War of the Roses after all. Would it choose for a consequent persecution of all perceived infidel that would make the SPANISH Inquisition look like wussies? Or could Arthur/Henry just switch sides and make Protestantism the state religion?
And if so, what then? Would it again align England culturally with the Scandinavian countries rather then West-European ones? Or would it lean towards the new Dutch equally Protestant republic ?
Last edited:
Another big question is whether he calls off his sister Mary's betrothal to the future Charles V.
If not, we gat a House of Habsburg which is next in line to the English throne after the Stuarts. And given that Margaret Tudor had only to surviving children, while Mary QoS and Jmes VI were each heir predecessor's only surviving child, it wouldn't take much to make them direct heirs after the Tudors. So if the Tudors still have the same reproductive problems as OTL - - -
If not, we gat a House of Habsburg which is next in line to the English throne after the Stuarts. And given that Margaret Tudor had only to surviving children, while Mary QoS and Jmes VI were each heir predecessor's only surviving child, it wouldn't take much to make them direct heirs after the Tudors. So if the Tudors still have the same reproductive problems as OTL - - -
Pretty unlikely who Karl’s line will go anywhere close to the English crown with the heirs of Mary’s three siblings before them (Arthur and Katherine will likely have better luck than OTL, Henry will be married to someone, James IV is pretty unlikely to die as OTL so he and Margaret will have likely more children (she has still ten to fifteen years for having more children)
Better than Henry VIII did. That's for sure. Arthur seems to have been a genuinely good person.
Actually, it's very likelythat Henry VIII was demonised a lot. Just give him few sons...
It's really hard to say what kind of ruler Arthur Tudor would be, since he still was relatively young when he died. A lot of young heirs were considered gifted and charismatic, and later proved to be weak rulers. So it's mostlyabout what kinf of personality we will estabilish for a young prince.
I wonder is there is there a chance for a longer life for king Henry VII?
It's really hard to say what kind of ruler Arthur Tudor would be, since he still was relatively young when he died. A lot of young heirs were considered gifted and charismatic, and later proved to be weak rulers. So it's mostlyabout what kinf of personality we will estabilish for a young prince.
I wonder is there is there a chance for a longer life for king Henry VII?
VVD0D95
Banned
It's possible Henry VII would live longer without the added stress of having to keep the dynasty going and train his second son
Never mind Henry VII, Elizabeth of York is almost bound to survive longer. AIUI, the pregnancy that killed her was a direct consequence of her and Henry trying to secure their dynasty with another son after Arthur died. If he lives, Princess Katherine won't be born, ergo Elizabeth won't die in childbirth - at least not in 1503.
Actually Henry VII was pretty clear his son was to reign as Arthur II. This was for the same reason he named him Arthur, to strengthen the legitimacy or more accurately the perceived legitimacy of the Tudors. Henry had faked up a genealogy that traced the Tudors to Arthur as, to be blunt, his blood claim to the throne was not very strong. So he took measures, marrying the Yorkist Heir, disposing of other Yorkist claimants one way or another and the claim to be the blood heir of the mythical King Arthur.