A question on Arthur Tudor

Anne was born between 1501 and 1507, though the general consensus is around 1501/1502. So if we get a Princess Mary around the same time, if only a year or two later, then it would make sense for Anne Boleyn, a lady of good name and great connections, to act as a playmate and maid of honour to the Princess.

The idea that Arthur might seek to use that bring allies into to help reclaim some territories in France isn't ridiculous. But it will most likely be as effective as Henry was OTL and would most likely happen around the same time. Actually, I can see Arthur pulling most of Henry's early stunts to some degree. The only difference would be that the Duke of York, instead of the Queen, would act as regent during these times and he may be more or less successful depending on outside factors.

Interesting, and with the Boleyns at court, who knows what schemes might arise eh?

And interesting, what makes you say that it would be Henry as regent? Would Arthur not want his brother by his side?
 
Well, whatever occurs, Henry is less likely to pile on the pounds and thus live longer and Arthur is unlikely to pile on as much weight as his brother and thus last longer; the tumultuous reigns of Mary I and Edward VI would certainly be avoided, mainly because they don't exist, but because a longer lived Arthur would prevent it.
 
Well, whatever occurs, Henry is less likely to pile on the pounds and thus live longer and Arthur is unlikely to pile on as much weight as his brother and thus last longer; the tumultuous reigns of Mary I and Edward VI would certainly be avoided, mainly because they don't exist, but because a longer lived Arthur would prevent it.

Indeed that is true, and there is less likely to be such bloody murder under Arthur as there was under either of them
 
Buckingham had a claim to the throne, and it's likely he would have plotted against the OTL King, just like he did TTL...

Epsom and Dudley may survive, though...

Interesting, would you mind refreshing my memory what did Epsom and Dudley do that got them the axe?
 
Interesting, would you mind refreshing my memory what did Epsom and Dudley do that got them the axe?

They were Henry VII's money men, and OTL, they were blamed for Henry VII's money grubbing policies. That was why Henry VIII had them executed...

so, if Arthur lives to become King, he may do things differently.
 
Newbie alert! (So new, this is my first post!)

I always understood that Henry, as second son, was "bookmarked" for the church. If Arthur had lived, and had issue: would Henry have had to make his name in the church as planned?
 
Newbie alert! (So new, this is my first post!)

I always understood that Henry, as second son, was "bookmarked" for the church. If Arthur had lived, and had issue: would Henry have had to make his name in the church as planned?
That is something vero unlikely: I do no think Henry was ever destined to the Church and everything we know about his family point against that idea. He was the spare, sure, but he was was also the Duke of York (true who his father named him for political reasons) and in his future with Arthur alive I see more easily a domestic match and a position of power as lieutenant of the King around York or near the Scottish border
 
Top