A solution to Henry VIII's great question

Historically, it was because Mary refused to acknowledge her as Queen and stood by Catherine.

Mary might, if Anne does have some influence over Henry VIII, marry the Dauphin of France, Francis III, Duke of Brittany, before he dies in 1536 as Anne knows Mary is against France.

Ah sorry, I meant to ask what caused the dislike of Anne by whom in otl?

And hmm now that could be interesting and might possibly butterfly his death as well
 
Anne was disliked as she was seen to be deliberately plotting against the Queen.

Maybe you could butterfly his OTL death...
 
Anne was disliked as she was seen to be deliberately plotting against the Queen.

Maybe you could butterfly his OTL death...

Okay I see, and with Catherine dying a lot earlier than otl that's going to be something.

And indeed, that could change a lot of things regarding France, and the Italian wars.
 
Indeed it would.

Aye, so yes, we've got Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn marrying in 1532, without the issue of Catherine of Aragon hanging over them. Henry of course would be driven toward the Protestant reformation more for personal gain than anything else. His daughter Mary would be married in 1536, to Francis Duke of Brittany, heir to the throne of France, a marriage made for political benefits.
 
Oh interesting, what caused Anne's dislike otl?

And who might it make sense for Mary to marry other than Charles?

Well, a POD point in 1532, Prince Hans of Denmark might survive, and he would make a good match for Mary. That said, she was also offered to Luiz of Portugal, duke of Beja and James V of Scotland.

Maybe even a double Danish match: Mary marries Prince Hans, while James V marries Dorothea/Christine of Denmark like he threatened. Admittedly, he only used negotiations with them (and Mary, Dowager Queen of Hungary, Caterina de Medici and Maria of Viseu) to remind France of their promise to let him marry one of the French king's daughters, but England-Scotland-Denmark tied together could be fun.
 
Well, a POD point in 1532, Prince Hans of Denmark might survive, and he would make a good match for Mary. That said, she was also offered to Luiz of Portugal, duke of Beja and James V of Scotland.

Maybe even a double Danish match: Mary marries Prince Hans, while James V marries Dorothea/Christine of Denmark like he threatened. Admittedly, he only used negotiations with them (and Mary, Dowager Queen of Hungary, Caterina de Medici and Maria of Viseu) to remind France of their promise to let him marry one of the French king's daughters, but England-Scotland-Denmark tied together could be fun.

Oh that could be very fun indeed and a worrying thing for other powers. Would James v remain staunchly Catholic then?
 
One thing I am wondering is that, in this scenario with the seizing of monastic lands, would Henry keep them within his own hands, or giving them out to others?
 
1532 is actually not too late to stop religious changes - the vast majority of the realm is Catholic as is most of the court - those leaning towards religious change and reform are themselves still easy to persuade back to the fold.

The 1532 Parliamentary session was all about persuading (or threatening) Rome - withholding cash if the Pope didn't agree with the King essentially and grant his annulment.

The sessions of 1533 and 1534 were when the break really came culminating in the Act of Supremacy in 1534 followed later by the break up of the monastic institutions.

So Catherine dying suddenly in 1532 - would be met with two things - a) widespread belief that she had been poisoned and b) relief from Henry, Anne, a chunk of the English Church and the Vatican).

Anne and Henry marry slightly earlier than in OTL and she conceives slightly earlier - whether the lack of stress enables her to produce a living male heir is of course questionable and whether Henry tires of her personality earlier is another.
Without the son then her fate is probably similar to OTL.
One protection for Anne was Catherine living until 1536 - Henry could hardly get rid of another wife on flimsy grounds whilst his first disgarded one was still living.

It does of course still leave open the issue of the validity of his first marriage - Catherine's death means he no longer needs to prove it but it will remain an issue when trying to negotiate for Mary's marriage and I would expect him to continue to insist the marriage was invalid and Mary illegitimate otherwise he is admitting he spent years trying to get rid of his first wife in order to marry his mistress. That will hang over any arrangement for Mary's marriage and if Anne produces a male heir her attractiveness will start to drop like a stone.

On religious reform - the genie was perhaps out of the bottle and there was plenty in Luther's teachings to attract a monarch like Henry - however he was and remained essentially Catholic and Anne's reform leanings were leanings rather than committed lutheranism.
One point Crammer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in October 1532 if Catherine dies earlier then he might not get the appointment despite his service to the King and his connections with the Boleyn family. If Crammer is made Archbishop then he is certainly going to have reform leanings but a full break as in OTL is very unlikely.

You probably have a situation in the mid 30s of a difficult relationship with Rome but not a clear break - and a King who is more willing to intervene in church affairs if he thinks it threatens his interests - you also probably continue to see Protestant heretics persecuted. In those circumstances it is not unlikely that reform movements grow throughout the remainder of Henry's reign despite persecution - with the possibility of a bottom up reformation later in the century as happened in Scotland.
 
1532 is actually not too late to stop religious changes - the vast majority of the realm is Catholic as is most of the court - those leaning towards religious change and reform are themselves still easy to persuade back to the fold.

The 1532 Parliamentary session was all about persuading (or threatening) Rome - withholding cash if the Pope didn't agree with the King essentially and grant his annulment.

The sessions of 1533 and 1534 were when the break really came culminating in the Act of Supremacy in 1534 followed later by the break up of the monastic institutions.

So Catherine dying suddenly in 1532 - would be met with two things - a) widespread belief that she had been poisoned and b) relief from Henry, Anne, a chunk of the English Church and the Vatican).

Anne and Henry marry slightly earlier than in OTL and she conceives slightly earlier - whether the lack of stress enables her to produce a living male heir is of course questionable and whether Henry tires of her personality earlier is another.
Without the son then her fate is probably similar to OTL.
One protection for Anne was Catherine living until 1536 - Henry could hardly get rid of another wife on flimsy grounds whilst his first disgarded one was still living.

It does of course still leave open the issue of the validity of his first marriage - Catherine's death means he no longer needs to prove it but it will remain an issue when trying to negotiate for Mary's marriage and I would expect him to continue to insist the marriage was invalid and Mary illegitimate otherwise he is admitting he spent years trying to get rid of his first wife in order to marry his mistress. That will hang over any arrangement for Mary's marriage and if Anne produces a male heir her attractiveness will start to drop like a stone.

On religious reform - the genie was perhaps out of the bottle and there was plenty in Luther's teachings to attract a monarch like Henry - however he was and remained essentially Catholic and Anne's reform leanings were leanings rather than committed lutheranism.
One point Crammer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in October 1532 if Catherine dies earlier then he might not get the appointment despite his service to the King and his connections with the Boleyn family. If Crammer is made Archbishop then he is certainly going to have reform leanings but a full break as in OTL is very unlikely.

You probably have a situation in the mid 30s of a difficult relationship with Rome but not a clear break - and a King who is more willing to intervene in church affairs if he thinks it threatens his interests - you also probably continue to see Protestant heretics persecuted. In those circumstances it is not unlikely that reform movements grow throughout the remainder of Henry's reign despite persecution - with the possibility of a bottom up reformation later in the century as happened in Scotland.

Hmm interesting, I've always wondered, if Catherine had died earlier than in otl, and then shortly afterwards Anne gave birth to a son, would that be taken as a sign that Henry was justified in his actions, thus potentially suggesting that Rome was very much in the pocket of people when it shouldn't?
 
However, it might make Anne's position as queen slightly better. She'll possibly still get a choppy ending if she can't deliver a son, but the pressure is off with regards to the fear that Henry can drop her like a hot potato.

Okay interesting.
Well this was what I was thinking regarding Henry and Anne's children:
Edward, Prince of Wales (b. 1532)
Elizabeth of England (b.1535)
Henry, Duke of York (b.1536)
With two sons and a girl there to help, I think that should make her position somewhat more long lasting?



But the problem of the succession was not solved, due to the low fertility of the Tudor dynasty, as already mentioned other times, caused by a rare blood group and a genetic disorder associated (the study of Banks Whitley and Kramer), inherited from Jacquetta of Luxembourg.
Henry’s blood was a carrier of the rare Kell antigen, a protein that triggers immune responses, while the blood of his sexual partners no, making his wifes poor reproductive matches. The study said that in a first pregnancy, a Kell-positive man and a Kell-negative woman can have together a healthy Kell-positive baby. In subsequent pregnancies, however, the antibodies the mother, produced during the first pregnancy, can cross the placenta and attack a Kell-positive fetus, causing a late-term miscarriage, stillbirth or rapid neonatal death :eek:
The survival of the three firstborn children (Henry FitzRoy, Elizabeth and Edward) is consistent with the Kell-positive reproductive pattern. As for Catherine of Aragon, the researchers Banks Whitley and Kramer note that «it is possible that some cases of Kell sensitization affect even the first pregnancy», and Mary may have survived because she inherited the recessive Kell gene from Henry, making her impervious to her mother’s antibodies ;)
Henry’s blood group would have doomed the him (as in OTL) to a lifetime of desperately seeking of a male heir, passing from one woman to another.
A disorder, furthermore, that affects members of this suspected blood group, with physical and psychological deterioration in midlife.

Now, the study of Banks Whitley and Kramer makes it impossible the fanciful hypothesis of a long list of survivors children of Henry or that the stillborns or miscarriages in OTL can survive.
Now, in the present TL, a long marriage between Henry and Anna Boleyn would have made more and more restricted the window of opportunity to Henry VIII to have another heir, simplifying, or complicating, depending on the points of view, the succession: four or five years of marriage, accompanied by reproductive troubles as the marriage with Catherina, would have brought the king up to the physical and psychological deterioration in midlife, and up to his resulting impotence.

It now remains to ask: in front of reproductive troubles also in Anna, Henry had decided to rid of her quickly? Once tasted blood, once committed the first murder and realizing that not would have created too many problems, as in OTL he would not have seen problems to cut the heads of the wives in the desire to have a male heir from the next? Or Anna, always in front of reproductive troubles, had decided to play dirty by using other means (the famous incest with her brother) to get pregnant?
Or by accepting the fact of having only two daughters, Henry VIII would work in order to encourage the best succession with a marriage between Mary and James V of Scotland? (Marriage certainly sterile for the same physical problems that have made sterile Mary in OTL...)
What would be, then, the best marriage union for Elizabeth?
However, just a hint: when you have available the knowledge of the clinical picture of a historical figure, you can not ignore "to make ends meet"... :rolleyes:


Good luck :D
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the theory is just that - you could also argue that Catherine and Anne were RH Negative (far more common than Kell antigen) and Henry RH Positive.

Catherine's pregnancies and deliveries are not typical of Kell Antigen sensitivity - given her only surviving child was the result of her fifth pregnancy (in Kell it is more than likely the first pregnancy is fine and subsequent ones are affected)

That doesn't rule out the theory of course but without genetic testing it is merely a theory.

You could also say Henry was exceptionally unlucky but without proof that there was a clinical reason for his wives' failure to carry to term I think it is personally reasonable to have a bit of wishful thinking in having at least one or two more children surviving (I don't think given the number of surviving children among his immediate relatives it would be honest to give him and any of his wives a brood of children as some have done).

A common comparison is between Margaret Tudor and Catherine of Aragon - both had six pregnancies (Margaret by James IV) that are confirmed in a very short period of time - the common argument is that Margaret's were all born alive whereas Catherine's six produced four stillbirths and two live births (though the sources argue that some of her stillbirths lived a few hours) - however in both cases the women only had one child (Mary and James V) that lived past infancy into adulthood.

In Henry's family - both his surviving sisters produced issue with some difficulties - Margaret left just two surviving children (James V and Margaret Douglas) out of eight or nine pregnancies, Mary also had two (Francis and Eleanor) out of four pregnancies with both her sons dying young. His mother had four children that survived out of eight pregnancies. So Henry's three surviving issue out of 10 or 11 pregnancies by three wives wasn't that unusual in his family.

On Catherine's side - her mother had five surviving children out of six pregnancies (one of which was twins) - Catherine's sisters with the exception of her eldest Isabella all had numerous healthy issue - certainly though her sisters Maria and Juana enjoyed far more security and both produced a healthy male heir fairly quickly after their marriages.

Queen Consorts were under great pressure even under normal circumstances and in the most secure royal family's to produce heirs - repeated failures weakened their political position as well as their health. A woman in Catherine's position would have been living under incredible stress after each failure and we don't know how that might have impacted on her ability to carry and bear a healthy child to term.
 
An interesting observation there, I do think that if Anne gives birth to the much needed male heir first when she and Henry are wed, then that could well ease the pressure on her.
 
Lol
I don't debunk or disbelieve their position and it is one of the stronger theories about the issue.
Were it proven i would agree you can't change a clinical diagnosis but it
hasn't been.

You can call Banks Whitley and Kramer and discuss this
 
Top