Anne Boleyn's Queenly Legitimacy?

France's "offers" were made with terms they knew Henry VIII would reject. The HRE did NOT offer anyone; Henry heard of Christina's beauty and pursued her. She said she'd wed him if the HRE approved, knowing he would not. This was the reason behind the time between Jane's death and his marriage to Anna of Cleves: Henry's reputation by that point was crap - he was either poisoning (Katherine), murdering (Anne) or by negligence (Jane), losing wives. Not exactly a pool you'd want to swim in.
 
Kristina of Denmark famously said she'd marry Henry- if she had 2 heads.

Whilst Marie de Guise commented on hearing of the suit, that "I may be a big [tall] woman, but I have very little neck", The height of the Guises was borne out by both Mary I and Mary II, Charles II, James II and Prince Rupert among others. While the "little neck" was a play on Anne Boleyn's remark when she heard that she was to be executed "that I have only a little neck"
 
Two new questions:

1) Besides Henry being Henry, and Wolsey once remarking that "one should tell the king what he SHOULD do, not what he CAN do", why didn't he go for the public honesty option? I mean if it meant that Karl V is more likely to side with you than his aunt, then surely it was (at least in hindsight), the better option

2) As to the foreign candidates, following Anne's sword accident and Jane's death, France offered Marie de Bourbon, Marie de Guise, (I think I read somewhere Marguerite de Valois was also proposed as part of a double match), and one or two Lorrainer/Bourbon princesses. In response, the Imperial camp offered Kristina of Denmark or Maria of Viseu (however, both imperial matches foundered on the fact that both ladies offered were great-nieces of CoA, so the affinity would've required a papal dispensation). And the other option was that both France and Spain requested a double match, Henry to the lady, while Mary to either the Infante Luiz or a French prince (dunno who the French wanted after the duc de Bretagne died), PLUS her reinstatement in the succession as legitimate.

To answer the first question:

Well Wolsey was keen but of course it effectively meant that Henry would have had to go back on his word that Catherine had not been a virgin on their wedding day - which would have made him look very bad - effectively he would have been admitting he had lied.
I suspect to Wolsey it was probably a more honest course that allowed a degree of respect towards the Queen (accepting her arguments about her virginity) and was certainly more likely to be view sympathetically across Europe - he was probably grasping at straws knowing that the political issues alongside Catherine's determination to remain Henry's wife would mean any case was likely to fail.

Secondly it is highly unlikely that the Pope would not have been aware of the existence of this impediment given Catherine herself was claiming to have never consumated her first marriage.
Although most people traditionally viewed that affinity only followed a sexual relationship some in the 16th C did consider cohabitation as man and wife enough to create affinity irrespective of whether the marriage had been consummated or not which might have been what Wolsey was hoping for.
However it would still have been weak given the original dispensation for affinity used the term "perhaps" with regard consummation so the Pope could still argue that there had been no need for a second dispensation of public honesty and the marriage was therefore valid.

To be honest Henry was doomed due to the political situation - and ugly annulment cases were not unusual look at Louis XII's (and his case was just as weak as Henry's) annulment from Joan of France that was appallingly embarrassing for all parties involved. Henry simply didn't have the power, the prestige or the influence in Rome to convince the Pope to override a previous dispensation.
 
To answer the first question:

Well Wolsey was keen but of course it effectively meant that Henry would have had to go back on his word that Catherine had not been a virgin on their wedding day - which would have made him look very bad - effectively he would have been admitting he had lied.
I suspect to Wolsey it was probably a more honest course that allowed a degree of respect towards the Queen (accepting her arguments about her virginity) and was certainly more likely to be view sympathetically across Europe - he was probably grasping at straws knowing that the political issues alongside Catherine's determination to remain Henry's wife would mean any case was likely to fail.

Secondly it is highly unlikely that the Pope would not have been aware of the existence of this impediment given Catherine herself was claiming to have never consumated her first marriage.
Although most people traditionally viewed that affinity only followed a sexual relationship some in the 16th C did consider cohabitation as man and wife enough to create affinity irrespective of whether the marriage had been consummated or not which might have been what Wolsey was hoping for.
However it would still have been weak given the original dispensation for affinity used the term "perhaps" with regard consummation so the Pope could still argue that there had been no need for a second dispensation of public honesty and the marriage was therefore valid.

To be honest Henry was doomed due to the political situation - and ugly annulment cases were not unusual look at Louis XII's (and his case was just as weak as Henry's) annulment from Joan of France that was appallingly embarrassing for all parties involved. Henry simply didn't have the power, the prestige or the influence in Rome to convince the Pope to override a previous dispensation.

To be fair, while Jeanne de Valois' marriage would've stood if it had been dissolved at any other time, Alexander VI NEEDED Louis XII and vice versa. But also, Jeanne didn't have any powerful relatives like CoA, her father and brother were both dead.

Added to that, as mentioned CoA would NOT be swept aside short of an archangel descending from heaven and telling her to - and even then, I could see her insisting that unless God Himself told her to, she wouldn't budge. Probably not even if one of her nieces were to replace her. Since when Wolsey attempted to persuade her to retire to St. Saviour at Bermondsey, her response: "I will not! For God never called me to a nunnery!"
 
Edward VI* Born To Anne Boleyn

Continuing with this thread, and Anne buying herself time by being delivered of a live male son in 1536, instead of miscarrying in January. The baby is christened Edward (Henry seems to me, superstitious, so he wouldn’t name the child Henry, since all of his sons named such had died (Fitzroy according to Chapuys soon to be the latest of them) with much rejoicing. Anne, however, dies in May (her OTL death date, simply with the CoD being childbed fever rather than an accident involving the headsman from Calais).

Henry VIII, being Henry, then marries Jane Seymour (maybe a bit later in 1536 or in 1537), who either gives him another child, before dying in childbirth. The rest of Henry’s marriages proceed as OTL (Anne of Cleves, Kitty Howard, Kathryn Parr (maybe he can still marry the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk as he intended to do if he managed to put Kathryn Parr aside), and he finally dies. Edward VI then succeeds as king of England. He rules until 1553, when he dies (pick a way, how – although Elizabeth was seemingly the only healthy one amongst Henry’s children (Mary and Edward suffered from congenital syphilis, while Fitzroy was tubercular) ) without a child – mostly because there’s a similar shuffling of feet about who he can marry (chief candidates: Élisabeth de Valois, Juana of Spain and Mary, Queen of Scots).

Now, regardless of the butterfly herding that this would require, how does this young Edward grow up? Henry flipflopped between Catholic and Protestant policy (while AFAIK he saw himself merely as a Catholic with a few papal issues) for most of his reign (particularly shown by his choice of wives: CoA, Jane Seymour and Kitty Howard were all Catholic (or Catholic favouring), while both Annes, Katheryn Parr were either Protestant or Protestant-leaning; Katherine Brandon née Willoughby IDK, since her mother, Maria de Salinas, was a Spaniard from the retinue of CoA, whilst she was one of many Marian exiles during and a friend of Kathryn Parr), so chances are that Edward grows up in a similar environment, religiously speaking, to his OTL namesake.

However, what does this future hold for Mary Tudor, the Lady Princess Elizabeth (mom doesn’t get executed for treason, parents don’t divorce, can’t see why she would lose the title), and Jane Seymour’s sprig (if a girl, or the effects on tempering the Boleyns if she has a boy (who could be just as sickly as OTL Edward VI)?)
 
Without Anne you could argue that Henry would have remained a loyal husband to Catherine - and plenty of people at the time believed that Anne was the root cause (or rather Henry's fascination with her) of his appeal to Rome for an annulment - however given he was still without a male heir and Catherine was still living - there is always going to be chance he would move for a new wife at some point.

Henry was hardly a "loyal" husband. Would he have still tried to dump Katherine, most surely. Without a male heir, he'd have seen Katherine as unable to give him one. Not sure what the time line is, but the longer Fitzroy lives, the more the stronger the issue becomes. In Henry's mind, the problem of not having a male lies with Katherine not him, and Fitzroy proves it. So without Anne the marriage is still doomed.
 
Anne was absolutely not the cause of Henry's divorce. Henry was already doubting the validity of his marriage and planning to ask an annulment before meeting Anne Boleyn. In his mind he needed an heir (a legitimate son) and because Katherine was unable to give him one their wedding was cursed because was unlawful. Henry's mind was easy to comprend, if you go to the heart of the problem. Anne Boleyn was from the start a victim of Henry's will and likely more than Katherine... If Henry had never met Anne Boleyn he would still have asked the annulment of his wedding to Katherine for the same reasons he asked it in OTL
 
Edward VI* Born To Anne Boleyn

Continuing with this thread, and Anne buying herself time by being delivered of a live male son in 1536, instead of miscarrying in January. The baby is christened Edward (Henry seems to me, superstitious, so he wouldn’t name the child Henry, since all of his sons named such had died (Fitzroy according to Chapuys soon to be the latest of them) with much rejoicing. Anne, however, dies in May (her OTL death date, simply with the CoD being childbed fever rather than an accident involving the headsman from Calais).

Henry VIII, being Henry, then marries Jane Seymour (maybe a bit later in 1536 or in 1537), who either gives him another child, before dying in childbirth. The rest of Henry’s marriages proceed as OTL (Anne of Cleves, Kitty Howard, Kathryn Parr (maybe he can still marry the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk as he intended to do if he managed to put Kathryn Parr aside), and he finally dies. Edward VI then succeeds as king of England. He rules until 1553, when he dies (pick a way, how – although Elizabeth was seemingly the only healthy one amongst Henry’s children (Mary and Edward suffered from congenital syphilis, while Fitzroy was tubercular) ) without a child – mostly because there’s a similar shuffling of feet about who he can marry (chief candidates: Élisabeth de Valois, Juana of Spain and Mary, Queen of Scots).

Now, regardless of the butterfly herding that this would require, how does this young Edward grow up? Henry flipflopped between Catholic and Protestant policy (while AFAIK he saw himself merely as a Catholic with a few papal issues) for most of his reign (particularly shown by his choice of wives: CoA, Jane Seymour and Kitty Howard were all Catholic (or Catholic favouring), while both Annes, Katheryn Parr were either Protestant or Protestant-leaning; Katherine Brandon née Willoughby IDK, since her mother, Maria de Salinas, was a Spaniard from the retinue of CoA, whilst she was one of many Marian exiles during and a friend of Kathryn Parr), so chances are that Edward grows up in a similar environment, religiously speaking, to his OTL namesake.

However, what does this future hold for Mary Tudor, the Lady Princess Elizabeth (mom doesn’t get executed for treason, parents don’t divorce, can’t see why she would lose the title), and Jane Seymour’s sprig (if a girl, or the effects on tempering the Boleyns if she has a boy (who could be just as sickly as OTL Edward VI)?)

So, if Anne dies in her duty, she ends up being the "martyred wife" that Jane Seymour was OTL. In fact, even if Jane produces a son, the boy's not gonna be very important besides as a spare. The Boleyn-Howard star at court is fixed (at least until Thomas Culpeper and Kitty Howard come along), and even then, it might be more limited to the Howards rather than the Boleyns.

Now, how this affects English politics - the Pope and the rest of the Catholic world can't exactly say that Henry was wrong, and even an apology/recognition from Rome is not gonna cut it with Henry. He's gonna be even more arrogant, since he's gonna see himself as having been right all along. With Anne having survived the block, most likely (unless they did something outrageously stupid, her other primaries will survive too (no accomplices in treason apparently)), so Norris is probably married to Lady Shelton or someone else by now. The Seymours are gonna climb as high as they can with a life between Jane's son and the throne. So the Boleyns might climb higher still, or at least but riding high - I can't see Henry elevating Thomas higher than an earldom, but...he might decide to recognize Mary Boleyn's second marriage by acknowledging her Stafford husband as heir to at least some of the Buckingham fortune (what was left of it, anyway).

Cromwell might originally do a little worse - he and Anne seemed to have a quasi-rivalry going on near the end of her life - but once Anne's gone, he will do better. Granted, I don't know if George Boleyn has the brains or anything to step into Edward Seymour's shoes from OTL, but usually George is portrayed as a secondary character in anything to do with Anne. Maybe he gets an annulment of his marriage to Jane Parker, maybe she has a child (the dynamic is that they hated each other OTL, is AFAIK, based on the lack of children, and yet she writes to him, during his imprisonment, telling him she's attempting to intercede for him, and so on and so forth).

The Reformation in England is likely to go more or less OTL, since Henry's still gonna be chopping and changing his mind, Jane's queenship might see a slight rolling back of some of Anne's more evangelically-tinged practices, but not by much. The monasteries own the most land in England. Henry needs money (always), so whether he goes whole hog evangelical or returns to the sainted knee of Rome, he's gonna dissolve them to get his hands on that land. So probably, the Pilgrimage of Grace takes place more or less as OTL.
That's all I can think of now.
 
Sounds about right. I agree: the dissolution of the monasteries still happens (too much wealth, just sitting there in 1534) and the dissolution is a convenient way of making the changes stick).
 
Mary Tudor resolutely refused to acknowledge her mother’s marriage as ‘incestuous and unlawful’ as well as her own illegitimacy during her mother’s lifetime. What would be made if she were to bend the knee to Anne Boleyn? After all, with a slightly longer lived Anne who has clearly succeeded where Catherine of Aragon had failed, Mary’s probably seeing the writing on the wall, isn’t she? She was apparently quite intelligent (but then, so was Henry VIII).
 
Top