Arthur Survives, Who Does Henry Wed?

Henry VIII, as we all know, was the spare to the throne - he had an older brother, Arthur, who was married to Catherine of Aragon in 1501. Their marriage lasted less than six months before Arthur died of an unknown illness in 1502. Whether or not it was actually consummated is a riddle for the ages - but the couple failed to conceive either way, and a papal dispensation was secured for her to marry Henry, which she eventually did in 1509. But if Arthur lives, who would the Duke of York marry instead, and when?

On AH.com, the old chestnut that Henry VII was preparing his younger (and, after 1500, only other living) son for a Church career - leading, inevitably, to a bishopric and then a Cardinalate, because nobody can resist the irony of Henry VIII subservient to the Pope like that - when he doesn't become the Pope himself (as Adrian VI or VII) for double irony score - is a frequent scenario. However, it's unlikely that his father would have done that - it was rare for the (legitimate) sons of English Kings to join the priesthood, and there's some evidence that Henry VII was in marriage negotiations for his younger son, although I'm not sure if these predate the death of Arthur in 1502.

Likewise, the most common name bandied about as Henry VIII's alternate spouse is Eleanor of Austria, Charles V's older sister (who IOTL married Manuel I of Portugal and then Francis I of France, and whose only surviving issue, Maria of Portugal, died unmarried). Apparently the two were betrothed (or as good as) for a time before Henry decided to marry Catherine, at least according to the venerable Wikipedia. But I must imagine that would be contingent on Henry being the Heir Apparent, especially since she married two regnant Kings IOTL. If he's just the Duke of York and probably not even Heir Presumptive after his father dies, would he still be as attractive a match?

As further rebuttal against Eleanor as a potential wife, I'll quote this post I encountered as I was searching the forums:

Eleanor of Austria would be far too grand an alliance for Henry. Catherine's influence with her family was negligible. Possible marriage partners suited to his station and prospects:

- Bona Sforza (providing him with the duchy of Bari and the possibility of becoming a neutral Duke of Milan)
- Infanta Julia of Naples, a cousin of King Ferdinand, OTL married off to the Marquis of Montferrat I think
- Margaret Courtenay, his first cousin, granddaughter of King Edward IV
- Elizabeth Grey, Viscountess Lisle, one of the few heiresses around at the time
- the Infanta Anne of Navarre, or one of her many sisters, daughters of Queen Catherine III
- Maria, Duchess of Julich-Berg, a rich German heiress, mother of Henry's OTL wife Anne of Cleves.

Another potential candidate from OTL is Marguerite of Angoulême, whose mother sought to marry her to Henry "when she was ten" (in 1502), by which time he might have already been the Heir Apparent - and she was the only legitimate sister of the Heir Presumptive to the French throne. Despite this, her first marriage was "only" to the Duke of Alençon, the next Prince of the Blood after Francis (after he died, though, she did marry a King... of Navarre, a de facto French vassal since 1512).

Is there anyone else who hasn't been considered? An unmentioned English aristocrat or gentlewoman, perhaps? (He did marry four of those IOTL, after all.)

And what about Henry VII? Yes, he dithered and dallied in getting his son (or himself!) married after Arthur and then Elizabeth of York died, but most reports indicate that the deaths of his son and heir, and then his wife (whom he had obviously grown to love despite the marriage having been purely political) devastated him emotionally, and that he was quite a different man - and King - afterwards. Consider that the Henry VII whose wife and heir were still alive had his first son married at the age of 15 (and was apparently willing to do it sooner, but Ferdinand and Isabella kept putting it off) and his first daughter wed even younger, at 13 (the Treaty of Perpetual Peace which arranged this marriage was signed just months before Arthur died). It therefore strikes me as more likely, counter-intuitively enough, that Henry VII would get his second son married before his death ITTL, despite there being far less urgency for him to do so. Even if Henry VII keeps putting it off, I see no reason why Arthur wouldn't arrange something for his brother as soon as possible after their father dies (Arthur and Henry were apparently quite close as children, and no doubt the Duke of York would be pushing for a wife).

A couple of miscellaneous assumptions, should Arthur remain alive:

Arthur and Catherine will very likely conceive and have (surviving?) issue before Henry VII dies. A high-placed betrothal for the Duke of York becomes less likely as Arthur sires more healthy children. Comparing the fecundity of the bride and groom to their siblings, parents, aunts, and uncles, the pair are likely to first conceive no later than 1504.

Although the combination of being spared the devastation of losing her son and the decreased need for more children could well spare Elizabeth of York from her OTL death in childbirth, her days might be numbered anyway: of Edward IV's seven daughters, four died between the ages of 36 and 38 IOTL, including Elizabeth, who died on her 37th birthday. Only one of them, Catherine, lived longer, dying at age 48. So it's possible - even likely - that Elizabeth predeceases Henry, and that anyone he subsequently approaches for betrothal will be far more interested in affiancing their daughters (or sisters, etc.) to him, and might refuse to even consider his second son as an alternative.

Those are just my ideas, and they might not even be very good ones. So now I open the thread to you:

Who might Henry Tudor, Duke of York marry? When? And what benefit would the match bring England, or at least him personally?
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
If Arthur had not died and lived to a ripe old age for the period, I have a suspicion the latter part of his reign could turn out to be as bad or worse as that of his father Henry VII. Particularly Arthur could have turned into paranoid tyrant. Especially if Arthur faced the same problems in producing an heir as Henry VIII did and suffered from the same condition as Henry VIII.

Because I have read that Henry VIII likely had McLeod syndrome, inherited probably from his great grand mother Jacquetta of St Pol. Among other things McLeod syndrome was a likely factor behind the number of miscarriages and infants deaths both Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn experienced. Also it would explain his deterioration in his mental health in the latter years of his life.

The article I have read
http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf

I believe it would have been likely that Arthur would have had McLeod's syndrome and would have manifested itself, if he had not died young. Namely the difficulty he would have faced producing an heir and deterioration in his mental health latter in life.

Back to Henry Duke of York (in this TL), he would not entered the church. However would have become the second man (to his brother the King) in the Kingdom. Maybe perhaps (regardless of who he marries), that he might have an affair with Queen Katherine of Aragon and pass off his bastard as his brother's heir. I don't know how likely it was, however I have heard that Edward of Westminister was actually the son of Edmund Beaufort not Henry VI. Also maybe later in life Arthur descending further into paranoia, decides to have Henry executed.
 
If Arthur had not died and lived to a ripe old age for the period, I have a suspicion the latter part of his reign could turn out to be as bad or worse as that of his father Henry VII. Particularly Arthur could have turned into paranoid tyrant. Especially if Arthur faced the same problems in producing an heir as Henry VIII did and suffered from the same condition as Henry VIII.

Because I have read that Henry VIII likely had McLeod syndrome, inherited probably from his great grand mother Jacquetta of St Pol. Among other things McLeod syndrome was a likely factor behind the number of miscarriages and infants deaths both Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn experienced. Also it would explain his deterioration in his mental health in the latter years of his life.

The article I have read
http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf

I believe it would have been likely that Arthur would have had McLeod's syndrome and would have manifested itself, if he had not died young. Namely the difficulty he would have faced producing an heir and deterioration in his mental health latter in life.
The article you link to doesn't actually conclude that Henry VIII had McLeod syndrome, merely that he was Kell-positive (meaning that only each successive partner's first pregnancy would have produced a healthy child) - and even they acknowledge the Bloody Mary-sized hole in their theory, while coming up with... creative workarounds:

  • All four of Henry and Catherine's earlier conceptions resulted in K-positive babies (a 1 in 16 chance - 6.25%). Possible, but unlikely.
  • Arthur was also K-positive like Henry (a 50% chance) - though, again, they don't argue in favour of McLeod syndrome - and Catherine, during their brief marriage, conceived (and miscarried). That's a fairly narrow window, and assumes that both were physically mature. Arthur died at 15 years, 6 months, and 13 days old, so that's not a given - I note that his sister (who logically would have matured earlier in life) did not conceive with James IV until she was approximately 16 1/2 years old. (Catherine's sister Isabella did not conceive with Afonso, Prince of Portugal, who was slightly older than Arthur at the time, during their short marriage either.)
  • Catherine cheated on Henry VIII and conceived Mary with some guy. Odd that Mary was never considered or even rumoured to be illegitimate, then - surely ammunition which could have been used to disinherit Mary (if not by Henry VIII, then certainly by Edward VI). Henry VIII also had no compunction with accusing his other wives of adultery, including Anne Boleyn (who probably wasn't unfaithful) and Catherine Howard (who probably was), so why not his first?
The other problem is that both Henry VII and Henry VIII have legitimate, well-documented reasons for their unhinged behaviour in their later reigns. Henry VII was deeply bereaved (and possibly lost his wife's moderating influence - look at Richard II) and the article even acknowledges the several plausible explanations for Henry VIII's later... eccentricities, including the head injury in 1536 (note: he didn't start killing wives until after that injury), obesity leading to probable diabetes, and possibly even syphilis. Even in his earlier reign, Henry VIII was brash, pompous, and a glory-hound - Field of the Cloth of Gold, anyone?

Arthur is a blank slate, and he might very well not have had the potential for greatness in him, but I can't imagine him being a less capable or temperate ruler than Henry VIII.

Teejay said:
Back to Henry Duke of York (in this TL), he would not entered the church. However would have become the second man (to his brother the King) in the Kingdom. Maybe perhaps (regardless of who he marries), that he might have an affair with Queen Katherine of Aragon and pass off his bastard as his brother's heir. I don't know how likely it was, however I have heard that Edward of Westminister was actually the son of Edmund Beaufort not Henry VI. Also maybe later in life Arthur descending further into paranoia, decides to have Henry executed.
But even if he does have an affair with Catherine and is summarily executed, who do you think he actually married?
 
Last edited:
Think Heiresses People

I like Eleonore of Austria for two separate reasons:

1) she'd be the sister of the most powerful man in Europe, and
2) also in case anyone takes it into their head, "let's try invading France again" the HRE is a good ally - especially since there's no love lost between Charles V and Francis.

Bona Sforza - a weird little choice that deprives Poland of a queen. There was talk of naming Henry an imperial vicar and a plot for a Tudor to end up somehow in Milan. Marrying Bona cements a Tudor rule there, and at the same time, gets Henry out of England.

Same goes for Giulia of Naples and Anne of Navarre - have their only brother meet a little accident and suddenly Henry's out of England (which I'm sure Arthur will be only glad to have: it's just too difficult to compete with your athletic, golden younger brother when you're rumored to be sickly (reverse-Richard III scenario) and he's got a crown for himself.
 
I like Eleonore of Austria for two separate reasons:

1) she'd be the sister of the most powerful man in Europe, and
2) also in case anyone takes it into their head, "let's try invading France again" the HRE is a good ally - especially since there's no love lost between Charles V and Francis.

Bona Sforza - a weird little choice that deprives Poland of a queen. There was talk of naming Henry an imperial vicar and a plot for a Tudor to end up somehow in Milan. Marrying Bona cements a Tudor rule there, and at the same time, gets Henry out of England.

Same goes for Giulia of Naples and Anne of Navarre - have their only brother meet a little accident and suddenly Henry's out of England (which I'm sure Arthur will be only glad to have: it's just too difficult to compete with your athletic, golden younger brother when you're rumored to be sickly (reverse-Richard III scenario) and he's got a crown for himself.

Charles V may have had doubts about his sister marrying a second son/brother of a King.

I don't buy that Arthur would try and get Henry out of the kingdom, many kings were very reliant on their brothers and I suspect Arthur would have relied heavily on Henry. The children of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York seemed to get on relatively well, albeit Henry had frictions with his sisters in later life, he still went out of his way to help them when appropriate.

Henry was not by nature a schemer or terribly keen on hard work, I suspect Henry would have been largely stationed in the North keeping a watchful eye on the Scottish border and may even have married a great Northern heiress or the nearest there was in that time to give him an independent footing in that area, certainly once Catherine of Aragon had given King Arthur a son, Henry's dynastic importance and his appeal on the European marriage circuit would have declined considerably.
 
I like the idea of a Tudor in Milan, but I haven't heard that there was a possibility of Henry marrying Bona Sforza. Cite?
 

Redhand

Banned
I like the idea of a Tudor in Milan, but I haven't heard that there was a possibility of Henry marrying Bona Sforza. Cite?

I can't imagine that the Tudors, who propagandized themselves as a native English dynasty and actually used the English language, would be sending sons to Italy to involve themselves in Imperial Politics. Such an action, if it did happen, might keep England Catholic though. Protestantism was top down in England, not bottom up, and I can't imagine Arthur or really anyone pulling what Henry did.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The article you link to doesn't actually conclude that Henry VIII had McLeod syndrome, merely that he was Kell-positive (meaning that only each successive partner's first pregnancy would have produced a healthy child) - and even they acknowledge the Bloody Mary-sized hole in their theory, while coming up with... creative workarounds:

  • All four of Henry and Catherine's earlier conceptions resulted in K-positive babies (a 1 in 16 chance - 6.25%). Possible, but unlikely.
  • Arthur was also K-positive like Henry (a 50% chance) - though, again, they don't argue in favour of McLeod syndrome - and Catherine, during their brief marriage, conceived (and miscarried). That's a fairly narrow window, and assumes that both were physically mature. Arthur died at 15 years, 6 months, and 13 days old, so that's not a given - I note that his sister (who logically would have matured earlier in life) did not conceive with James IV until she was approximately 16 1/2 years old. (Catherine's sister Isabella did not conceive with Afonso, Prince of Portugal, who was slightly older than Arthur at the time, during their short marriage either.)
  • Catherine cheated on Henry VIII and conceived Mary with some guy. Odd that Mary was never considered or even rumoured to be illegitimate, then - surely ammunition which could have been used to disinherit Mary (if not by Henry VIII, then certainly by Edward VI). Henry VIII also had no compunction with accusing his other wives of adultery, including Anne Boleyn (who probably wasn't unfaithful) and Catherine Howard (who probably was), so why not his first?
The other problem is that both Henry VII and Henry VIII have legitimate, well-documented reasons for their unhinged behaviour in their later reigns. Henry VII was deeply bereaved (and possibly lost his wife's moderating influence - look at Richard II) and the article even acknowledges the several plausible explanations for Henry VIII's later... eccentricities, including the head injury in 1536 (note: he didn't start killing wives until after that injury), obesity leading to probable diabetes, and possibly even syphilis. Even in his earlier reign, Henry VIII was brash, pompous, and a glory-hound - Field of the Cloth of Gold, anyone?

Arthur is a blank slate, and he might very well not have had the potential for greatness in him, but I can't imagine him being a less capable or temperate ruler than Henry VIII.

But even if he does have an affair with Catherine and is summarily executed, who do you think he actually married?

It was just a random musing, I wasn't being serious at the least. Besides I had Henry executed by his brother (fearful of any opposition to his regime) some time after the affair. Because I portrayed Arthur gradually descending into psychosis as his brother Henry did in OTL.
 
Last edited:

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Charles V may have had doubts about his sister marrying a second son/brother of a King.

I don't buy that Arthur would try and get Henry out of the kingdom, many kings were very reliant on their brothers and I suspect Arthur would have relied heavily on Henry. The children of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York seemed to get on relatively well, albeit Henry had frictions with his sisters in later life, he still went out of his way to help them when appropriate.

Henry was not by nature a schemer or terribly keen on hard work, I suspect Henry would have been largely stationed in the North keeping a watchful eye on the Scottish border and may even have married a great Northern heiress or the nearest there was in that time to give him an independent footing in that area, certainly once Catherine of Aragon had given King Arthur a son, Henry's dynastic importance and his appeal on the European marriage circuit would have declined considerably.

I would broadly agree with you here, I might add Henry instead of marrying a European princess. Might instead marry some English noble lady, which would be more suitable for the Duke of York, Lord of the North and Ireland.

I based my assumption of Arthur very likely having a Kell K postitive blood type as Henry VIII did, by a quote from the article I posted. It is from a section talking about Mary (Henry VIII's and Katherine only surviving child)

An alternative explanation for Katherine’s problems is that Arthur, Prince of Wales, her first husband, was like Henry, Kell positive, and that not only did they consummate the marriage, but Katherine, at that time a naive 15-year-old, had an unrecognised brief pregnancy with an early miscarriage in which she became sensitised to the Kell antigen prior to her coupling with Henry.

Henry VIII, McLeod syndrome and Jacquetta’s curse by P Stride, K Lopes Floro
 
I would broadly agree with you here, I might add Henry instead of marrying a European princess. Might instead marry some English noble lady, which would be more suitable for the Duke of York, Lord of the North and Ireland.

I based my assumption of Arthur very likely having a Kell K postitive blood type as Henry VIII did, by a quote from the article I posted. It is from a section talking about Mary (Henry VIII's and Katherine only surviving child)

An alternative explanation for Katherine’s problems is that Arthur, Prince of Wales, her first husband, was like Henry, Kell positive, and that not only did they consummate the marriage, but Katherine, at that time a naive 15-year-old, had an unrecognised brief pregnancy with an early miscarriage in which she became sensitised to the Kell antigen prior to her coupling with Henry.

Henry VIII, McLeod syndrome and Jacquetta’s curse by P Stride, K Lopes Floro

I am disregarding this "medical" diagnosis. Trying to over analyse reasons for miscarriages and early deaths in infant in the 16th century is completely insane and when a so called academic study has to suggest that Catherine of Aragon may have cheated on Henry in order to produce Mary to substantiate their overall claims it loses all credibility.

It doesn't have to be a genetic issue, I have read that many of Queen Anne Stuart's many pregnancies which resulted in dead babies and miscarriages may have been prevented treatment for a condition which in the 21st century could have been resolved by a simple aspirin.
 
I like the idea of a Tudor in Milan, but I haven't heard that there was a possibility of Henry marrying Bona Sforza. Cite?

Possible as in...possible, but not something that was ever considered OTL. The right PoD could quite comfortably bring about a marriage between the Duke of York and the Emperor's niece, appropriately royal and dowried but with significantly less market value than the Archduchess-Infantas of Castille. A war-hungry King Arthur goes to war in France together with Maximilian, offers his brother to the latter's niece? Or alternatively a result of such a war is Henry Tudor enfeoffed with Milan in Bona's right, as a neutral-ish (well, more neutral than a Hapsburg) candidate.

The real-life considerations for Tudors in Milan came later, with the Emperor Maximilian variously offering to renounce the Imperial diadem to Henry VIII, to name him Imperial Vicar, to give him or FitzRoy the Duchy of Milan, and to wed FitzRoy to a daughter of Denmark or ?Portugal. Nothing came of any of these discussions, since Maximilian was obviously an untrustworthy mess who only wanted to manipulate the young English King into helping him financially.
 
The real-life considerations for Tudors in Milan came later, with the Emperor Maximilian variously offering to renounce the Imperial diadem to Henry VIII, to name him Imperial Vicar, to give him or FitzRoy the Duchy of Milan, and to wed FitzRoy to a daughter of Denmark or ?Portugal. Nothing came of any of these discussions, since Maximilian was obviously an untrustworthy mess who only wanted to manipulate the young English King into helping him financially.

To be fair to Maximilian, he was just following the grand Habsburg tradition of promising anything to get cash and/or military support.
 
As for Henry becoming a prince of the Church, it would meet many of his inclinations. He was very bright, educated, and theologically interested. OTL, he wrote a treatise against Luther that got him awarded the 'Defender of the Faith' title from the Pope (talk about irony). The fact that he liked tumbling female courtiers, well, that wasn't anything out of the ordinary for princes of the Church at the time, unfortunately.

Whether Henry VII would have agreed to it, that's another question entirely. But OTL's Henry VIII would likely have been happy to go that route. IMO.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
I am disregarding this "medical" diagnosis. Trying to over analyse reasons for miscarriages and early deaths in infant in the 16th century is completely insane and when a so called academic study has to suggest that Catherine of Aragon may have cheated on Henry in order to produce Mary to substantiate their overall claims it loses all credibility.

It doesn't have to be a genetic issue, I have read that many of Queen Anne Stuart's many pregnancies which resulted in dead babies and miscarriages may have been prevented treatment for a condition which in the 21st century could have been resolved by a simple aspirin.

I am of aware of that, however it wasn't just Catherine of Aragon who experienced a large number of miscarriages and infant deaths. Anne Boleyn had three miscarriages as well, after giving birth to Elizabeth.
 
I am of aware of that, however it wasn't just Catherine of Aragon who experienced a large number of miscarriages and infant deaths. Anne Boleyn had three miscarriages as well, after giving birth to Elizabeth.

Anne was under enormous pressure to produce a male heir. Henry had broken every law to marry her, meaning that she was in a precarious position if she didn't have a boy. She wasn't a foreign princess so for all her Francophile tendencies, France wouldn't help her. Then there's the added stress of her not having been brought up to cope with the pressure (as a princess would've been) of needing to have a boy. All can/could contribute to her miscarriages.
 
I am of aware of that, however it wasn't just Catherine of Aragon who experienced a large number of miscarriages and infant deaths. Anne Boleyn had three miscarriages as well, after giving birth to Elizabeth.

The majority of women of that era had numerous miscarriages and infant deaths, many of which were not recorded.

Look at the birthing history of Catherine of Aragon's mother Isabella of Castille:

Isabella (1470–1498)
A son stillborn on 31 May 1475 in Cebreros
John (1478–1497),
Joanna (1479–1555)
Maria (1482–1517)
A stillborn daughter, twin of Maria (1482)
Catherine (1485–1536)

Isabella gave birth to five living children over the space of 15 years, she also had at least 2 stillborn children and one can assume many, many miscarriages especially during that early period where she seemingly went almost 5 years at a time without conceiving.

Isabella conceived over a period of 15 years, her daughter Catherine seemed to conceive over a much shorter period of 8 years, basically the same period as 1470 and 1478 during which time Isabella produced only two living children.

From the time of Elizabeth's conception to Anne's execution, you are talking about a period of less than three and a half years.

According to Thomas Boleyn, his wife Elizabeth Howard was pregnant many times during their marriage but only three of their children are known and presumably lived to adulthood, information about non royal women is much more scarce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Boleyn,_Countess_of_Wiltshire

Anne's mother gave birth to three children over survived infancy over a period of approximately 6 years with presumably several miscarriages and possibly stillbirths in between, her daughter Anne managed 1 living child over a period of approximately 3.5 years, not that remarkable or shocking.

While it may be more exciting to dream up medical conditions, this particular study is undone by the birth of the future Queen Mary and the only justifiable explanation seems to be that she may not be Henry's daughter.

Catherine may simply have been unlucky, perhaps menopause hit early, she was only 33 at the time of her last recorded pregnancy, Isabella was 34 when Catherine was born but her first pregnancy had been when she was just 19, whereas Catherine was already 25, no spring chicken by the standards of the time.

Anne may simply may not have had enough time. Both women were remarkable for their time in that they did not die in childbirth, which was the biggest killer of women in that era, Henry's mother and two of his wives died as a result of childbirth (albeit Catherine Parr's child was not Henry's).

Its worth noting that Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour were not nubile teenagers when they married Henry, Catherine was in her mid 20s, Anne was potentially 30 or even older and Jane was just shy of 30, they had all basically missed their most potent periods of their life by the time they married the King.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The majority of women of that era had numerous miscarriages and infant deaths, many of which were not recorded.

Look at the birthing history of Catherine of Aragon's mother Isabella of Castille:

Isabella (1470–1498)
A son stillborn on 31 May 1475 in Cebreros
John (1478–1497),
Joanna (1479–1555)
Maria (1482–1517)
A stillborn daughter, twin of Maria (1482)
Catherine (1485–1536)

Isabella gave birth to five living children over the space of 15 years, she also had at least 2 stillborn children and one can assume many, many miscarriages especially during that early period where she seemingly went almost 5 years at a time without conceiving.

Isabella conceived over a period of 15 years, her daughter Catherine seemed to conceive over a much shorter period of 8 years, basically the same period as 1470 and 1478 during which time Isabella produced only two living children.

From the time of Elizabeth's conception to Anne's execution, you are talking about a period of less than three and a half years.

According to Thomas Boleyn, his wife Elizabeth Howard was pregnant many times during their marriage but only three of their children are known and presumably lived to adulthood, information about non royal women is much more scarce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Boleyn,_Countess_of_Wiltshire

Anne's mother gave birth to three children over survived infancy over a period of approximately 6 years with presumably several miscarriages and possibly stillbirths in between, her daughter Anne managed 1 living child over a period of approximately 3.5 years, not that remarkable or shocking.

While it may be more exciting to dream up medical conditions, this particular study is undone by the birth of the future Queen Mary and the only justifiable explanation seems to be that she may not be Henry's daughter.

Catherine may simply have been unlucky, perhaps menopause hit early, she was only 33 at the time of her last recorded pregnancy, Isabella was 34 when Catherine was born but her first pregnancy had been when she was just 19, whereas Catherine was already 25, no spring chicken by the standards of the time.

Anne may simply may not have had enough time. Both women were remarkable for their time in that they did not die in childbirth, which was the biggest killer of women in that era, Henry's mother and two of his wives died as a result of childbirth (albeit Catherine Parr's child was not Henry's).

Its worth noting that Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour were not nubile teenagers when they married Henry, Catherine was in her mid 20s, Anne was potentially 30 or even older and Jane was just shy of 30, they had all basically missed their most potent periods of their life by the time they married the King.

Anne Boleyn might have been as young as 25 when she was crowned Queen, since her birth year could have been anywhere between 1501 and 1507.
 
Anne was under enormous pressure to produce a male heir. Henry had broken every law to marry her, meaning that she was in a precarious position if she didn't have a boy. She wasn't a foreign princess so for all her Francophile tendencies, France wouldn't help her. Then there's the added stress of her not having been brought up to cope with the pressure (as a princess would've been) of needing to have a boy. All can/could contribute to her miscarriages.

Here's a vital difference with Catherine of Aragon, she was foreign Royalty and very well connected one. One nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, king of Castille, Aragon, Sicily, Naples etc., archduke* of Austria*, duke of Burgundy etc., lord of the Netherlands.
Another nephew was Ferdinand, king of the Romans, king of Hungary, king of Bohemia, king of Croatia etc., archduke of Austria, duke* of Burgundy* etc. (*= dynastic)

It didn't help against the repudiation, but her high born status and potential diplomatic repercussions did provide her with protection unavailable to the later noble born wives of Henry VIII.
Other reasons might be on a more personal level, which would be even more speculation.

Unless Henry would be the heir of Arthur, he won't marry Eleanor of Habsburg.
A match with an important English noblewoman seems likely, or a younger Habsburg or Valois daughter.
 
Last edited:
As for Henry becoming a prince of the Church, it would meet many of his inclinations. He was very bright, educated, and theologically interested. OTL, he wrote a treatise against Luther that got him awarded the 'Defender of the Faith' title from the Pope (talk about irony). The fact that he liked tumbling female courtiers, well, that wasn't anything out of the ordinary for princes of the Church at the time, unfortunately.

That describes many European princes who didn't join the Church, or show any interest in joining the Church.
 
As far as theories go, the one I like best is that Catherine of Aragon had anorexia - it accounts for her lack of successful pregnancies and her early menopause (malnutrition plays havoc with the menstrual cycle). Anne Boleyn has a blood-related theory of her own: that she was Rhesus-negative (and that Henry VIII, by extension, was Rhesus-positive) and that every Rhesus-positive pregnancy she had after the first would fail. And as mentioned, Jane Seymour died of complications from childbirth - a sadly common cause of death at the time. And yes, all three mothers were relatively old and past their prime child-bearing years (which Catherine would not be with Arthur).

I like Marguerite of Angoulême a lot - she's low enough in the French hierarchy of the time that even the Duke of York would still be a reasonably good match for her. After all, Louis XII could still very well have a son of his own, which leaves her brother Francis with nothing more than a dowry from a fille de France. She was also a major Protestant sympathizer (much like her cousin Renée) and having her marry the arch-Catholic Henry Tudor would be a lot of fun - especially if they have no sons. Henry will probably want a divorce or annulment, but her brother, the King of France, stands in the way of getting her excommunicated for her heretical beliefs and having that separation granted.

Julia of Naples and Anne of Navarre both strike me as reasonably safe choices should Henry VII be arranging the betrothal as opposed to Arthur. The consensus that seems to be emerging is that if Henry is still unmarried by the time his brother comes to the throne, then he isn't marrying a foreign bride. Of the two, I think I prefer Julia, because her aunt Joan was a candidate to marry Henry VII after Elizabeth of York died. One scenario could be Elizabeth of York dying more-or-less on schedule, Henry VII's courtiers going to Naples to assess Joan, and encountering Julia; Henry, of course, doesn't want to remarry but as a sop to Naples he'll marry his son to their daughter - who, IOTL, never married until 1533, at the age of 41 :)eek:) in a short-lived union with the Marquis of Montferrat which (unsurprisingly) produced no children. Such a marriage would give Henry Tudor's children a claim to the throne of Naples, and depending on how the Italian Wars go, a "neutral" King of Naples might be as desirable as a "neutral" Duke of Milan.

As far as native English brides go, there's no shortage of them. Amusingly, Anne Boleyn herself (who was very likely born in 1501 or thereabouts, for the record, so her birth isn't butterflied) might have an outside chance of marrying the Duke, if he's still single as late as the 1520s. But there are others:

Lady Elizabeth Stafford, daughter of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham (who, in 1521, was one of Henry VIII's earlier high-placed executions). Born c. 1497. Her father was the only Duke in England from 1495 to 1514 other than the King's sons, and was descended multiple times from Edward III. IOTL, Elizabeth married the Earl of Surrey in 1513.

A daughter of the 1st Marquess of Dorset (who would be Henry's half-first cousin). It looks like Lady Elizabeth Grey, born c. 1497, and who IOTL married Gerald FitzGerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, might be the best bet. She departed for France in Mary Tudor's entourage in 1514 IOTL, so I imagine she'd marry Henry before then. Dorset was England's only extant Marquessate from 1493 to 1525, so we'll have to go down to the Earldoms to find more eligible brides...

Oxford is rather awkwardly placed. John de Vere, the 13th Earl, died without legitimate issue in 1513, and the title passed to his nephew (also named John), who had four sisters, who appear to be about the right age (though this is unclear). Worth noting is that one of those sisters, Dorothy, married IOTL the 3rd Baron Latimer, who twice remarried after her death, the second time to none other than Catherine Parr! That certainly gives Dorothy de Vere some much-needed irony points as a candidate.


Likewise, the Percys of Northumberland seem misaligned: the 4th Earl's daughters are a bit too old, and the 5th Earl's daughters a bit too young. A shame, because obviously they're the ideal Northern dynasty. However, I note that the 4th Earl had a daughter, Elizabeth, apparently born after 1485, who might do the trick. Likewise, the 5th Earl could have had a daughter when he had a son IOTL, due to butterflies, born in the early 1500s.

Isabel, a daughter of the 3rd Earl of Westmorland, seems about the right age. IOTL, she married a knight, and then an esquire; a royal duke would be a huge step up for her. But she is Northern, and a Neville. Meanwhile, the 4th Earl of Shrewsbury (also the Earl of Waterford) has several eligible daughters, including Margaret, who IOTL married Henry Clifford, a friend and generational cohort of Henry VIII (but died young, in 1516). The Talbots are vaguely Northern (the Earl was born in Shropshire and died in Derbyshire).

George Grey, the 2nd Earl of Kent, had one daughter, Anne, born in 1490. IOTL, she married the Baron Hussey of Sleaford, a ringleader of the Pilgrimage of Grace, around 1509, and (naturally) survived him. They had eight children. The Earl of Devon's daughter Margaret Courtenay has already been mentioned above.


The Earl of Derby faces a similar situation to the Earl of Oxford - any eligible brides would be children of the Baron Strange, as the 2nd Earl is about Arthur's age and his eldest daughter was about twenty years Henry's junior. But Baron Strange had three daughters: Jane, Elizabeth, and Margaret. Unfortunately, little seems to be known about any of them, other than that Jane married a knight and had a son, Edmund Sheffield, Baron Sheffield, born in 1521 IOTL.

And those are the most promising leads for the pre-1509 Earldoms. Elizabeth Grey, the Viscountess Lisle, has already been mentioned, though she was born in 1505 and could easily be replaced by her "brother" IOTL. Due to the relative paucity of Viscountcies at this time, she's the only woman connected to one worth mentioning, and that leaves the Baronies, of which there are far too many to go through. Certainly the daughter or sister of a Baron marrying a royal Duke would have to bring a huge dowry.

So, which of those would be the best bet for Henry, Duke of York, to support his role as Governor of the North?
 
Last edited:
Top