1) A wedding between Catherine and Henry will still be possible (as while the wedding was regarded as non consummated the dispensation issued for Henry and Catherine covered also the possibility who her wedding to Arthur was consummated).I'm curious what may have happened if the marriage of Arthur Tudor and Catherine of Aragon was officially regarded as having been consummated, all while the ill-fated Arthur dies more or less on schedule. One of three things occurs from here:
1. Catherine does not get pregnant, but did perform her wifely duties (they were married for about 5 or 6 months and were both young and attractive, so it's perfectly plausible for this to happen). One of the main reasons Catherine was allowed to marry Henry in the first place was that the marriage was never consummated, which satisfied a condition that prohibited a widow from marrying her late husband's brother. So with Catherine and Henry going their separate ways, whom do they each marry afterwards? Catherine is still a fine prospective bride for any ruling European house at this point.
2. Catherine is a pregnant widow and is fortunate enough to deliver a healthy male heir. This is especially intriguing to me because now, as the mother of the future King of England, Catherine is now afforded far more privilege and consideration than the raw deal she got in OTL. Is Catherine allowed to even re-marry? And does she get to play a large role in raising the new Prince of Wales?
3. Catherine is pregnant, but gives birth to a healthy female...but will this little girl be allowed to become the official heir. This to me causes the most amount of conflict because this infant girl would immediately become the most sought after bride in Europe once she comes of age, like a super-charged Eleanor of Aquitaine. However, could this also plunge England into an eventual succession crisis? Poor Catherine would be caught in the middle here. This scenario opens up way more possibilities to me than the other two, and what Henry decides to do is critical.
Boadicea wins and throws out the Romans
That’s an interesting one. It would certainly mean a different culture for independent Africa or Asia, perhaps one that would be even more authoritarian yet more able to develop economically. The problem is that the Austro-Hungarian Empire, although almost uniformly natural-resource-poor, had such low development and fertile farmland (like Central America whose early industrialisation I have always though a very good alternate history) that it was not likely to industrialise as early as the coastal states of Europe.Austro-Hungary colonizing in Africa and or Asia
I have noted this in a previous post, but absence of selection for hierarchical social structures means that the horse and camel (at least the horse) not going extinct in the Americas is more local protein and hence less development of civilisation.It's practically ASB, but I love a scenario where the horse and camel don't go extinct in the Americas and are eventually domesticated. It butterflies all Native American culture as we know it away, but does this newfound interconnectivity allow for other technology to he discovered and invented by the alternate indigenous populations, like sailing and iron working?
Let’s see
Blacks winning the Russian Civil war
He means Nestor Makhno and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, known as the Black Army, or simply Blacks.
He means Nestor Makhno and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, known as the Black Army, or simply Blacks.
Like I always say on these sort of threads - Percy Bysshe Shelley lives a long life and becomes a British revolutionary leader leading the Chartist movement to become a radical populist republican movement.
To quote a passage from A Song to the Men of England:
"The seed ye sow, another reaps;
The wealth ye find, another keeps;
The robes ye weave, another wears;
The arms ye forge, another bears.
Sow seed—but let no tyrant reap:
Find wealth—let no imposter heap:
Weave robes—let not the idle wear:
Forge arms—in your defence to bear."