Only a single Tudor monarch

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Jonathan, Jan 13, 2018.

  1. Jonathan Corbynite with fire in heart & food in belly

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Kent, England, United Kingdom
    On the day of Henry VII's death, 21st April 1509, the throne passed smoothly to his oldest living son, Henry VIII.

    What happens in a world where Arthur is the only son of Henry VII with OTL Henry VIII dying before 1502 or being born female, Henrietta?

    With his wife, Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, dying during the birth of their final child, another daughter, Katherine.
    Does Henry VII marry his former daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon, hoping to produce a new male heir before he dies?

    Does he adopt/appoint someone close to him as his heir.

    Does he name one of his daughters as heir:
    - Margaret, Queen of Scotland
    - Henrietta, Queen of France
    - Mary, Empress of Holy Roman Empire.
    Do we see a union between England and one of these three nations?

    Or is there a successional war in England with other claimants including but not limited to:
    - Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, through a maternal line of John Beaufort, 1st Marquess of Somerset and 1st Marquess of Dorset, the first of the four children of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster.
    - Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter, is a grandson of Edward IV through his daughters, Catherine.
    - Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montagu, grandson of George, Duke of Clarence
    - Thomas Howard is married to Anne of York and has distant ties to King Edward I and Henry III
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    gap80, Nomis Nosnibor and Kome like this.
  2. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    Rather difficult to claim a throne when you've been dead for years...
     
  3. Jonathan Corbynite with fire in heart & food in belly

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Kent, England, United Kingdom
    My bad I got 1410 mistaken for 1510. Joys of only having my mobile lol
     
    gap80, The Professor and Whiteshore like this.
  4. Whiteshore Defender of Myrcella Baratheon

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Location:
    Philippines
    I wonder what an earlier union of England and Scotland would look like?
     
  5. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    It'd be Catholic for one.
    Ireland will be more secure and the King can interfere with France again. Though maybe they'd prefer to get in on New World action.
     
    Nomis Nosnibor and Jonathan like this.
  6. Jonathan Corbynite with fire in heart & food in belly

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Kent, England, United Kingdom
    Would a union under James IV, King of Scots, benefits England, he is seen as a strong king (one of the best Stuarts) with tight alliance with France and his acceptance of technology with turning Edinburgh Castle into one of Scotland's foremost gun foundries, and welcomed the establishment of Scotland's first printing press.

    But would the other sisters and their husbands sit back and not staight their claim.
     
  7. BlueFlowwer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Given how recent the War of the Roses were I predict civil war
     
    Ciniad, Jonathan and The Professor like this.
  8. desmirelle director of admissions, brookview sanitarium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Location:
    Usually inside my head
    Margaret wed James of Scotland by proxy in January 1503, but didn't go to Scotland until after her mother's death. With her being the heiress presumptive, would Henry VII be willing to let England go to Scotland or would he break off the marriage before she headed north? I'm not so sure (neither would his mum be pleased). Ferdinand and Isabella might not be so adverse to Henry VII wedding Katherine since any son of hers would be King of England, just as if she'd had one with Arthur. That was the problem with H7's OTL "suggestion" that he wed her OTL, there was already a male heir for the Tudor dynasty. But since you're positing only ONE Tudor, Katherine's not having a boy with him, either. I would think James, if he hasn't already wed by 1509, would claim the throne under the guise of having 'married' Margaret, the eldest daughter. That would have the effect of uniting the nobility against him and under Queen Margaret.

    But.....since Henry VII has possession and half the dowry of Katherine of Aragon, I would think he'd wed her in an attempt to have another son. Of course, this leaves Katherine with (if successful and since she wouldn't have gone through the physical and mental deprivations of 1502-9) at best a 5 year old son, perhaps a second son or daughter and a long haul against a heavily anti-female ruler council. It would be interesting to say the least.
     
    Ciniad, Jonathan and Timaeus like this.
  9. BlueFlowwer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Henry VII of England b 1457 d 1509 m a) Elizabeth of York b 1466 d 1503, b) Catherine of Aragon b 1485

    Issue

    With Elizabeth of York
    -Arthur, prince of Wales b 1486 d 1502
    -Margaret, queen of Scotland b 1489
    -Henry, duke of York b 1491 d 1500
    -Mary of England b 1496

    With Catherine of Aragon
    -Edward VI of England b 1505
    -Isabella of England b 1506
    -Arthur, duke of York b 1508
     
    Jonathan likes this.
  10. samcster94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Obviously, that butterflies away the Church of England and Knox. Continental Protestantism will probably develop mostly on time though.