Prince Author and Catherine.

WI: Author dies after fathering a child with Catherine, a girl. She is now the legal heiress of England, isn't she? What happens now?
 
Was female succession already secured in England by then?

Yes, always has been. The daughter would be the legal heir.

What would happen? There would be a regency council consisting of Arthur's privy counselors, probably headed by the Prince Henry (OTL Henry VIII, of course). Given their young age when Arthur married Catherine, and the time needed to father a child I reckon Henry would be a good 18 by this point. The Queen would be crowned and then put under special guardianship to be brought up as a ruler rather than merely an heir. At the age of about 15, an equal aged noble of a foreign royal family would be married off to her, providing England with the strong male lead that was considered so important at that age, yet this noble would need to be suggestible, as in such a powerful position the regency council would want someone who would be controllable rather than risking everything on someone who would pursue their own cause, possibly to England's detriment. When the royal couple turned about 16 they'd start sitting in on their Council meetings and around the age of 18 they'd probably choose to take over properly. Further than that it's hard to say without making up your own events for a TL.
 
The problem was that females were viewed as not having the strength of person to rule a country. There was never any legal coding to determine whether women could or couldn't inherit, though precedents had to be respected. England didn't follow Salic Law so it didn't rather prevent the line of succession passing through female blood. In fact I believe I remember there being a case saying that Salic Law originally was cognatic primogeniture (women can inherit if there is no male heir) but the French argued that it actually should be interpreted saying that the line of succession can never pass through a woman in order to prevent Edward III from being their legal heir in 1337, leading to a change in understanding of the law. But back on course. The precedent for succession through female blood was established all the way back in what was it? 1135 I think, where Henry I had the English Barons accept his daughter Matilda as his heir. Yes, she faced a civil war over it, but the point had been made and the civil war was only ended by a settlement whereby the two rival claimants were tied through marriage to each other (Stephen's son Geoffrey to Matilda iirc) and I think which made Matilda Stephen's heir. After that, it was accepted that women could inherit provided that no male heir existed, as was expected.
 
Last edited:
the question is who would she marry... a hapsburg, bourbon or just a noble from europe or england..... and England was'nt under Salic law so the daughter would be the legal heir but she would face tough resistance from the nobles.... and would Prince Henry press his claim to the throne over his niece or would he remain a bishop?
 
IMO she would be married off to a Hapsburg to cement English involvement in the Holy League in the Italian Wars against France. But that's just my opinion.
 
the question is who would she marry... a hapsburg, bourbon or just a noble from europe or england..... and England was'nt under Salic law so the daughter would be the legal heir but she would face tough resistance from the nobles.... and would Prince Henry press his claim to the throne over his niece or would he remain a bishop?

Could Henry pull a Habsburg and marry his niece just to ensure his own rights to the crown? Or if the also marries and have a son, could he try to have the young queen married to his son, in order to ensure the Tudor dynasty on the English throne?
 
well Henry would have to renounce his oath to Roman Catholic Church and stop being a Clergymen..... and secondly they would need Papal premisson because they so closely related, which i doubt would be forthcoming considering Henry quit being a Bishop just to marry his niece and become King
 
In that situation much would depend on the attitude of Henry VII - Catherine and Arthur were married in 1501 assuming the child was born in 1502. I suspect the likeliest scenario is that Henry VII would push an Act of Parliament through confirming the succession to his heirs male...meaning on his death his son Henry Duke of York succeeds rather than his 7 year old granddaughter.
Henry VII's title to the throne was by Conquest - not by inheritance - as set out by his first parliament. He may have used his marriage to Edward IV's daughter and his own Beaufort descent as a useful propoganda tool but he didn't claim the throne by hereditary right.
It is likely the only objection to that would come from Ferdinand and Isabella of Castille and Aragon and perhaps from James IV in Scotland (as the act would also deprive his wife Margaret of her rights). Given Isabella's death in 1504 and Ferdinand's political difficulties in attempting to hold Castille against his grandson Philip of Burgundy he's hardly in a position to enforce his granddaughter's rights in England. The biggest problem is Catherine of Aragon - as the daughter of a Queen Regnant the idea of a female on the throne is not going to seem as alien to her as it would to the English...in this scenario there is also the issue of whether she marries her husbands brother. In OTL the papal dispensation for her second marriage was phrased to cover the impediment whether or not her first marriage had been consummated (the Spanish version suggested no consummation, the English version suggested the possibility of consummation) - so it is still a possibility and Henry VII may have been keen as a way of neutralising the threat or her setting her daughter up as the rightful heiress to the throne and enables him to keep her in England and with her dowry.
The other alternate is to have her parents start offering her back on the marriage market, if Henry was prepared to bid farewell to her dowry, in those circumstances she would be expected to leave her daughter behind.
 
Top