What if Anne Boleyn didn't miscarry in Summer of 1534?

[Appirinia]

What if Anne Boleyn didn't miscarry in 1534, but what if it wasn't the long awaited son, but another daughter? I mean I get that no one is exactly happy with another daughter but a living child in such a short time since the last was born after years of stillbirths and miscarriages with Katherine, could it not be taken as a hopeful sign?

To what degree would Henry feel conflicted whether to be happy or not with the new child? After all his own mother was the oldest of King Edward IV's children and there were two more daughters before sons followed. One could even make the argument that since Anne's parents had two daughters first(if you ascribe to Mary b.1499/1500; Anne b.1501) before sons followed then surely it isn't so odd.

Henry might not be pleased that it's not the long awaited son, but wouldn't he take it in a good light that at least the child was born alive and healthy?

Eric Ives writes that there is evidence that Henry VIII ordered a silver cradle, decorated with precious stones and Tudor roses, from Cornelius Hayes, his goldsmith, as soon as April 1534. So Anne at this stage must be showing enough that most people are certain she is with child which means she got pregnant soon after giving birth to Elizabeth. She would have already proven she's fertile and two living, healthy and thriving children, in such a short time is still something after Katherine's obstetric history.

Would a second child make Henry give Anne more time, even if she "miscarries of her saviour" in 1536 like OTL? Contrary to popular belief the miscarriage of January 1536 wasn't the end of Anne and Henry's marriage or the moment Henry VIII decided he was in need of another wife.

If he does give her more time, how much and if she is still alive when the Pilgrimage of Grace in October of 1536 starts, what could it mean for her on all possible levels? How much would the rebels blame on her, how much would her husband? What sort of role would she play?

P.S. Also would the daughter of 1534 be named Anne, after her mother, or something different? And who would be her godparents?

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Well, a healthy living child would be better than a misscarried one, even if it's a daughter, so Anne's chances would be somewhat longer before Henry tires of her. I think that the daughter would be named Anne after her mother, Mary is taken and Margaret is still alive, and it certainly won't be Catherine.

 

[JonasResende]

Well, a healthy living child would be better than a misscarried one, even if it's a daughter, so Anne's chances would be somewhat longer before Henry tires of her. I think that the daughter would be named Anne after her mother, Mary is taken and Margaret is still alive, and it certainly won't be Catherine.

Henry did toy with naming OTL's Elizabeth "Mary" as a sort of screw-you to Katherine IIRC. @Space Oddity might know more.

 

[desmirelle]

Henry VIII would take as a personal affront; after all, the sign from God that his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was unlawful despite the Papal dispensation was the lack of sons. And both he and Anne know they're guilty of the same thing (his affair with her sister Mary). She will be safe until the death of Katherine (7 January 1536); if she's pregnant as OTL and miscarries at the end of January 1536, she'll probably be tried for poisoning Katherine in February (otherwise, the end of January) and Jane will be Queen in March (maybe in late February, after her first refusal to go to bed with Henry) instead of around June first.

As for name: Anne or maybe Claude, after the Queen Anne served?

 

[Appirinia]

Henry VIII would take as a personal affront; after all, the sign from God that his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was unlawful despite the Papal dispensation was the lack of sons.

Yes, but Henry and Katherine had been trying for much longer, during which she'd been pregnant six times that we know of, over a period of eight years. Their first child, a daughter, was stillborn(b.1510), followed by a son named for his father who lived only 52 days(b.1511), another son who was stillborn or lived only a short while (b.1513), another stillborn son of about eight months(b.1514), then Mary, then another stillborn daughter of about eight months(b.1518) which was also her last pregnancy.

And both he and Anne know they're guilty of the same thing (his affair with her sister Mary).

Henry's a hypocrite. Also he can't get rid of Anne on those ground since he'd become the laughing stock of Europe as he was already aware of the affair with her sister and can't suddenly claim he couldn't remember. Not to mention that it would be admitting he had erred when everyone cautioned him not to wed Anne because of the affinity they shared since he'd slept with her sister.

She will be safe until the death of Katherine (7 January 1536); if she's pregnant as OTL and miscarries at the end of January 1536, she'll probably be tried for poisoning Katherine in February (otherwise, the end of January) and Jane will be Queen in March (maybe in late February, after her first refusal to go to bed with Henry) instead of around June first.

After only two years of marriage would he really be looking to replace Anne, when she's been proving that she's capable of having children? I could see him be disrespectful, discontent, but would it look as bad as it did OTL even if she loses the baby 1536? Because while I can see the Henry VIII in later life discarding her, here he hasn't yet tired of Anne and women sometimes lose children, especially if it's close between pregnancies. He might wish for a son now, but what guarantee does he have Jane will give him one when it's taking Anne, who's already proven herself fertile, time?

As for name: Anne or maybe Claude, after the Queen Anne served?

That or I suppose Renee for Claude's younger sister since Anne spent time with her in the nursery when she first arrived in France.

 

[Deleted member 96349]

I would go with the name Margaret
It kinda goes with her her sister’s name, since Elizabeth was the name of her grandmothers, (Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Howard) and two of her great-grandmothers (Elizabeth Tilney and Elizabeth Woodville) while Margaret would be the name of her other two great-grandmothers (Margaret Beaufort and Margaret Butler).

Anne might be less stressed out if she never miscarried in 1534, so that might help her with her third pregnancy. And even if she still miscarries, that would be her only miscarriage, instead of having two in a row as in OTL

As for the pilgrimage of grace, Anne was very vocal about wanting to use the money from the monasteries for charitable purposes, that was probably one of the reasons she was executed after all, she had a big fight with Cromwell about it. So I don’t think even Henry would blame Anne for the uprising, though you never know with Henry...
She had both her almoner, John Skip, and her chaplain, Hugh Latimer, preach about using the money from the monasteries for good uses (and to convert them into places of education), and to not be blinded by greed.

 

[Kynan]

The name is probably going to be Margaret. Henry VIII of England has never had more than two daughters at a time, and Margaret is the next name on the unofficial approved royal list. After Margaret, any of his maternal aunts names, along with traditional royal names like Eleanor, Christina, Joan and Isabella. However, Margaret is probably the most likely and the one to be expected. He may have disapproved of his sister, but it's a name associated with his grandmother and it's likely that'll be strongly emphasized. Plus it has a connection to Marguerite of Angouleme, when Anne idolised. If not Margaret, Anne is a strong second choice, but I really wonder if they're going to consider naming this daughter after the mother. It depends on what they had agreed on. But I think it's likely this little girl will be Margaret Tudor.

On Anne’s position, it’s going to be way stronger and that itself is not going to save her. I’ve always preferred the idea that Cromwell was the mastermind behind her fall and if so, her arrogance and pride is going to be even stronger with two children. However, even with a second daughter, Anne is going to be in a sticky situation, because Henry wants a son. At most, she gets one more try after a 1536 miscarriage. Maybe still not even that.

 

[Appirinia]

Plus it has a connection to Marguerite of Angouleme,

or Margaret of Austria, since she made such an impression on Anne

At most, she gets one more try after a 1536 miscarriage. Maybe still not even that.

This was kinda my thought to. I mean her downfall would still come if her next child won't be a son, but it could mean it might happen after the pilgrimage is ended. Two living daughters, one miscarriage/stillbirth is far better than one daughter, a miscarriage and a stillbirth.

 

[desmirelle]

My idea is that Henry's pride in vested in a son with Anne ASAP. Mary Boleyn's affair wasn't the common knowledge we thought - Francis' comment was made years after Henry's marriage to Anne, and if Katherine had known of it, she'd have bruited it about so everyone in England would go - "You're just doing the same thing again!"

But that's my opinion. Henry wasn't going to be as patient with Anne - She had no connections to rulers abroad, that's what my opinion is based upon. And it settles the Rh negative question (of course, the second daughter could be negative, too) and enforces the more recent Kell Theory about Henry.

 

[colleoni]

My idea is that Henry's pride in vested in a son with Anne ASAP. Mary Boleyn's affair wasn't the common knowledge we thought - Francis' comment was made years after Henry's marriage to Anne, and if Katherine had known of it, she'd have bruited it about so everyone in England would go - "You're just doing the same thing again!"

But that's my opinion. Henry wasn't going to be as patient with Anne - She had no connections to rulers abroad, that's what my opinion is based upon. And it settles the Rh negative question (of course, the second daughter could be negative, too) and enforces the more recent Kell Theory about Henry.

Most of what I know about Henry VIII comes from this forum in general and your timelines in particular, but I think that the OP has a point about the likelihood of Henry going (the HVIII equivalent of) "look, two live, healthy children in two years! me manly me!". Not enough to save Anne's head for long, but possibly enough to have her survive the disappointment of the 1536 miscarriage. At least as long as 1537 brings the promised son - if there's a third daughter I think it's still going to be the chopping block.

 

[Appirinia]

My idea is that Henry's pride in vested in a son with Anne ASAP. Mary Boleyn's affair wasn't the common knowledge we thought - Francis' comment was made years after Henry's marriage to Anne, and if Katherine had known of it, she'd have bruited it about so everyone in England would go - "You're just doing the same thing again!"

But that's my opinion. Henry wasn't going to be as patient with Anne - She had no connections to rulers abroad, that's what my opinion is based upon. And it settles the Rh negative question (of course, the second daughter could be negative, too) and enforces the more recent Kell Theory about Henry.

His pride is on the line, but he's relationship with Mary was common knowledge. He was just discreet enough that we have no idea when it began and when it ended. When appealing for an annulment to Katherine he also wrote to receive a dispensation to marry a woman(Anne) with an "affinity arising from illicit intercourse in whatever degree, even the first” (hypocrisy at its finest).

Now one of his courtiers, said something alike “I told your Grace I feared if ye did marry Queen Anne your conscience would be more troubled at length, for it is thought ye have meddled both with the mother and the sister,” the King replied, “Never with the mother”

So it was common knowledge but since we are so far removed from those times we don't know how it started, when it ended or if any of Mary's kids were fathered by Henry or not. That's why there are so many speculations on this subject.

Also there might not even be any substantial weight to Francis comment about Mary.

It seems that the rumours and thoughts of Mary Boleyn being a whore came into play around the time that Anne Boleyn fell from power and was executed. Rodolfo Pio, Bishop of Faenza wrote a letter on March 10th 1536 stating that:

“Francis said also that they are committing more follies than ever in England, and are saying and printing all the ill they can against the Pope and the Church; that “that woman” pretended to have miscarried of a son, not being really with child, and, to keep up the deceit, would allow no one to attend on her but her sister, whom the French king knew here in France ‘per una grandissima ribalda et infame sopre tutte.’” - “a great prostitute and infamous above all”. (L&P x. 450)

http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.ro/2015/04/mary-boleyn-by-sarah-bryson-giveaway.html?m=0

I've actually quoted from the article above, sorry if I have to make you copy and paste to read if you want to. I'm having a hard time writing on my phone.

Edit: I'm still ambivalent about the blood theory since I can find perfect ways to explain the lack of children without it for all his wives and even Henry, who wasn't as big a skirt chaser as modern times turned him into. At least early in life when chivalric laws and courtly love still mattered to him.

 

[desmirelle]

I'm saying Katherine didn't know about it at the time, so odds are Mary Tudor Brandon, the French Queen didn't know (she was friends to the end with KoA), and therefore it wasn't public knowledge. NOW we know about it, but at the time it seemed to be a secret but for a select few, who were remarkably loyal to the King. It would have been broadcast from the rooftops had it been known that he wanted to marry his mistress' sister when he was annulling a marriage to a good woman because she was his brother's widow. (Mary Boleyn Carey was still alive and kicking, at least Arthur was dead.) Henry would have been ridiculed by his own people as well as Europe.

I think from the moment Henry knows the miscarriage in Jan 1536 is a boy, Anne's toast. With cool, calculating Jane in the wings, Henry will give Cromwell the rope and let him use it to take Anne down. (While Henry might not have been ready to annul the marriage to Anne - which was done anyway, probably based upon his relationship with her sister - he was tired of her and her 'causes' and her attitude by then.)

 

[Appirinia]

I'm saying Katherine didn't know about it at the time, so odds are Mary Tudor Brandon, the French Queen didn't know (she was friends to the end with KoA)

Katherine not knowing isn't so odd!! Henry VIII actually loved her at before he fell for Anne in 1526, so him being discreet with any mistress he had so she "could shut her eyes" wasn't so unexpected. And what does Mary Tudor Brandon knowing or not knowing about this add anything,because she was friends with Katherine, so were a lot of other women, including the Duke of Norfolk's wife. Mary Carey was married when the King's eye fell on her and she was known to have been his mistress, but you couldn't exactly apply the reason for Henry's annulment to him and a former mistress.

Leviticus 20:21 says "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." and this is what Henry said happened to him and Katherine, even if their daughter was alive.

As for the affinity he had to Anne, Henry wasn't particularly concerned about it since the only reason he kept digging his heels on that above quote from the Bible was because he'd been found investigating the validity of his marriage and now his pride was on the line. The King's Great Matter was a big circus if you look at it through modern lenses and if Henry wanted to get rid of Katherine he could've found so many other avenues, including allowing his daughter Mary to remain a princess since in those times there was such a clause as "born in good faith" but at the end of the all the power rested with Henry. At least in England as shown by what happened eventually, no matter how everyone dragged their feet.

With cool, calculating Jane in the wings

We actually know very little about Jane Seymour to call her cool and calculating, and as much as I dislike her for having replaced Anne, I think we do her a great disservice placing her either in the naive or calculating camp. The truth is we just don't know a lot about her.

As it is I'm only asking if Henry would do as you say, and just move on to annul,execute and replace Anne which I find extreme since only a miscarriage/stillbirth in three years and two living children, even if they're daughters might push him to give Anne more time. So instead of getting rid of her as soon as 19 May 1536 we might see her live until sometime in 1537 if she doesn't give birth to a son next. I mean even I know that a third daughter might be pushing it, but when arguing against or for we have to include how healthy children might soften Henry to Anne, even if he no longer loves her.

 

[JonasResende]

I think to dismiss Jane as being sweet/naïve is maybe not entirely correct. We know she was certainly less spirited than our beloved Nan. That said, the calculating part can be seen in the incident where Henry writes her a letter like a lovesick schoolboy, and she takes it, kisses it and sends it back, with the response: "Tell the king to resend such a letter when I am to make a good marriage" (sorry if it's not verbatim). She'd already been discarded from her Dormer betrothal due to the scandal of her dad-sister-in-law, and she was watching her youth slip past. It's not unthinkable to assume Jane (or her family) was simply grabving the opportunity - why be the king's whore when you can be the king's wife?

 

[Appirinia]

I think to dismiss Jane as being sweet/naïve is maybe not entirely correct.

What I was saying is that we shouldn't place her at extremes, calling her either cold and calculating or sweet and naive, because she probably wasn't only one or the other. There are glimpses of who she could have been that we are aware of from incidents like the one you quoted and the woman we see is much smarter than most historians ascribe her, despite the lacking education she received, at least in comparison to Katherine and Anne. But the fact is that in comparison to Katherine, Anne, Anna of Cleves, Katherine Howard and even Catherine Parr, in the years she was married with Henry there is a lack of details into Jane Seymour's life. We know she was somewhat obsessive-compulsive over her ladies in waiting conduct(?), that she had a fondness for quails when pregnant with her son and that she tried pleading for the lives of the rebels only for the king to reminded her what happened to her predecessors and not to "meddle in his affairs". She did help reconcile Mary to Henry, but not before Mary's treatment got worse and she agreed to sign the Oath.

She had come to the throne after her way was paved with the blood of innocents(and one has to wonder if she was aware of this or not) when the King had quite had enough of women like Katherine and Anne, and she knew to keep her head down until she was assured of what Henry wanted, a son.

 

[JonasResende]

It does however, increase the pressure on Anne (ticking clock and all that) to ensure that the next baby's a boy. After all, as Ives writes (in his dismissal of the 1534 being a phantom pregnancy, or a miscarriage induced by stress):

Anne, however, had no reason to be under stress at this date, having produced a healthy female child 8 months earlier

However, Elton, Chapman, Bruce all seem to imply that Anne had more than one miscarriage/pregnancy in 1534:

Historian G.R. Elton writes that “the dreary tale of miscarriages was resumed” after Anne’s successful first pregnancy, which implies that Anne had a few miscarriages, at least three. Mary Louise Bruce writes that “during the first six months of 1534 she appears to have had one miscarriage after another” which Dewhurst concludes must refer to a maximum of three as “it is scarcely “conceivable” for a woman to have more than three miscarriages within a six-month period”. Hester Chapman writes of a miscarriage in March 1534, a further pregnancy in April and a possible third in July , all of which ended in miscarriages. According to Dewhurst, Chapman goes on to write about the birth of a dead son in the seventh month of pregnancy in January 1536. Still another historian, F. Chamberlin, writes of Anne only having two miscarriages – one in 1534 and another in 1535. Confused yet?!

 

[Appirinia]

However, Elton, Chapman, Bruce all seem to imply that Anne had more than one miscarriage/pregnancy in 1534

There's actually an article written by Sir John Dewhurst, “The Alleged Miscarriages of Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn” that can be read here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1139382/pdf/medhist00080-0057.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez

I hope the link works. In it he takes a look at the obstetric history of both women, but since were here for Anne, I'm only going to focus on that and here is what he says about her miscarriage of 1534: "careful examination of the evidence surrounding a possible pregnancy in 1534 provides little if any support for any miscarriage that year. She is left with only two pregnancies, one successful and one unsuccessful. Perhaps the oft-repeated assertions that both Catherine and Anne had a series of miscarriages may be laid to rest."

Eric Ives didn't quite agree however saying that if she had not been pregnant, Henry wouldn't have ordered a beautiful silver cradle, decorated with precious stones and Tudor roses, from his goldsmith sometime in April 1534.

As for a possible miscarriage in 1535: The only evidence for a miscarriage in 1535 is a sentence from a letter from Sir William Kingston to Lord Lisle on 24th June 1535 when Kingston says “Her Grace has as fair a belly as I have ever seen”. However, Dewhurst thinks that there is an error in the dating of this letter as the editor of the Lisle Letters states that this letter is actually from 1533 or 1534 because it also refers to Sir Christopher Garneys, a man who died in October 1534.

The above quote comes from an article on the Anne Boleyn Files, which is a favorite site of mine, that's been a great help learning more about Anne and those in her life. It's also where I first found about Dewhurst's article so there's a lot of info there:
https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-pregnancies-of-anne-boleyn-and-catherine-of-aragon/

It does however, increase the pressure on Anne (ticking clock and all that) to ensure that the next baby's a boy.

Now here's the deal changer, what if both the miscarriage of 1534 and the sillbirth of 1536 ended in living children. By which I mean a daughter in 1534 and the long awaited son in 1536. It doesn't erase the many problems of the royal couple, nor the trouble of the closing of the monasteries. So what could happen next. Henry won't be pleased with only one son even if he's happy for now that his son's been born. Would Jane become one of his mistress anyway since Henry doesn't know how to give up and the Seymours could see this as a way to advance, irregardless of what Jane herself might feel to actually give in to the King when there's no hope for a marriage?

And what would the prince be named: Henry? Edward? Or maybe Arthur as a snub to Katherine's memory or his daughter, Mary? Edmund for his short-lived brother?

edit: added a date and fixed some wordings.

 

[Deleted member 96349]

Now here's the deal changer, what if both the miscarriage of 1534 and the sillbirth of 1536 ended in living children. By which I mean a daughter in 1534 and the long awaited son in 1536. It doesn't erase the many problems of the royal couple, nor the trouble of the closing of the monasteries. So what could happen next. Henry won't be pleased with only one son even if he's happy for now that his son's been born. Would Jane become one of his mistress anyway since Henry doesn't know how to give up and the Seymours could see this as a way to advance, irregardless of what Jane herself might feel to actually give in to the King when there's no hope for a marriage?

And what would the prince be named: Henry? Edward? Or maybe Arthur as a snub to Katherine's memory or his daughter, Mary? Edmund for his short-lived brother?

I think it was the 1534 pregnancy that was the stillbirth, and the 1536 one that was the miscarriage, or they were both miscarriages. She was only about 3 ½ months along when she miscarried in 1536, so that wasn't a stillbirth. If she was pregnant as late as July in 1534, and if Chapuys was right in suspecting Anne to be pregnant already in January 1534, then that pregnancy might have ended in a stillbirth, it depends on when she got pregnant, and when the babe was lost.

If Anne gives birth to a son in 1536, after already having two healthy daughters, then Henry will see this as a sign that he was right, and that God had blessed their union. Anne will probably feel safer in her marriage, and would probably continue to fight with Cromwell about the monasteries. If Henry is in a good mood, he might let her turn some of the smallest monasteries into schools, but I doubt Anne will be able to dissuade him from his greed. Jane Seymour might become a royal mistress, but it's hard to know with her since we know so little about her personality.

As for the name, they're all good options for the baby IMO.
Henry after his father Henry VIII and grandfather Henry VII, but it's also the name of the New Years Prince and Henry Fitzroy (who is probably dead or dying when the baby is born) so H8 might think the name is bad luck. Though it's still a good name, and I called the baby that in my own timeline.
Edward after his great-grandfather Edward IV, as well as Edward I (common ancestor of Anne Boleyn and H8)
Arthur after his uncle and the legendary King Arthur
Edmund after his great-grandfather Edmund Tudor, and his short-lived uncle.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

If Henry still have no sons with Anne and his marriage with Jane is delayed it may happen that by this time Henry, due to his deteriorating health would be unable to sire another child, thus he'll be left with 3 daughters and no chance for next kid.

 

[JonasResende]

Glad to hear that there's someone else who enjoys Claire's postings on the AnneBoleynFiles

And what would the prince be named: Henry? Edward? Or maybe Arthur as a snub to Katherine's memory or his daughter, Mary? Edmund for his short-lived brother?

Henry veered between Ned (Edward) and Harry (Henry) for his "son" by Anne Boleyn OTL. Then Elizabeth was born and it became a moot point. I'd say that since all of his sons (that died) by Katherine of Aragon were named Henry, (and he's also named his only (recognized) bastard after himself), he might be a mite superstitious and name the boy Edward. Younger boys might get Artie, Harry and Edmund.