What if Henry VII marries Catherine of Aragon?

After his wife Elizabeth of York died in 1503, King Henry VII of England was actually considering marrying his dead son's widow Catherine of Aragon (who was almost 30 years his junior!) What if Henry gets a papal dispensation and marries Catherine and they have a son together, let's call him Ferdinand, Duke of York after Catherine's father. How would history be different with Henry VIII having a half-brother. Who would Henry VIII marry? Who would Prince Ferdinand marry? Could Ferdinand possibly become king? Also, let's say Henry and Catherine have a daughter named Isabella. Who would she marry?
 
After his wife Elizabeth of York died in 1503, King Henry VII of England was actually considering marrying his dead son's widow Catherine of Aragon (who was almost 30 years his junior!) What if Henry gets a papal dispensation and marries Catherine and they have a son together, let's call him Ferdinand, Duke of York after Catherine's father. How would history be different with Henry VIII having a half-brother. Who would Henry VIII marry? Who would Prince Ferdinand marry? Could Ferdinand possibly become king? Also, let's say Henry and Catherine have a daughter named Isabella. Who would she marry?

Given a 1505 birthdate for Ferdinand, I think the most likely suspects for him would be either Renee of France or one of the daughters of Juana and Philip of Castile. Marguerite of Angoulême would be the obvious choice for Henry.

Ferdinand could easily succeed to the throne if Henry VIII had no son to survive him. Salic Law might not apply to England but there still was a tradition of male rulers and no codified laws of succession. I can see a nasty crisis if Henry were to die leaving adult married daughters. I can also see precedent being made if Henry were to have Parliament pass a succession act confirming his daughter's right to the throne, or the right of a daughter's son. We might even get Henry asking the Pope to rule that his father's marriage to Catherine was invalid and Ferdinand illegitimate, although he'd have to base that on a different verse of the Bible than in OTL.

We could even get an uncle/niece marriage to end any succession crisis, which (if repeated in succeeding generations) might result in an English version of Carlos II and a war of succession two hundred years down the line.

I wonder whether the existence of Ferdinand would mean no Church of England. Without the possibility of an endangered succession, will Henry be so certain that his marriage (to whomever) is faulty if he has no son? What reason would he have to annul it, if he weren't married to his brother's widow? Will the Protestants be more Lutheran in tone, or will a native Protestant denomination arise (like the Baptists or Methodists OTL, only earlier)?

However, I suspect that Henry VII, whose crown still rests lightly, would be wary of a Spanish name such as Ferdinand. Isabella is plausible (it was the English version of Old Spanish Ysabel, after all), but I suspect the son would end up as Edward, Arthur, or even Jasper.
 
Given a 1505 birthdate for Ferdinand, I think the most likely suspects for him would be either Renee of France or one of the daughters of Juana and Philip of Castile. Marguerite of Angoulême would be the obvious choice for Henry.

Ferdinand could easily succeed to the throne if Henry VIII had no son to survive him. Salic Law might not apply to England but there still was a tradition of male rulers and no codified laws of succession. I can see a nasty crisis if Henry were to die leaving adult married daughters. I can also see precedent being made if Henry were to have Parliament pass a succession act confirming his daughter's right to the throne, or the right of a daughter's son. We might even get Henry asking the Pope to rule that his father's marriage to Catherine was invalid and Ferdinand illegitimate, although he'd have to base that on a different verse of the Bible than in OTL.

We could even get an uncle/niece marriage to end any succession crisis, which (if repeated in succeeding generations) might result in an English version of Carlos II and a war of succession two hundred years down the line.

I wonder whether the existence of Ferdinand would mean no Church of England. Without the possibility of an endangered succession, will Henry be so certain that his marriage (to whomever) is faulty if he has no son? What reason would he have to annul it, if he weren't married to his brother's widow? Will the Protestants be more Lutheran in tone, or will a native Protestant denomination arise (like the Baptists or Methodists OTL, only earlier)?

However, I suspect that Henry VII, whose crown still rests lightly, would be wary of a Spanish name such as Ferdinand. Isabella is plausible (it was the English version of Old Spanish Ysabel, after all), but I suspect the son would end up as Edward, Arthur, or even Jasper.

Most of this sounds about right. Though depending on butterflies, Ferdinand (I agree very unlikely name for an English Prince) could be married to a wealthy Heiress in England. And none of Philip and Juana's daughters were available. MAYBE Infanta Caterina but besides her no.

However, your right about a nasty succession crisis. People would remember the Matilda-Stephen civil war. I think it depends on what happens here. I mean without a marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII might be able to produce more children with his wife, including a son. So there's no reason to think that the situation would end in the same way. Also, with Henry married to the King of France's sister and NOT the Emperor's aunt, the Pope may be more willing to grant a divorce. After all France wasn't in a position to rattle sabers from anywhere in Italy, like the Spanish were. But if he only has daughters, I can see Henry VIII having a act of Parliament being used to confirm a daughter as Heiress (England had no precedence with bypassing a mother for her son). Its likely. Asking the Pope to annul his father's second marriage, not so much. I mean after the Pope laughs his ass off, I think we would get a resounding NO.

Also, England had no precedence for an uncle niece marriage, unlike the Iberian nations. Can't see it happening.

Again, we're assuming that history will stay the same, with Henry not producing a son in his first marriage. There's no reason to thing that a wife that's closer in age wouldn't be able to succeed where Catherine of Aragon failed. But yes if Henry had no son he would definitely try for an annulment. After all, changing his wife isn't gonna change Henry's personality. And if he goes for an annulment, he can easily use one of several reasons. Consanguinity was the normal reason. And why would the English reformation be more Protestant under Henry VIII? Again this isn't gonna change his personality. No the church would remain English Catholic under Henry.
 
After his wife Elizabeth of York died in 1503, King Henry VII of England was actually considering marrying his dead son's widow Catherine of Aragon (who was almost 30 years his junior!) What if Henry gets a papal dispensation and marries Catherine and they have a son together, let's call him Ferdinand, Duke of York after Catherine's father. How would history be different with Henry VIII having a half-brother. Who would Henry VIII marry? Who would Prince Ferdinand marry? Could Ferdinand possibly become king? Also, let's say Henry and Catherine have a daughter named Isabella. Who would she marry?

Henry VIII could be married to Eleano of Austria (Maximilian I wanted to push this union). She would be 11 in 1509, but maybe he could wait some more years. If he doesn't want to wait, maybe Maximilian could offer him his nieces Sibylle or Sabina of Bavaria.
 
Most of this sounds about right. Though depending on butterflies, Ferdinand (I agree very unlikely name for an English Prince) could be married to a wealthy Heiress in England. And none of Philip and Juana's daughters were available. MAYBE Infanta Caterina but besides her no.

That depends on how early the negotiations begin. Ferdinand's existence may very well butterfly away Isabella or Mary's betrothals.

(England had no precedence with bypassing a mother for her son)

Matilda was still alive when Henry II succeeded. The particulars are not exact but they were close enough to set precedent.

Again, we're assuming that history will stay the same, with Henry not producing a son in his first marriage. There's no reason to thing that a wife that's closer in age wouldn't be able to succeed where Catherine of Aragon failed.

I'm not assuming that at all. I am assuming that Henry's problems were not primarily the "fault" of his wives. That's a common assumption but I think one wholly unsupported by the facts. Every one of his wives who conceived had prenatal or perinatal issues. There's evidence that he had many, many mistresses (the old "more wives than mistresses" lie notwithstanding) but only one acknowledged illegitimate child and one probable unacknowledged bastard.* Whether this was a genetic problem or an environmental issue I don't know, but the Tudor court's version of prenatal care was primitive for its time period.

Also, Catherine was only six years older than Henry. Even back in the day, 24 was not an unusual age for first motherhood; we know from baptismal and birth records collected in Elizabeth's time that the average age at first childbirth at that point was about 25.

But yes if Henry had no son he would definitely try for an annulment. After all, changing his wife isn't gonna change Henry's personality.

Thing is, he would need a plausible reason. I say reason and not excuse because Henry didn't use the Leviticus verse as an excuse to dump Catherine for Anne Boleyn; he was completely convinced of its truth and applicability to his situation long before he conceived a love for Anne.

*No, not one of the Careys; the Letters and Papers show numerous extravagant grants of land to a child who was supposedly the illegitimate daughter of one of Henry's cooks by a laundress. Extravagant as in "more than a baron would normally be granted".
 
Last edited:
However, I suspect that Henry VII, whose crown still rests lightly, would be wary of a Spanish name such as Ferdinand. Isabella is plausible (it was the English version of Old Spanish Ysabel, after all), but I suspect the son would end up as Edward, Arthur, or even Jasper.

I don't know if he would name two of his sons "Arthur" (especially after he the first Arthur died as a teenager), with the recent memories of Yorkists kings Edward IV and Prince Edward/Edward V, I doubt he'd go there either. Maybe Jasper, maybe use Edmund again. John might be a possibility after John of Gaunt (especially if the child's mother is a Lancastrian descendent). Possibility other Lancastrian names like Thomas and Humphrey could be on the table (the brothers of Henry V).

Looking at Catherine of Aragon's obstetrical history in the OTL, I'm not so sure she'd give birth to two children. Yes she's getting married a few years earlier, but she wasn't even old when she married Henry VIII in the OTL. She was 23-24 in the OTL, had 6-8 pregnancies with 1 living child. Look at Elizabeth Woodville, who was about 26 years about who had 10 pregnancies and 7 children when her husband died. Catherine had no problem getting pregnant but gave birth many times to a premature child, which points more to general problems with HER health.

I'd put my money on Henry VII having more heirs if he married Catherine's older sister, Juana of Castille. In the OTL she had 6 living children after a 10 year marriage AND Henry might get to be King consort of Castille and stepfather to Charles V.
 
However, I suspect that Henry VII, whose crown still rests lightly, would be wary of a Spanish name such as Ferdinand. Isabella is plausible (it was the English version of Old Spanish Ysabel, after all), but I suspect the son would end up as Edward, Arthur, or even Jasper.

The boy would definitely not have been named Edward or Arthur. Henry VII would not name his son after the father of his dead first wife (and Catherine would not allow him). Also, Edward being a Yorkist name would very ironic for the prince considering he would not have one drop of Yorkist blood in him.

And Arthur is probably the second to last name Henry and Catherine would want to name their child (after Richard of course). It just brings back too many sad memories for both of them.

Out of the three names you mentioned, Jasper is the most plausible (Jasper Tudor would probably be still alive at the time of thr boy's birth). However, Jasper is not a Christian name and not even a European name. There was no Saint Jasper and I can't think of any European monarch during that time that didn't share their name with a saint. Now keep in mind that when Jasper Tudor was born, he wasn't royalty even though his mother was a princess because she married a commoner. Therefore, there was no real requirement for him to have a Christian name.

This leaves us at Ferdinand which is probably what Henry and Catherine would've named their son. Ferdinand II the boy's grandfather would've liked it and this would very slightly strengthen his relationship with Henry, something Henry very much needed.

If Henry and Catherine had a second son they would probably name him John after both of Catherine's grandfathers, her dead brother, John Beaufort and John of Gaunt.

Alright, enough about names.

Prince Ferdinand would not be a link between the Houses of Lancaster and York and instead be only a Lancastrian. As a result, would it be disrespectful for his father to make him Duke of York? Maybe instead he would be the Duke of Clarence or something else?

Also, is there a possibility of a Second War of the Roses this time with Henry VIII representing the Yorkists and Ferdinand representing the Lancastrians? How could this happen? If this happens would Spain and the HRE join the war on the side of the Lancastrians? Can religion also possibly play into the conflict with the new Yorkists as Protestants and the new Lancastrians as Catholics?
 
Edward was the name of the last Lancastrian prince of Wales and from the last Plantagenet King the Tudors descended from. It's not an unimaginable name by any means. Likewise considering contemporary naming practices (ie, naming children after deceased siblings or other deceased relatives) I wouldn't rule Arthur out either.

Jasper is an Anglicized version of Gaspard, the imagined name of one of the three Kings of the East who give Jesus gifts.

I agree that John and Ferdinand are likely names - especially John, being a thoroughly Lancastrian choice for a maternally and paternally Lancastrian-bred prince.

In this scenario Catherine has been through a lot, a lot, a lot less, hence her piety might be less exacerbated, her fasting less rigorous, and her children healthier.

Henry VIII was Duke of York before becoming Prince of Wales so no reason why the title couldn't be used by his younger half-brother. Henry VIII would presumably marry Eleanor of Austria, Catherine of Aragon would be free to remarry for love or some minor German princeling, and Ferdinand would most likely strengthen his position by marrying native (Anne Bourchier, a Yorkist scion and heiress of Essex?).
 
Salic Law might not apply to England but there still was a tradition of male rulers and no codified laws of succession.

Well, at this point there was a succession law, so to speak, conferring the throne on Henry VII's legitimately born heirs (male and female). No bar on female succession. Beyond that there were plenty of precedents (in the form of entails) also permitting female succession and laying out how succession ought to proceed.
 
Henry VII has the power to give the title to a son with a Spanish princess, but he might avoid it because the title/house is so strongly associated with one side in the War of the Roses and descendants of the 4th son of Edward III (Edward IV, Richard III and Elizabeth of York). At that point the tradition of giving the King's second son the title is really new and could even be done away with. Henry VIII got the title in the first place as a toddler so his father could declare Perkin Warbeck an imposter. If not for Perkin Warbeck, I seriously doubt he would have been given it. Now that Perkin Warbeck isn't a problem anymore, I'm not so sure Henry VII would jump at giving another son the title. The title of either Duke of Lancaster, Somerset or even Richmond might be more likely.
 
Last edited:
So in this scenario if Henry VIII's wife fails to give him a son would he go for an annulment or just let his half-brother Ferdinand be his successor?
 
Top