What if the infamous Henry VIII never became king?

[Emperor Charles V]

Thanks for the advice guys. Here is the first part of the TL, the reign of Henry VII (1502-1509). What do you think?

1502: A terrible disease breaks out at Ludlow castle the residence of Arthur Tudor the Prince of Wales and his wife Catherine of Aragon. Both the Prince and Princess of Wales become gravely ill but eventually both of them survive the illness.

1503: In honor of Arthur and Catherine overcoming their illness, Arthur's father Henry VII along with Catherine's parents Ferdinand of Isabella throw the young couple a huge banquet in London. A little while later, Catherine finds out she is pregnant with Prince Arthur's baby. The news of this pregnancy causes happiness across England as well as Spain showing that the child will be a symbol in securing close relations between the two countries especially if it is a boy and thus heir to the throne.

1504: Catherine gives birth to the long awaited baby to find out he is indeed a boy! The birth of the new prince causes celebration throughout both England and Spain as many people prophecize that he will grow up to be "a great monarch who will bring peace to Europe." Arthur and Catherine name their newborn son Henry after his paternal grandfather King Henry VII. Prince Henry's christening is a great event that is in attendance by almost every member of the Peerege of England and almost all other Kings and high ranking royals across Europe. People come bearing great gifts such as gold and rare jewels which are given to little Prince Henry by many important people in attendance such as the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian, and his maternal grandfather Ferdinand II of Aragon. However, it is Henry's paternal grandfather Henry VII who gives him the greatest gift the title if the Duke of Cornwall. It was from that day the precedent was created (in this TL) to make the eldest son of the Prince of Wales the Duke of Cornwall.

1507: Princess Catherine gives birth again this time to a daughter named Mary (who eventually becomes the wife of her cousin Emperor Charles V, not me, the historical one I take my name from). Catherine previously had a stillborn daughter in 1506 between the births of Prince Henry and Mary.

1509: In Feburary of this year, Catherine gives birth to her third surviving and fourth overall child another girl named Isabella who eventually becomes the Queen-Consort of Denmark to King Christian III. Two months later in April, King Henry VII dies at age 52. The now 22-year-old Prince Arthur succeeds him as King Arthur I.

What do you think so far? My next installment of the TL will be the first ten years of Arthur I's reign. I will appreciate all comments/feedback/constructive criticism. Thank you

 

[Flubber]

Thanks for the advice guys.

You're welcome.

What do you think?

I've listed them by year.

1502: A terrible disease...

What disease? How many does it kill? Is it limited to Ludlow? England? The British isles? Europe? Why do Arthur and Catharine survive? What effect does that survival have on their minds and bodies?

1503: ...Henry VII along with Catherine's parents Ferdinand of Isabella throw the young couple a huge banquet in London.

Why are F&I in London? Travel is a bit more hard that just hopping aboard a tourist crammed jumbo jet, their Catholic majesties have some trouble going on in Spain with a new Muslim expulsion program among other things, and Isabella has been in marked physical decline since about 1497 and will die in less than a year.

1504: ...a great event that is in attendance by almost every member of the Peerege of England and almost all other Kings and high ranking royals across Europe.

Pretty much the same question here as in the year before except this time concerning "almost all the other Kings and high ranking royals across Europe". Along with several hundred other questions, why are they all in London, especially those who are England's and Spain's enemies? Why haven't OTL events, events you've done nothing explain away, kept them at home on the job? And why would Herny VII, a king whose last years were fixated to the point of madness on building the royal treasury, be throwing away money like this?

...the greatest gift the title if the Duke of Cornwall. It was from that day the precedent was created (in this TL) to make the eldest son of the Prince of Wales the Duke of Cornwall.

So, Edward III's creation of the title for his heir, the Black Prince, in 1337 never happened? The duchy has part of the PoW "package" since that time. If the Black Prince wasn't the feudal holder of those lands, who has been for the last 200 years and why is Henry VII able to dispense them? Are they attainted in some manner?

I won't bother with the remaining two years.

What do you think so far?

You need to do a LOT of research because there is a LOT you do not yet know.

My next installment...

I don't think I'd bother with a next installment just yet.

Read some of the time lines at this site. Good ones have been voted awards called "Turtledoves" so look for those. There's even a forum dedicated to completed time lines so you won't have to pick the time line out from the hundreds of comments a good time line generates.

Good luck hitting the books.

 

[Emperor Charles V]

1. What disease? How many does it kill? Is it limited to Ludlow? England? The British isles? Europe? Why do Arthur and Catharine survive? What effect does that survival have on their minds and bodies?

2. Why are F&I in London? Travel is a bit more hard that just hopping aboard a tourist crammed jumbo jet, their Catholic majesties have some trouble going on in Spain with a new Muslim expulsion program among other things, and Isabella has been in marked physical decline since about 1497 and will die in less than a year.

3. Pretty much the same question here as in the year before except this time concerning "almost all the other Kings and high ranking royals across Europe". Along with several hundred other questions, why are they all in London, especially those who are England's and Spain's enemies? Why haven't OTL events, events you've done nothing explain away, kept them at home on the job? And why would Herny VII, a king whose last years were fixated to the point of madness on building the royal treasury, be throwing away money like this?

4. So, Edward III's creation of the title for his heir, the Black Prince, in 1337 never happened? The duchy has part of the PoW "package" since that time. If the Black Prince wasn't the feudal holder of those lands, who has been for the last 200 years and why is Henry VII able to dispense them? Are they attainted in some manner?

1. The disease I am referring to is the same one that killed Arthur in OTL. To learn more about the specifics about it google "Arthur Tudor disease" and it should come up. In OTL both Arthur and Catherine get the disease but only Catherine survives, in TTL both of them survived. I haven't worked out yet how Arthur survived the disease in TTL but possibly it can be because he had less exposure to it in the castle than he did in OTL. This reason is probably how Catherine was able to survive the disease.

2. I think I should take Ferdinand and Isabella out of the banquet and just have Henry VII throw it. I totally overlooked how difficult it would have to be for Ferdinand and Isabella to travel all the way to England just because of a banquet especially with Isabella in unstable condition.

3. You just have to think for a minute what a remarkable event the birth of Prince Henry would be. England and Spain have just recovered from two violent events, Europe from the War of the Roses and newly unified Spain from the inquisition. Also the unstable dull period in European history known as the Middle Ages has just ended and a new age is beginning. By having a son born to the son (and heir) of the English king and the daughter of the Spanish king and queen it shows that just one person can affect the future of an entire region. Joanna, Catherine's older sister at the time was married to the son of the HR emperor and their son Charles (my namesake) was heir to BOTH of these thrones. The birth of Henry shows a potential alliance between not two but THREE of the major players in Europe at the time: England, Spain and the HRE. A baby who was in this similar situation in OTL was Henry the Duke if Cornwall (the first one) the son of Henry VIII and Catherine if Aragon. Like this Henry, the OTL Henry had a very public christening filled with many kings and nobles giving him great gifts. Unfortunately, little Henry from OTL died only 53 days old probably of SIDS. No offense but I think I'm not the only one who should get their history right.

4. I'm not saying anything about the use of the title of the Duke of Cornwall before the POD. All I'm saying is that AFTER Henry VII granted his grandson with the title, many future British monarchs also granted this title to the son of their oldest son. Just like Prince of Wales is the heir and Duke if York is usually the second son.

I hoped this answered your points of criticism.

 

[Flubber]

1. The disease I am referring to is the same one that killed Arthur in OTL.

His precise fatal illness is unknown and Catharine's illness at the same time was most likely something completely different.

You just have to think for a minute what a remarkable event the birth of Prince Henry would be.

No. You have to remember for a moment that you're dealing with the early 1500s and not the modern era. Life was short, nasty, and brutish even in palaces. Infant mortality was an accepted fact of life. Heirs to thrones were born, died off suddenly, and were replaced with aplomb.

A baby who was in this similar situation in OTL was Henry the Duke if Cornwall (the first one) the son of Henry VIII and Catherine if Aragon. Like this Henry, the OTL Henry had a very public christening filled with many kings and nobles giving him great gifts.

Those many kings and nobles sent gifts, they didn't travel in person like the Magi.

All I'm saying is that AFTER Henry VII granted his grandson with the title, many future British monarchs also granted this title to the son of their oldest son.

You don't quite understand. In order to grant his grandson the title, Henry VII has to first remove the title from his son because every Prince of Wales since 1337 has also been the Duke of Cornwall. Titles weren't some meaningless fluff you seem to to believe they are, they held real power and provided huge amounts of income. Why would Henry VII take money away from his heir? What did Arthur get in return?

Do you understand now?

I hoped this answered your points of criticism.

It didn't, but I'm getting a clearer picture of your abilities sadly.

Do yourself a favor and read some completed time lines in that forum.

 

[Emperor Charles V]

His precise fatal illness is unknown and Catharine's illness at the same time was most likely something completely different.



No. You have to remember for a moment that you're dealing with the early 1500s and not the modern era. Life was short, nasty, and brutish even in palaces. Infant mortality was an accepted fact of life. Heirs to thrones were born, died off suddenly, and were replaced with aplomb.



Those many kings and nobles sent gifts, they didn't travel in person like the Magi.



You don't quite understand. In order to grant his grandson the title, Henry VII has to first remove the title from his son because every Prince of Wales since 1337 has also been the Duke of Cornwall. Titles weren't some meaningless fluff you seem to to believe they are, they held real power and provided huge amounts of income. Why would Henry VII take money away from his heir? What did Arthur get in return?

I'm sorry for saying you should learn more history. It appears that I think I know more than I actually do. You see, since I'm a history major I always think I'm an expert compared to history, and compared to 99% of people I am but, compared to some people on this forum including you, I am not. With that being said let's get back to the TL.

I guess I won't have the kings come to London for Henry's christening but instead have them send gifts to him especially Ferdinand and Maximillian. For the Duke of Cornwall, I didn't know it was always the same person as the prince of Wales. I'm not that familiar with how British titles work considering the fact that I'm only a quarter British and I live in the United States. Maybe instead of Duke of Cornwall he can be called something else before he becomes PoW. Perhaps Duke of Clarence.

 

[Flubber]

I'm sorry for saying you should learn more history.

Along with the MBA and the engineering degree which provides me with a profession, I have a bachelor's in American History between 1492-1776.

... I'm a history major...

I find that hard to believe, especially considering the manner anachronistic lapses you've made thus far. You may be taking history courses at DeVry or some community college but you've yet to develop the necessary understanding that the past is a "different country". Your unwitting assumption that late medieval royalty could flit about like jet setters amply illustrates that lack of comprehension.

I'm not that familiar with how British titles...

So instead of acknowledging that deficit and researching what you'll need to know, you simply toss off title transfers because it sounds cool.

Good to know.

Again, my advice is to read many of the well written, well researched, and completed time lines found in the Finshed Timelines board.

Let me also suggest that you dramatically scale back your ambitions. Tackling the whole of Europe across 400 years verges on the impossible. Even handling the first decade of the 1500s has proven beyond your current abilities.

Good luck.

 

[Elfwine]

3. You just have to think for a minute what a remarkable event the birth of Prince Henry would be. England and Spain have just recovered from two violent events, Europe from the War of the Roses and newly unified Spain from the inquisition. Also the unstable dull period in European history known as the Middle Ages has just ended and a new age is beginning. By having a son born to the son (and heir) of the English king and the daughter of the Spanish king and queen it shows that just one person can affect the future of an entire region.

Spain has just started the Inquisition. And Henry having a grandson isn't a big deal to anyone except Henry and Arthur.


It's a "remarkable event" only to the Tudor dynasty, everyone else is going to say something nice.

Joanna, Catherine's older sister at the time was married to the son of the HR emperor and their son Charles (my namesake) was heir to BOTH of these thrones. The birth of Henry shows a potential alliance between not two but THREE of the major players in Europe at the time: England, Spain and the HRE.

Spain and the HRE are not yet linked. Plus, England is not a major player.

A baby who was in this similar situation in OTL was Henry the Duke if Cornwall (the first one) the son of Henry VIII and Catherine if Aragon. Like this Henry, the OTL Henry had a very public christening filled with many kings and nobles giving him great gifts. Unfortunately, little Henry from OTL died only 53 days old probably of SIDS. No offense but I think I'm not the only one who should get their history right.

What kings showed up? Because I don't remember reading of any.

 

[Emperor Charles V]

I revised my timeline to suit your criticism. What do you think?

1502: As in OTL terrible disease breaks out at Ludlow castle the residence of Arthur Tudor the Prince of Wales and his wife Catherine of Aragon. Both the Prince and Princess of Wales become gravely ill just like in OTL but opposed to just Catherine surviving, both Arthur and Catherine survive the illness in TTL.

1503: In honor of Arthur and Catherine overcoming their illness, Arthur's father Henry VII throws the young couple a huge banquet in London. A little while later, Catherine finds out she is pregnant with Prince Arthur's baby. The news of this pregnancy causes happiness across England as well as Spain showing that the child will be a symbol in securing close relations between the two countries especially if it is a boy and thus heir to the throne.

1504: Catherine gives birth to the long awaited baby to find out he is indeed a boy! The birth of the new prince causes celebration throughout both England and Spain as many people prophecize that he will grow up to be "a great monarch who will bring peace to Europe." Arthur and Catherine name their newborn son Henry after his paternal grandfather King Henry VII. Many nobles and kings of England, Spain and nations friendly to them accross Europe send Prince Henry great gifts for his christening such as gold and rare jewels. Some of these people to give Prince Henry gifts include the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian and Henry's maternal grandfather Ferdinand II of Aragon. However, it is Henry's paternal grandfather Henry VII who gives him the greatest gift the title if the Duke of Clarence. It was from that day the precedent was created (in this TL) to make the eldest son of the Prince of Wales the Duke of Clarence.

1507: Princess Catherine gives birth again this time to a daughter named Mary (who eventually becomes the wife of her cousin Emperor Charles V, not me, the historical one I take my name from). Catherine previously had a stillborn daughter in 1506 between the births of Prince Henry and Mary.

1509: In Feburary of this year, Catherine gives birth to her third surviving and fourth overall child another girl named Isabella who eventually becomes the Queen-Consort of Denmark to King Christian III. Two months later in April, King Henry VII dies at age 52. The now 22-year-old Prince Arthur succeeds him as King Arthur I.

What do you think now? Is there anything else I should change?

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

One other thing: with England remaining Catholic, which nations in Europe would become Protestant? Does this have any effect on Eastern Europe as well?

 

[Flubber]

I revised my timeline to suit your criticism.

You should only revise your time line to suit yourself.

Much of the pleasure in creating a time line is in the research. Any damn fool who can read a Wiki page can toss of decade or two of increasingly nonsensical events. It's only when someone bothers to actually learn about a period in question that they make a time line sing.

Case in point. We had a fellow here recently who was intelligent, like you, and wrote well, again like you. He began a time line about the Romans inventing the steam engine. It was very well written but, because he had no understanding of science, technology, Roman economics, how steam engines work, how steam engines developed, and several other things, the time line was an utter failure.

If you're truly interested in the possibilities of Arthur Tudor reaching the throne, you need to start reading about the Tudors. And England of the period. And Western Europe of the period. And the Reformation. And a couple of dozen other things too. It's once you truly understand the pudding that you can begin to play with the raisins in it.

Again, good luck.

 

[Elfwine]

So to follow up what Flubber said on a more positive note.

These are some of the questions you need to answer to write a good timeline in regards to "What if Arthur becomes king, not Henry?"

What makes Arthur different than Henry?

What makes him different (or the same as) than his father?

What does Arthur do up to his father's death?

What impact does his survival have on his father, his mother, and his brother?

What impact does his survival have on Catherine?

What impact does his survival have on the issue of Catherine's dowry?

What impact does his survival have on the Spanish alliance?

What does the impact of her firstborn being a son (and not stillborn) have on Catherine?

What impact does having a grandson have on Henry VII?

What impact does having a grandson have on Elizabeth (Arthur's mother)?

What makes Henry decide to bestow a duchy on his grandson?

Why Clarence?


These aren't things you can give a simple two or three sentence answer to and consider it satisfactory. Nor, on the other hand, do you have to write up pages on pages on any individual question. But what you do have to do is address these kind of questions and explore the consequences, rather than just note a series of events and call it at timeline.

Actions have consequences. Actions not taken have consequences. The responses to those actions being taken - or not taken - has consequences.

And it's those consequences that will determine what you get down the road.

For example, if Arthur is a big time Catholic and stomps hard on English Protestantism, why? What happens from there? What does money, officials, and royal time spent on that preclude? How does that influence his feelings towards his fellow rulers? How does that influence his reputation at home?


https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=198307

The discussion just of the idea of Henry having a son from Anne on the first page shows how much is tied up in "simple" stuff and how much we expect it to be explored.

It's a big project. You're essentailly rewriting history - and even if you don't have big butterflies from the first nanosecond, the scope of "rewriting history" is huge.

And the only way to do it justice is to trace a lot of things upstream. Only then can you explore the river taking a different course - since if you don't know where the river came from, and what it's flowing through, how can you tell what will happen if it goes another direction?

Hope this isn't too much to read in one sitting.

 

[kasumigenx]

Henry VIII is an English king best known for his six wives, his extreme body weight toward the end of his life and his break from the Catholic Church after he couldn't get a divorce with his wife Catherine of Aragon. However what if he never became king?

Henry VIII as many of you may know was not always first in line to become king. He had an older brother named Arthur who was supposed to be king instead of him and believe it or not, Henry was supposed to go into the church to eventually perhaps become the Archbishop of Canterbury. His brother Arthur even married Henry's first wife Catherine. Unfortunately Arthur died only a few months into his marriage with Catherine at the age of 15 in 1502. But what if this didn't happen? What if he managed to survive this mysterious illness that killed him like his wife did? This is the subject of my timeline King Arthur: Not Just of the Round Table, which we will be discussing on this thread.

Anyway, the timeline begins when Arthur survives in 1502. Since him and Catherine survived a near fatal illness, the royal court throws them a huge banquet in their honor. A little while later Arthur and Catherine have sex (now we can know for sure they consummated their marriage) and in 1504 Catherine gives birth to a baby boy named Henry after Athur's father. This Henry not Arthur's brother Henry becomes the future Henry VIII of England. Catherine manages to bear three more surviving children: Mary (b. 1507), Isabella (b. 1509) and Arthur (b. 1512). Just like Henry VIII, Arthur becomes king when Henry VII dies in 1509. Arthur is king until he dies himself in 1528 at the age of 42. He is succeeded by his son Henry VIII (again not the same in OTL) who becomes king aged 26.

Arthur's reign is different than his brother's reign in OTL. First of all, he remains a devout Catholic monarch all his life and faithful to his wife (never having a mistress). He is quiet, soft-spoken, and laid back. He is not charismatic and serious unlike Henry VIII in OTL. His reign was marked with an increasing friendship and alliance between England and Spain and the HRE. Arthur was close to his nephew by marriage Charles V and served as a father figure to him (despite being only 14 years his senior) after his real father Philip died in 1506. Charles also becomes very close to Henry VIII, Arthur's son, and the two become best friends and develop a brother like relationship with each other. Charles also marries Arthur's elder daughter Mary causing his OTL kids such as Philip II to never be born.

Perhaps the OTL Henry VIII can marry Eleanor of Austria or Margaret of Angoulême.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Well First of cool beginning. Now some constructive criticism.

Thanks for the advice guys. Here is the first part of the TL, the reign of Henry VII (1502-1509). What do you think?

1502: A terrible disease breaks out at Ludlow castle the residence of Arthur Tudor the Prince of Wales and his wife Catherine of Aragon. Both the Prince and Princess of Wales become gravely ill but eventually both of them survive the illness.

I can't see anything wrong with this part. Looking at the comments I can see that not specifing the illness is apparently a problem. According to Wikipedia, The cause of his death is unknown but may have been consumption, diabetes, or the mysterious sweating sickness, which some modern theorists tie to a hantavirus. Since the illness seemed to come on very quickly I would guess the Sweating sickness to be the most likely.

1503: In honor of Arthur and Catherine overcoming their illness, Arthur's father Henry VII along with Catherine's parents Ferdinand of Isabella throw the young couple a huge banquet in London. A little while later, Catherine finds out she is pregnant with Prince Arthur's baby. The news of this pregnancy causes happiness across England as well as Spain showing that the child will be a symbol in securing close relations between the two countries especially if it is a boy and thus heir to the throne.

Isabella and Ferdinand wouldn't travel to London. Period. I would have the banquet be thrown by Henry VII and , if U want to, the Spanish Ambassador on their Catholic majesty's behalf.

1504:

Catherine gives birth to the long awaited baby to find out he is indeed a boy! The birth of the new prince causes celebration throughout both England and Spain as many people prophecize that he will grow up to be "a great monarch who will bring peace to Europe." Arthur and Catherine name their newborn son Henry after his paternal grandfather King Henry VII. Prince Henry's christening is a great event that is in attendance by almost every member of the Peerege of England and almost all other Kings and high ranking royals across Europe. People come bearing great gifts such as gold and rare jewels which are given to little Prince Henry by many important people in attendance such as the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian, and his maternal grandfather Ferdinand II of Aragon. However, it is Henry's paternal grandfather Henry VII who gives him the greatest gift the title if the Duke of Cornwall. It was from that day the precedent was created (in this TL) to make the eldest son of the Prince of Wales the Duke of Cornwall.

First of all, the Kings and Queens of Europe wouldn't travel to London gust for the birth of a Prince. England was a second tier power during most of the 16th century so even if Kings would travel to other countries, they wouldn't go there. They would send their ambassadors to congratulate the Prince and Princess. If gifts were also sent, they would be presented by the Ambassadors. The only rulers that could attend, and even thats a big leap, would be Prince Arthur's brothers-in-law, Duke Philip IV of Burgundy and King James IV of Scotland. They would be the closest geographically. I don't know about James but Philip did sort of visit England in 1506 (sort of by being Shipwrecked on the coast) so he might visit I'm not sure. Others already pointed this out but the new Prince Henry CAN"T be Duke of Cornwall. That title is automatically given to the eldest son of the King. I would suggest Henry be created either Duke of Lancaster, or a whole new title, such as Duke of Camelot, since Henry VII seemed to want to inspire the Arthurian legends.

1507:

Princess Catherine gives birth again this time to a daughter named Mary (who eventually becomes the wife of her cousin Emperor Charles V, not me, the historical one I take my name from). Catherine previously had a stillborn daughter in 1506 between the births of Prince Henry and Mary.

Again nothing wrong with this post.

1509:

In Feburary of this year, Catherine gives birth to her third surviving and fourth overall child another girl named Isabella who eventually becomes the Queen-Consort of Denmark to King Christian III. Two months later in April, King Henry VII dies at age 52. The now 22-year-old Prince Arthur succeeds him as King Arthur I.

What do you think so far? My next installment of the TL will be the first ten years of Arthur I's reign. I will appreciate all comments/feedback/constructive criticism. Thank you

Last part good as well. There are a few areas that need improvement but all in all its not bad. Quick Question: Is Arthur's mother, Queen Elizabeth of York still alive? In OTL she died of complications after she gave birth in an attempt to have another son after Arthurs death. With Arthur still alive there would be no pressing issue of having another son so, is she dead?

 

[Emperor Charles V]

Thanks everyone for getting back to me. Now let's see what we got here.

What makes Arthur different than Henry?

What makes him different (or the same as) than his father?

What does Arthur do up to his father's death?

What impact does his survival have on his father, his mother, and his brother?

What impact does his survival have on Catherine?

What impact does his survival have on the issue of Catherine's dowry?

What impact does his survival have on the Spanish alliance?

What does the impact of her firstborn being a son (and not stillborn) have on Catherine?

What impact does having a grandson have on Henry VII?

What impact does having a grandson have on Elizabeth (Arthur's mother)?

What makes Henry decide to bestow a duchy on his grandson?

Why Clarence?

Alright, I'll answer these questions to the best of my ability and I'll be way more in depth than just a simple 2-3 sentence answer. Let me start with the first one.

First how is Arthur is different than Henry? Now by Henry this can mean a lot of people including his father, his son and his brother but for now we'll assume it means his brother King Henry VIII in OTL. First of all a major difference between the two kings is that Henry VIII becomes a Protestant and Arthur I stays a Catholic his whole life. Why is this you may ask? Well Arthur unlike his brother in OTL has no trouble having a male heir with Catherine of Aragon and therefore has no need to divorce her and create his own church. Another major difference between the two kings staying on the topic of women is that Arthur is much more faithful to his wife Catherine than Henry and unlike most Kings at the time, has no recorded mistress or illegitimate children. Arthur lives and reigns for a much shorter time than Henry VIII in OTL. Arthur reigns for 19 years from 1509 to his death in 1528 from a stroke, which is 19 years (that's a significant difference considering its more than I've been alive) shorter than Henry's 38 year reign in OTL. Yet another difference between the two kings is their personalities. Arthur is much less charismatic than Henry in OTL, more quiet than him and more official and regal. This is because he knew he was going to be king for his whole life while Henry only became next in line at age 11. In modern times in OTL, everyone British or not knows the name Henry VIII and can name at least one thing about him if its his obesity near the end of his life, his six wives, his beard or something else. In TTL when people mention Arthur I, they would most likely say that he was father of Henry VIII the king who conquered France. That's basically what most people would recall about him. Arthur I had a relatively uneventful reign that was marked with peace and a growing alliance with Spain and the HRE but hostility and a growing rivalry with France. Much of the key events that occured under the second half of Henry VIII's reign in OTL such as the conflict with France, happen in the reign of TTL Henry VIII, Arthur's successor and son if they happen at all. A final difference between the two brother/kings is that Arthur remained relatively skinny his whole life and never grew a full beard.

 

[Elfwine]

Eeek, text wall!

Let's see.

First how is Arthur is different than Henry? Now by Henry this can mean a lot of people including his father, his son and his brother but for now we'll assume it means his brother King Henry VIII in OTL.

Yes, given that "his father" is asked in the following question.

First of all a major difference between the two kings is that Henry VIII becomes a Protestant and Arthur I stays a Catholic his whole life. Why is this you may ask? Well Arthur unlike his brother in OTL has no trouble having a male heir with Catherine of Aragon and therefore has no need to divorce her and create his own church.

So Arthur stays a Catholic. The reasons to become a Protestant - looking at this in terms of money for instance, not theology - don't appeal. Okay.

Another major difference between the two kings staying on the topic of women is that Arthur is much more faithful to his wife Catherine than Henry and unlike most Kings at the time, has no recorded mistress or illegitimate children.

Why not? This is hardly impossible, but why?

This is where you need to do more than give us an answer like what you wrote out here. Arthur being the kind of person to stay faithful to his wife says a lot about Arthur and what Arthur finds important and what Arthur does with his spare time and how he handles the fact he only has two sons ("only" by comparison with say, Edward III). Perhaps he's a very pious man, perhaps he's just not very interested (thus having all of only four children) in sex - even if not particularly pious - perhaps something else.

And please, please don't just say "He's ____" and call it good. That's not what I'm looking for.

I want to see you explore Arthur's character, because exploring Arthur's character means exploring what he does as king and why he does it as king, and how we get from POD to . . . wherever this fork leads us.

Arthur lives and reigns for a much shorter time than Henry VIII in OTL. Arthur reigns for 19 years from 1509 to his death in 1528 from a stroke, which is 19 years (that's a significant difference considering its more than I've been alive) shorter than Henry's 38 year reign in OTL.

So Arthur dies relatively young. Is he generally healthy? Does this come as a surprise, or has he been doing poorly beforehand anyway?

Again, explore this. Don't just dash off an answer.

Yet another difference between the two kings is their personalities. Arthur is much less charismatic than Henry in OTL, more quiet than him and more official and regal. This is because he knew he was going to be king for his whole life while Henry only became next in line at age 11.

Okay, this doesn't follow. Arthur has been groomed to be king, and he's going to be quieter?

That's very much in contrast to what's associated with kingliness.

In modern times in OTL, everyone British or not knows the name Henry VIII and can name at least one thing about him if its his obesity near the end of his life, his six wives, his beard or something else. In TTL when people mention Arthur I, they would most likely say that he was father of Henry VIII the king who conquered France. That's basically what most people would recall about him. Arthur I had a relatively uneventful reign that was marked with peace and a growing alliance with Spain and the HRE but hostility and a growing rivalry with France.

So why is it uneventful? This is both about Arthur and the world at large.

And once more: Explore! Develop! Explain!

Much of the key events that occured under the second half of Henry VIII's reign in OTL such as the conflict with France, happen in the reign of TTL Henry VIII, Arthur's successor and son if they happen at all. A final difference between the two brother/kings is that Arthur remained relatively skinny his whole life and never grew a full beard.

Noting here that even if he hadn't grown fat Henry was a big man, this may or may not be true of his brother (something you should research):

Was he naturally slender? Was he a near-ascetic?

Did he go clean shaven intentionally, or did he have trouble growing facial hair?

The second one isn't too important to give a detailed answer on, but since you mention it, you should spend some time thinking about it.


That's what bothers me about this timeline. You seem to be in a rush to get on to the next event, rather than examining anything too closely. But when your point is that Arthur is a very different king and man than his brother, examining him closely is important so we understand why and how and what effects that has on his issue and on England.

 

[Flubber]

...which is 19 years (that's a significant difference considering its more than I've been alive)...

And that answers everything I need to know.

 

[Elfwine]

And that answers everything I need to know.

The first version of Isaac's Empire was started when Basileus Giorgios was sixteen, I think. Not all young people (says the guy who turns 27 in three days) are fools.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

It would be entirely reasonable for the Spanish ambassador to throw a wild party with gifts to celebrate the rise of the Spanish position in England, not to mention that of cousin Arthur.

 

[Flubber]

Not all young people (says the guy who turns 27 in three days) are fools.

I'm not suggesting all young people are fools, but I don't think you can compare BG's level of knowledge, or willingness to learn, to this fellow's.

Look at his repeated incomprehension regarding the English Reformation for example. As far he's concerned the only reason England went Protestant is because Henry VIII wanted a son and England is going to stay happily Catholic through the 1920s.

Look at his incomprehension regarding your questions about Arthur's personality too. He can't even begin to understand why a medieval king's personality is important or how it will intimately color the domestic and foreign policy of their kingdom.

I'm not suggesting this is a lost cause, but I am suggesting it's beyond our abilities as a discussion board. He's got all of one freshmen semester in towards his alleged history degree. Given the usual general education requirements all frosh need to fill, that's maybe one college level course in addition to whatever "Western Civ" classes he slept though in secondary school.

He's got a lot of work to do and I'm not sure how much we can help him.

 

[Elfwine]

He's got a lot of work to do and I'm not sure how much we can help him.

I am afraid I have to agree with you there.

I would personally love to see this timeline go somewhere, and while I don't know the period especially well I'd like to think I can play editor in terms of what questions needs to be explored - but even just doing justice to Arthur and his reign would take twice as much research as he'd put into the entire timeline.

So Charles, if you're reading this, please take that to heart - if you really want to write this, good! But study. Learn.