What if the infamous Henry VIII never became king?

I think there will always be interest in any timeline that has a Prince Arthur surviving.

Few points that might help.

1) The Anglo-Spanish alliance in OTL was weak and got weaker - largely due to the fact that Catherine's father was quite happy to ignore his English ally (OTL Henry VIII) for his own gain - in fact the first breach came pretty early in Henry VIII's reign much to Catherine's distress. There is no guarantee with Arthur's succession that will change.
2) Throughout the 1510's, 20s and 30s - England would switch positions and alliances as would most of her neighbours - political marriages across Europe rarely resulted in a close long-lasting political alliance between the nations involved.
3) There was a strong-strain of anti clericalism in England prior to Luther - it was exploited by those early Lutheran converts in England and was a significant point in assisting Henry VIII's break.
It is really important to note that in fact Henry remained devoutly Catholic throughout his life - he had little sympathy for the more extreme reformers - what attracted him to early protestantism was a combition of greed, expediency and ego - like many Prince's he was enamoured of the arguement there were no Pope's in the bible but there were Kings.
4) There is little guarantee that Arthur would not similarily be attracted to the changing thought following Luther. If you look at Scotland where Calvinism spread in spite of a devoutly Catholic monarch and attracted a great deal of popular support that eventually forced significant political change from the bottom up - there is no guarantee that England likewise won't fall subject to the same kind of religious tensions that broke out in England and France later in the 16th Century.
5) Imperialsim and colonization - England's unique protestantism (if you want you can call the high anglicanism of Elizabeth I and James I as catholic light) - played a significant role in colonial enterprise as it upset not only Roman Catholics but many of the rapidly growing more low church protestants - who wanted freedom to express their religion not guaranteed at home - if you remove that you do to a certain extent remove the chances of rapid English colonisation of North America in the 17th C creating a significant change in the way in which North America (the USA and Canada) develops.
6) Parliamentary Monarchy - England remaining Catholic means a Tudor state under Arthur I less heavily relying on Parliament (to reinforce the reformation and amend the succession) - that in turn hinders the growth of Parliament - a monarch not head of the church removes one element of growing discontent with the established church (one cause of the English Civil War). If England remains as a semi absolutist state (which it was in the early 16th century but with a crown reliant on parliament for cash and no standing army) then you rapidly increase the chances of stifling social mobility (reducing the chances of early industrialisation and scientific progress) and increasing royal authority and absolutism.
7) An Arthur surviving reduces the chance of union with Scotland (a significant step in increasing British authority) - for example an Arthur living does not necessarily mean the death of James IV at Flodden - if he survives then the chance of further little Stewarts' being born to Queen Margaret increases despite their poor track record.
8) The succession - a close look at the Tudor family suggests some genetic issue combined with poor health care in limiting the number of healthy issue - fertility wasn't the issue but survival was - Margaret Tudor produced only two surviving children (James V and Margaret Douglas) by her three husbands, Mary Tudor produced only two surviving daughters - both of whom only produced daughters - by her two marriages), Henry VIII managed only three surviving children (all of whom died without issue) from six marriages. A surviving Arthur is not guaranteed any more success in the issue department than his brother.
9) someone mentioned the issue with titles - by Act of Parliament the eldest son of the King was automatically Duke of Cornwall - the title Prince of Wales is not automatic it has to be created by the sovereign for his heir.
 
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I really appreciate that you all went out of your way to give me great advice to help me improve my timeline. Well, aside from listening to your criticisms I did some research. I updated my TL once again. Tell me what you think and if I need to further change it. Thanks a lot--Charles

Alright let's start with 1502 and the POD, Arthur surviving the disease that killed him in OTL on April, 2 of that year. It is unknown what the disease is but it is definately survivalable because Catherine has been said to have got the same exact disease and survived. We don't know for sure if it really was the same disease but what are the odds of a married couple who is always together in a dirty castle surrounded by servants and guards that have who-knows-what and undrinkable Tudor water to contract different diseases at the same time? Therefore for this TL let's assume it was the same disease. Now for what the disease was. Still to this day people don't know what exactly killed arthur but we can narrow it down to three things: TB, diabetes and hantivirus (or as Tudor people called it because they had no idea viruses or any other microorganisms existed "sweating sickness." Since TB definately was not survivable with Tudor medicine, and diabetes is not contageous (and the disease would most definitely have to be contageous for both Arthur and Catherine to catch at the same time), therefore the sweating virus is the only plausable answer to what disease Arthur got. Also, Hantiviruses are most commonly contracted from rodent urine, saliva and waste products which were probably all present in the crap Arthur and Catherine called "water" and probably drank loads of it being the way they both contracted the virus. With this long winded explanation, my updated timeline post for 1502 reads:

1502: As in OTL, Prince of Wales Arthur Tudor the fifteen year old heir to English King Henry VII and his wife Catherine of Aragon unwillingly drink water contaminated with water waste products at their residence, Ludlow Castle. From this water, both the Prince and Princess of Wales become gravely ill with a hantivirus or as known in Tudor times "a mysterious sweating sickness" just like in OTL. However opposed to just Catherine surviving, both Arthur and Catherine manage to survive the virus in this timeline.

Now for 1503, the banquet. Earlier I eliminated the idea of Ferdinand and Isabella throwing it because it would be way too much for them to go to Spain especially in Isabella's failing health at the time. Therefore, I decided to go along with your advice and have the Spanish Ambassador to England throw the party (I couldn't find his name anywhere on the internet maybe one of you can tell me) along with Prince Henry's christening one year later.

For 1504 like I said in the lat paragraph Mr. Ambassador throws this party. However, it is a much smaller affair than I first invisioned it to be and the only king at attendence is Henry VII accompanied by his wife Elizabeth of York (who by the way lives 30 years longer in this timeline to the age of 67 in 1533--outliving her son Arthur, because she never needed to have another son because Arthur survived) and his mother Lady Margaret Beaufort. A couple of nobles close to London are there but only a few I also eliminated the whole Duke of Clarence thing and in the revised version, Henry VII does not bestow a duchy on his newborn grandson. Before I was just confused because I didn't know that the Duke of Cornwall is always the same person as the Prince of Wales. I thought that when OTL Henry VIII's short lived son with Catherine, Henry Duke of Cornwall was born in 1511 Henry bestowed the title of Duke of Cornwall on his son himself and he didn'ty automatically get the title. Therefore, I misunderstood and I wanted Henry VII to do the same for his grandson. However, now I realize that this goes against British peerage laws so Henry VII will be stuck giving his newborn grandson gold and jewels for his christening just like Maximillian and Ferdinand.

1506 and 1509 I decided to leave untouched for now because neither I nor you saw any drastic problem with it. Therefore in conclusion my entire timeline up to 1509 reads as follows:

1502: As in OTL, Prince of Wales Arthur Tudor the fifteen year old heir to English King Henry VII and his wife Catherine of Aragon unwillingly drink water contaminated with water waste products at their residence, Ludlow Castle. From this water, both the Prince and Princess of Wales become gravely ill with a hantivirus or as known in Tudor times "a mysterious sweating sickness" just like in OTL. However opposed to just Catherine surviving, both Arthur and Catherine manage to survive the virus in this timeline.

1503: In honor of Arthur and Catherine overcoming their illness, the Spanish Ambassador to England throws the young couple a huge banquet in London on the behalf of Catherine's parents King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I. 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, Henry's maternal grandfather Ferdinand II of Aragon and his paternal grandfather Henry VII.

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.



Please feel free to inform me if you see any further problems with this timeline. If not, I will proceed on to the next installment, the first half (9 years) of Arthur's reign (1509-1518). Thank you. :)
 
It is unknown what the disease is but it is definately survivalable because Catherine has been said to have got the same exact disease and survived. We don't know for sure if it really was the same disease but what are the odds of a married couple who is always together in a dirty castle surrounded by servants and guards that have who-knows-what and undrinkable Tudor water to contract different diseases at the same time? Therefore for this TL let's assume it was the same disease.

It may have been the same disease, it may have not. We can't assume anything.

Now for what the disease was. Still to this day people don't know what exactly killed arthur but we can narrow it down to three things: TB, diabetes and hantivirus (or as Tudor people called it because they had no idea viruses or any other microorganisms existed "sweating sickness." Since TB definately was not survivable with Tudor medicine, and diabetes is not contageous (and the disease would most definitely have to be contageous for both Arthur and Catherine to catch at the same time), therefore the sweating virus is the only plausable answer to what disease Arthur got. Also, Hantiviruses are most commonly contracted from rodent urine, saliva and waste products which were probably all present in the crap Arthur and Catherine called "water" and probably drank loads of it being the way they both contracted the virus.

This seems like circular logic to me. We have no way of knowing if it was the same disease, so we can't just rule out explanations for Arthur based on Catherine. Water was considered unsafe to drink in the sixteenth century for a reason, so I don't think it is necessarily a good assumption that everyone at Ludlow would have been drinking 'loads of it'. Tuberculosis, particularly the type known in Tudor times as 'consumption' was not necessarily always a death sentence--though it was often fatal in this era, from my understanding, due to lack of sanitation and fresh air. The bacteria infects the lungs in several stages with increasing fatality rates. It all really boils down to the immune system of the afflicted. As for sweating sickness, there is still a great deal of controversy as to exactly what it was, and a hantavirus is only one explanation.

Arthur Tudor the fifteen year old heir to English King Henry VII and his wife Catherine of Aragon unwillingly drink water contaminated with water waste products at their residence, Ludlow Castle. From this water, both the Prince and Princess of Wales become gravely ill with a hantivirus or as known in Tudor times "a mysterious sweating sickness" just like in OTL.

Again, we can't be sure of any of this. Though, for the purposes of this TL, I'll suspend my criticisms for the moment.

Now for 1503, the banquet. Earlier I eliminated the idea of Ferdinand and Isabella throwing it because it would be way too much for them to go to Spain especially in Isabella's failing health at the time. Therefore, I decided to go along with your advice and have the Spanish Ambassador to England throw the party (I couldn't find his name anywhere on the internet maybe one of you can tell me) along with Prince Henry's christening one year later.

I don't understand the significance of a banquet. In the sixteenth century mindset, a more appropriate form of rejoicing for the survival of Arthur would have been a special mass of thanksgiving. A Te Deum at St Paul's celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury is more likely.

Also, it was customary in Tudor England to baptise children very soon, usually two or three days after birth if the child seemed healthy, even earlier if not.

For 1504 like I said in the lat paragraph Mr. Ambassador throws this party.

Why would the Spanish ambassador be in charge of celebrations for the birth of Henry VII's first grandchild? The Tudors have secured their dynasty here, not the Trastamaras. Ferdinand could care less, so long as he has Catherine in play as part of his scheme of encircling France. It would have been customary at this time to light bonfires in the streets and distribute free wine to the people of London. Perhaps also some celebrations at court that included tilts and tournaments, but considering how frugal Henry VII was, they'd probably be rather subdued if they occurred at all.

However, now I realize that this goes against British peerage laws so Henry VII will be stuck giving his newborn grandson gold and jewels for his christening just like Maximillian and Ferdinand.

Again, considering how tight-fisted Henry VII was, the infant will be lucky if he even gets that.

1503: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.

I think that you're reading too much into it. The Tudors are going to be more elated at the prospect of securing their dynasty and preventing further civil wars, and, as I have stated, the Spanish (and I use that adjective loosely, since such an entity didn't exist at this time) are more interested in keeping France encircled with their own various marriage alliances. This is an age of pragmatism, not idealistic unity. Remember that Ferdinand II barely even cared for the welfare of his daughter in England after Arthur's death and was far more concerned with getting her dowry back. England was a second-rate power in Europe at this time, and it took a great deal of wrangling for Henry VII to even convince the Catholic Kings that his country was stable enough for them to allow a marriage alliance.

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.

The fertility rate amongst both Tudor males and females wasn't exactly great. Henry VII and his queen had seven children, of which only four survived to adulthood, and the second generation was even less genetically successful. Margaret Tudor had eight children, of which only two survived infancy; Mary had four and while three survived infancy, her only son was sickly throughout his life and lived only to the age of eleven or so. Now, I'm not an expert in genetics by any means, but given that Henry VIII and Arthur were full siblings and would have had very similar genetic make-up, there is no reason to believe that Arthur and Catherine would have had any more success; so more than one or two of their children surviving to adulthood is probably the most we can hope for in this scenario.

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.

So, England remains Catholic but Arthur weds one of his daughters to a Lutheran?

As for the rest, I echo the sentiments of Elfwine and Flubber. There needs to be far more solid reasoning and detail for all of the assumptions you have made about this scenario. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and they can't just be glossed over.
 
I can see Arthur getting three or four kids surviving infancy (like his father), but not without at least twice as many pregnancies for Catherine. And that's at the high end of possibility.

Better luck isn't impossible, but it's not likely enough to justify spending precious reader suspension of skepticism over - there's only so much you can ask the reader to believe is "improbable but possible" before it just looks sloppy, in other words.
 
Thanks for getting back to me Endymion. :) Now let me respond to your criticisms.

It may have been the same disease, it may have not. We can't assume anything.

This seems like circular logic to me. We have no way of knowing if it was the same disease, so we can't just rule out explanations for Arthur based on Catherine. Water was considered unsafe to drink in the sixteenth century for a reason, so I don't think it is necessarily a good assumption that everyone at Ludlow would have been drinking 'loads of it'. Tuberculosis, particularly the type known in Tudor times as 'consumption' was not necessarily always a death sentence--though it was often fatal in this era, from my understanding, due to lack of sanitation and fresh air. The bacteria infects the lungs in several stages with increasing fatality rates. It all really boils down to the immune system of the afflicted. As for sweating sickness, there is still a great deal of controversy as to exactly what it was, and a hantavirus is only one explanation.

Again, we can't be sure of any of this. Though, for the purposes of this TL, I'll suspend my criticisms for the moment.

I agree with you that we have no idea (and never will know) what disease in particular killed Prince Arthur in OTL. The only reason why I attempted to name it was because in earlier posts, people were asking me what disease it was. So for now unless anyone objects to it, I will change my timeline to Arthur's disease still being unknown. My reasoning for this is that since we don't know what it was in OTL when he died we probably still wouldn't know what it was if he survived.

I don't understand the significance of a banquet. In the sixteenth century mindset, a more appropriate form of rejoicing for the survival of Arthur would have been a special mass of thanksgiving. A Te Deum at St Paul's celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury is more likely.

You're right about the fact that it doesn't have to be a banquet. I just think Henry VII should do something special for the survival of his son and heir. Therefore, I'm changing my timeline to the special mass instead. This seems to fit the bill because Henry VII was to what I know somewhat of a devout Catholic. The mass would be celebrated by Archbishop of Canterbury Henry Deane in 1502 right after Arthur and Catherine recovered from their disease(s). The mass would be celebrated for the purpose of to thank God for the survival of Arthur, the heir to the throne.

Why would the Spanish ambassador be in charge of celebrations for the birth of Henry VII's first grandchild? The Tudors have secured their dynasty here, not the Trastamaras. Ferdinand could care less, so long as he has Catherine in play as part of his scheme of encircling France. It would have been customary at this time to light bonfires in the streets and distribute free wine to the people of London. Perhaps also some celebrations at court that included tilts and tournaments, but considering how frugal Henry VII was, they'd probably be rather subdued if they occurred at all.

Again, the only reason I made the party thrown by the Spanish Ambassador was because multiple people in previous comments suggested it. However, as I am reading what you are saying, I'm realizing how silly it would be for Ferdinand II to do this. I guess Little Henry has to get stuck with street bonfires, free wine given to people and some minor gifts for his coming into the world because unfortunately one of his grandpas couldn't give a crap about him or the "third world" country he is from and the other one is just too busy saving up money for the treasury to splurge on spending one shilling to commemorate his grandson's coming into the world (the latter one sounds like my paternal grandpa). Also, if there was television in the 1500s, Henry VII would definitely appear on Extreme Cheepstakes: Royal Edition (if the producer is not beheaded that is!)

Again, considering how tight-fisted Henry VII was, the infant will be lucky if he even gets that.

I'm sure he would give something to his grandson but it probably won't be as extravagant compared to the other kings.




I think that you're reading too much into it. The Tudors are going to be more elated at the prospect of securing their dynasty and preventing further civil wars, and, as I have stated, the Spanish (and I use that adjective loosely, since such an entity didn't exist at this time) are more interested in keeping France encircled with their own various marriage alliances. This is an age of pragmatism, not idealistic unity. Remember that Ferdinand II barely even cared for the welfare of his daughter in England after Arthur's death and was far more concerned with getting her dowry back. England was a second-rate power in Europe at this time, and it took a great deal of wrangling for Henry VII to even convince the Catholic Kings that his country was stable enough for them to allow a marriage alliance.

Your right about that. However, Henry's birth is still somewhat of a great event to the English, not because of foreign relations but because they just got out of the War of the Roses 18 years ago (my whole lifetime which isn't that long) and Henry VII now has three direct male heirs which means that all three would have to die (in most cases) for there to be a succession dispute and another such civil war like the one of the roses to develop. This is comparable to OTL where there was only one direct male heir (OTL Henry VIII) when Henry VII died.

The fertility rate amongst both Tudor males and females wasn't exactly great. Henry VII and his queen had seven children, of which only four survived to adulthood, and the second generation was even less genetically successful. Margaret Tudor had eight children, of which only two survived infancy; Mary had four and while three survived infancy, her only son was sickly throughout his life and lived only to the age of eleven or so. Now, I'm not an expert in genetics by any means, but given that Henry VIII and Arthur were full siblings and would have had very similar genetic make-up, there is no reason to believe that Arthur and Catherine would have had any more success; so more than one or two of their children surviving to adulthood is probably the most we can hope for in this scenario.

I understand that Tudors were not the most succesful people fertility wise. However Catherine's family had a much better track record. Catherine's older sister Joanna (the mad) for example was six for six with the children she had (including "myself") all of them living into their 50s except for Isabella who died at age 24. In OTL Catherine married to Henry VIII does horribly with only one out of six children surviving infancy (Bloody Mary). In this timeline, Catherine and Arthur actually have (drumroll) ELEVEN children. However only four of them survive to adulthood (Henry, Mary, Isabella and Arthur). Out of the other seven, there are three stilbirths, two babies dying within a month (Edmund and Joanna), one child (Margaret) living to 8 months and another child (Ferdinand) living to the age of 3. So percentage wise, Catherine in this timeline has children with a 36% survival rate compared to her 17% in OTL. Still this pales in comparison to her sister Joanna's unbeatable 100%. This was probably because she didn't have to worry about those wimpy Tudor genes and instead had a husband with strong Habsburg ones! I know I'm biased and I'm proud of it :)

So, England remains Catholic but Arthur weds one of his daughters to a Lutheran?

Arthur does not wed any of his daughters to Lutherans, both to Catholics. In this timeline, Lutherans or any other protestants are unheard of in any western European royalty (if they don't convert to Catholicism). Up until recently in this timeline, having a protestant on or near any European throne was unheard of, just like having Jewish royalty is in OTL and this timeline. You are probably thinking of Christian III of Denmark who is married to Arthur's second daughter Isabella in this timeline. Yes he became a Lutheran in OTL but in this timeline he stays a Catholic his whole life and so does most of Denmark to this day (although is is the European country with the largest concentration of protestants as of today). You see, in this timeline, Martin Luther doesn't accumulate nearly as much followers as he does in OTL. In this timeline, the Diet of Worms never happens because the devout Arthur convinces his nephew/buddy Charles V (myself??) to just ignore the "heretic Luther" and the 21 year old Charles listens. However, after Charles refuses to hear him speak on all costs, Martin Luther still manages to get some of his buddies together, create a "church" in 1523 before getting executed three years later. Lutheranism is still a private cult-like sect at the time of his death (similar to Mormonism when Joseph Smith Jr died) and doesn't really take off into his disciples promote it in the decades that follow. Today, it being the only main sect of protestantism (though other sects did form from it throughout the years) it is still a minority religion with only 15 million followers dispersed over Central and Northern Europe, as popular as Judaism or Mormonism (which didnt develop in this timeline).

Now here is a revised version of my timeline. What do you think of this version?

1502: As in OTL, Prince of Wales Arthur Tudor the fifteen year old heir to his father English King Henry VII and his wife Catherine of Aragon become gravely ill with unknown diseases at their residence, Ludlow Castle on the English-Welsh border. It is still unknown to this day what the diseases were, and if Arthur and Catherine had the same or different diseases. However opposed to just Catherine surviving and Arthur perishing to the diseases as they did in OTL, both Arthur and Catherine manage to overcome their illnesses in this timeline.

1503: In honor of Arthur and Catherine's health improving, the Archbishop of Canterbury Henry Deane holds a special mass at Saint Paul's Cathedral in London to thank God for their survival. A little while later, Catherine finds out she is pregnant with Prince Arthur's baby. The news of this pregnancy causes happiness across England showing that the child will be a symbol of securing power for the newly formed Tudor Dynasty in England.

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 England because he was to date the third Surviving legitimate male heir of Henry VII (after Arthur, Prince of Wales and Henry, Duke of York) and his birth was a sign that the Tudor Dynasty was bound to continue into the future. 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 gifts to celebrate his coming into the world such as gold and rare jewels. Some of these people to give Prince Henry gifts include the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian, Henry's maternal grandfather Ferdinand II of Aragon and his paternal grandfather Henry VII.

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.
 
Again, the only reason I made the party thrown by the Spanish Ambassador was because multiple people in previous comments suggested it. However, as I am reading what you are saying, I'm realizing how silly it would be for Ferdinand II to do this. I guess Little Henry has to get stuck with street bonfires, free wine given to people and some minor gifts for his coming into the world because unfortunately one of his grandpas couldn't give a crap about him or the "third world" country he is from and the other one is just too busy saving up money for the treasury to splurge on spending one shilling to commemorate his grandson's coming into the world (the latter one sounds like my paternal grandpa). Also, if there was television in the 1500s, Henry VII would definitely appear on Extreme Cheepstakes: Royal Edition (if the producer is not beheaded that is!)

Not Third World, just minor. And heaven forbid Henry VII be frugal.

Your right about that. However, Henry's birth is still somewhat of a great event to the English, not because of foreign relations but because they just got out of the War of the Roses 18 years ago (my whole lifetime which isn't that long) and Henry VII now has three direct male heirs which means that all three would have to die (in most cases) for there to be a succession dispute and another such civil war like the one of the roses to develop. This is comparable to OTL where there was only one direct male heir (OTL Henry VIII) when Henry VII died.
For all practical purposes the Wars of the Roses ended in 1471 (Henry VI's death). And the War of the Roses happened not because of a lack of heirs but because of a surplus of claimants (and other affairs).

Plus, their impact wasn't that serious, so having "just gotten out of them" isn't going to mean as much for most Englishmen as you'd think.

I understand that Tudors were not the most succesful people fertility wise. However Catherine's family had a much better track record. Catherine's older sister Joanna (the mad) for example was six for six with the children she had (including "myself") all of them living into their 50s except for Isabella who died at age 24. In OTL Catherine married to Henry VIII does horribly with only one out of six children surviving infancy (Bloody Mary). In this timeline, Catherine and Arthur actually have (drumroll) ELEVEN children. However only four of them survive to adulthood (Henry, Mary, Isabella and Arthur). Out of the other seven, there are three stilbirths, two babies dying within a month (Edmund and Joanna), one child (Margaret) living to 8 months and another child (Ferdinand) living to the age of 3. So percentage wise, Catherine in this timeline has children with a 36% survival rate compared to her 17% in OTL. Still this pales in comparison to her sister Joanna's unbeatable 100%. This was probably because she didn't have to worry about those wimpy Tudor genes and instead had a husband with strong Habsburg ones! I know I'm biased and I'm proud of it :)
The problem is that Arthur's relative infertility is enough to mean it doesn't matter if Catherine is extraordinarily fertile.

In this timeline, the Diet of Worms never happens because the devout Arthur convinces his nephew/buddy Charles V (myself??) to just ignore the "heretic Luther" and the 21 year old Charles listens. However, after Charles refuses to hear him speak on all costs, Martin Luther still manages to get some of his buddies together, create a "church" in 1523 before getting executed three years later. Lutheranism is still a private cult-like sect at the time of his death (similar to Mormonism when Joseph Smith Jr died) and doesn't really take off into his disciples promote it in the decades that follow. Today, it being the only main sect of protestantism (though other sects did form from it throughout the years) it is still a minority religion with only 15 million followers dispersed over Central and Northern Europe, as popular as Judaism or Mormonism (which didnt develop in this timeline).
So how does Arthur convince Charles to "just ignore Luther"? That hardly makes sense.

And how does he (Charles) manage to execute Luther TTL?
 
Not Third World, just minor. And heaven forbid Henry VII be frugal.

I was making an exaggeration when I said "third world." Also by saying Henry VII should go on extreme cheapstakes I was making a joke. He sounds a lot like my own paternal grandfather who has a lot of money but doesn't spend any penny of it, not even on his own grandson :(

For all practical purposes the Wars of the Roses ended in 1471 (Henry VI's death). And the War of the Roses happened not because of a lack of heirs but because of a surplus of claimants (and other affairs).

Plus, their impact wasn't that serious, so having "just gotten out of them" isn't going to mean as much for most Englishmen as you'd think.

So if the War of the Roses ended in 1471, what war was the Battle of Bosworth Field included in? Also, thousands of people lost their lives in the war. How is that not that important to you? Prince Henry's birth ensured that (if he survives if course which he did) the Tudor Dynasty would continue preventing the loss of thousands of lives for a similar cause for a couple of a hundred years.

The problem is that Arthur's relative infertility is enough to mean it doesn't matter if Catherine is extraordinarily fertile.

In this timeline, Arthur has the same number of children surviving childhood (4) as his brother Henry VIII had in OTL and his father Henry VII had in both timelines. Also it's disputed whether Mary Boelyn's two children were actually children of Henry VIII so his number of surviving children might as well be raised to six.

So how does Arthur convince Charles to "just ignore Luther"? That hardly makes sense.

And how does he (Charles) manage to execute Luther TTL?

After Charles V (the historical one not me :)) read Luther's 95 Theses of 1517 and was thinking about calling the Diet of Worms in 1521 he sought advice from his elders. He thus went to the male authority figure he felt the closest to and asked him his opinion. Usually for most men this person would be his father but Charles V's father died when he was 6. So then he went to his surrogate father his uncle through marriage Arthur I. King Athur assumed the role as a father figure and mentor to Charles V following the death of his real father. From age ten to the time he became emperor, Charles made frequent visits to Arthur in London where Arthur and his wife Catherine would mentor him and teach him lessons about life, values, spirituality and ethics on how he should act upon becoming emperor. Charles also enjoyed playing with Arthur's son, his cousin Henry whom he looked at as a surrogate little brother in the future conquered France with him. Anyway back to the Luther story. Charles goes to Arthur with advice over what the hell he should do with Luther and Arthur being the quiet, reserved, peace-loving, king he is tells him just to ignore him and don't do anything about him meaning both in a positive or a negative way. Arthur's reasoning is that if Charles listens to Luther and petitions to the pope to reform the church, he can get in trouble, forced to abdicate or even excommunicated. On the other hand, Arthur says to Charles if he imprisions or kills Luther, his followers would upstage a huge revolt targeting him and the church. Charles also being sort of a pacifist himself (for the time being) does nothing and holds no diet. Fast forward five years. It's 1526 and Luther, this former unknown German priest has a cult following him and his new sect slowly begins to gain followers. The local priest of Eisleben the town on Saxony Luther is from, is concerned that all his parish members are converting from Catholicism to Luther's new sect. The concerned priest named Father Johann puts Luther on trial where he is found guilty of heresy and sentenced to death. George the Duke of Saxony gives the order for Luther's execution, Charles knows NOTHING about it. When Charles finds out Luther was executed he says his famous quote: "It was for the better. That heretic fool was preaching to all the children that acts of generosity can not get you to heaven. There will sure be a rise in obedience following the last month's events."
 
I was making an exaggeration when I said "third world." Also by saying Henry VII should go on extreme cheapstakes I was making a joke. He sounds a lot like my own paternal grandfather who has a lot of money but doesn't spend any penny of it, not even on his own grandson :(

It's very hard to tell when someone is making a joke over the internet. Its especially hard with people one doesn't know very well.

So if the War of the Roses ended in 1471, what war was the Battle of Bosworth Field included in? Also, thousands of people lost their lives in the war. How is that not that important to you? Prince Henry's birth ensured that (if he survives if course which he did) the Tudor Dynasty would continue preventing the loss of thousands of lives for a similar cause for a couple of a hundred years.

It's included for convenience, practically it doesn't count.

And thousands of people losing their lives in a war that on paper lasted for twenty years is amazingly low for a civil war - the average Englishman had more serious things to worry about.

And Prince Henry's birth ensures no such thing. Take the Angevins.

Henry II had the following (legitimate) sons reach adulthood: Henry, Geoffrey, Richard, and John. John is the only one who left issue.

See the problem?

In this timeline, Arthur has the same number of children surviving childhood (4) as his brother Henry VIII had in OTL and his father Henry VII had in both timelines. Also it's disputed whether Mary Boelyn's two children were actually children of Henry VIII so his number of surviving children might as well be raised to six.

Henry (VIII) had that with multiple women over the course of many failures and a few decades. Not sure off the top of my head about the spread of his father's children.

After Charles V (the historical one not me :)) read Luther's 95 Theses of 1517 and was thinking about calling the Diet of Worms in 1521 he sought advice from his elders. He thus went to the male authority figure he felt the closest to and asked him his opinion. Usually for most men this person would be his father but Charles V's father died when he was 6. So then he went to his surrogate father his uncle through marriage Arthur I. King Athur assumed the role as a father figure and mentor to Charles V following the death of his real father. From age ten to the time he became emperor, Charles made frequent visits to Arthur in London where Arthur and his wife Catherine would mentor him and teach him lessons about life, values, spirituality and ethics on how he should act upon becoming emperor.

Charles's regents are going to be very interested in this.

Charles also enjoyed playing with Arthur's son, his cousin Henry whom he looked at as a surrogate little brother in the future conquered France with him. Anyway back to the Luther story. Charles goes to Arthur with advice over what the hell he should do with Luther and Arthur being the quiet, reserved, peace-loving, king he is tells him just to ignore him and don't do anything about him meaning both in a positive or a negative way. Arthur's reasoning is that if Charles listens to Luther and petitions to the pope to reform the church, he can get in trouble, forced to abdicate or even excommunicated. On the other hand, Arthur says to Charles if he imprisions or kills Luther, his followers would upstage a huge revolt targeting him and the church. Charles also being sort of a pacifist himself (for the time being) does nothing and holds no diet.

And pays no attention to the consequences for him of not holding the diet and not trying to get Luther to recant.

Fast forward five years. It's 1526 and Luther, this former unknown German priest has a cult following him and his new sect slowly begins to gain followers. The local priest of Eisleben the town on Saxony Luther is from, is concerned that all his parish members are converting from Catholicism to Luther's new sect. The concerned priest named Father Johann puts Luther on trial where he is found guilty of heresy and sentenced to death. George the Duke of Saxony gives the order for Luther's execution, Charles knows NOTHING about it.

And how is he (Johann) managing to do this?

Luther was significant enough to be noticable in 1521, he's not going to be invisible to Charles.

When Charles finds out Luther was executed he says his famous quote: "It was for the better. That heretic fool was preaching to all the children that acts of generosity can not get you to heaven. There will sure be a rise in obedience following the last month's events."

It's like Charles is channeling OTL's Louis XVI or something.
 
Few more points:
1) The essential premise an Arthur surviving - is fine - it is not too remote that Catherine of Aragon would produce living issue (but given the relatively poor rate of reproduction amongst the Tudor's it is not going to be a huge brood) - in OTL she was pregnant on six occassions between 1509 and 1518 and doesn't appear to have conceived again after her last pregnancy so I wouldn't necessarily think marrying Arthur with the same genetic makeup as Henry is going to make her much more successful at producing a healthy brood - one or two is probably more likely.
2) The idea that Charles V would spend time with his aunt and uncle in London is remote at best.
I am assuming in this timeline - Isabella of Castille, Philip of Burgundy and Ferdidand II all die as in OTL.
In which case you have the usual results - Philip heads to Castile to rule on behalf of his wife to his father in laws fury, Philip dies shortly thereafter and Ferdinand manages to gain the regency (for his daughter and grandson) and governs both Aragon and Castile until his death.
Charles V and his siblings were largely brought up by his Aunt Margaret of Austria in the Netherlands until he took on the personal governance of the Burgundian inheritance and then his Spanish inheritance and finally his Hapsburg inheritance.
Catherine of Aragon was six years younger than Charles V's mother Joanna who left the Spanish court when Catherine was 11 - there is little to suggest any great closeness.
3) You mention a surviving Elizabeth of York because she would not be under pressure to produce more children - it would be pretty unusual for a woman in her early thirties to stop sleeping with her husband just because he didn't need any more heirs. The evidence suggests that Henry VII and Elizabeth had a relatively happy (or at least contented) marriage and there is no reason to suggest there might not be more pregnancies (Elizabeth's mother Elizabeth Woodville last pregnancy was in 1480 when she was in her early forties and had already given Edward IV six children).
4) Luther - Firstly Charles V decision to initiate the Diet of Worms was as a result of pressure from the Papacy which had been openly challenged by Luther whose writings had spread rapidly. For the devout Charles V not to do anything would have been a dereliction (also the Papacy had supported him in his bid for the Imperial Crown). Luther's thoughts and works spread rapidly largely due to the printing press and he did gain popular support very quickly (much of his criticisms of indulgences and papal authority found common ground particularly in countries a long way from the authority of Rome). Had the Empire run as a country then Luther might well have been arrested and executed with speed after Worms and even that would not have stopped his writings spreading - but it wasn't and he was supported by the Saxon Elector Frederick (a rival of Charles V for the imperial crown) and within a few years Lutheranism was the state religion of Saxony (Frederick's brother John succeeded him in 1525 and was a devout follower of Luther).
You want to get rid of Luther - have him die before he fell foul of Rome and the Archbishop of Mainz or don't have the papacy try to pay for St Peter's with new indulgences or kill the printing press. Luther's essential theological criticisms are not going to vanish - they were heart felt and even some of the great thinkers of the day who remained devoutly Catholic believed the church and some aspects of how it ran were ripe for reform. Charles V ignoring him would have actually helped spread his religious thought further.
 
I suggest the author cast a butterfly net and focus on England, not on Luther and Charles V nor the HREmperor Maximillian.

Also, I don't think three pregnancies between 1503-1509 are plausible. I'd keep the 1503 one and remove the others, maybe make Catherine have a daughter after 1509. Eleven children is out of the window, with the fertility issues people have pointed out in the Tudor dynasty.
 
What happens in England is going to be influenced by what happens elsewhere, though.

And to a lesser extent, vice-versa. Arthur and Charles becoming close (if not as the author originally intended) is not inconceivable.

On the fertility question:

1. stillborn daughter (31 Jan 1509/10).
2. HENRY (Richmond Palace, Surrey 1 Jan 1511-Richmond Palace, Surrey 22 Feb 1511, bur Westminster Abbey). Duke of Cornwall from birth.
3. son (Richmond Palace, Surrey Nov 1513-Nov 1513, bur Westminster Abbey). Duke of Cornwall from birth.
4. HENRY (b and d [same day] Nov 1514). Duke of Cornwall from birth.
5. MARY (Greenwich Palace 18 Feb 1516-St James’s Palace, London 17 Nov 1558, bur Westminster Abbey). She was proclaimed MARY I Queen of England on the deposition of Queen Jane 19 Jul 1553. (snip.)
6. daughter (and d 10 Nov 1518).



http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND, Kings 1066-1603.htm#_Toc321390534



His brother managed to get four on Catherine in five years. Of course, none of them lived over a month, but fertility-wise, it's not impossible.

Better to err on the low side, but it's something to keep in mind.
 
Top