Probably not. Males were always first on succession order and Arthur hasn't been king. But if even Henry VIII not be able get still son, things might be different. But Arthur's child might have good changes get throne of England if child would be male and Henry VIII has only daughters and his son would still dies without descedants.
If Arthur's child is male, he comes before his uncle - Richard II (the Black Prince's son, and thus Edward III's grandson) instead of John of Gaunt as John II, remember?
Pretty sure what passes for succession law hasn't changed in that regard.
Correct. son of the deceased Prince of Wales would be the heir over his uncle.
Would a daughterbe heir over heruncle?
In my opinion, no: at the time the only previous queen had been Matilda, and that had caused an 18 year civil war. Henry VII, who is at this time looking to secure his dynasty on the throne, would most likely legislate that Henry, Duke of York, is his heir, and pass something similar to Henry VIII's Act Respecting the Oath to the Succession.
This daughter proves that Arthur and Catherine of Aragon did, in fact, consummate their marriage, and so there is no possibility for her to marry Henry, Duke of York. One possible alternative is Eleanor Habsburg, daughter of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, with whom it appears Henry VII had conducted tentative negotiations for a marriage between the Duke of York and Eleanor. Eleanor bore two children in her marriage in our timeline, a short-lived son and a daughter.
So assuming the child is a daughter then you will have a situation on Henry's succession. I do not believe that a posthumous daughter of Arthur would be allowed to prevent Henry's accession so there are a lot of political butterflies from this including the later claim to the English throne from said daughter (assuming she doesn't meet with a "Princes in the Tower" accident).
I don't think she will be murdered on Uncle Henry's orders; as far as I can tell, Henry was relatively fond of all his family, and his niece is not a serious challenge to his authority as king on her own, given that he is a man and she is not. The question of her marriage depends somewhat on his own ability to produce an heir - until then she is heiress presumptive, but after which she slips down the line of succession toward insignificance. So as and when Henry has a child of his own, she might be allowed to marry an English noble (as she is only the daughter of a deceased prince, she is not a great catch for any European rulers).
But would she be allowed to marry? Any sons of hers could conceivably challenge any ruling of Henry VII's succession later on if Henry VIII's male heirs turn out to be politically inconvenient. Even if Henry VIII has her husband refuse any claim.
If Catherine had a child by Arthur then she is not marrying Henry as the Pope can't give a dispensation on the grounds of non-consumation of the marriage to Arthur to allow her to wed Henry!
Why would the pope need to get involved in the first place. Catherine is a widow, Henry's single. Was there some kind of church law that said you can't marry your bothers wife?
Yes
Leviticus and consanguinity
Isabella and Maria of Castille and Manuel of Portugal all say hi.
Not sure if that is supportive or a challenge but he needed the Pope's dispensation too![]()
Yes, but it wasn't a big deal.