WI: Catherine of Aragon has a surviving son?

IOTL Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, were unable to have a surviving son, which of course led Henry to want to divorce Catherine and remarry, and then to start the English reformation when the Pope wouldn't grant an annullment.

So, what if Catherine had had a son, and she and Henry stayed happily married until the end of their days? Would England still turn Protestant at some later point? If not, what kind of alliance would be most likely (England-France vs the Hapsburgs? England-Spain vs. France?)
 
Well, here's something to complicate the question: there are many takes on the King's Great Matter that emphasize Henry's quest for a son in explaining his abandonment of KoA for Anne Boleyn. And certainly these explanations have in their favor the singularly important piece of evidence that the one queen who never had her marriage cut short (so to speak) by Henry one way or the other was the one who died of natural causes, Jane Seymour, who was also the mother of Edward VI.

But against this account we can posit that KoA was by the late 1520s a short, somewhat pudgy middle-aged woman whose preoccupations were religion and charitable pursuits, and Anne Boleyn a fetching, witty girl who had never shared his elder brother's bed.

I think it's possible that Katherine could have the son and there still be some kind of horrifying marital breakdown, perhaps aggravated by the very idea that with Katherine having produced the heir, everyone takes for granted that Henry could not replace her (because if there has ever been a human being who chafed at the idea of not being able to have his way, it was Henry VIII).

So, returning to the thesis of the original post, I think it's two separate questions whether Katherine produces an heir and whether she stays married to Henry until the end.

One other thing we perhaps shouldn't take for granted is that no Henrician Reformation means no English Protestantism. With figures like Wyclif in England's past, and others like Cranmer and Tyndal in England's present, it seems likely that there is going to be some kind of insurgent movement even if there's no open break with Rome. The dynamics might even be somewhat like what the Stuarts went through in the seventeenth century, or the French Wars of Religion.

IOTL Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, were unable to have a surviving son, which of course led Henry to want to divorce Catherine and remarry, and then to start the English reformation when the Pope wouldn't grant an annullment.

So, what if Catherine had had a son, and she and Henry stayed happily married until the end of their days? Would England still turn Protestant at some later point? If not, what kind of alliance would be most likely (England-France vs the Hapsburgs? England-Spain vs. France?)
 
My wife is reading a biography of Mary Tudor right now that describes Catherine in extremely unflattering terms by the age of 40. Regardless though I think if there's a son that lives, Henry will just go on taking mistresses, maybe not Anne Boleyn, but I don't think that absent the son issue Henry is going to be as captivated by Anne.
 
My wife is reading a biography of Mary Tudor right now that describes Catherine in extremely unflattering terms by the age of 40. Regardless though I think if there's a son that lives, Henry will just go on taking mistresses, maybe not Anne Boleyn, but I don't think that absent the son issue Henry is going to be as captivated by Anne.

I agree, when Henry has his son and heir, he won't have any reason to annul his marriage; although this wouldn't stop him to continue the (general) royal tradition of taking mistresses, which was very much accepted in those days. Charles V and Ferdinand wouldn't even been offended by this; Charles V also is known to have had some mistresses.
 
Last edited:
Catherine was popular and loved, and Henry certainly respected her. I don't see any reason for a marital breakdown if there's an heir.
 
Catherine was popular and loved, and Henry certainly respected her. I don't see any reason for a marital breakdown if there's an heir.

Not only that. Stealing the throne form your legitimate heir to give it to the "bastard" grandchild of a scheming english noble family is opening a can of worms than would spell centuries of civil wars. There are many royal bastards -and their descendants!, and most of those are related to nobilty. If we take legitimacy out of the equation, suddenly England has too many candidates... and a king than is the son of an dubiously legitimate ruler than won a civil war
 
Catherine of Aragon

At what point in the marriage is this son born? Is he older or younger than Mary? If he is born fairly early in the marriage, he may very well be married with children by the time he succeeds Henry VIII. With a legitimate brother around, Princess Mary certainly has a much happier childhood, without having to live through the stress of the divorce, which plagued her all the way up to the time that she became queen. With Henry and Catherine having a son, Mary becomes a far brighter marriage prospect and she may even have left England by the time her brother becomes king.
 
Given that Henry himself is the son of an usurper I don't see the slightest chance of his even considering a bastard above a legitimate son.

As it was OTL he placed two legitimate daughters second only to his only legitimate son and never placed any of his bastards in the line of succession.
 
Top