WI Catherine of Aragon was pregnant?

This isn't difficult unless I am misunderstanding something.

Upon Arthur Tudor's death, Henry VIII (who is not the VIII just yet) is next in line of succession. Presumably the new baby Mary is second in line.

Since Catherine's marriage with Arthur is obviously consumated, Henry VIII presumably never marries her. Instead, he marries someone else.

If Henry VIII and his new wife have any male children, those boys become next in line of succession. Mary, however, will come before any daughters Henry VIII has.

It is highly unlikely the Tudor court will allow Mary to leave the country until a male heir is born. Because she is in the succession somewhere, the Tudor court will be very protective of who marries her as that person could become Prince Consort of England, perhaps even King.

Catherine will likely not want to leave her daughter, so she will likely stay in England unless international politics force her to marry another again.

Well, legally Mary was inherited her father's position in the succession. But given her youth, I think Henry VIII would be proclaimed King as she'd just be a young girl--and thus "by passed" so to speak. As I outlined below, English succession favors the sons of the monarch, followed by daughters; any issue of sons is much the same, with boys coming first, before girls. In this case of Catherine having a daughter and Arthur still dying, the succession would technically be Mary, with Henry behind her. Being a female does not push her back because she would as her father's only surviving child, take his position in the line of succession.

The Privy Council would be quite unlikely to want a young girl as Queen Regnant or a Regency, however. So they'd certainly want to crown Henry VIII over her.

So Henry VIII would of course become King, and his issue would follow the same rule: sons before daughters, then Mary. Mary should technically be Queen in this scenario, but I just don't see it happening given her age. If she was older, possibly.
 
Very semi-salic, not at all females-can-inherit after Maud was rejected and until Henry VIII specifically names Mary and Elizabeth as coming after his son/s.

Indeed, it is quite semi-salic, but we can definitely see that women were not just seen as capable of transferring their claims and rights, such as in France (not amongst the crown of course, but within the great magnates). In some cases, if history had been different, some of these women may of actually been Queen's themselves.

And yes, Henry VIII's Act of the Succession was the first time it was written into the statute books and we saw the first Queen Regnant since Maud, but it obviously wasn't a totally alien idea, given Philippa's own position, Margaret de la Pole's short lived position behind Warwick, that Margaret Tudor was recognized as her brother's heiress for a very extended period of time, and it was her own rights that was passed on to her grandson, Darnley. Henry put it into the statute book, but it definitely wasn't a novel concept at the time to allow a woman into the line of succession.

It's actually inspired me to do some more research into the issue of female succession in England and see what I can find. So thank you for the discussion. I think we can definitely agree in this particular scenario that Arthur's daughter would not be Queen. There's actually a TL based on Arthur having a daughter, I forget the name, but she essentially is pushed aside for Henry. It was pretty interesting.
 
Going back to the Angevins, succession was determined more on who had the upper-hand militarily than on strict rules of primogeniture. Even so, Arthur was only excluded from the succession by being an absolute pain-in-the-backside, and later on his sister Eleanor was still considered to have a superior claim to the Angevin empire, hence her being imprisoned for life. Primogeniture was not the only deciding factor but it was the main one.

Farther back than that, William I was heir by proximity of blood through his great-aunt Emma, Henry I considered his claim strengthened by marriage to a female heiress of the Athelings, and Stephen of Blois, who traced his claim through his mother(!), was only able to take the throne thanks to his own great wealth and popularity and the foreigness/twatiness of the Empress Matilda. The idea of a woman holding and transmitting the throne was hardly alien.

During Richard II's lifetime, the succession was unambiguously settled on Philippa of Clarence and her heirs. Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne by right of his mother(!) on the grounds that her ancestor, Edmund Crouchback, was the secret older son of Henry III. John of Gaunt never came into play and was never heir to the throne.

Later on Henry VII traced his Lancastrian legitimacy through two women: Catherine of Valois (through whom he was nephew of Henry VI) and Margaret Beaufort (through whom he was the great-great-nephew of Henry IV) and secured his crown by marriage to the female heiress Elizabeth of York. Even after she was bastardized, Elizabeth's title to the throne was considered so potent that Richard III was seriously considering marriage to her.

During the Tudor era Margaret of Salisbury was considered a very real and present threat to the throne, as were the Buckingham Staffords, Pole "White Roses" and the Courtenays, all tracing through Plantagenet women. And so on and so on...

Most tellingly, the historical Bloody Mary was considered the undisputed inheritrix of the English crown from birth; there was no question of Henry Brandon or James Stuart having seniority over her in the succession. Henry VIII feared a return to civil war if he died with no son, because he believed a daughter wouldn't be strong enough to hold her own and would present an opportunity for the mighty magnates (including the Countess of Salisbury) to restart the Wars of the Roses, expell the "Lancastrian" Tudors and restore their own Yorkist selves. Being a woman wasn't considered any kind of legal or ideological impediment to succession; it was more a case of a young girl not being thought able to keep the old lords in check as Henry VII & VIII did.

Arthur's daughter would most likely not be queen due to her young age, and her young age alone. If she was in her teens at Henry VII's death, I dare say she'd succeed to the throne with her grandfather and uncle's support. I'd like to think the pragmatic Henry VII would betroth her to the Duke of York in a La Beltranejaesque type deal; alternatively he might not do anything, prevaricate, and let things fall where they may. Certainly he wouldn't marry her abroad, although her hand would be widely courted; it's either Henry York or Henry York's eldest son.

It's important to consider how Catherine of Aragon having a child would affect Henry VIII (Henry of York in this TL). OTL when Arthur died, he was thrust into the limelight as heir to the throne and most eligible bachelor in Christendom. In this TL, he's not the legal heir to the throne, and Mary's a far more interesting catch internationally. Philip I of Burgundy-Castille would be far more interested in marrying one of his sons to the Princess Mary and obtaining the English crown for his dynasty (and England's resources for himself), than in simply providing for one of his girls a consort's crown. The French and Scottish would be eyeing her up as well, and native suitors wouldn't be lacking either. Henry's best option is to marry Mary and become undisputed heir to the English throne; else he'll have to settle for maybe, possibly, one day having the joy of being Regent/Lord Protector/father to Mary's consort.
 
During Richard II's lifetime, the succession was unambiguously settled on Philippa of Clarence and her heirs. Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne by right of his mother(!) on the grounds that her ancestor, Edmund Crouchback, was the secret older son of Henry III. John of Gaunt never came into play and was never heir to the throne.

This point I do definitely agree with. Wiki certainly isn't unfallible, but I find it much more likely that Philippa was Richard II's recognized heir until her death, followed by her son and then her grandson. This isn't to say John of Gaunt wasn't in the line of succession or a possible heir, because he was. He just came after the heirs of the Duke of Clarence. Plus, the wiki list of heirs is really vague on why Gaunt was removed, simply because of a 'royal edict.' He did go to Castile that year, in 1386, but I've still yet to find anything that supports that he was Richard's heir from 1377 to 1386. It doesn't make much sense, considering his next two heirs were removed only by death (and young Edmund because Richard's throne was usurped), not to mention, they were legally Richard's heirs according to the succession law that England followed at the time.

Later on Henry VII traced his Lancastrian legitimacy through two women: Catherine of Valois (through whom he was nephew of Henry VI) and Margaret Beaufort (through whom he was the great-great-nephew of Henry IV) and secured his crown by marriage to the female heiress Elizabeth of York. Even after she was bastardized, Elizabeth's title to the throne was considered so potent that Richard III was seriously considering marriage to her.

Henry secured his crown by right of conquest. He didn't have to marry Elizabeth, but he chose to do so because he would for once and for all end the divisions of the War of the Roses and unite the Lancastrian claimant (himself, however dubiously) with the Yorkist; after all, Henry VII had the Titlus Regulus repealed and destroyed and made it treason to even have a copy, essentially re-legitimizing Elizabeth.

With the death of her two brothers, and her uncles all death, all that remained were the slew of daughters by Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, as well as Margaret de la Pole (daughter of the Duke of Clarence), not to mention the daughters of the Richard, Duke of York whom had married into high ranking English aristocracy, such as Anne, Duchess of Exeter (Had surviving issue), Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk (Basically the maternal matriarch of the de la Pole's). As such, in the eyes of the Yorkists, Elizabeth was their heiress and the marriage was a political coup, but never a requirement. From day one, Henry had it made it clear he ruled by right of his conquest, not his marriage,

There's just my two cents. One interesting sight I found here shows a list of women who were possibly likely to succeed yet were displaced by a brother or a son by their own brother.

Philippa herself is mentioned, with the article reading: Only child of Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence and Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster, whom she succeeded as 5th Countess in 1468. Her father was the second son of King Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainault, and therefore she was heiress presumptive to her cousin until her own death, she married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (ca. 1351-81) in about 1368. As a result of her seniority in the line of succession to the throne of the Kingdom of England and her marriage into the powerful Mortimer family, her descendants eventually succeeded to the throne as the House of York under Edward IV. She lived (1355–82).

It lists a lot of Scottish princesses as well, which might show that England and Scotland had similar inheritance practices. Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII's wife) is even mentioned. Pretty nifty list.
 
Some stuff I figure has to be noted:

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/houseoflancaster.htm

This was partly due, no doubt, to the fact that the true lineal heir after Richard was then a child, Edmund, who had just succeeded his father as Earl of March. Another circumstance was unfavourable to the house of Mortimer — that it derived its title through a woman. No case precisely similar had as yet arisen, and, notwithstanding the precedent of Henry II, it might be doubted whether succession through a female was favoured by the constitution. If not, Henry could say with truth that he was the direct heir of his grandfather, Edward III. If, on the other hand, succession through females was valid, he could trace his descent through his mother from Henry III by a very illustrious line of ancestors. And, in the words by which he formally made his claim, he ventured to say no more than that he was descended from the king last mentioned "by right line of the blood." In what particular way that "right line" was to be traced he did not venture to indicate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/richardii_reign_01.shtml

The crux of Richard's uncertainty and fear derived from the succession and the fact that the 30 year-old king had no heir and had just married a seven year old French princess! Two families possessed strong claims to succeed Richard II: the young Mortimer Earl of March through the senior female line and Lancaster/Hereford through the secondary but male line from John of Gaunt. Needless to say, Gaunt argued that succession to the crown should be entailed to the male line as was increasingly the case for inheriting noble estates.

I can quote more, but the idea that it was Obviously Acceptable for women - or female lines - to succeed at this point (as in, the most recent case its come up as of Henry VII) needs some examination.

To quote from Alison Weir's book on the War of the Roses:

"(T)here was no statutory bar to a woman succeeding to the throne or transmitting a claim to her descendants. In fact, this the issue had never been put the test because, until the fifteenth century, the House of Plantagent had produced a sufficiency of male heirs.
. . .
From 1399 to 1499 the crown became the object of feuds, wars, and conspiracies, not because of a dearth of heirs, but because there were too many powerful magnates with a claim on the throne. During this period a new and disturbing element became involved in determining the royal succession: the prevalence of might over right. This broguht a new awareness to the lack of statue law governing the succession and a debate as to whether the rights of a senior heir general, with a claim transmitted through a female, could take precedence over a junior heir male. But in the final analysis strength and success were what coutned: an effective ruler was more likely to remain on the throne, however dubious his title. Weak or tyrannical rulers met with disaster.

During the fifteenth century, some attempts were made to regulate the laws of succession, but the highest legal authorities in the land, fearful of reprisals from interested magnates, repeatedly refused to pronounce conclusively on so weight a matter, saying that the issue could not be determined by reference to common law."
 
Farther back than that, William I was heir by proximity of blood through his great-aunt Emma
No. Emma had only been Queen Consort (to two different Kings) in England, she had no actual claim on the throne by blood and neither did William.
 
Last edited:
England had no clearly defined succession principle until the Henrician Succession Acts of the 1530's and 40's prompted by Henry VIII's unique marital arrangements. (and the later acts which included his illegitimate children was debated because their illegitimacy was confirmed by Parliament in both cases and specifically barred them the throne)

The early Norman King's divided their possessions at death only Henry I tried to enforce the right of his daughter to succeed him in England. (and a lot of the issues with that where her personality not just her gender).

From Henry II to Richard II there was an obvious male heir (only at the death of Richard I was there a break with John succeeding to his brother's possessions in preference to the strict heir under male pref primogeniture of the son of his older brother Geoffrey Duke of Brittany)

Richard II with no direct heir named the descendants of his uncle Lionel of Antwerp as heirs in 1385 - this being his cousin Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March and his son Edmund 5th Earl of March)
It was noticeable the Henry IV emphasised his male-line of descent from Edward III after deposing Richard.
There were several attempts to restore the succession to the "rightful" mortimer line - but it did die down over time.
It was of course reignited in the 1450's when the failure of England's policies in France, the weakness of Henry VI, and the strong squables between powerful nobles. It resulted in the collapse of the Lancastrian line and the accession of the Mortimer/York line of Edward IV. - who in fact became the senior male Plantagenet heir after the death of Henry VI and his son.
It was clearly to Henry VII's advantage to marry Edward IV's daughter (the senior heir general of Edward III) - and his first Parliament expressed a strong desire for the match (despite agreeing to back his claim by conquest rather than hereditary right) - Henry rightly didn't want to 'owe' his throne to his wife though.

If Arthur has a daughter then much of what happens next rests with Henry VII and his relationship with his surviving son and ultimately what his council does at his death

As she was to prove in later life Catherine of Aragon (as the daughter of a strong Queen Regnant herself) had none of the concerns about female succession that her OTL husband Henry VIII did and both she and I suspect her father will continue to press for the young Mary/Elizabeth to succeed.

Bypassing her is not unlikely but would leave her with a strong claim (particularly if her uncle the new heir fails to produce his own male heirs which may still be likely given high infant mortality etc).

That claim makes marrying her to anyone very difficult for her uncle (unless he has a brood of sons and a wife with strong foreign royal links).
 
The irony is just ... royal

What will Henry VII do about his newly-widowed daughter-in-law? He probably won't send her back to Spain, since that might mean having to part with the dowry. But he is definitely in a hurry to marry her off (probably not Henry).

Having a young, widowed foreign princess around poses a serious problem, one of which Henry VII will be acutely aware. Ironically, this the same situation that enabled his grandmother, Catherine of Valois, meeting his grandfather, Owen Tudor.
 
Top