WI Catherine of Aragon's firstborn son survives?

[SaintStone]

On January 1st, 1511 Henry, Duke of Cornwall, was born Prince and Heir Apparent to Henry VIII. His death the following month would be one of the causes of England's break with the Catholic Church, as Henry VIII was unable to produce any other male heirs at all which led to his desire for a divorce.

I'm sure that Henry VIII had many reasons for his break with the Catholic Church, but if you removed the need for a male heir and (as a byproduct) improved his relationship with Catherine of Aragon, would he have gone in the direction he did?

 

[CP11]

Probably not. Henry is believed to have remained a catholic at heart right up till his death, so removing the succession issue and almost everything changes for the rest of his reign

 

[Yorel]

Henry VIII just wanted a son. That's why he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon OTL: since the Pope refused to grant annullment, Henry VIII broke with Rome and made himself Head of the Church of England. This way, he could grant himself an annulation. Plus, Anglicanism is very close to Roman Catholicism compared to other forms of Protestantism: the King of England just hijacked the Pope's position to put it simply. So, Henry VIII was probably not very keen on breaking with Rome.

If Catherine of Aragon gives birth to a son, then Henry VIII might not want to divorce her. Without his divorce, it's practically sure he won't break with Rome.

 

[jkarr]

If Catherine of Aragon gives birth to a son, then Henry VIII might not want to divorce her. Without his divorce, it's practically sure he won't break with Rome.

it also might mean no english colonises in the new world

spain and portugal had severa papal bulls sayign who owned what in the world, which were still in effect, psain mainly owning the americas...henry and his successors might not go to war with spain over them if they stay in the same church

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

it also might mean no english colonises in the new world

spain and portugal had severa papal bulls sayign who owned what in the world, which were still in effect, psain mainly owning the americas...henry and his successors might not go to war with spain over them if they stay in the same church

The Treaty of Tordesillas did not stop France from estabilishing colonies in both Spanish and Portuguese supposed lands.

 

[jkarr]

The Treaty of Tordesillas did not stop France from estabilishing colonies in both Spanish and Portuguese supposed lands.

true, but if england doesnt go protestant, and mary marys with the hre charles, then theres a good chance the 30 year wars would be butterflied away, with protetanism failing or becoming a larger minoirty, and papal authroity being stronger in a more catholic dominated europe...people might respect their opinions more

 

[Alex Richards]

true, but if england doesnt go protestant, and mary marys with the hre charles, then theres a good chance the 30 year wars would be butterflied away, with protetanism failing or becoming a larger minoirty, and papal authroity being stronger in a more catholic dominated europe...people might respect their opinions more

Naah. The Pope spent half the time fighting agaisnt Catholics in Europe, especially the Holy Roman Emperor. And in turn Catholic rulers in Europe had made a hobby of ignoring the Pope when it suited them to (see Dandolo of Venice ignoring the Pope's letters calling for him to cease using the crusaders to attack Zara and Constantinople in 1203/4 for example).

 

[Yorel]

it also might mean no english colonises in the new world

As was stated, the Treaty of Torsedillas didn't stop France from establishing colonies in North America (as well as a failed attempt at a French Brazil). Plus, the richess discovered by the Spanish & Portuguese will necessarily catch the eyes of the other powers because they'll want their share. That probably means England too.

true, but if england doesnt go protestant, and mary marys with the hre charles, then theres a good chance the 30 year wars would be butterflied away, with protetanism failing or becoming a larger minoirty, and papal authroity being stronger in a more catholic dominated europe...people might respect their opinions more

At one point, Catholic-dominated Europe meant Hapsburg-dominated: this resulted in France, "the eldest daughter of the Church" and a one of the most (if not the most) important Catholic powers of its time, using realpolitik and allying itself with both infidels (Alliance between Francis I and Sulleyman the Magnificient) and heathens (France allied several times with the Protestants Princes in Germany) against the Hapsburgs. Why did France did so? Because it wanted what the Hapbsurg had at the time: European hegemony.

England staying Catholic doesn't necessarily means it will turn into a Hapsburg lapdog. If England wants to become a major power, it will have to clash with the Hapsburg at one point by allying against Hapsburg ennemies (like the German Protestants or the United Provinces).
Let's also not foregt that Henry VIII liked to switch support between Charles V and Francis I.

 

[kasumigenx]

As was stated, the Treaty of Torsedillas didn't stop France from establishing colonies in North America (as well as a failed attempt at a French Brazil). Plus, the richess discovered by the Spanish & Portuguese will necessarily catch the eyes of the other powers because they'll want their share. That probably means England too.

But England will be less expansionist than OTL..

 

[Alex Richards]

But England will be less expansionist than OTL..

Why is that related to Protestantism?

 

[Yorel]

But England will be less expansionist than OTL..

Why is that related to Protestantism?

Yeah, Alex has a point. To me, Colonialism and Religions are two completely different things even if you can find the latter in the former with the conversion of native people. But in the decision to build a colonial empire, the main concern isn't Religion but how to make colonies viable and rich. And I don't see how Protestantism is more expansionnist than Catholicism.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Yeah, Alex has a point. To me, Colonialism and Religions are two completely different things even if you can find the latter in the former with the conversion of native people. But in the decision to build a colonial empire, the main concern isn't Religion but how to make colonies viable and rich. And I don't see how Protestantism is more expansionnist than Catholicism.

It is also overlooks the fact that any son of Henry and Catherine who survived into adulthood, would have the blood of Ferdinand and Isabella flowing through his veins.

If he had one ounce of his father Henry VIII and maternal grandparents ambition then he would aim for the stars.

 

[Velasco]

Who would be the most viable wives for him? A son would keep Catherine firmly in power and England firmly aligned with Spain, so I'm guessing a Portuguese infanta is most likely?

 

[Yorel]

Who would be the most viable wives for him? A son would keep Catherine firmly in power and England firmly aligned with Spain, so I'm guessing a Portuguese infanta is most likely?

That or a Hapsburg considering Catherine of Aragon is Charles V's aunt. Plus, the negotiations could easily be arranged at a time when Henry VIII and Charles V decide to gang up on Francis I. And there are plenty of Hapsburg or Hapsburg-related poetential brides at the time.

Another possibility, in a reverse situation (ergo Francis I and Henry VIII allied against Charles V), would be a French bride for young *Henry IX. After all, Henry VIII thought at one point of marrying his daughter Mary to one of Francis' sons. She was bethroed to both the Dauphin François and Charles of Orléans, and I think she was even proposed to the future Henri II at one point. Here, he could do the same but with one of Francis I's daughters. Madeleine (1520-1537) was bethroed to James V of Scotland in July 1537 so she may not be available. On the other hand, her sister Margaret (1523-1574) was only married to the Duke of Savoy in 1559.

I'm also wondering if the marriage of her brother wouldn't affect that of Mary Tudor. Henry VIII would most marry her since he doesn't have to worry about not having sons and being potentially suceeded by a Catholic (since he would stay Catholic).

 

[Velasco]

That or a Hapsburg considering Catherine of Aragon is Charles V's aunt. Plus, the negotiations could easily be arranged at a time when Henry VIII and Charles V decide to gang up on Francis I. And there are plenty of Hapsburg or Hapsburg-related poetential brides at the time.

Another possibility, in a reverse situation (ergo Francis I and Henry VIII allied against Charles V), would be a French bride for young *Henry IX. After all, Henry VIII thought at one point of marrying his daughter Mary to one of Francis' sons. She was bethroed to both the Dauphin François and Charles of Orléans, and I think she was even proposed to the future Henri II at one point. Here, he could do the same but with one of Francis I's daughters. Madeleine (1520-1537) was bethroed to James V of Scotland in July 1537 so she may not be available. On the other hand, her sister Margaret (1523-1574) was only married to the Duke of Savoy in 1559.

I'm also wondering if the marriage of her brother wouldn't affect that of Mary Tudor. Henry VIII would most marry her since he doesn't have to worry about not having sons and being potentially suceeded by a Catholic (since he would stay Catholic).

But with a healthy son, would Henry ever have need of allying with Francis against Charles? Charles probably wouldn't care much for Mary as wife, as she would no longer be heiress of anything worthwhile; even if he betrothed to her and then jilted her as OTL, the betrothal could be replaced by one between young Henry "IX" with Infanta Maria of Portugal (the Emperor's niece and the Empress' sister) or Princess Dorothea of Denmark (her parents even visited England in 1520s). Still, say Henry did ally with Francis against Charles for whatever reason, I dare say Francis would have definitely preferred Henry "IX" to James V as a son-in-law. Scotland was poor and only of any use as part of schemes against England.

Alternatively Henry could end up marrying him to Margaret Douglas or one of the daughters of Henry, Lord Montagu, son (and at that time heir) of the Countess of Salisbury, the last Plantagenet.

Imagine if the young Princes of Wales, and not his father, became enamoured with Madame Boleyn? Now that would make for an interesting TL.

 

[mcdnab]

Henry frequently switched sides between France and Spain depending on his needs at the time it had little to do with the state of his marriage.

He was mistrustful of his father in law Ferdinand (who he felt had abandoned him during the war with France in 1512/13) which is why he switched sides and married Mary (his sister) to Louis XII in 1514.

Throughout the teens and twenties he simply allied with which side delivered the most advantage Wolsey also tended to be more pro-French as well.

Queen Catherine was certainly less than happy about that but there was little she could or did do.

As to possible brides for the future Henry IX - Madeleine of France was contracted to James V of Scotland from birth due to her poor health the French offered an alternative but when the couple met James pushed for Madeleine much to Francis I's distress (he feared the Scots climate and any marriage would be too much for her) So i think it unlikely she would end up Henry's wife.
A more likely and better aged wife - would be Renee of France (b 1510) younger daughter of Anne of Brittany and Louis XII and sister in law of Francis I (ironically she became a Protestant in later life)
Charlotte of France would have also been an alternative until her death aged 7 in 1524.
On the Hapsburg side
Catherine of Austria (youngest daughter of Juana and Philip sis to Charles V) was born in 1507 and might have been one choice.

 

[LOTLOF]

it also might mean no english colonises in the new world

spain and portugal had severa papal bulls sayign who owned what in the world, which were still in effect, psain mainly owning the americas...henry and his successors might not go to war with spain over them if they stay in the same church

No.

If the English saw colonies as a path to greater wealth and power they would pursue them no matter what. Being brother Catholics never prevented France, Austria, Spain, and Portugal from going to war with one another. As a previous poster even mentioned France once made an alliance with the Ottomans against Austria.

Even then religion was important but politics were politics.

 

[mcdnab]

And it hadn't stopped Henry VII's sponsorship of John Cabot in the 1490s

Henry VII's patent to Cabot - On 5 March 1496 "...free authority, faculty and power to sail to all parts, regions and coasts of the eastern, western and northern sea, under our banners, flags and ensigns, with five ships or vessels of whatsoever burden and quality they may be, and with so many and with such mariners and men as they may wish to take with them in the said ships, at their own proper costs and charges, to find, discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens and infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians."

And Henry VIII also employed his son Sebastian on several missions.

Under a surviving Catholic England then the nature of later colonization is going to be different. But that in itself relies entirely on the nature of religion in England and I wouldn't rule out a later English Reformation.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

You don't even need a male heir.

Under the laws of the Church Henry was entitled to a divorce...

 

[Nekromans]

You don't even need a male heir.

Under the laws of the Church Henry was entitled to a divorce...

But Henry had already shown his blatant disregard for the laws of the Church when he asked Pope Julius to allow their marriage in spite of the obvious issue. And given that Pope Clement would get a very sharp word from Catherine's nephew, he had absolutely no reason not to say "Well I'm not one to contradict my illustrious predecessor, clearly your marriage was above board and stop whining just because you can't make a boy last".

It'd be interesting to see what the Pope would have said had Rome not been under Imperial occupation at the time.