WI: Henry VIII had a sterile surviving son with Catherine of Aragon

What if instead of having only a daughter, Catherine of Aragon gives birth also to a sterile son, who succeeds him but cannot have his own children, what would Henry VIII do in this scenario..
 
I imagine it depends in part on when this son is born and when it's discovered that he won't be having children. Perhaps the first Henry Duke of Cornwall (born 1/1/1511) survives infancy. Depending on where the Tudors are currently leaning he and Mary may be betrothed in France (to the Dauphin Francis and Madeleine de Valois perhaps) or in the Habsburg sphere of influence. Others can make better guesses there or correct me if I'm mistaken.

It might take some time before people realize Prince Hal won't be having any children. His parents had their own fertility troubles, and it likewise could be blamed on whoever he marries. By the time it becomes apparent the Tudor line isn't continuing in that branch, Catherine of Aragon might have already passed away. This would leave Henry free to legally remarry a woman of his choice (without his bad reputation or religious troubles making him seem a worse match). In that case the line of succession would be Henry IX followed by TTL Edward VI and his descendants, followed by Mary and a possible union with France (or whoever).
 
Back then, it was ALWAYS the woman's fault. The gender, the lack of children, etc. What a son means is no annulment. when (if) Katherine of Aragon kicks it in 1536 (without all the stress, probably later), he'll remarry some pretty (maybe Christina of Denmark will look more favorably on him?) foreign beauty and stay with the church.
 
Katherine died of cancer, though. I'm not convinced she'd live much past 1536.

I agree, though, Henry would probably remarry, whether he'd be able to produce another son, though post-1536/1537, I'm not sure, because in OTL Edward VI was born in 1537 and Henry didn't have children with any of the remaining three of his wives.

Depending on who Mary married (and when) and whether or not she had to give up rights to the throne when she married, we might see her son succeeding Henry IX on the throne.
 
If they have this son after Mary (say, 1518), the lad won't be marrying until 1532 at the earliest. Given that Arthur married so young and died, as did Katherine of Aragon's brother, the odds are for a later marriage - say 1535, when he's 17. By the time Katherine dies (we'll use OTL year) in 1536, there's no idea of sterility. If the bride doesn't have children in say, five more years, the odds are they will have the marriage annulled and Henry jr will begin again with another wife in 1542. Henry VIII is going to be dead before he knows Jr can't sire kids.

Henry VIII is going to remarry. He's going to have people looking around for the next Queen Consort before Katherine is buried. But, as HRH Cecily points out, his own fertility seemed to lessen as he aged. And there's every chance the next child is Elizabeth, not Edward.

I seriously doubt that Mary would be required to give up her rights to the English throne by her father because he's going to assume that Jr is going to have a houseful of boys before Jr dies. Or that his next wife will give him nothing but sons. So, Mary will succeed her brother, although the English will not allow her husband to hold the crown, except as a token - he will wield no power in England save THROUGH Mary. There also will not be the religion aspect, England remains Catholic.
 
Katherine died of cancer, though. I'm not convinced she'd live much past 1536.

I agree, though, Henry would probably remarry, whether he'd be able to produce another son, though post-1536/1537, I'm not sure, because in OTL Edward VI was born in 1537 and Henry didn't have children with any of the remaining three of his wives.

I mean, he didn't even sleep with Anne of Cleves. So I'm not sure his failure to have kids with her should count against him fertility-wise. I agree with your actual point, though.
 
Unfortunately, with no children from his son Henry would attempt to remarry as well as perhaps attempt to have his son's wife put aside so that the young man can try again with a new bride. It's not very likely that Henry will be able to have another child post-1536 though. Not if he still suffers from the same health problems as he did OTL. It would be entirely possible that Mary will inherit the throne here. And that she'll end up passing said throne to her children, be they French or Hapsburg.

You could very well see Mary married to the Dauphin Francis here and Prince Henry married to a Hapsburg Princess/Archduchess. Thus Henry gets both a French and Austrian/Spanish match for his children. While Catherine would have preferred a Hapsburg match for both children she'd be perfectly content with her son being married within the family as that would keep England tied to Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

Possible Hapsburg oriented matches for Prince Henry would be Maria of Portugal b. 1521, Dorothea of Denmark b. 1520 and Christina of Denmark b. 1521.

Though Prince Henry divorcing or setting aside a Hapsburg bride would not go over well in the Hapsburg court and might have lasting consequences for the English court.
 
Back then, it was ALWAYS the woman's fault. The gender, the lack of children, etc. What a son means is no annulment. when (if) Katherine of Aragon kicks it in 1536 (without all the stress, probably later), he'll remarry some pretty (maybe Christina of Denmark will look more favorably on him?) foreign beauty and stay with the church.

Heh, it could go both ways. Henry VIII's extreme mysogeny was not necessarily the norm, but it's the one that most frames this discussion.

It was usually or mostly the woman's fault unless prior or extra-marital production proved otherwise, let's say that. Men therefore had much more opportunity to demonstrate their fertility due to the double standards on fidelity. Still, men without heirs or without male heirs were also subject to derision/marginalization/criticism/insecurity about their 'manliness' or w/e, and it was often cast as a divine judgment if they were unable to produce same. Both genders were seen to be failing in their 'duty' if they didn't produce, but again men had a much wider range of duties in which to 'prove' themselves whereas for women this was pretty much the job description.

Edit: meant to include this; bio-mechanics also placed an inverted double-standard on the male when it came to the actual consumation, too...which is in some ways where the male's pass/fail moment came. Take 2 people completely unattracted to each other, and the male is in a much more difficult spot come the wedding nuptials....which you'll remember were often semi-public affairs. We retrospectively emphasize how that was embaassing for the woman, but the actual purpose/emphasis of that ritual was mostly to prove the man could and did perform. The demand on the woman was much more passive in this respect. And a man unable to perform, regardless of his feelings for the woman in question, was very much subject to censure for his lack of virility.
 
Last edited:
It would probably be especially damning if the Prince were to have a few mistresses. If neither his mistress nor his wife got pregnant within a few years it's likely that we'll begin to see Prince Hal's virility being questioned.
 
Actually, I could see some ambitious young thing claiming her baby was Jr's, in order to score a good marriage. He's married and it's "proof" that it's not his fault he's not getting a baby from the wife. Henry VIII's ego would believe that rather than he fathered a 'defective' heir.
 
Actually, that's true. There'd be no way for the King and the Prince of Wales to know any better. If they're presented with a child that's of the right age and coloring they'd accept the mother's story that Prince Henry fathered it. This might open the door for more "proof of fertility" to arise within the Tudor court from Hal's old mistresses as they bring forward their own children.
 
Top