WI: King Henry VIII had a son by Katherine Howard

This question is sparked by the current series of The Tudors on BBC television.

A son is born to Queen Katherine in 1541, let's call him Edmund. He grows up to be a healthy boy. When Edward VI dies in 1553 will Prince Edmund succeed to the throne? He would be aged 11 or 12.

Also how does giving birth to a son affect the fortunes of Queen Katherine? Henry would not want to have her executed.
 
Depends whose son he actually was. While there is no reason to think Anne Boleyn guilty of the trumped-up charges of adultery on which she was convicted and executed, there is every reason to believe that Catherine Howard's guilt was real. But given that Henry was convinced of the paternity, certainly the imaginary Edmund would have been next heir after Edward VI, there would have been no question about it at all.

As for Catherine's fate, if she had been caught in her suicidal (considering who Henry was) dalliances after Edmund's birth her life might have been spared and scandal hushed up, exactly because Henry wouldn't want his second son's paternity to be questioned. I doubt she would have had a very comfortable life thereafter, though. There would have been a difference also for Henry's older children; his last wife Catherine Parr was a very good stepmother to them, the only mother the younger two had really known, amd brought a lot of healing to Henry's highly dysfunctional family. Presumably if Catherine Howard had survived neither the sixth marriage nor that healing would have happened.

The relations between the now two youngest siblings would be interesting; Edward was a rather odd character in some ways, though of course there is much in his circumstances to explain that. They could have been bosom pals or Edward might have hated his younger brother with a passion, the only unlikely thing is indifference. Relations with his actual siblings, I don't really know how he got on with Elizabeth. Not well with Mary, she was old enough to be his mother so normal sibling closeness wouldn't be expected, and the religious issue put great strains between them, Edward being as fervent a Protestant as Mary was a Catholic. Remarked on as having an apparently cold and unemotional nature, striking in one so young, his fights with her are about the only thing ever recorded as having him in tears. Naturally any younger brother of his would not be Catholic, so that problem wouldn't arise. Nor would Mary's dreadful reign, nor given long enough life for Edmund would Elizabeth's great one.

There might have been loss or gain overall, none of Henry VIII's three children to survive were ordinary people and likely a fourth would not have been either. It didn't happen, and Henry's failing health and flagging sex drive may have been part of the reason why, also for Catherine's extra-marital liaisons. Which were still suicidal, she was either crazy or extremely stupid, the latter seeming most likely from what we know of her. Anne Boleyn was neither one, and the allegations against her certainly lies.

PS As an afterthought to that, and an illustration of the possible differences such things can make, Northumberland's regency would have continued after Edward's death, and he would have continued pushing the Church of England along a distinctly Protestant path. With no Marian interlude and no refounding under Elizabeth, probably the Church of England as we know it, a kind of halfway house in some ways, would never have come to be and it would just be another Protestant state church.
 
Last edited:
Having Edmund born doesn't mean Henry VIII won't execute Catherine Howard. Anne Bolyen gave birth to Elizabeth, but Henry VIII still had her beheaded. Of course, Elizabeth was a girl and Edmund would be a boy, but still...

Of course, Henry VIII's paternity of Edmund could be questionned. However, no one can realy know until the boy grows up : if he shows facial similarities to Henry VIII, this could very well do the trick for him. I agree this means nothing, but forensicks didn't exist in the Middle Age and you rarely physically inherit nothing from your father or parents (Habsburg jaw anyone?). His character could also play out if he turns out much like Henry VIII.

Given the fact he is a boy, Henry VIII would probably want Edmund to be his second successor after Edward VI in his will. Thus, if everything goes OTL and Edward VI dies at age 15, you get King Edmund III on the English throne. Given that Edward wasn't yet major and that Edmund is even younger than he was, John Dudley probably keeps the regency and there is no Jane Grey scenario (which probably saves the latters' head).

Given Mary's hartred (or at least great dislike) for her half siblings (don't know her attitude on Edward VI, but she clearly didn't liked Elizabeth although she never executed her), it is possible she tries to claim the throne in the name of the Catholic Church and on the basis of the fact Edmund is illegitimate. How would that turn out, I'm not sure.

After that, my post would probably be a carbon copy of Domenic's.
 
Katherine Howard

Depends whose son he actually was. While there is no reason to think Anne Boleyn guilty of the trumped-up charges of adultery on which she was convicted and executed, there is every reason to believe that Catherine Howard's guilt was real. But given that Henry was convinced of the paternity, certainly the imaginary Edmund would have been next heir after Edward VI, there would have been no question about it at all.

As for Catherine's fate, if she had been caught in her suicidal (considering who Henry was) dalliances after Edmund's birth her life might have been spared and scandal hushed up, exactly because Henry wouldn't want his second son's paternity to be questioned. I doubt she would have had a very comfortable life thereafter, though. There would have been a difference also for Henry's older children; his last wife Catherine Parr was a very good stepmother to them, the only mother the younger two had really known, amd brought a lot of healing to Henry's highly dysfunctional family. Presumably if Catherine Howard had survived neither the sixth marriage nor that healing would have happened.

The relations between the now two youngest siblings would be interesting; Edward was a rather odd character in some ways, though of course there is much in his circumstances to explain that. They could have been bosom pals or Edward might have hated his younger brother with a passion, the only unlikely thing is indifference. Relations with his actual siblings, I don't really know how he got on with Elizabeth. Not well with Mary, she was old enough to be his mother so normal sibling closeness wouldn't be expected, and the religious issue put great strains between them, Edward being as fervent a Protestant as Mary was a Catholic. Remarked on as having an apparently cold and unemotional nature, striking in one so young, his fights with her are about the only thing ever recorded as having him in tears. Naturally any younger brother of his would not be Catholic, so that problem wouldn't arise. Nor would Mary's dreadful reign, nor given long enough life for Edmund would Elizabeth's great one.

There might have been loss or gain overall, none of Henry VIII's three children to survive were ordinary people and likely a fourth would not have been either. It didn't happen, and Henry's failing health and flagging sex drive may have been part of the reason why, also for Catherine's extra-marital liaisons. Which were still suicidal, she was either crazy or extremely stupid, the latter seeming most likely from what we know of her. Anne Boleyn was neither one, and the allegations against her certainly lies.

PS As an afterthought to that, and an illustration of the possible differences such things can make, Northumberland's regency would have continued after Edward's death, and he would have continued pushing the Church of England along a distinctly Protestant path. With no Marian interlude and no refounding under Elizabeth, probably the Church of England as we know it, a kind of halfway house in some ways, would never have come to be and it would just be another Protestant state church.
I agree. But Katherine will still be fairly young when Henry VIII dies and could possibly re-marry, and demand a part in the regency of her son, when Edward VI dies.
 
I think its ASB, at the time of their marriage Henry VIII was morbidly obese and have an ulcerated Leg maybe also gout, basic movement caused him great pain, so trying to have sex.... it just isn't happening.
 
I think its ASB, at the time of their marriage Henry VIII was morbidly obese and have an ulcerated Leg maybe also gout, basic movement caused him great pain, so trying to have sex.... it just isn't happening.

There are sexual positions that require less movement on the man's part.

(In medieval times, the woman-on-top position was called "trying for a bishop" because people thought a child conceived that way would be a bishop.)

Besides, if Henry wants a spare heir that badly, he can just grit his teeth and bear it.

Evil thought--what if he's so desperate he decides to have the leg that's hurting him amputated?
 
There are sexual positions that require less movement on the man's part.

(In medieval times, the woman-on-top position was called "trying for a bishop" because people thought a child conceived that way would be a bishop.)

Besides, if Henry wants a spare heir that badly, he can just grit his teeth and bear it.

Evil thought--what if he's so desperate he decides to have the leg that's hurting him amputated?

with a waist measurement of 54 inches.... having a women on top would be hard to do, also any amputation would kill him.
 
It wouldn't have been Edmund III unless he succeeded Edward IX. The Anglo-Saxon Kings of the English did not in fact use dynastic numerals and the actual Edmund II wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you'd called him that. We use the numerals for our convenience, but at the time kings of the same name were distinguished by sobriquet, usually given after death. Thus Edmund the Magnificent/Ironside rather than Edmund I then II.

Still, when for the first time a name of one of the earlier kings was used, Edward (and no other ever has been), it was Edward I not IV. All three Edwards before were famous for different reasons, people were hardly unaware of them, but they were ignored for the numbering, we have no real idea why. So I think the two previous Edmunds would likewise have been ignored.

Out of curiosity, has there been a previous Henry VIII thread where he married Christina, Duchess of Milan as his fourth wife instead of Anne of Cleves? That would have had a real possibility of further issue, whereas I don't honestly think the likelihood with Catherine Howard is great.
 
Domenic said:
It wouldn't have been Edmund III unless he succeeded Edward IX. The Anglo-Saxon Kings of the English did not in fact use dynastic numerals and the actual Edmund II wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you'd called him that. We use the numerals for our convenience, but at the time kings of the same name were distinguished by sobriquet, usually given after death. Thus Edmund the Magnificent/Ironside rather than Edmund I then II.

Still, when for the first time a name of one of the earlier kings was used, Edward (and no other ever has been), it was Edward I not IV. All three Edwards before were famous for different reasons, people were hardly unaware of them, but they were ignored for the numbering, we have no real idea why. So I think the two previous Edmunds would likewise have been ignored.

Yeah, you're probably right. It's true that I was quite surprised that Edward Longshanks (Edward I) never considered the other Anglo-Saxon rulers named Edward. If they're not included, then the Edmunds would probably forgotten from the numerations like the other Anglo-Saxons Kings.

Domenic said:
Out of curiosity, has there been a previous Henry VIII thread where he married Christina, Duchess of Milan as his fourth wife instead of Anne of Cleves? That would have had a real possibility of further issue, whereas I don't honestly think the likelihood with Catherine Howard is great.

Never seen one for my part.
 
Shame, it would have been interesting. Beautiful, witty and high-spirited, Christina would definitely have excited Henry more than Anne, who was a very nice person by all accounts but hardly more stimulating than a log.

Her royalty and Catholicism would also have created interesting dynamics between her children, especially any sons, and Edward VI. I think "hate with a passion" would have been the most likely option. It never happened because Christina was too smart: allegedly she informed Henry's ambassador that if she had two heads, one would certainly be at the King's service.
 
While Catherine Howard having a son may spare her from the executioner's block for her infidelities, it may get her sent away to a nunary. On another dynastic note, if Edward VI dies young after a brief reign, as per OTL, then Edmund's presence, as he is probably going to be Protestant, means that Lady Jane Grey lives longer.
 
If I remember correctly, according to Antonia Fraser, Catherine Howard did conceive early on during her marriage to the king, but suffered a miscarriage very soon after (c. 1540). And just a minor nitpick: the boy would probably have been christened "Henry", given all of the those sons of King Henry VIII who lived long enough to be baptized were either named "Henry" or "Edward".

Assuming Catherine Howard conceives early in her marriage, this change of events could butterfly away the entire Thomas Culpeper affair (assuming it took place). Remember, before anything was known of her activities with Culpeper, the main complaint against Catherine was her earlier sordid private life at the house of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, before her marriage. If anything, her giving the king a healthy son will ensure that this is hushed up.

Now, Catherine Howard giving the king a son will change a lot of things, even if she dies in childbirth. First, it means that the power of her uncle, the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the Howard family is cemented at court (since the family's downfall was largely the result of the queen's own fall and execution). This also means that the more conservative religious faction at court stays in power, such as Bishop Gardiner and the rest.

This is going to largely affect the reign of King Edward VI and the English Reformation. Remember, according to the terms of King Henry VIII's will in OTL, the regency was left to a council of sixteen members. The Duke of Somerset (at this time Earl of Hertford) was only one of the members of the council, though he did manage to seize power in a coup of his own within a few weeks of the king's death. ITTL, this is going to be very difficult. Without a doubt, the Duke of Norfolk will be on that council, along with Bishop Gardiner and other reactionaries--indeed, Dudley might not even be appointed to the regency council ITTL, and we may see his influence butterflied away. We might also see Norfolk seize power, probably more in a John Dudley like fashion of gaining control of the council and ruling as de facto regent through the body.

Also, a large amount of King Edward VI's education was supervised and arranged by Queen Catherine Parr in OTL. Without her marriage to the king, King Edward might just be a very different sort of person. Indeed, he'll probably have far less radical protestant leanings, considering that he'll grow up in a time when the Reformers are very weak. Regardless, if Edward VI dies young as in OTL (not necessarily a sure thing, since he wasn't as sickly as many have later claimed until his early teens), then you will see his half-brother come to the throne as King Henry IX.

King Henry IX will largely be under the influence of his great-uncle Norfolk in this scenario and the rest of the Howard faction. He'll probably be a religious reactionary as well, though I can't see him being a Catholic per se (after all, nobody, save for perhaps Mary and Pole, wanted to really give the monasteries back their land). Queen Catherine (if she is still living) may have some role in the regency, probably de jure only, though this isn't exactly a sure thing, considering that there isn't a great deal of precedent for the queen dowager having a role in her son's regency, or even upbringing.

This all means that the Henrician Church settlement stays mainly intact and the Howards remain very powerful, at least for a time. England will also keep Calais for longer than OTL, and there may be more push for a Anglo-Spanish alliance than an Anglo-French one (the latter of which was largely motivated by Dudley and the failures of Somerset in northern France).

Also, consider one thing: this "King Henry IX" is about the same age as Queen Mary of Scots. WI King Henry VIII tries to get her betrothed to his younger son, instead? The Scots may be more willing to buy this (win-win, after all, since King Henry puts his younger son on the Scottish throne and the Scots don't lose their independence), which means no Rough Wooing--something that will ease English financial burdens in the coming years. Queen Mary might just stay in Scotland, which makes things very easy for her to wed her cousin King Henry IX and possibly unite the two crowns.
 
Katherine Howard

If I remember correctly, according to Antonia Fraser, Catherine Howard did conceive early on during her marriage to the king, but suffered a miscarriage very soon after (c. 1540). And just a minor nitpick: the boy would probably have been christened "Henry", given all of the those sons of King Henry VIII who lived long enough to be baptized were either named "Henry" or "Edward".

Assuming Catherine Howard conceives early in her marriage, this change of events could butterfly away the entire Thomas Culpeper affair (assuming it took place). Remember, before anything was known of her activities with Culpeper, the main complaint against Catherine was her earlier sordid private life at the house of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, before her marriage. If anything, her giving the king a healthy son will ensure that this is hushed up.

Now, Catherine Howard giving the king a son will change a lot of things, even if she dies in childbirth. First, it means that the power of her uncle, the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the Howard family is cemented at court (since the family's downfall was largely the result of the queen's own fall and execution). This also means that the more conservative religious faction at court stays in power, such as Bishop Gardiner and the rest.

This is going to largely affect the reign of King Edward VI and the English Reformation. Remember, according to the terms of King Henry VIII's will in OTL, the regency was left to a council of sixteen members. The Duke of Somerset (at this time Earl of Hertford) was only one of the members of the council, though he did manage to seize power in a coup of his own within a few weeks of the king's death. ITTL, this is going to be very difficult. Without a doubt, the Duke of Norfolk will be on that council, along with Bishop Gardiner and other reactionaries--indeed, Dudley might not even be appointed to the regency council ITTL, and we may see his influence butterflied away. We might also see Norfolk seize power, probably more in a John Dudley like fashion of gaining control of the council and ruling as de facto regent through the body.

Also, a large amount of King Edward VI's education was supervised and arranged by Queen Catherine Parr in OTL. Without her marriage to the king, King Edward might just be a very different sort of person. Indeed, he'll probably have far less radical protestant leanings, considering that he'll grow up in a time when the Reformers are very weak. Regardless, if Edward VI dies young as in OTL (not necessarily a sure thing, since he wasn't as sickly as many have later claimed until his early teens), then you will see his half-brother come to the throne as King Henry IX.

King Henry IX will largely be under the influence of his great-uncle Norfolk in this scenario and the rest of the Howard faction. He'll probably be a religious reactionary as well, though I can't see him being a Catholic per se (after all, nobody, save for perhaps Mary and Pole, wanted to really give the monasteries back their land). Queen Catherine (if she is still living) may have some role in the regency, probably de jure only, though this isn't exactly a sure thing, considering that there isn't a great deal of precedent for the queen dowager having a role in her son's regency, or even upbringing.

This all means that the Henrician Church settlement stays mainly intact and the Howards remain very powerful, at least for a time. England will also keep Calais for longer than OTL, and there may be more push for a Anglo-Spanish alliance than an Anglo-French one (the latter of which was largely motivated by Dudley and the failures of Somerset in northern France).

Also, consider one thing: this "King Henry IX" is about the same age as Queen Mary of Scots. WI King Henry VIII tries to get her betrothed to his younger son, instead? The Scots may be more willing to buy this (win-win, after all, since King Henry puts his younger son on the Scottish throne and the Scots don't lose their independence), which means no Rough Wooing--something that will ease English financial burdens in the coming years. Queen Mary might just stay in Scotland, which makes things very easy for her to wed her cousin King Henry IX and possibly unite the two crowns.
Interesting observations. I agree that the prestige and influence of the Howards will be greatly enhanced by the birth of a son to Katherine. bvHoward
 
Top