WI: Prince Arthur had had a daughter with Catherine of Aragon

What would happen if Prince Arthur of Wales, son and heir to King Henry VII and older brother to Prince Henry, Duke of (OTL Henry VIII) had had a daughter with his wife Catherine of Aragon, before his death on 2nd April 1502?

Would Henry, still try and marry Catherine in 1509, or would Henry use confirmation from the Bible, which he interpreted to say that if a man marries his brother's wife, the couple will be childless?

Let's call the new Princess, Elizabeth Isabella (after both of their mothers) would this Princess, be the new Heir or would her uncle Henry take it?

What is the ramificatins of a Catholic English Princess being born in 1501/2, the only child of a dead Heir?

_______
This is a vague idea brought about by VVD0D95's thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=357449
 
Elisabeth Isabella are two versions of the same name - it's like Mary Maria or Caroline Charlotte. So it will be one or the other.
 
I think there's a depressingly high chance that the little girl will have a terrible accident.
Please don't say that Henry would kill off an innocent child,

Elisabeth Isabella are two versions of the same name - it's like Mary Maria or Caroline Charlotte. So it will be one or the other.

But at the end of the day, they are still two different names which empathy the true meaning of the name. I thought it would be a sweet idea for two young people to look at their new born daughter and wish to name her after their female role models.
 
But at the end of the day, they are still two different names which empathy the true meaning of the name. I thought it would be a sweet idea for two young people to look at their new born daughter and wish to name her after their female role models.

But this is the late 15th century we are talking about. ;)

Perhaps her cardinal uncle Henry will be regent; or if not a cardinal, he would definitely marry his own son to the infant queen at some point, but besides that I see no precedent for his attempt to dispose of said fictional niece.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Please don't say that Henry would kill off an innocent child,

Maybe not him, but certainly people who feel the possibility of a little girl on the throne is a threat to the kingdom, or people from the pro- Henry camp that who want to advance him to the throne, or make sure a potential rival that can cause a civil war when she's adult is dealt with.
 
It's worth remembering that in the first decade of the sixteenth century, the experience of weak child monarchs in Henry VI and Edward V is still very much an a lived memory: and a little girl monarch would even be worse.
 
There is no settled succession rules at this point anyway - so it will entirely depend on the views of Henry VII.

The couple married in November 1501 and Arthur died in April 1502 - so any child would be posthumous and if carried to term then a late August early September 1502 delivery is likely.

I would think most of the court and the King will wait the news of the birth with great desperation - a boy then the succession will clearly pass to the infant - however I can't see Henry VII wanting a granddaughter to succeed in preference to his younger son the Duke of York.

I have no doubt Isabella and Ferdinand will attempt to try and have the infant Elizabeth named as heiress but Isabella's death and Ferdinand's own decision to try and get a male heir for Aragon will relieve that pressure some what.

The English court is not going to make an attempt to have the infant named Queen instead of her teenage Uncle.

I also think the birth makes it less likely that Henry VII will favour his widowed daughter marrying his second son and it will be made clear that if Catherine is married outside the country she would not be able to take her child with her.

It is awkward and if Henry doesn't marry and produce a brood of his own his teenage niece is going to be a bigger threat to the point where any marriage for her is going to have to be very well judged by her uncle.
 
It's worth remembering that in the first decade of the sixteenth century, the experience of weak child monarchs in Henry VI and Edward V is still very much an a lived memory: and a little girl monarch would even be worse.

Indeed.
Even going with the less likely route where Henry is not crowned he would almost certainly be named sole Regent and Lord Protector for his niece.
Accidents and murder plots will then abound until one of the 2 is dead.
 
I think Lizzy Izzy (I coined that in my own post on this topic some time ago) survives the regin of Henry VII. Henry is going to protect his granddaughter and the namesake of his beloved wife. Not to mention maintaining relations with her other namesake and her husband (good reason for Elizabeth Isabella despite the "duplication"). Accordingly she is proclaimed Queen upon Henry VII's death. Her uncle, Henry Duke of York, now regent and Lord Protector, promptly finds a secluded locale to stash the Queen Mother and introduces the new Queen to her new apartments in the Tower of London. There she gets to meet Edward and Richard Platangent, or should I say meet the same fate as Edward and Richard Platangent. The Duke of York, strong, capable and assertive, is popularly acclaimed to the throne as Henry VIII and Lizzy Izzy is seen no more. If it happened in 1483 it can happen in 1509 and is there any reason to believe that a man who would send 2 of his wives and his own mentor to the chopping block would not see to the 'demise through pure displeasure and melancholy' or some other secretive and nefarious end to Lizzy Izzy. Bye Bye Lizzy. Hello war with Spain? Ferdy would not be pleased.
 
this was also the plot point for Kingsley Amis's Alteration: pope Martin Luther authorizes a War of the English Restoration against "Henry the Abominable's" attempt to seize the throne--Roses redux, plus More's upgrades

alas the novel spirals into lunacy and ends with Harold Wilson as the Pope and plotting the genocide of 30 million because condoms aren't allowed because of castrati or something

but realistically the Puritans might find themselves in a similar position to the Huguenots, though under slightly more tolerant (or at least "absorptive") kings: they'd become elements in the fights between Crown and Parliament, especially once the pyres burn down 17th c.
 
Depends...

Assuming Henry VII still lives until 1509, it seems to me that what happens depends on what he decides/wants. If he names the child his heir, relatively soon after her birth, his son who in the original timeline would become Henry VIII may be told not to abandon the idea of a career in the Church... If Henry VII decides the girl is going to be his heir, he's not going to want any rivals anywhere on the scene.
That said, Henry VII may figure that between the perils of surviving childhood and that childbirth is dangerous to women that it would be dangerous/destabilizing for the country and the Tudor dynasty for this girl to be first in line, and he may well simply name his second son as his heir, and look to arrange a betrothal for his grand-daughter which will keep her out of the way.
 
Top