Katherine of Aragon Gives Birth to Arthur's Son

[Teriyaki]

One of the key divergent points in history for me is the death of Arthur Tudor. Its interesting to see certain historians speculate about what England would have been like had there been a King Arthur the I rather than a Henry the VIII.

Another interesting divergent point was Katherine of Aragon's insistence that she was still a virgin after her wedding night with Arthur, and had remained a maid until his death in 1502. She held steadfast to this point throughout her life, defended herself in court before Henry because of it, and never gave into the idea that her marriage had been consummated. The truth of this can be speculated I feel. Only Katherine knew for certain what happened on the wedding night.

What I want to discuss here is this situation ... Arthur and Katherine have their wedding night. Katherine discovers she is pregnant soon after and shares the glad tidings with Arthur. In March of 1502, with Katherine five months pregnant, Arthur catches ill. To protect Katherine and his heir, he send her from Ludlow to reside with his grandmother, Lady Margaret Beaufort. While Katherine resides with Margaret, Arthur dies at Ludlow Castle on April 2, 1502. Sometime in July/August 1502, Katherine is delivered of a healthy baby boy.

This baby survives childhood and grows to adulthood. How does the birth of this son of Katherine and Arthur change Tudor England and history as we know it?

 

[Tupolev0247]

If Catherine has a posthumous son by Arthur, it could cause some obvious interesting divergences like England staying Catholic and allied with the Habsburgs against France or less direct ones like Ferndinand succeeding in crowning his namesake son as his heir instead of Charles.

 

[HeavyMetal]

If Catherine has a posthumous son by Arthur, it could cause some obvious interesting divergences like England staying Catholic and allied with the Habsburgs against France or less direct ones like Ferndinand succeeding in crowning his namesake son as his heir instead of Charles.

I suppose you mean crowning him as King of Aragon. That's a pipedream in my opinion. Nobody would want that. Neither in England nor Castille, the HRE or even Aragon nobility.

 

[Tupolev0247]

I suppose you mean crowning him as King of Aragon. That's a pipedream in my opinion. Nobody would want that. Neither in England nor Castille, the HRE or even Aragon nobility.

Excuse my mistake, I meant grandson (Ferdinand von Habsburg).

 

[HeavyMetal]

Excuse my mistake, I meant grandson (Ferdinand von Habsburg).

No, the mistake was mine, I didn't see namesake. This is somehing that should have happened. Charles was raised in Burgundy and Ferdinand in Spain and it would have only be natural splitting the Kingdoms. Anyway, it doesn't seem to have any relation with Arthur's son existance.
I have to confess I have a personal grudge against Charles. He basically ruined Castille (not that the Castillians didn't help him on that).

 

[Janprimus]

Excuse my mistake, I meant grandson (Ferdinand von Habsburg).

I don't see the connection between Katherine of Aragon giving birth to a son of Arthur Tudor and Ferdinand of Aragon succeeding in making Ferdinand of Austria his heir.

It will mean OTL Henry VIII and Katherine can't marry, it will also mean another marriage option for Austria-Burgundy, Castile-Aragon, but also France, since this is likely to butterfly OTL's reason, why England became Protestant.

 

[piratedude]

England staying Catholic

For now at least. Not to say England was always bound to become protestant, but it shouldn't be assumed that England became protestant only because Henry 8 and his son's regents imposed it from the top down.

 

[Janprimus]

No, the mistake was mine, I didn't see namesake. This is somehing that should have happened. Charles was raised in Burgundy and Ferdinand in Spain and it would have only be natural splitting the Kingdoms. Anyway, it doesn't seem to have any relation with Arthur's son existance.
I have to confess I have a personal grudge against Charles. He basically ruined Castille (not that the Castillians didn't help him on that).

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this grudge against Karel V van Gent/Charles V de Gand. He had a rocky start in Castile & Aragon, but eventually found his way. Giving that he ruled Castile-Aragon and Burgundy & the Empire meant he had to travel constantly, which wasn't good for any part of his empire.
If anything I have a dimmer view regarding Felipe/Philippe/Filips II than his father, not as bad as the traditional Dutch historiography, he wasn't the villain our Protestants made of him, but he was bad ruler of Burgundy nonetheless.
Moreover there was a very good reason Charles stayed behind in Burgundy, when his parents travelled, he was young and if disaster would have struck, he was next in line, so them not travelling together makes sense. Ferdinand of Austria ended up being born in Spain, neither Ferdinand of Aragon nor Maximilian of Austria contemplated an exchange.

I agree, the realms eventually ended being split illogically though. The one destined to be the heir candidate for the Empire should have got both Austria & Burgundy (and with any luck inherit Bohemia & Hungary), while the other should get Castile & Aragon. Seniority could matter, when it comes to possible later additions won by joint effort, like the duchy of Milan. If the eldest got the HRE, Burgundy & Austria, he'd probably want to keep Milan, if the eldest ended up with Castile & Aragon, it can go either way.

 

[Victoria]

I don't think Arthur having a posthumous son guarantees that England remains Catholic. Sure that's likely what happens but it's not impossible that Arthur Jr or whatever he's called develops protestant sympathies. Or that his son does.

 

[Janprimus]

I don't think Arthur having a posthumous son guarantees that England remains Catholic. Sure that's likely what happens but it's not impossible that Arthur Jr or whatever he's called develops protestant sympathies. Or that his son does.

Maybe, maybe not, there's no guarantee, but it becomes more likely (without becoming a certainty).

 

[piratedude]

I don't think Arthur having a posthumous son guarantees that England remains Catholic. Sure that's likely what happens but it's not impossible that Arthur Jr or whatever he's called develops protestant sympathies. Or that his son does.

Or even that they pass protestant toleration acts that would allow a little bit of religious freedom, even while England remains officially Catholic.

 

[Tupolev0247]

I'm commenting on Ferdinand because it may or may not happen because of the butterfly effect. Going back to the main thread, I think that England, if it remains officially Catholic, would still have a large Protestant minority.

 

[piratedude]

Who would, at least initially, be set to be on this son's* regency council once Henry 7 kicks the bucket?

*if I may suggest a name, why not Edmund, for both his great grandfather and for the Saxon king?

 

[revlark]

Well, Catherine will probably want one of her nieces to marry her son, but how big her say in things is depends on how everything else goes. Potentially, Queen Elizabeth won’t get pregnant with the baby that killed her, though that might still happen, since they wanted to have another son after Arthur’s death. Prince Henry’s marriage will be confirmed fairly quickly, no matter who it is to. They’ll also have a focus on making sure all is well to send Margaret off in her own marriage. With a grandson, you could make King Henry live longer, though another priority of his would probably be setting up a potential regency council.