Katherine of Aragon and Her Royal Daughters

Another Henrician queen question for all you wonderful people:

What if Katherine of Aragon's daughters had survived birth/infancy? Usually there are three documented, a miscarried girl in 1510, Mary in 1516 and a second stillborn/shortlived daughter in 1518.

So, Kate's first child, if she's born on time, a baby born at six months (when she miscarried) in the 16th century might not make a good go at life, however, at eight months (she announced the pregnancy in August 1509, after marrying in June, so we might be looking at wedding night baby) seems more likely. This moves the New Years' Boy's conception a bit on (maybe), but a shortlived son might still be born in 1511. The rest of the pregnancies go as OTL, with a second daughter being born in February 1516, and her third in 1518.*

*I realize keeping these dates of birth are unlikely, but for simplicity's sake indulge me.

How might the presence of an extra two princesses - neither the hoped for son - impact Henry's policies? Will he still attempt to have his marriage to Katherine annulled? As names go, I figure Elizabeth (b.1510), Mary (b.1516) and Katherine/Margaret (b.1518), would be as good as any. I could see Elizabeth being more acceptable age-wise to Karl V when marriage is touted than the very young Mary (b.1516)**.

**Mary Tudor (b.1496) still doesn't marry Karl in this scenario, for whatever reasons.
 
If Henry is able to marry Elizabeth to Charles in 1526 (shes 16) he will not be able to make his daughter's illegitimate without causing offence to his nephew.

He would have to carrying on having illegitimate sons with mistresses and wait until Catherine dies in 1536 (unless he can arrange a sooner death) and remarry quickly.

Elizabeth Tudor (1510-1561) m. Charles V (1500-1558)

Mary Tudor (1516–1558) m. James V (1512-1542)

Margaret (b.1518-1563) m. Henry II of France (1519-1559)
 
If Henry is able to marry Elizabeth to Charles in 1526 (shes 16) he will not be able to make his daughter's illegitimate without causing offence to his nephew.

He would have to carrying on having illegitimate sons with mistresses and wait until Catherine dies in 1536 (unless he can arrange a sooner death) and remarry quickly.

Elizabeth Tudor (1510-1561) m. Charles V (1500-1558)

Mary Tudor (1516–1558) m. James V (1512-1542)

Margaret (b.1518-1563) m. Henry II of France (1519-1559)

I wonder though, couldn't the papal annulment (assuming Henry still appeals for one, though perhaps on different grounds (read: less shaky) than OTL) be granted with the proviso that the empress and her sisters remain legitimate? Katherine will still be an issue though, her whole "your wife in God's eyes" shtick (understandable, but the cause of more suffering than it was worth), but if her daughters remain legitimate, the marriage's validity/Katherine's honor is never in question, she might be a little more gracious. Would like to hear what
@desmirelle thinks. Or I wonder if Henry will just resign himself to grooming a daughter as an heir. He won't be happy about it, but until Kate dies and he's free to remarry, what more can he do? (Oh yeah, look at what he did OTL:p)
 
Iirc an annulment does not delegitimise any children from the marriage. Recall when Eleanor of Aquitaine got her marriage with Louis annulled it did not make their daughters bastards.
 
Iirc an annulment does not delegitimise any children from the marriage. Recall when Eleanor of Aquitaine got her marriage with Louis annulled it did not make their daughters bastards.

IDK, an annulment is for all intents and purposes declaring that the marriage never happened, so any kids born from the marriage would then have to be legitimated/maintain their legitimacy by a special proviso. Hence why I asked. Although Katherine might fight the annulment suit anyway. I can't see the pope not including a phrase about the children of the marriage, lawfully begotten, being legitimate, especially if the empress' legitimacy is hinging on it.
 
I really see Elizabeth replacing Eleanor of Austria as the bride of Francis II..and Henry VIII marries Renee of France..

This would be a wank for Anne Boleyn.
 
Last edited:
I really see Elizabeth replacing Eleanor of Austria as the bride of Francis II..and Henry VIII marries Renee of France..

This would be a wank for Anne Boleyn.

She could, but Henry's policy between his accession and the Great Matter sort of went to-and-fro to whomever (France vs the Emperor) offered him the best deal. Mary OTL was betrothed to the dauphin first, then to the emperor, then to the dauphin/king of France again before she moved into matrimonial limbo. Elizabeth would be too old for the dauphin, and if events follow OTL, Wolsey might secure her marriage to the king of France when Queen Claude dies, since the negotiations of the mid-1520s were for Mary to marry François I or the duc d'Orléans. But that's assuming Karl V breaks off the engagement (which less face it, might not happen, since she's a lot closer to nubility than the 6-9yo Mary was OTL.
 
She could, but Henry's policy between his accession and the Great Matter sort of went to-and-fro to whomever (France vs the Emperor) offered him the best deal. Mary OTL was betrothed to the dauphin first, then to the emperor, then to the dauphin/king of France again before she moved into matrimonial limbo. Elizabeth would be too old for the dauphin, and if events follow OTL, Wolsey might secure her marriage to the king of France when Queen Claude dies, since the negotiations of the mid-1520s were for Mary to marry François I or the duc d'Orléans. But that's assuming Karl V breaks off the engagement (which less face it, might not happen, since she's a lot closer to nubility than the 6-9yo Mary was OTL.


If Elizabeth Tudor marries Charles V, that means Henry VIII would marry a second wife chosen by Charles V..a Portuguese Infanta is likely but if events happen like in OTL Elizabeth Tudor is married to Francis I and Francis choses the bride for Henry VIII in both events Catherine of Aragon loses.
 
According to church law - if both parents believed they were free to marry (no impediments) - the children were born of a 'good faith' marriage and should be legitimate. Henry VIII was punishing Mary because her mother refused to lie to suit Henry. (I know, I know, Katherine of Aragon may have or may have not lied about Arthur's potence.) But the point of fact of is that Katherine swore she was a virgin, if we're to believe Anne Boleyn, we must accord Katherine the same respect. Henry was being petty and actually going against church tradition by bastardizing Mary. (Bastardizing Elizabeth, however.......his marriage to Anne was illegal per church law since the dispensation regarding Mary Boleyn Carey had not been issued.)
 
According to church law - if both parents believed they were free to marry (no impediments) - the children were born of a 'good faith' marriage and should be legitimate. Henry VIII was punishing Mary because her mother refused to lie to suit Henry. (I know, I know, Katherine of Aragon may have or may have not lied about Arthur's potence.) But the point of fact of is that Katherine swore she was a virgin, if we're to believe Anne Boleyn, we must accord Katherine the same respect. Henry was being petty and actually going against church tradition by bastardizing Mary. (Bastardizing Elizabeth, however.......his marriage to Anne was illegal per church law since the dispensation regarding Mary Boleyn Carey had not been issued.)

Hence why I suggested that Henry presses for the annulment, if he does, on different grounds than the contentious he-said-she-said case of OTL. IIRC Wolsey did make the argument for an appeal for an annulment on other grounds to Henry, but Henry wanted it his way or no way at all.

Do you think that having more heirs (albeit useless daughters) might make Henry more anxious for an annulment? Or will he be frustrated, but think "oh well, it's God's decision" (unlikely, but so was tearing your country apart over a girl's virginity (Kate's or Anne's)).
 
Okay, here's the thing. Having been through the dispensation dance with the Tudors to give Henry VIII the marriage of his dreams, the Pope is not likely to be interested in granting him another saying the first one was wrong. The Pope is supposed to be infallible where that sort of thing is involved. Whether he has one daughter or six with Katherine of Aragon, Henry has NO grounds for annulment other than: "I've got no legitimate son and I don't like that fact. It can't be my fault because I'm the King and everything else I want God has given me, so you - the Pope - should do what I want here, too." This is probably the only grounds on which they do not grant dispensations in that office I swear the Vatican has at this point in time. There simply were not any grounds (other than Henry not wanting Mary to be Queen Regnant).

What Henry needs to do is listen to the Duke of Norfolk, who will tell him simply to restrict the title and powers of Mary's foreign prince husband (before the council does it a la Philip's marital contract with her); if the lad has agreed NOT to be King, it's going to be hard for him to grab the title - even Mary recognizes treaties and contracts.
 
Annulments aren't about infallibility. Nothing about granting Henry VIII an annulment now calls into question the validity of prior annulments as such. Annulments are actually legal actions, and for royalty in that time period, were almost just administrative actions.
 
But Henry wanted the Pope to admit the first one was in error. That's where Papal Infallibility comes into question. Henry WANTED the first annulment to be pronounced wrong and this one to say that what the first one said was wrong. That's why (in addition to the fact that the Spanish troops have the pope by the proverbial balls), the annulment won't happen.

I still my paragraph about just setting it out in Mary's marital contract about her husband's rights and responsibility might be the best bet.
 
Okay, here's the thing. Having been through the dispensation dance with the Tudors to give Henry VIII the marriage of his dreams, the Pope is not likely to be interested in granting him another saying the first one was wrong. The Pope is supposed to be infallible where that sort of thing is involved. Whether he has one daughter or six with Katherine of Aragon, Henry has NO grounds for annulment other than: "I've got no legitimate son and I don't like that fact. It can't be my fault because I'm the King and everything else I want God has given me, so you - the Pope - should do what I want here, too." This is probably the only grounds on which they do not grant dispensations in that office I swear the Vatican has at this point in time. There simply were not any grounds (other than Henry not wanting Mary to be Queen Regnant).

What Henry needs to do is listen to the Duke of Norfolk, who will tell him simply to restrict the title and powers of Mary's foreign prince husband (before the council does it a la Philip's marital contract with her); if the lad has agreed NOT to be King, it's going to be hard for him to grab the title - even Mary recognizes treaties and contracts.

Had no idea that Norfolk had actually advised him to do this. I'm guessing this was before Anne Boleyn got involved? Although Norfolk wasn't overly burdened by family sentiment, so I could see him advising Henry to do this even if Anne was involved, so that whichever the cat jumped his stock stayed high with his Majesty.

Would Elizabeth (in this scenario the eldest daughter) be married already when Henry realizes that Kate isn't going to give him a darling son? Or will she only be married after this becomes clear. IDK when Kate went through menopause, but she was 33yo in 1518 already, so the clock's ticking. Say she has until 1524 (at the very latest), but by then, Elizabeth's most likely married already. How does Henry go about it? Can he cut Elizabeth's heirs out of the succession, or at least stipulate that her eldest son can't inherit his dad's crown (I still think Karl V is the most likely husband) and England; or has that horse already bolted?

And if Henry was to include a clause limiting his son-in-law (whomever he may be)'s powers, who would be a good candidate for the marriage? A second son, sure. So perhaps the Infante Luiz as an imperial candidate (assuming that Karl V doesn't marry Anna of Bohemia leaving Ferdinand without a bride) and the duc d'Orléans for France? Or might James V (or his mom) throw his hat in the ring as well?
 
Norfolk, to my knowledge did not make such a suggestion, he's simply the man most likely to have done so. He was very pragmatic. It was a practical solution for an impractical man (H8).

If Henry did such a clause, he's going to find it harder going to declare for an annulment. Because, once the daughter weds, Henry's now got whatever country son-in-law is from interested in the situation. He cannot claim they have no interest, because the marital contract gives them a very vested interest. The Duke of Beja might be interested. He's got nada to inherit and little to lose.

And if an annulment were declared, the daughters would all be declared legitimate due to a 'good faith' marriage (that is, both members believed the marriage to legal at the time it occurred). He won't be able to do as OTL, and declare them illegitimate anywhere but his own court. Abroad, they will be legitimate treaty bait.
 
Norfolk, to my knowledge did not make such a suggestion, he's simply the man most likely to have done so. He was very pragmatic. It was a practical solution for an impractical man (H8).

If Henry did such a clause, he's going to find it harder going to declare for an annulment. Because, once the daughter weds, Henry's now got whatever country son-in-law is from interested in the situation. He cannot claim they have no interest, because the marital contract gives them a very vested interest. The Duke of Beja might be interested. He's got nada to inherit and little to lose.

And if an annulment were declared, the daughters would all be declared legitimate due to a 'good faith' marriage (that is, both members believed the marriage to legal at the time it occurred). He won't be able to do as OTL, and declare them illegitimate anywhere but his own court. Abroad, they will be legitimate treaty bait.

I know it's a long shot, but might Henry VIII try with what Richard III planned to do with Edward IV's daughters, either marry them out of the country (as he attempted with Elizabeth) or to insignificant persons (Cecily's match to Lord Scrope, IIRC)? Or might someone of partially royal blood be considered? Stafford, Courtenay, Howard boy if he survives, maybe a Pole, if available?
 
CIVIL WAR. The two words every England monarch feared at this time. Had Edward 4 wed a foreign princess, we'd not be having this conversation. Marrying into the royal family seems to spark ambition in your normal, everyday noble Englishman and their families. (Ask Buckingham if you don't believe me.)

That's why Beja (or if you can find someone similar - no immediate claim to any throne, but royal blood) is delicious. He's not going to "unite" two countries and start a war over which is premier. He's going to be more than happy to be the husband of the Queen of England and rule from the royal bedchamber.......although he was a soldier, it was more because he had nada else to do. He's going to be the uncrowned King of England, avoiding council meetings whilst out hunting with his frat boys (or the 16th century equivalent), and reap the benefits of the position. Of course, I'm taking him for a sensible fellow, so all this could be just so much twaddle.

Marrying the first girl to someone like Beja who would remain in country and her younger sisters out of the country would be sensible. But when was Henry VIII sensible? But until he has a healthy (semi-healthy) legitimate son, first girl is remaining in country to avoid a foreign interference should she become queen. And now I'm back to Thomas Howard being the paragon of common sense.
 
CIVIL WAR. The two words every England monarch feared at this time. Had Edward 4 wed a foreign princess, we'd not be having this conversation. Marrying into the royal family seems to spark ambition in your normal, everyday noble Englishman and their families. (Ask Buckingham if you don't believe me.)

That's why Beja (or if you can find someone similar - no immediate claim to any throne, but royal blood) is delicious. He's not going to "unite" two countries and start a war over which is premier. He's going to be more than happy to be the husband of the Queen of England and rule from the royal bedchamber.......although he was a soldier, it was more because he had nada else to do. He's going to be the uncrowned King of England, avoiding council meetings whilst out hunting with his frat boys (or the 16th century equivalent), and reap the benefits of the position. Of course, I'm taking him for a sensible fellow, so all this could be just so much twaddle.

Marrying the first girl to someone like Beja who would remain in country and her younger sisters out of the country would be sensible. But when was Henry VIII sensible? But until he has a healthy (semi-healthy) legitimate son, first girl is remaining in country to avoid a foreign interference should she become queen. And now I'm back to Thomas Howard being the paragon of common sense.

I recall on The Tudors Chapuys describing Luiz as a paragon of princely virtue to Henry VIII, and to Mary presenting him as not being interested in women blah-blah. And when Henry asks Chapuys "and how will he treat my daughter?" Chapuys answers "like a nun".

But I like the idea of Luiz as king consort. Where would you suggest his younger sisters-in-law be married off? France? Scotland? Denmark? The Habsburgs?
 
IDK, an annulment is for all intents and purposes declaring that the marriage never happened, so any kids born from the marriage would then have to be legitimated/maintain their legitimacy by a special proviso. Hence why I asked. Although Katherine might fight the annulment suit anyway. I can't see the pope not including a phrase about the children of the marriage, lawfully begotten, being legitimate, especially if the empress' legitimacy is hinging on it.
It's a bit more complicated.

Traditionally, Canon Law holds that children of a putative marriage are legitimate. The problem may be English culture and the de facto social standing of the children. So you could get a situation where de jure, Katherine's kids are legitimate, but in practice people say nasty things behind their back.
 
Top