A question on Arthur Tudor

[VVD0D95]

Arthur Tudor born in 1486 was the eldest son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. He died in 1502, shortly after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, perhaps putting a lot of events into motion that changed the course of history.

What I am wondering is, had he not died in 1502, what changes might've come about?

Would Henry VII still have tried to have another child with Elizabeth of York or not? If not, how long would Henry live for? And what consequences might this have for relations with Spain and France?

Furthermore, with Arthur alive, if he and Catherine have issue, is the English reformation not going to happen?

 

[Tyler96]

Would Henry VII still have tried to have another child with Elizabeth of York or not? If not, how long would Henry live for?

I always got the sense that after Arthur's death Henry and Elizabeth worried about only having a single male heir and tried for another one. So, without Arthur's death Elizabeth might live longer (though it's worth noting none of her sisters were all that long lived- only one made it to their 40s).

A surviving Elizabeth might result in a more psychologically healthy Henry Duke of York (IOTL Henry VIII).

Without the double whammy of his wife and eldest son Henry VII could live a little longer, but not by much- he was already physically ailing.

Furthermore, with Arthur alive, if he and Catherine have issue, is the English reformation not going to happen?

Regarding issue for Arthur and Catherine- they obviously don't have the age differential (IOTL Catherine 'wasted' about half her potential childbearing years) but if Henry's lack of reproductive success was due to blood group incompatibility then Arthur may suffer the same problem.

Though even if Arthur doesn't have any/many kids with Catherine he probably won't throw the whole English church into turmoil in an attempt to remarry (both because he's temperamentally different from Henry VIII and he has a male Tudor heir).

Other forms of Protestantism could filter in, but I'm not sure Arthur would be too receptive- Henry was, doctrinally, still a conservative Catholic (he just denied the Pope's authority over England), so Arthur might have a similar outlook. Though in this case 'heresy' isn't a political affront to the king (as it was for Henry as head of the English church), so maybe things would be a bit calmer (less beheadings, burnings etc.).

As for foreign affairs- the lack of a divorce regarding Catherine makes for slightly better relations with Charles V, but this won't have any huge effects- IOTL Charles was pragmatic and practised realpolitik, with the wellbeing of his aunt and cousin secondary to his own political considerations.

We can't really know what Arthur's foreign policy initiatives would be- unlike his brother, he might not be into warring with France on the pretence of England's claim there; there might be scuffling with Scotland, but in different circumstances; if Arthur and Catherine are close he might be interested in Spain, though I'm not sure he could do much there.

 

[VVD0D95]

I always got the sense that after Arthur's death Henry and Elizabeth worried about only having a single male heir and tried for another one. So, without Arthur's death Elizabeth might live longer (though it's worth noting none of her sisters were all that long lived- only one made it to their 40s).

A surviving Elizabeth might result in a more psychologically healthy Henry Duke of York (IOTL Henry VIII).

Without the double whammy of his wife and eldest son Henry VII could live a little longer, but not by much- he was already physically ailing.



Regarding issue for Arthur and Catherine- they obviously don't have the age differential (IOTL Catherine 'wasted' about half her potential childbearing years) but if Henry's lack of reproductive success was due to blood group incompatibility then Arthur may suffer the same problem.

Though even if Arthur doesn't have any/many kids with Catherine he probably won't throw the whole English church into turmoil in an attempt to remarry (both because he's temperamentally different from Henry VIII and he has a male Tudor heir).

Other forms of Protestantism could filter in, but I'm not sure Arthur would be too receptive- Henry was, doctrinally, still a conservative Catholic (he just denied the Pope's authority over England), so Arthur might have a similar outlook. Though in this case 'heresy' isn't a political affront to the king (as it was for Henry as head of the English church), so maybe things would be a bit calmer (less beheadings, burnings etc.).

As for foreign affairs- the lack of a divorce regarding Catherine makes for slightly better relations with Charles V, but this won't have any huge effects- IOTL Charles was pragmatic and practised realpolitik, with the wellbeing of his aunt and cousin secondary to his own political considerations.

We can't really know what Arthur's foreign policy initiatives would be- unlike his brother, he might not be into warring with France on the pretence of England's claim there; there might be scuffling with Scotland, but in different circumstances; if Arthur and Catherine are close he might be interested in Spain, though I'm not sure he could do much there.

Okay interesting, what do you mean by a more psychologically stable Henry Duke of York with his mother surviving?

And okay, so could Henry VII still die around 1509 then?

Interesting, so if Arthur does have children with Catherine, her position at court is secure, especially if she has a male heir, I suppose over time certain aspects of Protestantism might filter in, but nothing like what they did in otl.

And okay, I imagine if FLodden still happens, Arthur might attempt to meddle within Scottish Politics or ensure he's stronger on the border.

 

[Tyler96]

Okay interesting, what do you mean by a more psychologically stable Henry Duke of York with his mother surviving?

Just that Henry wasn't all that mentally stable IOTL (see the paranoia, beheadings, temperament/anger, arguably his obsession with getting a son) and losing his mother when he was 12(?) probably didn't help. So, if Elizabeth survives longer then maybe she can temper some of her sons bad traits and maybe he's just...happier, with a healthier mental state (that said, I'm not sure what Henry VIII's relationship with his mother was like IOTL, so...).

 

[VVD0D95]

Just that Henry wasn't all that mentally stable IOTL (see the paranoia, beheadings, temperament/anger, arguably his obsession with getting a son) and losing his mother when he was 12(?) probably didn't help. So, if Elizabeth survives longer then maybe she can temper some of her sons bad traits and maybe he's just...happier, with a healthier mental state (that said, I'm not sure what Henry VIII's relationship with his mother was like IOTL, so...).

Ah okay true, how do you think the relation between Arthur and Henry would be like?

 

[Tyler96]

Ah okay true, how do you think the relation between Arthur and Henry would be like?

It's hard, y'know, we don't know much about Arthur and a lot of Henry's personality came from the unique pressures of kingship- if he isn't king he won't feel obligated to ensure the succession with a male heir, won't suffer paranoia about plotting, won't have the power to execute people on a whim etc.

It depends- how ambitious is a Duke Henry, is he content to be a loyal younger brother (given he's Duke of York Arthur could set him up as royal lieutenant in the North a la Richard III) or is he drawn into plots with the Staffords, de la Poles, Howards, Poles etc. You'd think he'd back his brother against any Yorkist-type unrest given his position relies on the house of Tudor being exalted above (arguably more deserving) royal claimants.

As I said before Henry was a relatively conservative Catholic doctrine wise so he won't cause any trouble on account of religion. You could have a ironic situation where Arthur goes Protestant and Henry is the champion of English Catholicism, but that's unlikely- with a Spanish wife and a similar upbringing/religious outlook as his brother Arthur's unlikely to do something like that.

Actually, Henry might be content partying, having affairs, fighting (on both the battlefield and at tourneys).

And okay, I imagine if FLodden still happens, Arthur might attempt to meddle within Scottish Politics or ensure he's stronger on the border.

Yeah, most English kings meddle in Scotland in some capacity. Also you don't really need an alt-Flodden per se- James IV was 40 when he died with a baby as his heir, so a regency and the resulting instability (which was endemic in Scotland) could happen naturally if James dies at ~50.

Though of course whether a Flodden-type campaign still happens depends on if Arthur is keen on invading France and the Auld Alliance comes into play.

 

[LacheyS]

They were raised together at Eltham Palace and only separated, as I understand it, when Arthur was married and sent to Wales.

Arthur was a more studious, reserved and placid character than his brother, but there is no indication of any tension in the relationship.

And re intervention in Europe (League of Cambrai), he will have the self same father-in-law pushing the matter through his daughter. I agree intervention in Scotland is also inevitable, particularly as he was closer to Margaret than Henry was, and would be more inclined to protect her position in a minority regency.

 

[VVD0D95]

It's hard, y'know, we don't know much about Arthur and a lot of Henry's personality came from the unique pressures of kingship- if he isn't king he won't feel obligated to ensure the succession with a male heir, won't suffer paranoia about plotting, won't have the power to execute people on a whim etc.

It depends- how ambitious is a Duke Henry, is he content to be a loyal younger brother (given he's Duke of York Arthur could set him up as royal lieutenant in the North a la Richard III) or is he drawn into plots with the Staffords, de la Poles, Howards, Poles etc. You'd think he'd back his brother against any Yorkist-type unrest given his position relies on the house of Tudor being exalted above (arguably more deserving) royal claimants.

As I said before Henry was a relatively conservative Catholic doctrine wise so he won't cause any trouble on account of religion. You could have a ironic situation where Arthur goes Protestant and Henry is the champion of English Catholicism, but that's unlikely- with a Spanish wife and a similar upbringing/religious outlook as his brother Arthur's unlikely to do something like that.

Actually, Henry might be content partying, having affairs, fighting (on both the battlefield and at tourneys).



Yeah, most English kings meddle in Scotland in some capacity. Also you don't really need an alt-Flodden per se- James IV was 40 when he died with a baby as his heir, so a regency and the resulting instability (which was endemic in Scotland) could happen naturally if James dies at ~50.

Though of course whether a Flodden-type campaign still happens depends on if Arthur is keen on invading France and the Auld Alliance comes into play.

Okay interesting, I do think Henry would be loyal to his brother, as it seems they were quite close growing up, whether or not they remain the same as they grow older is another matter. But yes, I agree with your point regarding religion, likely no Protestant king. And aye that is true, I do think that the Auld Alliance, might well come into play considering who Arthur's spanish relatives are.

They were raised together at Eltham Palace and only separated, as I understand it, when Arthur was married and sent to Wales.

Arthur was a more studious, reserved and placid character than his brother, but there is no indication of any tension in the relationship.

And re intervention in Europe (League of Cambrai), he will have the self same father-in-law pushing the matter through his daughter. I agree intervention in Scotland is also inevitable, particularly as he was closer to Margaret than Henry was, and would be more inclined to protect her position in a minority regency.

Interesting so would Arthur be more content allowing his brother to command in any wars, or would he do it himself?

 

[Just a Rube]

Interesting so would Arthur be more content allowing his brother to command in any wars, or would he do it himself?

He'll want to do at least some of it himself, if only to show he could. He might still have Henry or an experienced lord as his real general, but he will definitely be expected to be the nominal commander of major expeditions. It was still part of the expectations of kingship (and note that his father, Henry VII, while very much not a fighter, was nominally in charge of the armies at Bosworth and Stoke, even though the Earl of Oxford did most of the actual generalship; for that matter even Henry VI, who was probably the least temperamentally warlike king England ever had, was nominally leading his armies in multiple battles during the Wars of the Roses). There's a reason so many kings were killed (James IV, Richard III) or captured (Francis I, Henry VI multiple times) in battle during this period.

 

[VVD0D95]

He'll want to do at least some of it himself, if only to show he could. He might still have Henry or an experienced lord as his real general, but he will definitely be expected to be the nominal commander of major expeditions. It was still part of the expectations of kingship (and note that his father, Henry VII, while very much not a fighter, was nominally in charge of the armies at Bosworth and Stoke, even though the Earl of Oxford did most of the actual generalship; for that matter even Henry VI, who was probably the least temperamentally warlike king England ever had, was nominally leading his armies in multiple battles during the Wars of the Roses). There's a reason so many kings were killed (James IV, Richard III) or captured (Francis I, Henry VI multiple times) in battle during this period.

Hmm true, so, would he be slightly martial then do you think?

 

[Kynan]

People make a lot of assumptions about Arthur Tudor: that he was more 'intellectual' than Henry, that he was the love of Catherine of Aragon's life and vice versa and, that he was sickly before his death. None of these things is historically backed up. And so, based of what we know about him, he was a smart enough young man with some good words that were said about him and maybe a slimmer frame then his younger brother.

And so, what could be expected from the reign of Arthur I of England? Well, with a Catherine of Aragon who doesn't starve herself and starts her childbearing in her teens, he most likely gets an heir or two. Lets say the two of them have 9 children, of which 4 survive: Elizabeth (b.1504), Arthur (b.1508), Edmund (b.1510) and Margaret (b.1515). Now we have a secure Tudor dynasty, so that means his younger brother, the Duke of York, has to create a name for himself as a man outside his former status as the heir to England. And so he most likely looks to becoming some sort of war hero and a jousting champion. As for who he marries, it is most likely just a second daughter of some important king or a particularly important noblewoman. Anne of Navarre would definitely work, but I can see him also marrying within England, maybe to a maid-of-honour of his sister-in-law, possibly María de Salinas. Whoever he marries, they most likely have a better time with their children and the Duke of York has maybe 2 living children by the 1520s.

 

[VVD0D95]

People make a lot of assumptions about Arthur Tudor: that he was more 'intellectual' than Henry, that he was the love of Catherine of Aragon's life and vice versa and, that he was sickly before his death. None of these things is historically backed up. And so, based of what we know about him, he was a smart enough young man with some good words that were said about him and maybe a slimmer frame then his younger brother.

And so, what could be expected from the reign of Arthur I of England? Well, with a Catherine of Aragon who doesn't starve herself and starts her childbearing in her teens, he most likely gets an heir or two. Lets say the two of them have 9 children, of which 4 survive: Elizabeth (b.1504), Arthur (b.1508), Edmund (b.1510) and Margaret (b.1515). Now we have a secure Tudor dynasty, so that means his younger brother, the Duke of York, has to create a name for himself as a man outside his former status as the heir to England. And so he most likely looks to becoming some sort of war hero and a jousting champion. As for who he marries, it is most likely just a second daughter of some important king or a particularly important noblewoman. Anne of Navarre would definitely work, but I can see him also marrying within England, maybe to a maid-of-honour of his sister-in-law, possibly María de Salinas. Whoever he marries, they most likely have a better time with their children and the Duke of York has maybe 2 living children by the 1520s.

Okay interesting, and how do you think all of this affects England as a whole? Does it remain Catholic, does Arthur become a defender of the faith?

 

[LacheyS]

Okay interesting, and how do you think all of this affects England as a whole? Does it remain Catholic, does Arthur become a defender of the faith?

I believe it is probable that the work which earned Henry the papal title was a consultative effort with Fisher, More and others.

So it is possible it was reproducable.

It did go a bit over-the-top on papal authority. I don't know if it was the effort itself or its stringency on this topic which earned kudos, but Arthur may or may not wanted to kiss the Bishop of Rome's feet as much. Hard to say.

 

[LacheyS]

There was a betrothal between Henry Tudor (later VIII) and Eleanor of Austria.

 

[VVD0D95]

I believe it is probable that the work which earned Henry the papal title was a consultative effort with Fisher, More and others.

So it is possible it was reproducable.

It did go a bit over-the-top on papal authority. I don't know if it was the effort itself or its stringency on this topic which earned kudos, but Arthur may or may not wanted to kiss the Bishop of Rome's feet as much. Hard to say.

Okay very interesting. Domestically without the turmoil of the resettling of the church, what sort of things might happen?

 

[VVD0D95]

There was a betrothal between Henry Tudor (later VIII) and Eleanor of Austria.

Interesting say that this marriage goes through, what consequences might it have?

 

[LacheyS]

Okay very interesting. Domestically without the turmoil of the resettling of the church, what sort of things might happen?

I think England will still have Protestant issues regardless of the faith of the monarch. The Church at the time was corrupt beyond comprehension and you only need to look at Scotland and France to know that a Catholic monarch doesn't guarantee an easy transition.

There are three paths open to any monarch of the era: 1) inquisition a la Bloody Mary in an attempt to eradicate the "threat"; 2) tolerance, which neither side will like until they tire themselves of killing each other; and 3) conversion, which can be as minimal as Henry's Anglicanism or as reformed as Cranmer. We don't know enough about Arthur to speculate with any meaningfulness.

 

[VVD0D95]

I think England will still have Protestant issues regardless of the faith of the monarch. The Church at the time was corrupt beyond comprehension and you only need to look at Scotland and France to know that a Catholic monarch doesn't guarantee an easy transition.

There are three paths open to any monarch of the era: 1) inquisition a la Bloody Mary in an attempt to eradicate the "threat"; 2) tolerance, which neither side will like until they tire themselves of killing each other; and 3) conversion, which can be as minimal as Henry's Anglicanism or as reformed as Cranmer. We don't know enough about Arthur to speculate with any meaningfulness.

Okay true, I suppose if he's anything like his father, it depends on how politically expedient he thinks any option is.

It would be interesting to see how he handles the issue

 

[LacheyS]

Interesting say that this marriage goes through, what consequences might it have?

Ties England in further with the HRE and Spain (the Habsburg alliance network). And greater isolation for France.

Doesn't mean that the Commons will be any more cooperative in agreeing to fund foreign wars after the lack of achievement arising from the investment in the War of the Cambrai.

 

[VVD0D95]

Ties England in further with the HRE and Spain (the Habsburg alliance network). And greater isolation for France.

Doesn't mean that the Commons will be any more cooperative in agreeing to fund foreign wars after the lack of achievement arising from the investment in the War of the Cambrai.

Hmm very true, would England still get involved in the war though?