If Henry VIII had another child . . .

[Prince_Lieven]

Imagine what would have happened if Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard or Catherine Parr had given Henry another child. How different would history be?

If another son had been born he probably would have been called Henry, or perhaps Thomas if Katherine Howard was his mother. If Anne of Cleves was his mother, he would have been born in 1540, and would have been seven when the King died (assuming everything happened as it really did). Thus he would have been 13 when Edward VI died. He then would have become King. Would he have been Protestant, or Catholic?

If the son was Katherine Howard's, and was born in 1541, he surely would have been brought up a Catholic, in the tradition of the Howards. However, if Katherine did what she did in reality and had an affair and was exevuted, would Henry have excluded his son from the succession in his will, or let him follow Elizabeth? Who knows?

Catherine Parr's son (born 1544, let us say) would certainly have been brought up Protestant. Henry certainly would have had no inhibitions about putting him directly behind Edward in the succession.

Now, if Anne of Cleve's gave Henry a daughter in 1540 (she would probably have been called Anne, Margaret or Katherine) Henry would most likely have placed in fourth in the succession, after Elizabeth (of course, if Anne had given him a child, he would not have divorced her). Unless, perhaps, he regarded Anne's child as his only LEGITIMATE daughter and put her ahead of both Elizabeth and Mary. She would have been 18 when Mary I died.

If the daughter was Katherine's, I think she would probably have been brought up Catholic. If Henry still divorced Katherine, she would likely have been placed fourth in the succession, behind Elizabeth (after all, he still reinstated Elizabeth and Mary).

Catherine Parr's daughter would have been Protestant, and still only 14 when Mary I died.

What do you all think?

[ilyala]

i think that no matter who the mother was, the child would have been brought up as a protestant. the fact that henry named most of the regents for edward 6th as protestants speaks volumes.

henry had no sexual relations with anne de cleves because apparently he was repulsed by her. so no children there.

if katherine howard had a child chances were it wasn't henry's. and henry was not the type to just sit and condone that. i think he/she would have not been in line for the throne... if he/she survived, that is.

as for katherine parr... that is an interesting question. a son would have reigned after edward but as he would have been a minor... who knows? maybe the earl of northumberland would have been able to stay regent and that would have been interesting..., if a girl, she would be not after mary but after elizabeth who reigned A LOT, so chances are she would have died before elizabeth. but had she had children, the stuarts would not have come to the throne... that could have delayed the revolution... now THAT is an interesting thought.

i honestly think that if the english revolution had been delayed it would have been a lot bloodier... somewhere on the lines of the french revolution, although maybe not as bad. because the more you keep the rebellion in, the more it grows...  :-/

[Prince_Lieven]

I think that if the child was Katherine Howards, it would have been brought up Catholic. Remember, Henry regarded himself as a Catholic his whole life. The Howards were the most powerful Catholic family in England. Supposing Catherine's aunt the Duchess of Norfolk, or her grandmother the Dowager Duchess had been appointed to oversee the child's upbringing, it is likely they would have turned out Catholic, or at least with Catholic sympathies.

[ilyala]

henry the 8th regarded himself as a catholic but he brought up his son a protestant. because the catholics were now the enemies, because the catholics regarded him as a heretic and because the protestant religion was better politically speaking.

jane seymour was also catholic. that didn't stop henry from raising edward (the son of jane seymour) a protestant. all his tutors were protestants and the regency council was mostly made up of protestants.

[umigon]

It is commonly regarded that Henry and Anne of Cleves had no sexual relations. However, I must disagree...

At first, Henry was repulsed by Anne, but about April he was resigned to continue his marital life with her. It was only after the Celebrations of May that he decided that he would divorce her.

Another evidence is the famous phrase Henry told Cromwell (I think it was him, or maybe an ambassador?):

"My Lord, if it were not to satisfy the world and my realm, I would not do that I must do this day for none earthly thing". It not only implies his resignment to marry her, but also to consummate the marriage...


And, my third proof in this case: In January 1541 rumours about Anne of Cleves giving birth to a baby son spreaded throughout Henry's Court. He was very much interested in this rumour, as some said it was the King's baby. Finally it proved false, but if Henry was interested in a possible son he had fathered by Anne, he certainly must have done something with her...

[lexi4]

I think there are probably only two people who knew for sure whether or not the marriage was "consumated" or not and both have been dead for a very long time.

[ilyala]

well, if henry and anne of cleves had had a child, there would have been no catherine howard or catherine parr... but as for the child the observations i made above still stand...

what's interesting to think of is that if the cleves marriage would have lasted then thomas cromwell wouldn't have been executed

[jackie3]

Anne of Cleves died a Catholic (she converted) even though she was picked because she was a Protestant princess. So it's possible she might have convinced any child she had (especially if it was a boy) to follow. England was still a majority Catholic country way until Elizabeth's reign even if people outwardly conformed.

Of course if any of the sons Catherine of Aragon had given birth to had survived there's no doubt he would have been Catholic (to my mind) even if his father had still broken with Rome over Anne Boleyn and the annulment.

[ilyala]

if catherine had had a son there would have been no WIFE anne boleyn. maybe mistress (although i don't think she would have allowed it) but henry would never make a legitimate son of his a bastard. the succession was too important for him.

if anne of cleves had had a son he would have been like edward 6th. a protestant. by that time henry was supporting the protestants and the proofs were mentioned up.

again i say: edward 6th's mother side was a catholic family but he was educated a protestant and he became a fervent protestant. a half brother of his, no matter what mother, would have been a protestant. henry would have made sure of that just like he made sure with edward.

and like anne of cleves was smart enough to step away when she was asked for divorce, she would have been smart enough to let henry raise the child the way he would.

[Margarita Markovna]

I think that if any of the wives had had a (another) son then the marriage would not have ended. Henry would have stayed with Jane if she hadn't gone and died.

[ilyala]

i don't think there's any doubt about it. stayed faithfull? probably not. but he wouldn't have jeopordized edward's chances of succession

[RussMan]

If Henry VIII had had another son, he probably would have been as inept and sickly as Edward was, hehehe.  They probably would have started a war over succession. Henry's kids never struck me as being the type to get along with each other anyway, despite what Katherine Paur tried to do for them.,

Since Edward died at a very young age, likley British history would have been dramatically different than what happened. England got a lot of internation attention because they had two single queens, Mary and Elizabeth. They attracted a lot of suitors. I'm not sure if england would have stepped up the plate so much with a male tudor monarch on the throne.

Likely, English and Scots would have continued to fight and bicker with each other, since the Stuarts would never have have succeeded to the throne of England.

[Prince_Lieven]

Well, Edward and Elizabeth got on well enough . . . and before he was king, Edward and Mary got on alright too. As long as they didn't discuss religion.  

[umigon]

And Mary and Elizabeth got on very well at a start. Their differences aroused when Elizabeth started growing up.


Mary took an interest in the well being of Elizabeth upon her return to court. Mary loved children and was asked to be a godmother to many through out her life. While Henry lavished attention on his son he neglected Elizabeth. The money needed to clothe and feed her and her household was lacking many a time and on some of these occasions Mary stepped in. She sent her gifts of cloth and pocket money. They spent the holidays together and Mary sent for Edward's minstrels to play for them. She wrote to Henry, "My sister Elizabeth is in good health and, thanks be to our Lord, such a child toward as I doubt not your highness shall have cause to rejoice of in time coming." Elizabeth also sent Mary gifts of hosiery or small pieces of jewelry. They rode together and played at cards and Mary taught Elizabeth how to play the lute and virginals. In the inventory books of Mary's jewelry there are her handwritten notes next to pieces that she gave to "my Lady Elizabeth's grace."




This info I found in http://home.earthlink.net/~elisale/elizabeth.html, but it is not the first time I have come through these statement!

[Prince_Lieven]

Yes, very true. In fact, when Henry died, Mary invited Elizabeth to live with her! But the girl wanted to stay with Katherine Parr, understandably . . .