Who is the successor to Henry VII if Arthur and Catherine have a daughter

Comte de Geneve

POD - Arthur Prince of Wales survives long enough to impregnate Catherine of Aragon, who gives birth to a posthumous daughter named Elizabeth Isabella after her grandmothers. Let's call her Lizzy Izzy.
If Lizzy Izzy survives until the death of Henry VII, who would be the heir by customary law, the surviving younger son, Henry Duke of Yrok, or Lizzy Izzy, the daughter of the deceased elder son? My understanding is that Henry would be the heir but I may be wrong. Even so, would Henry VII have had Parliament pass an Act of Succession making Lizzy Izzy his heir with Henry as regent? or Cartherine as Regent? Oh the butterflies! And I think this would definitely rule out a Henry - Catherine marriage!
If Henry does inherit the throne, where would any male heirs of Lizzy Izzy stand in the line of succession?
I don't presume to know the answers or to guess at the outcomes, but I hope for comments by those more familiar with Tudor England.
Please have at it!
 

jkarr

First, Henry would inherit...nothign would prevent that (less Henry VII last long enough to allow Lizzy to get married and produce a male heir, something extremly unlikly)

However, if he still has problems siring a male heir (although he wont be married to Catherine this time, preventing a load of things that happened, ie: all the still borns, oter wives and reformation), then any male heirs she has would be his heirs, before any daughters he might have....and if she does have male heirs, and survives Henry VIII, she would be Queen before her son
 

zert

Supposing Arthur has Lizzy Izzy but Henry has a son close to her age, do you think Henry would have his son marry Lizzy Izzy to cement the throne and prevent any new claimants from Lizzy's line if she married some other person?
 

JedidiahStott

jkarr said:
First, Henry would inherit...nothign would prevent that (less Henry VII last long enough to allow Lizzy to get married and produce a male heir, something extremly unlikly)

However, if he still has problems siring a male heir (although he wont be married to Catherine this time, preventing a load of things that happened, ie: all the still borns, oter wives and reformation), then any male heirs she has would be his heirs, before any daughters he might have....and if she does have male heirs, and survives Henry VIII, she would be Queen before her son
Click to expand...

Uh, the law could. Arthur was heir apparent, he passes his right to his daughter. This is exactly analogous to Queen Victoria. She inherited in right of her deceased father, the Duke of Kent. If your principle were correct (it is in some countries), Ernest Augustus Duke of Cumberland would have inherited the throne instead of Victoria.

Her ability to maintain her claim in practice may be another matter.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Note that Elizabeth and Isabella are the same name in two languages, and any Tudor would know that, so 'Elizabeth Isabella' as a name is certainly not going to happen.
 

Welshroyalhistory

JedidiahStott said:
Uh, the law could. Arthur was heir apparent, he passes his right to his daughter. This is exactly analogous to Queen Victoria. She inherited in right of her deceased father, the Duke of Kent. If your principle were correct (it is in some countries), Ernest Augustus Duke of Cumberland would have inherited the throne instead of Victoria.

Her ability to maintain her claim in practice may be another matter.
Click to expand...

True regarding Victoria but the idea of a clear defined law of succession was still centuries away.

Henry VII would be in a bit of a pickle, he would be facing extensive pressure from Catherine's Spanish relatives to recognize her daughter as heir. It wouldn't have been a big deal to them, the same way it wasn't a big deal to Catherine that her only surviving child with Henry VIII was a daughter, she was after all the mother and sister of Queen Regnants.

The problem is Henry would be faced with the same demons as his son was many years later, more justifiably so in that the Yorkist threat was much more real. A young child as Queen, was a very dangerous prospect for an upstart dynasty like the Tudors. Clearly the little Queen's uncle Henry would be Regent, much would depend on his ambitions and whether he was satisfied being the uncle of a Queen.

He might try and marry his sister-in-law the Dowager Princess of Wales off abroad to remove her influence so that he could be the sole guide to his young niece. He would inevitably pick her husband, the logical option of course would be her first cousin, the future James V of Scotland, albeit the age difference is very problematic but his birth could be brought forward. Margaret Tudor's first child was born in 1507, would have only made him 5/6 years younger than Lizzy Izzy, around the same difference between Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII, which was seen as a bonus as it was assumed she would be more sexually compatible and therefore more able to start breeding straight away.
 

Velasco

The easiest solution is to betroth the young princess to her uncle Henry, Duke of York. Depending on Henry VII's anxiety over the succession we may see a ruling favouring male succession/clarifying questions of representation (does the girl automatically inherit her father's position in the succession when he predeceased his father?). English law is heavy on precedent and here we have four main cases:

- The succession of Henry II through the female line
- The succession of John Lackland in preference to Arthur and Eleanor of Brittany
- The succession of Henry IV in preference to the issue of Philippa of Clarence, a granddaughter who did not inherit her father's place in the succession
- The succession of Henry VII through the female line but in preference to the female heir (his mother, then living)

Henry VII and Elizabeth of York continue trying for more kids and he is quicker to remarry when she dies.
Catherine of Aragon is pushed to return abroad and remarry at her father's leisure.
Henry VII and Philip of Austria negotiate secretly for a marriage of Henry of York with Eleanor of Austria, to the exclusion of young princess Elizabeth (or even with an understanding that Henry's eldest son marry Elizabeth in due time, á la Juanna la Beltraneja).
 

Velasco

Welshroyalhistory said:
I thinks its inconceivable from an English perspective but may find unlikely support from Catherine of Aragon.

The age difference between Henry and his niece is a mere 10/11 years.
Click to expand...

Henry VII was eager to marry Catherine of Aragon post-Arthur's death..anything is possible once crowns, money and armies come into play.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Velasco said:
Henry VII was eager to marry Catherine of Aragon post-Arthur's death..anything is possible once crowns, money and armies come into play.
Click to expand...

I don't think its fair to say Henry VII was eager to marry Catherine, I believe it was mentioned as a solution to a problem. If he was eager to marry, he would have at least married someone but he did not.

Henry was faced with pressure from Ferdinand and Isabella regarding Catherine's future and more importantly dowry, his new heir Henry was still a child, the Catholic Kings wanted a commitment that the young Henry would marry Catherine in due course, Henry VII was reluctant to give this because he didn't want to tie himself or his son down for years into the future, by that point the power of the Catholic Kings was not as great as it once was.

Henry wanted to resolve the issue amicably and the easiest way of doing that was marrying Catherine himself. Understandably Catherine's parents were not happy about this, after all any sons Catherine produced by Henry VII would come after his surviving son by Elizabeth of York in the succession.

Lots of crazy schemes were thought up to try and resolve Henry's divorce from Catherine amicably, a bigamous marriage with two Queens, even an incestuous marriage between Princess Mary and Henry Fitzroy, just because ideas were mooted, does not meant that they would actually happen, as in fact they did not.
 

Saepe Fidelis

Henry VII's not going to disinherit Elizabeth because his own claim to the throne was based on the maternal line-if she's disinherited because she's a girl then that poses a huge problem to Henry's legitimacy-something he was very sensitive about.

This notion that there was a 'Yorkist threat' to the 'Tudors' is ahistorical nonsense. The Tudors never considered themselves their own dynasty-Henry relied on being the supposed combination of Lancastrian and Yorkist houses of the Royal family. Tudor, his father's name, would have been a term of abuse given his lack of a claim to the throne. Henry's legitimacy relied on his mother and the Beauforts, coupled with the stability his reign afforded.

Stability thus being everything, I'd say a regency council comprising Catherine of Aragon, Henry Duke of York and a handful of prelates (Fox, Wolsey) and senior administrators (Lovell, Empson, Dudley, Bray) would be most likely until Elizabeth marries. Who she marries is, of course, hugely important. A foreign marriage would probably be out of the question-no one would want a foreign king. That's assuming Elizabeth doesn't take after his historical namesake and rule in her own right, somehow....
 

Velasco

Saepe Fidelis said:
Henry VII's not going to disinherit Elizabeth because his own claim to the throne was based on the maternal line-if she's disinherited because she's a girl then that poses a huge problem to Henry's legitimacy-something he was very sensitive about.

This notion that there was a 'Yorkist threat' to the 'Tudors' is ahistorical nonsense. The Tudors never considered themselves their own dynasty-Henry relied on being the supposed combination of Lancastrian and Yorkist houses of the Royal family. Tudor, his father's name, would have been a term of abuse given his lack of a claim to the throne. Henry's legitimacy relied on his mother and the Beauforts, coupled with the stability his reign afforded.

Stability thus being everything, I'd say a regency council comprising Catherine of Aragon, Henry Duke of York and a handful of prelates (Fox, Wolsey) and senior administrators (Lovell, Empson, Dudley, Bray) would be most likely until Elizabeth marries. Who she marries is, of course, hugely important. A foreign marriage would probably be out of the question-no one would want a foreign king. That's assuming Elizabeth doesn't take after his historical namesake and rule in her own right, somehow....
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between permitting succession through a female and permitting the succession of a female.

Considering both Henry VII and Henry VIII variously executed and/or imprisoned a number of Yorkist rivals - de la Poles, Courtenays, John the bastard of Richard III, Edward of Warwick, Margaret of Salisbury, the Duke of Buckingham - I'd say it's disingenuous to say the Tudors didn't perceive there being 'Yorkist' threats to their throne. Not to mention Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

I also think it's ludicrous to imagine the young, inexperienced, widowed Catherine of Aragon on any kind of Regency Council. She'd return back home and marry at her father's command, or else make some safe, local match with the King's blessing.
 

Velasco

Welshroyalhistory said:
I don't think its fair to say Henry VII was eager to marry Catherine, I believe it was mentioned as a solution to a problem.
Click to expand...

But isn't that all these wranglings and negotiations were, at the end of the day? Seeking solutions to problems: assuring the succession, ironing out dynastic disputes, confirming alliances against a disliked third party.

Henry VII pursued Catherine's hand but Isabella the Catholic shot the proposal down immediately. He was upset but considered Ferdinand's niece Joana of Naples, a suggestion which might well have borne fruit had Juana la Loca not become widowed and Henry conceived the fantastical notion of marrying her and ruling Castille in her name (no doubt preferring her beauty and confirmed fertility to the unknown appearance and fertility of Joana of Naples).
 

Saepe Fidelis

Velasco said:
There's a big difference between permitting succession through a female and permitting the succession of a female.

Considering both Henry VII and Henry VIII variously executed and/or imprisoned a number of Yorkist rivals - de la Poles, Courtenays, John the bastard of Richard III, Edward of Warwick, Margaret of Salisbury, the Duke of Buckingham - I'd say it's disingenuous to say the Tudors didn't perceive there being 'Yorkist' threats to their throne. Not to mention Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

I also think it's ludicrous to imagine the young, inexperienced, widowed Catherine of Aragon on any kind of Regency Council. She'd return back home and marry at her father's command, or else make some safe, local match with the King's blessing.
Click to expand...

Those threats weren't imagined at 'Yorkist' though. The Tudors got a great deal of legitimacy through Elizabeth of York-in fact Henry's invasion in 1485 rested on his promise to marry her if he won. The line between Lancastrian and Yorkist is an artificial one created decades after the fact for the sake of dramatic tension. The extended peerage was, to a certain extent, one enormous family whose various branches had varying claims to the throne. To try and boil them down to two Northern counties is just overly simplistic.

Catherine may get a seat on the Regency council because she is young and inexperienced (although dare I say given her defence over the divorce IOTL, she might actually grow to be a potent political force), after all she's a good politically neutral figure. Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville, Margater Beaufort and even Elizabeth of York herself were all powerful political actors within quasi-living memory-the idea of having a woman in the halls of power wasn't an unusual one, especially if the nobility's been thinned out considerably through war, execution and natural causes.

Finally having a woman ascend to the throne is an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, England hadn't had a female ruler since the Empress Maud, if you count her at all, and before her, no one. On the other, I think the gender of a ruler was less important than the strength of the government they afforded. Elizabeth, for example, was a strong ruler, and thus her gender was of secondary important, being treated essentially as an 'honorary man.' Ascending young would be difficult, but assuming a regency council, who knows? Remember Henry's only in his late teens at this point himself-he's not the elephant in the room like Richard III was on his nephew's accession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top