What if different birth order for Henry VII's children?

[pipisme]

So Margaret would be born on 19 September 1486, Arthur on 29 November 1489, Mary on 28 June 1491, and Henry on 18 March 1496. Assuming that Prince Arthur was still betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, and he died in April 1502 as in OTL, they would not get married because he had not attained the age of fifteen, when he was deemed old enough to be married. Would Catherine still marry Prince Henry? If not who would they each marry.

When Henry VII died in April 1509, would Prince Henry succeed him to the throne of England. or would Princess Mary because she was older than her younger brother? If it was Henry, he would be only thirteen years old, so who would be Regent(s)?

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Would Catherine still marry Prince Henry? If not who would they each marry.

No way in hell. Henry will wed Eleanor of Austria in this tl as he's only two years younger then her. And Prince Henry would become king, not Mary. No one would want her to become monarch ahead of her brother. His grandmother would likely be one of the regents and perhaps some trusted nobleman as well.

 

[pjmidd]

No way in hell. Henry will wed Eleanor of Austria in this tl as he's only two years younger then her. And Prince Henry would become king, not Mary. No one would want her to become monarch ahead of her brother. His grandmother would likely be one of the regents and perhaps some trusted nobleman as well.

Given she only survived her son by a couple of months, he will need a new regent pretty soon. I'd go with a council of Bishop Richard Foxe, Archbishop Warham and the Earls of Surrey, Oxford and Shrewsbury, all OTL members of Henry VII's original council. The Archbishop at least nominally being the head.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Given she only survived her son by a couple of months, he will need a new regent pretty soon. I'd go with a council of Bishop Richard Foxe, Archbishop Warham and the Earls of Surrey, Oxford and Shrewsbury, all OTL members of Henry VII's original council. The Archbishop at least nominally being the head.

Sounds reasonable. Henry likely marries Eleanor in 1512-13 when she's 14-15 years old. Or 1514, as childbirth would have been safer at 16 years old.

 

[Stahlo]

If Henry's born in 1496, and Arthur in 1489, then Catherine would most likely still be in Spain and married off elsewhere. Mary would only inherit the throne if all of her other siblings died without issue.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

If Henry's born in 1496, and Arthur in 1489, then Catherine would most likely still be in Spain and married off elsewhere.

Thank god for that. It's better for both of them to wed elsewhere.

 

[eliamartin65]

Thank god for that. It's better for both of them to wed elsewhere.

Maybe Catherine marries Charles III of Savoy?

 

[Stahlo]

Maybe Catherine marries Charles III of Savoy?

That's the most likely match for her, yes.

 

[Happiness]

So Henry marries Eleanor of Austria, Margaret marries James IV of Scotland, and who will Mary marry?

 

[Stahlo]

So Henry marries Eleanor of Austria, Margaret marries James IV of Scotland, and who will Mary marry?

My money's on Christian of Denmark. She'd be too old for Charles V, and Louis of France won't be available until 1514, by which time she'd be 23 and almost certainly already married.

 

[Cate13]

When Henry VII died in April 1509, would Prince Henry succeed him to the throne of England. or would Princess Mary because she was older than her younger brother?

If there's a son, daughters don't inherit. Age doesn't matter.

 

[isabella]

So Margaret would be born on 19 September 1486, Arthur on 29 November 1489, Mary on 28 June 1491, and Henry on 18 March 1496. Assuming that Prince Arthur was still betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, and he died in April 1502 as in OTL, they would not get married because he had not attained the age of fifteen, when he was deemed old enough to be married. Would Catherine still marry Prince Henry? If not who would they each marry.

When Henry VII died in April 1509, would Prince Henry succeed him to the throne of England. or would Princess Mary because she was older than her younger brother? If it was Henry, he would be only thirteen years old, so who would be Regent(s)?

I am not sure who Henry VII would sought Catherine of Aragon as bride for his elder son with the same decision he had in OTL. Maximilian’s nieces Sybille or Sabine of Bavaria or Margaret of Angouleme are likelier matches (but four years are not six so Henry VII could still try to get her for his heir)… Henry here would be 11 years younger than Catherine so nobody would ever suggest their wedding. Henry VIII would marry without any doubt Eleanor of Austria as they were engaged in OTL and here she would be pretty close in age to him.
Margaret being older mean who her match to James IV would be agreed and celebrated earlier than OTL as Margaret would be 14 years old in 1500

 

[Happiness]

My money's on Christian of Denmark. She'd be too old for Charles V, and Louis of France won't be available until 1514, by which time she'd be 23 and almost certainly already married.

If Mary marries Christian II of Denmark, then is it possible Isabella of Austria marries to John III of Portugal?

 

[isabella]

If Mary marries Christian II of Denmark, then is it possible Isabella of Austria marries to John III of Portugal?

Maybe, but she could also end in Lorraine or Poland

 

[pipisme]

I am not sure who Henry VII would sought Catherine of Aragon as bride for his elder son with the same decision he had in OTL. Maximilian’s nieces Sybille or Sabine of Bavaria or Margaret of Angouleme are likelier matches (but four years are not six so Henry VII could still try to get her for his heir)… Henry here would be 11 years younger than Catherine so nobody would ever suggest their wedding. Henry VIII would marry without any doubt Eleanor of Austria as they were engaged in OTL and here she would be pretty close in age to him.
Margaret being older mean who her match to James IV would be agreed and celebrated earlier than OTL as Margaret would be 14 years old in 1500

Margaret married James IV in August 1503 in accordance with the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between England and Scotland signed in January 1502. (1) She would be about one month short of seventeen years old. So she could give birth from May 1504. If it was a boy, and he was living when James IV was killed at the battle of Flodden, he would become King of Scots. Though of Margaret's six children, only one survived infancy. (1)

(1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Given she only survived her son by a couple of months, he will need a new regent pretty soon. I'd go with a council of Bishop Richard Foxe, Archbishop Warham and the Earls of Surrey, Oxford and Shrewsbury, all OTL members of Henry VII's original council. The Archbishop at least nominally being the head.

Because I see Buckingham just ignoring the fact he was snubbed by being the only non-royal duke in England and NOT named to the council.

Also, if Henry VIII is only born in 1496 that means he misses out on being named heir to Jasper Tudor (and the latters' estates return to the crown*). Chances are good that, by the time he's created "anything" it won't be duke of York either, since he was only named to that title to diminish Perkin Warbeck's claiming to be the DoY. Since Warbeck's rising was over by September 1497, and most royal dukes were only created from roughly eighteen months to age 5, York is likely to be no more than an unpleasant reminder.

*Since this happened OTL, it doesn't sound like a big shift, except it was. The estates remained separate from the princedom of Wales until their grant to Anne Boleyn and then their reversion on her execution. So that's nearly forty years of direct royal control vs indirect (via the council of the Marches)

 

[isabella]

Margaret married James IV in August 1503 in accordance with the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between England and Scotland signed in January 1502. (1) She would be about one month short of seventeen years old. So she could give birth from May 1504. If it was a boy, and he was living when James IV was killed at the battle of Flodden, he would become King of Scots. Though of Margaret's six children, only one survived infancy. (1)

(1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace.

If Margaret was older her wedding to James would be likely agreed earlier than OTL as James would not lose much time in trying for a Spanish girl when the King of England’s eldest daughter is reaching marriageable age (and her father is pretty interested to the match)

 

[isabella]

So Margaret would be born on 19 September 1486, Arthur on 29 November 1489, Mary on 28 June 1491, and Henry on 18 March 1496. Assuming that Prince Arthur was still betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, and he died in April 1502 as in OTL, they would not get married because he had not attained the age of fifteen, when he was deemed old enough to be married. Would Catherine still marry Prince Henry? If not who would they each marry.

When Henry VII died in April 1509, would Prince Henry succeed him to the throne of England. or would Princess Mary because she was older than her younger brother? If it was Henry, he would be only thirteen years old, so who would be Regent(s)?

Because I see Buckingham just ignoring the fact he was snubbed by being the only non-royal duke in England and NOT named to the council.

Also, if Henry VIII is only born in 1496 that means he misses out on being named heir to Jasper Tudor (and the latters' estates return to the crown*). Chances are good that, by the time he's created "anything" it won't be duke of York either, since he was only named to that title to diminish Perkin Warbeck's claiming to be the DoY. Since Warbeck's rising was over by September 1497, and most royal dukes were only created from roughly eighteen months to age 5, York is likely to be no more than an unpleasant reminder.

*Since this happened OTL, it doesn't sound like a big shift, except it was. The estates remained separate from the princedom of Wales until their grant to Anne Boleyn and then their reversion on her execution. So that's nearly forty years of direct royal control vs indirect (via the council of the Marches)

Jasper can always die a year later than OTL and remember who OTL Edmund was styled as Duke of Somerset but never invested with the title, so Henry being styled/named as Duke of York during the rebellion and invested with the Dukedom a year or two later would not be unusual
In any case I see a problem here as switching the birth order of Henry VII’s children would give a different effect than the one proposed there

• Margaret (19 September 1486)
• Arthur (28 November 1489)
• Elizabeth (28 June 1491)
• Henry (2 July 1492)
• Edmund (18 March 1496)
• Mary (21 February 1499)

 

[pipisme]

Could Henry VIII begin ruling in his own name when he was sixteen or seventeen years old,? Or would he have to wait until he was eighteen? The career of Thomas Wolsey would be delayed, being appointed a royal councillor in 1514, instead of 1511.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Could Henry VIII begin ruling in his own name when he was sixteen or seventeen years old,? Or would he have to wait until he was eighteen? The career of Thomas Wolsey would be delayed, being appointed a royal councillor in 1514, instead of 1511.

I dont think it would have been any problem with him ruling in his own right at 16-17, it probably would have been expected of him.