Tuesday, March 20, 2012

What If...Prince Arthur Hadn't Died?

I'm starting a new section of the blog examining the "What if's" of Tudor and Renaissance History. I'm going to start with a big one...What if Prince Arthur hadn't died, and Henry VIII had never become King? How different do you think history would be?

This new section is mean't to get you talking, so please leave comments here and on Facebook. Please keep in mind I have to approve all comments, so if yours doesn't show up immediately, please be patient! I will be approving them as quickly as possible. Enjoy!

Also, if you have any suggestions for the "What if..." section, please feel free to e-mail them to me at everythingtudor "at" yahoo.com.

Pin It


  1. I think if Prince Arthur hadn't died then Henry would have went into the church....however I do think that he would have been a huge part of ruling England as Arthur I think would have handed over much to him.I Very much think that Arthur and Catherine would have had children and given the example of Princess Mary(Henry&Catherine)England would be Catholic and ruled by religious fanatics.
    Mostly England and Scotland would not be ruled by one king or queen and history would have lost out not having Henry viii's reign and All that that entails.England would also have lost out on Elizabeth.One life would have changed it all!!

  2. I think that if Arthur had lived England would've been a vassal state under the Holy Roman emperor and Spain. He had no power to keep them at bay and instead had a wife to help him into it. France would've posed little problem as England at the time was a byway but only that to Spain. Arthur would've been weak and Katherine would've been the ruling monarch. Not bad but not good for England. The situation fell as it should allowing England to be the private monarchy it is.

  3. Great Question. I'll make my answer short. Henry VIII was geared towards the Church by his Father so he would have gone that route. Who knows, he may have been a Cardinal or even a Pope for that matter. Henry VIII wanted big things so I would not be surprised.

    Arthur, in my opinion, would have been a different ruler. I believe that he would have been faithful all the way to KOA. I do, believe, that they would have sons; unlike with Henry VIII. All of this alone would have changed England's History.
    BTW: Great Question!!!

    http://www.facebook.com/thetudorspage (The Tudor Dynasty)

  4. I always wonder if He had Lived. Katherine wouldn't suffer as she did with Henry. I believe Arthur is more like his Father and would be faithful to Katherine. It would change England history as we know it today. Scotland be ruled under it's Own King today. But I don't think Henry would have went into the Church. I think he would have fight against it. He like attention too much.

  5. I never saw any reason to think KOA was a religious fanatic. There was evidence that she wanted some reform in the church also. The Reformation would have still come but not in the destructive way it did. I think a lot less innocent people would have died and the people connected with the churches would not have been so abruptly turned out into the street. But, hindsight is 20/20.

  6. I think Arthur would have accepted his role in life as he got older....his marriage to Catherine would have been happy and with her own parentage would have been a natural at supporting her husband behind the scenes.....he would have been more like his father, Henry V11 and may not have been an exciting king, but would've continued to provide stability to England....I also believe he would've had sons....and his heir would have been more of a charismatic personality like his uncle (Bishop Henry...lol)....so the rule of Arthur's son would have spiced up a far more "secure" Tudor court

  7. Just as others have said, Arthur and Katherine of Aragon probably would have had sons! That would have changed England's monarchy. I think he would have provided stability for England. Not to mention, Anne Boleyn wouldn't have been a head short! Nor the others.

  8. Given Katherine's trouble carrying to term, I don't think she'd have fared any better had Arthur lived. Some women simply don't carry well for one reason or another.
    For example, one theory bandied about concerning Ann Bolyn's similar troubles is that she may have been rhesus negative, which they wouldn't have known about back then.

    1. Or it was henry's vd that caused the micarriages.

  9. Or maybe the theory about Henry being Kell-positive is correct. If so, Arthur and Katharine could've had a bunch of living children. I think it's an interesting theory, because both Katharine and Anne miscarried late in pregnancies several times. Of course we have no means to prove it..

    I think,as others have mentioned, that Henry would still have been an important figure, king or not. Even before himbecomingking, he is describes as a kind of larger than life personality. But going into the church he could still have had great influence and power. Maybe he would have had the chance to become a great scholar, as his early writings did point towards. Asfor the reformation, maybe it could have come about a lot less dramatically, and with fewer lifes wasted(as it did fx. in Denmark).

    And maybe Anne would have married Henry Percy and lived a happy life:-)

  10. I think that Arthur might have been a far better king than Henry due to the fact that, from birth, it is what he was geared to be [unlike Henry who abruptly began training at Arthur's death]. I believe that Henry would have gone into the church. suffered, he was called defender of the faith by the pope. but I think that religious reform might have taken longer but was still inevitable.

  11. Probably no America, WWI and WWII. No Islamic fundamentalist threat, no oil shortage and no global warming.