Elizabeth of York and Henry VII tried to have another child because of Arthur’s death, resulting in the deaths of Elizabeth and her last child. If there had been no attempt at having another child, the chances are good that Elizabeth and Henry, not having been so stricken by their losses, would have lived together in better health and happiness. Henry VII’s reign may have been longer and his kingdom and the world’s politics been different by the time Arthur became king.
Yes! When Arthur died, Elizabeth told Henry "we're still young enough", & she was pregnant just a month later. That kinda makes it seem like they'd stopped trying for children, probably cos they already had 2 sons so it wasn't worth the risk to Elizabeth's health, & they only tried for another child cos of Arthur's death. So I 100% agree: if he'd survived, they probably wouldn't have, & the last years of Henry VII's reign would've been VASTLY different if Elizabeth hadn't died in 1503.
@@beth7935 I think she was saying, "We're still young enough to conceive a child *because* we still have an active sex life." Arthur died 2 April 1502. /ETA: Edmund, the last child born before the death of Arthur, was born in Feb of 1499 and died in June of 1500, so It doesn't seem as if Elizabeth had left off childbearing yet./ Katherine, the last child of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, was born 2 Feb 1503. Assuming a full term pregnancy (and, who knows about that?), Katherine would have been conceived very shortly after Arthur's death. While it is certainly possible for someone to conceive on the first attempt, for me this argues in favor of the idea that Henry and Elizabeth had an active sex life together, and I suppose one could take more than one position on whether she was lucky in that final conception.
@@beth7935 I wonder if they knew much about preventing a pregnancy, other than refraining from having sex? It would have meant celibacy for Elizabeth - but it was the done thing for a king or prince to have mistresses. They were known as 'ladies of the bedchamber.'
@@dianefitzwilliam That's a possible interpretation too. Maybe it was just a coincidence Elizabeth got pregnant a month later- but good point that Katherine might've been premature, & therefore conceived later, which would make it less of a coincidence. I wonder if any records could tell us that? Probably not, cos we can't even work out if Arthur was a month early or conceived before his parents married, & Katherine would've been seen as less important. I don't find it that surprising to conceive on the 1st attempt though- I know a lot of women who have, & 2 of them were over 40- especially given how quickly Elizabeth got pregnant with Arthur (even if she & Henry didn't wait for their wedding, it was still pretty quick). _However,_ I agree that it's not conclusive either way if you look at the dates their children were born. It was only 3 years after Edmund's birth, as you said, & there had been similar gaps between some of their other children, like Elizabeth & Mary, July 1492 to March 1496. It's not like they'd had a kid every year, then no kids for 10 years- I think it's all still debatable.
I love when you do these. As a Jewish person the idea of the inquisition in England is chilling. While I respect Catherine of Aragon it's disturbing to think of her mother's role in our history
Well technically there were no Jews in England at the time, as Edward 1 expelled them and officially were only allowed to resettle in Cromwell's era, but it would certainly have had an effect on people's attitudes towards the Jewish people, and sadly it doesn't take much for anti semitism to flourish
@@louiseoliver3453 That's terrible, I didn't even know that. Why were Christians against so Jews when that's where Christianity comes from? I get that it was towards other religions as well, but this one doesn't make sense to me.
@@Ilive_420 I think because over the centuries they were villified as 'Christ Killers' but also because they practised Usury. In parts of eastern Europe antisemitism was rampant as Jewish people were often the middlemen between sellers and the peasantry, the latter of whom always felt they were being diddled. Ironically, considering the problems between the two religions today, I was reading about how Jewish people from Muslim majority Albania were sheltered in the holocaust and those fleeing to the Middle east were often warmly welcomed by local Muslims. How times change!
It doesn't change the outcome, but Idon't think Isabel had a personal vendetta against Jewish people. She and Fernando needed the support of the church during and after the Reconquista, and the church wanted Jewish people gone and the Conversos policed by the Inquisition. So Isabel and Fernando agreed because they were ruthless realpolitikers. In a slightly different political situation they probably wouldn't have acted against the Jewish community. So Catherine wouldn't necessarily do so either.
Had Arthur survived, I wonder if Elizabeth of York would have lived longer too. She became pregnant shortly after Arthur’s death in an attempt to “replace” him with another son and then died in childbirth. I think it’s very possible that Elizabeth would’ve been done having children since there were several healthy sons and daughters. Arthur’s untimely death had a direct connection to his mother’s demise less than a year later, which makes it even sadder. Elizabeth of York living longer would have been beneficial for all her family (and the country).
There's a book called The Alteration by Kingsley Amis that was written in the 70s with the same premise. It's a modern story about a young boy, but in this England, Arthur Tudor lived. There are a LOT of other changes done due to Arthur's reign, mostly concerning the influence of the Catholic Church. I LOVE alternate histories. It is such an fun little thought experiment to see exactly how things could have been if only XYZ happened. Thank you so much for sharing!
The main pivotal point was that Martin Luther reconciliated with the Catholic Church and became the pope Germanicus whatever number. Catholic Europe was in constant war with the Islamic empire to keep populations down. Electricity was heresy ....
I kind of think Catharine might still have had trouble giving birth to healthy children, but the longer time frame and better health conditions during her teens would probably have helped her have at least one or two more living children. And definitely her irl daughter wouldn't have been kept unmarried until her mid-30s.
No reason to assume she would have had a daughter "irl" if she had conceived with a different man. Sex is determined by the sperm, not the egg. There has been speculation that Catherine's obsessive fasting may have played a role in her numerous failed pregnancies and infant deaths.
@@direfranchement. I did not know about her fasting. I also think that the women that had to produce the male heirs, had no or very little time to heal and recover from miscarriages and stillbirths. That could not have helped in the effort to have healthy offspring.
@@elss8717 @elss8717 Absolutely. It's no small miracle that she survived as many labors as she did as so many women died either in childbirth or shortly after, even royal women. It happened to Elizabeth of York, K Catherine's mother-in-law.
Aren’t there a number of medical assessments that the reason Henry 8th had so many miscarriages or still births among his wives is that he had Kell Syndrome (probably misspelled because I am going off memory). If my recall is right, the first pregnancy from a father with this disorder would be viable, but subsequent pregnancies would be compromised - some reaction not unlike RH factor’s deadly impact in generations prior to scientific treatment. It is all conjecture, but all Henry’s living children were the first born of their respective mothers. I may be way off bases, I am not a medical doctor and just watch a lot of historical videos! What have others heard or read?
@@kaja933 Katherine’s first pregnancy ended in stillbirth. The second one I believe was a boy that lived 52 days. Two more pregnancies ended in miscarriage or stillbirth. (I might have got the order wrong). It was her 5th pregnancy that resulted in a live birth, Mary. I do think that you may be right about this condition but It took 5 times though to get a living child.
Thanks so much for this, Dr Kat! I must say the thought of Henry VIII being Pope is one I've never considered before, and it brought me out in a cold sweat 😅
I don't know. Henry was unprepared in almost every respect to be king. He was the proverbial poor rich boy - spoiled, bratty, over-indulged, and suffering because of it. But that's par for the course when it comes to popes of the past. I think he'd have fit right in. But given time, he also might have had the opportunity to mature into his role in the world and been less of a boor.
Regarding the thought of her issues with pregnancy, if she'd been sleeping with Arthur for the entire period where canonically she was his widow, that'd have given her additional time - significant time - to have had subsequent pregnancies and living children. I think she still would have had troubles and still had stillborn children as well, but she may have had one or two more living children - and any daughters would not have had to outlive her parents before she could get married.
I would like to believe a lot of Katherine's fertility issues came from the fact she was under such duress in her early life (being essentially held captive by her inlaws while they tried to figure out what to do with her when Arthur died). If those circumstances were removed, and if her marriage to Arthur proved to be a happy one, I think she could have mothered multiple heirs. I'd still think her first would be a girl, but then followed by two younger brothers, so : 👸🤴🤴. I also like to believe that Katherine would have been just as passionate about the education of her daughter in this timeline as she was in the actual history. That daughter might have ended up being diplomatically important in more ways than just who she ended up providing with children one day... Perhaps another "warrior queen"? The "what-ifs" of history are absolutely fascinating. Especially when it comes to the Tudors.
Yes, those horrendous living conditions after Arthurs death came to mind for me too. And she was no pushover, she would definitely have insisted, that all her children regardless of gender be equally and well educated. And she would probably have had a ally in that in her mother-in-law, since handwriting analysis now have made a plausible case, that Elizabeth herself taught at least Henry to write, even if she might not have had the same leeway with the heir as with the spare. And both Margaret and Mary seem to have been quite formidable themselves, which they could not have become without a strong female rolemodel, most likely their mother, a good education and a father, who allowed, perhaps even encouraged, both. Ive always been struck by how strong the Tudor women (by birth or by marriage) were, even by todays standards.
So interesting! I’ve always thought that if Arthur had lived, the split from Rome would not have occurred, at least not at that time and not in that way. Thank you Dr. Cat!
What I love about female historians is that I’m always left with more questions than answers! There’s so many ‘what if’s which is exactly what I think after I find out new things. Big love for this channel!
Great video! I like to imagine he would have taken after his frugal father and compassionate mother and kept the country out of war. His mother might still be alive, too, since she wouldn’t have felt the pressure to bear another son.
I also think his sister’s life would have turned out much differently. I don’t think Scotland would have gone to war with England and King James IV would have not died as early as he did.
That was fascinating. I can't help thinking that, even if Arthur had been King, his brother Prince Henry (Cardinal Tudor? Pope Somebody?) would have made his mark on English and European history anyway due to his strong personality. But who knows?
I think Catharine would have had better luck with having kids. Starting at a younger age and with having the spare brother would have helped. There would not be as much stress and desperation. One of the suspected reasons for her difficulties was her fasting way too much.
I love these thought experiments. You'd never think how much a relatively small thing like someone not dying or making a different decision could affect our world today. Please do more of these!
I found this video particularly fascinating! I was expecting something similar to the level of change created by Henry Fitzroy's survival (as you explored previously), but this got pretty wild! The only place I differ is that, if Catherine and Arthur had had trouble having children, I don't believe at all that Catherine would have agreed to step out of her marriage into holy orders. Even without the trauma of her widowed years, the humiliation of the "Great Matter"'s arguments, and the need to defend her daughter's rights... it really seems like there was a core of iron and pride in her that would have kept her where she was. She was Isabella and Ferdinand's daughter, after all.
But she might very well have had no trouble having children with Arthur. There has been great speculation, given Henry's history with children, that the problem might have been with him, not her. Also, as Dr. Kat says, she wouldve been producing children at a much younger age. And I would add, that the years she lived as Arthurs widow were under quite bad conditions, both physically and mentally, and might also have affected her later childbearing. That said, I agree, that Catherine would likely not have stepped aside for Arthur, any more than she stepped aside for Henry.
@@dfuher968 I agree- I think bad luck is the major or only reason Henry VIII only had 1 living male heir, & if Catherine had been married younger, I think there's a good chance she would've had more surviving children, & perhaps at least one surviving son. She had no trouble conceiving- she had 6 children in 9 years, & she had 2 healthy babies, it's just that the boy died later of illness.
Yes, I really can't see Catherine meekly giving up her place as Queen of England & retiring to a nunnery! Even if it was done "nicely", no way! And it's not just her- I really can't see her powerful family accepting it either, or the Pope giving Arthur a divorce/annullment... And from the little bit we know of Arthur, I find it hard to imagine him ditching her, particularly not when he had his brother to continue the dynasty.
I was under the impression that Elizabeth and Henry tried for their last child in an attempt to provide another male heir because Arthur died unexpectedly. Perhaps she may not have died in childbirth because if Arthur survived, this last pregnancy may not have happened?
Why, oh, why did Arthur have to pass away before becoming king and producing heirs! I can not adequately express how much I enjoyed this thorough counterfactual history. Thank you for expounding upon not only Henry's Great Matter but all the other battles, border disputes, marriages, alliances, births, etc. I loved this! 🤴🤴👸👸👸🤴
Love this topic. One thing I always think about is what if Henry VIII was content to keep Mary as his heir and did not seek a divorce. What would the world have looked like? In both instances, I think the reformation either is delayed or non-existent and England does not become the large empire it doe sin our time.
OMG, so excited! This is my favourite what-if!... Or my least favourite, cos I'm so sad it didn't happen. Literally _anyone_ would've been better than Henry VIII, of course, but I did get some idea of what Arthur was like from a great bio by Sean Cunningham. He looked at Arthur's education & upbringing, & the plans you could see Henry VII making for him, & Arthur was very much stepping up & doing what was expected of him, taking it seriously & doing a good job, so I think it's reasonable to assume he would've been a LOT more like his father than his brother, & I think his father was an excellent king. Overall, Arthur sounds like the absolute opposite of Henry VIII, so the world was ROBBED. As were the people who loved him, of course- the story of Henry & Elizabeth hearing about his death breaks my heart.
Interesting take on alternative timelines. I thinks its highly likely that she and Arthur would have been a better match. If one looks at her family lineage, fertility was fairly evident with her own mother and siblings. One of things I had read about her union with Henry is that she got pregnant too frequently in the early years of her marriage, that it rendered her much weaker. So, with being with Arthur as his teenage bride there would have been less pressure in the early years of their marriage to have children.
I love these processes. Few of the others, I like, are King Edward VI lived into his 20's, or Queen Mary's false pregnancy (the 1st one) was real. This is fun. I hope you do more.
I love this exploration of what may have been. Perhaps less tumultuous, perhaps more in different unknown ways. Anyway, I am, as my mother always called me, "The Queen Of What-Iffing" (both worrying and wondering) and this episode was right up my alley. What if Henry Tudor became pope !!?? Also, Dr. Kat, thank you for adding the important events and dates to the screen. Dates and numbers tend not to stick well in my memory, and that is very helpful. 🧒👧👧👧👦
It's fascinating to wonder how a life without Henry V111 & his children would have been.Would there have been rivalry with his brother Arthur as with our present day "spare"?? Another thought provoking video.Thank you Dr Kat
Thank you, this was genuinely fascinating. As a childless woman I believe that had Katherine of Aragon not bern so cruelly mistreated with presumably both her metal and physical health afffected even if not acknowledged, then this coupled with her attempts to become pregnant earlier in life would have meant she was able to produce more children than she subsequently did. The body and mind have a way of keeping account of hard times, sad times, and cruel times, and I fully believe that this has a way of affecting fertility, without taking into account the subsequent possibility of Henry VIII having a sexually transmitted disease which made conception and pregnancy by Katherine more difficult than it might. Had they had children, I'm sure they would have had many, but two of each remaining living would seem to be a happy outcome. ❤
ooh i am looking forward to your take on this, i've often thought of the what ifs and could've beens if arthur survived and stayed married to catherine
Absolutely fascinating detail. I think Arthur and Catherine would have been an excellent king and queen. How sad that Catherine arrived in England at the age of 16 years only to die of neglect when discarded by Henry.
The incredible amount of research and knowledge that flows out of Dr Kat is truly astounding- this is perfection for an avid Tudor fan and novice alike
I’d love to see a further exploration of what Henry might have done in church. The thought of him as pope really tickled me. But you are right to raise ie. Why not. He was smart and ambitious and inventive. Why wouldn’t he have been. And what might he have done if he had made it to that position. What could he have affected. And in England, no destruction of all those monasteries….😱
One thing is for sure, he would probably not have issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis against his brother or daughter..... Maybe would have been pro-English and anti-French. Without his jousting injuries his character could have been very different to how he turned out.
As you explored each possible twist and turn based on Arthur living instead of succumbing to his illness, my jaw dropped lower and lower. The very existence of well-established countries and the shape of world power would have been radically different. Fate is more powerful than the greatest of armies. Well done!
This is a really marvelous "what if" and I never cease to be fascinated by the ramifications of changing one event in history and pondering how it ripples through time.
I love the videos where you're able to speculate with such a great understanding of the times and being able to use other historical references to back you up. This is a question ive often wondered for myself and constantly wonder if Catherine herself was wondering it too.
Isn't it interesting to think about how things might have been totally different if just one historical event had turned out differently? The potential impact on the colonialization of America really hit me (as an American) - wow! We could have been speaking Spanish over here instead of English! Thanks again for another thought-provoking video - I always look forward to them.👑👑👑
The simple sentence of “ugh, I really wish Arthur had lived” is relatively common for me. But you took that musing and RAN with it! 🏃♀️🏃🏃♂️ Thanks for all the great videos!
👦 Henry, prince of wales ( Future Henry VIII) 👧 Princess Elizabeth For both their mothers 👧 Princess Mary For the Virgin and both their sisters. 👦John, Duke of Richmond, For catherine's brother and John of gaunt. 👦Edward, Duke of Somerset. For Edward Iv and III.
I love that you chose names, AND titles for the younger princes! I've thought about names too, but I hadn't thought of "Elizabeth" for both their mothers, cos even tho it _is_ technically the English version of Isabel, the name "Isabel" was also used in England. I think it's a good idea though, & so is "Mary" for the Virgin Mary.... Anyway, my list: 👸Princess Isabel 🤴Arthur, Prince of Wales* 🤴Prince Henry 👸Princess Elizabeth 👸Princess Margaret* 🤴Prince Jasper* *I think Henry VII was dedicated to the Arthurian symbolism, & Arthur would've continued it, but I do think Arthur would've named his 2nd son after his father. *Henry VIII was very close to his sister Mary, but I've read that Arthur was closer to Margaret; & also for Margaret Beaufort, who did so much to get the Tudors on the throne. *I like to think if Henry VII had had a 4th son, he would've named him after Jasper, for obvious reasons, but you're probably right- Arthur & Catherine would be more likely to choose John or Edward, with so many ancestors & relatives with those names, or maybe Edmund.
The What if's of Dr Kat witness her great creative and analytical intelligence. I'm in awe. What if Catherine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor would have also had the same issues to conceive and bear children?
It's possible that they may have. Blood theory isn't my area, but there is a theory that Henry VIII may have had a blood type that carried the rare Kell antigen. A Kell negative woman who gets pregnant with a Kell positive man can have a healthy first child. However the antibodies she produces during the first pregnancy will attack any Kell positive fetuses in later pregnancies, leading to miscarriages or early infant death. Henry seems to have had no problem producing pregnancies but all of his women seem to have issues carrying multiple children to term. This might explain why Katharine of Aragon swiftly conceived Henry's first son, who died as an infant, then had multiple miscarriages leading to only one surviving daughter. Blood types run in families and it's possible Arthur may have also been Kell positive, if it's true that Henry was.
Thank you Dr Kat for such a thoroughly thought through counter factual history tutorial. You’ve given me so much to consider with the knock-on effect of each change. Thank you!
A fabulous video as always! My answer to the question “What would you do if you could travel back in history?” has always been “Try to find a way to save Arthur.” This video hasn’t changed my mind, I think our history would have been far more harmonious, with much less bloodshed, had he survived. Especially if he and Catherine had produced an heir.
Its 1 of those event, that makes u say "if only I had a timemachine". Then again, as this thought experiment shows, there would need to be a lot more consideration of all the other events changed by this 1 premature death. If we had that timemachine and went back, snuck in and gave Arthur antibiotics or whatever, so he survived, we would definitely come back to a completely changed world. But it might also have caused later horrific events, we could not predict. The further back we go, the more widespread the effect of changes of todays world would be. Hell, even if we had a timemachine and went back to smother Baby Hitler in his crib, that might lead to huge changes, good AND bad.
Really enjoyed this one! Honestly, the What-Ifs of history fascinate me. Love them! It's always fun to do a little waltzing through history, to see how moving one piece on the board, changes the entire scene. What the Butterfly effect is, if you will, of letting one seemingly small thing change. In this case, a teenager doesn't die of sickness shortly after his marriage and lives to be as old as some of his other siblings managed. That one thing changes, and how it spirals from there, all the way to possibly no Mayflower, no UK, and no break from the Catholic Church.
I totally agree with everyone else who have said that they really love when you do these types of historical deep dives into "what if." This is my cup of tea, and oh my goodness how different the world would be. I think all of North America would still be English. Would England weathered the Martin Luther craze and remained staunchly Catholic...maybe. So fun!!! Please do more of these types in the future. You are so brilliant and talented! Thank you! ❤
I think Luther wasn't that much of a craze in England. On him, Henry and the Pope agreed 100%. Neither of them liked Luther. Even after splitting with Rome, Henry still didn't like Luther. The craze was a Calvin craze. After Henry's death, a lot of the reformers were inspired by Calvinism and somewhat by Scottish Presbyterianism (e.g. Puritans), not as much by Luther. At the time, there was a triangle: Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism. Lutherans and Calvinists could be just as suspicious of one another as they were towards the Catholics. Just because they didn't like the Pope didn't mean they liked one another and the word "popery" was thrown around as an accusation, not just against Catholics.
I am loving these counter-factual videos you are doing. Would love LOVE love to hear one if Ann Boleyn had lived…either if she escaped the block and retired to a nunnery…or…if she was able to bear King Henry a son and remained his wife. I end my day with one of your videos…really love the format and how you are presenting information!❤
I really appreciate following you down this rabbit hole! From the little I know of Arthur, his character was very different from that of Henry. I don't believe he was the braggart and in-your-face competitor that was Henry. Having been raised as the heir, he understood what it meant to rule and, I suspect, he would have cared for his people - something that was foreign to Henry. Though the thought of a Catholic England is unsettling for me (I'm in Canada, and we would likely now not exist), as you mentioned, the Reformation was on the move and would likely have arrived in England at some point. This is a very interesting exercise, and I appreciate being brought along to consider 'what might have been.'
Love this Dr. Kat!! What an interesting, thought provoking concept! It would be interesting to do one of these with the what if Anne Boleyn’s baby had been a boy
That was probably the most interesting counter-factual topic you've presented thus far. By the end, I didn't exist, because my ancestors fled England shortly after The Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. I also had an ancestor at Jamestown. Poor Arthur. He had to die! I feel bad, because he was well prepared to be King.
Fascinating premise, and I agree that the world and England in particular would have been a very different place had historical events turned out thusly. Thanks yet again for a splendid video.
What an insightful analysis of “what if”, Dr Kat! It’s very possible the spread of the English language and the English dominance in America may not have been what it is if Arthur had lived to become king.
What a fabulous video?! I thibk it’s my favorite so far. More speculative-retrospective-butterfly-effect- counter factual histories please?! Such a fun game to play a bit like pick your own adventure with the additional benefit that it challenges you to consider motivations, psychologies, all of it from fresh and multiple angles! Thank you!
I love these discussions about “what if?“. I have one for you. What is Anne Boleyn’s first child had been a boy and had survived? Give that one to go Dr. Kat! Would she had cut off Cromwell’s head now that she was done with him? Would Henry have still wanted to get rid of her now that he had his boy or would the marriage have held together? And what of Elizabeth? Would she have been dutifully married into some foreign nation? That is a “What if?” worthy of your consideration!
This was an absolute delight. All through the years I've heard stories of Henry VIII and all of them have fed my dislike of the guy. I never had knowledge of the cast of characters that you have so I could never begin to put a good story together. I really loved hearing what might have happened. I think it would have been great. edit: I don't know that he'd have been a great Pope. I hope there'd have been better candidates than him.
I think Catherine's pregnancies would have been more successful as she may not have had the same high levels of stress and anxiety as she did when married to Henry. His constant wandering and his apparent clinical hunger for constant praise and validation would have been exhausting on top of that. I do still believe that Scotland would have eventually been annexed to another kingdom, whether by France or England or by whose domination I couldn't say
Thank you for your tip for attending the joust at Hampton Court! I’ll miss it because I went last Thursday, BUT I went also to Hever Castle yesterday, and there was…jousting! It was super fun, and I loved all of it!
Another insightful and thought provoking video. Im so thankful to have found you during the pandemic and one day will make it to England (I'm in US) to see all those wonderful places!
It's interesting to think of Catherine and Arthur's potential children. I read an article (at least a decade ago, so I couldn't find it) that proposed that Henry might have had a different rh blood type to Catherine and Anne (and possibly Jane), thus making their pregnancies much more difficult. Given that Margaret and Mary both had multiple children, it's possible that Henry was the only one with the rh incompatibility. I think you may be right that Catherine and Arthur could have had multiple children, and would have at least had three or four (provided that Catherine could sustain a healthy pregnancy). They likely would have wanted an heir and spare of their own, and at least one girl for alliance purposes -- Catherine and her sisters showed how important alliances could be, so they would have probably seen the wisdom in it. Not to mention, two boys in a row isn't always a sureity, though it might have happened. Great video, as always, Dr. Kat!
I wonder if Elizabeth of York would’ve even attempted to have an another child if Arthur hadn’t died. She may have lived for a few more years if they weren’t trying to replace their heir. Henry VII may have lasted even longer as King as well because her death caused a sharp decline in his health too.
This lecture has blown my mind. I’ve always thought of Henry the eighth turning way from the Catholic Church is what was the pedal move for England. Now I’m rethinking this and thinking how your father hadn’t died they would’ve remained Catholic in the country would be so different in so many ways. Thank you for the most enlightening talk.
I think that your analysis is spot on. I also think, given that they were so devout, Arthur and Catherine would have had many children living to adulthood. 🤴🏻🤴🏻👸👸🤴
Very thoughtful insights on this interesting "what if" scenario! I agree that England likely would have remained Catholic longer, and with the transition to Protestant faith being smoother and more aligned to the rest of Europe. But very curious to think that England and Scotland would not likely have been united!
✨This was one of my favorites of your counter-factual history. Really enjoyed the conjecture of what would have become of King Arthur and Queen Catherine. And the speculation of Henry's ecclesiastical journey was quite interesting. However, I do wonder if Arthur would have suffered from the same issues that Henry had since we now believe it was his seed that was responsible for the defects and still births. Anyway...loved it Dr. Kat!
I have been waiting for someone to make this video for YEARS. Most of the time significant issues conceiving is a result of fertility issues in both partners. Often these people could (and do) have children successfully with other partners. The fact that Henry had some but not a great many conceptions with other women supports that theory (although given his age its not bulletproof.)
Elizabeth of York and Henry VII tried to have another child because of Arthur’s death, resulting in the deaths of Elizabeth and her last child. If there had been no attempt at having another child, the chances are good that Elizabeth and Henry, not having been so stricken by their losses, would have lived together in better health and happiness. Henry VII’s reign may have been longer and his kingdom and the world’s politics been different by the time Arthur became king.
Yes! When Arthur died, Elizabeth told Henry "we're still young enough", & she was pregnant just a month later. That kinda makes it seem like they'd stopped trying for children, probably cos they already had 2 sons so it wasn't worth the risk to Elizabeth's health, & they only tried for another child cos of Arthur's death. So I 100% agree: if he'd survived, they probably wouldn't have, & the last years of Henry VII's reign would've been VASTLY different if Elizabeth hadn't died in 1503.
@@beth7935 I think she was saying, "We're still young enough to conceive a child *because* we still have an active sex life." Arthur died 2 April 1502. /ETA: Edmund, the last child born before the death of Arthur, was born in Feb of 1499 and died in June of 1500, so It doesn't seem as if Elizabeth had left off childbearing yet./ Katherine, the last child of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, was born 2 Feb 1503. Assuming a full term pregnancy (and, who knows about that?), Katherine would have been conceived very shortly after Arthur's death. While it is certainly possible for someone to conceive on the first attempt, for me this argues in favor of the idea that Henry and Elizabeth had an active sex life together, and I suppose one could take more than one position on whether she was lucky in that final conception.
@@beth7935 I wonder if they knew much about preventing a pregnancy, other than refraining from having sex? It would have meant celibacy for Elizabeth - but it was the done thing for a king or prince to have mistresses. They were known as 'ladies of the bedchamber.'
Henry VII was a right bastard. So were all the Tudors.
@@dianefitzwilliam That's a possible interpretation too. Maybe it was just a coincidence Elizabeth got pregnant a month later- but good point that Katherine might've been premature, & therefore conceived later, which would make it less of a coincidence. I wonder if any records could tell us that? Probably not, cos we can't even work out if Arthur was a month early or conceived before his parents married, & Katherine would've been seen as less important. I don't find it that surprising to conceive on the 1st attempt though- I know a lot of women who have, & 2 of them were over 40- especially given how quickly Elizabeth got pregnant with Arthur (even if she & Henry didn't wait for their wedding, it was still pretty quick).
_However,_ I agree that it's not conclusive either way if you look at the dates their children were born. It was only 3 years after Edmund's birth, as you said, & there had been similar gaps between some of their other children, like Elizabeth & Mary, July 1492 to March 1496. It's not like they'd had a kid every year, then no kids for 10 years- I think it's all still debatable.
I love when you do these. As a Jewish person the idea of the inquisition in England is chilling. While I respect Catherine of Aragon it's disturbing to think of her mother's role in our history
Exactly what I thought as well (also being Jewish)
Well technically there were no Jews in England at the time, as Edward 1 expelled them and officially were only allowed to resettle in Cromwell's era, but it would certainly have had an effect on people's attitudes towards the Jewish people, and sadly it doesn't take much for anti semitism to flourish
@@louiseoliver3453 That's terrible, I didn't even know that.
Why were Christians against so Jews when that's where Christianity comes from?
I get that it was towards other religions as well, but this one doesn't make sense to me.
@@Ilive_420 I think because over the centuries they were villified as 'Christ Killers' but also because they practised Usury. In parts of eastern Europe antisemitism was rampant as Jewish people were often the middlemen between sellers and the peasantry, the latter of whom always felt they were being diddled. Ironically, considering the problems between the two religions today, I was reading about how Jewish people from Muslim majority Albania were sheltered in the holocaust and those fleeing to the Middle east were often warmly welcomed by local Muslims. How times change!
It doesn't change the outcome, but Idon't think Isabel had a personal vendetta against Jewish people. She and Fernando needed the support of the church during and after the Reconquista, and the church wanted Jewish people gone and the Conversos policed by the Inquisition. So Isabel and Fernando agreed because they were ruthless realpolitikers.
In a slightly different political situation they probably wouldn't have acted against the Jewish community. So Catherine wouldn't necessarily do so either.
Had Arthur survived, I wonder if Elizabeth of York would have lived longer too. She became pregnant shortly after Arthur’s death in an attempt to “replace” him with another son and then died in childbirth. I think it’s very possible that Elizabeth would’ve been done having children since there were several healthy sons and daughters. Arthur’s untimely death had a direct connection to his mother’s demise less than a year later, which makes it even sadder. Elizabeth of York living longer would have been beneficial for all her family (and the country).
There's a book called The Alteration by Kingsley Amis that was written in the 70s with the same premise. It's a modern story about a young boy, but in this England, Arthur Tudor lived. There are a LOT of other changes done due to Arthur's reign, mostly concerning the influence of the Catholic Church.
I LOVE alternate histories. It is such an fun little thought experiment to see exactly how things could have been if only XYZ happened. Thank you so much for sharing!
The main pivotal point was that Martin Luther reconciliated with the Catholic Church and became the pope Germanicus whatever number.
Catholic Europe was in constant war with the Islamic empire to keep populations down. Electricity was heresy ....
Should I have zigged instead of zagged?
Amis was a spectacular writer, I've not read this one, thank you for jogging me to pick it up.
Fascinating alternate history, thank you. A lot of what ifs and maybe or maybe not a better future because of it.🤔
I kind of think Catharine might still have had trouble giving birth to healthy children, but the longer time frame and better health conditions during her teens would probably have helped her have at least one or two more living children. And definitely her irl daughter wouldn't have been kept unmarried until her mid-30s.
No reason to assume she would have had a daughter "irl" if she had conceived with a different man. Sex is determined by the sperm, not the egg. There has been speculation that Catherine's obsessive fasting may have played a role in her numerous failed pregnancies and infant deaths.
@@direfranchement. I did not know about her fasting. I also think that the women that had to produce the male heirs, had no or very little time to heal and recover from miscarriages and stillbirths. That could not have helped in the effort to have healthy offspring.
@@elss8717 @elss8717 Absolutely. It's no small miracle that she survived as many labors as she did as so many women died either in childbirth or shortly after, even royal women. It happened to Elizabeth of York, K
Catherine's mother-in-law.
Aren’t there a number of medical assessments that the reason Henry 8th had so many miscarriages or still births among his wives is that he had Kell Syndrome (probably misspelled because I am going off memory). If my recall is right, the first pregnancy from a father with this disorder would be viable, but subsequent pregnancies would be compromised - some reaction not unlike RH factor’s deadly impact in generations prior to scientific treatment. It is all conjecture, but all Henry’s living children were the first born of their respective mothers. I may be way off bases, I am not a medical doctor and just watch a lot of historical videos! What have others heard or read?
@@kaja933 Katherine’s first pregnancy ended in stillbirth. The second one I believe was a boy that lived 52 days. Two more pregnancies ended in miscarriage or stillbirth. (I might have got the order wrong). It was her 5th pregnancy that resulted in a live birth, Mary. I do think that you may be right about this condition but It took 5 times though to get a living child.
Thanks so much for this, Dr Kat! I must say the thought of Henry VIII being Pope is one I've never considered before, and it brought me out in a cold sweat 😅
Same!! 😬
He would have given Julius the second a run for his money!
One would have shuddered the thought but it could have cause the Reformation to spread further through out Europe.
I don't know. Henry was unprepared in almost every respect to be king. He was the proverbial poor rich boy - spoiled, bratty, over-indulged, and suffering because of it. But that's par for the course when it comes to popes of the past. I think he'd have fit right in. But given time, he also might have had the opportunity to mature into his role in the world and been less of a boor.
Shades of Alexander VI !!!
Regarding the thought of her issues with pregnancy, if she'd been sleeping with Arthur for the entire period where canonically she was his widow, that'd have given her additional time - significant time - to have had subsequent pregnancies and living children. I think she still would have had troubles and still had stillborn children as well, but she may have had one or two more living children - and any daughters would not have had to outlive her parents before she could get married.
I would like to believe a lot of Katherine's fertility issues came from the fact she was under such duress in her early life (being essentially held captive by her inlaws while they tried to figure out what to do with her when Arthur died). If those circumstances were removed, and if her marriage to Arthur proved to be a happy one, I think she could have mothered multiple heirs. I'd still think her first would be a girl, but then followed by two younger brothers, so : 👸🤴🤴.
I also like to believe that Katherine would have been just as passionate about the education of her daughter in this timeline as she was in the actual history. That daughter might have ended up being diplomatically important in more ways than just who she ended up providing with children one day... Perhaps another "warrior queen"?
The "what-ifs" of history are absolutely fascinating. Especially when it comes to the Tudors.
Yes, those horrendous living conditions after Arthurs death came to mind for me too. And she was no pushover, she would definitely have insisted, that all her children regardless of gender be equally and well educated. And she would probably have had a ally in that in her mother-in-law, since handwriting analysis now have made a plausible case, that Elizabeth herself taught at least Henry to write, even if she might not have had the same leeway with the heir as with the spare. And both Margaret and Mary seem to have been quite formidable themselves, which they could not have become without a strong female rolemodel, most likely their mother, a good education and a father, who allowed, perhaps even encouraged, both.
Ive always been struck by how strong the Tudor women (by birth or by marriage) were, even by todays standards.
she delivered 5 children. fertility wasn't an issue.
The issue was stillbirth and child mortality.
So interesting! I’ve always thought that if Arthur had lived, the split from Rome would not have occurred, at least not at that time and not in that way. Thank you Dr. Cat!
The Reformation most likely would not have happened.
What I love about female historians is that I’m always left with more questions than answers! There’s so many ‘what if’s which is exactly what I think after I find out new things. Big love for this channel!
Great video! I like to imagine he would have taken after his frugal father and compassionate mother and kept the country out of war. His mother might still be alive, too, since she wouldn’t have felt the pressure to bear another son.
I also think his sister’s life would have turned out much differently. I don’t think Scotland would have gone to war with England and King James IV would have not died as early as he did.
That was fascinating. I can't help thinking that, even if Arthur had been King, his brother Prince Henry (Cardinal Tudor? Pope Somebody?) would have made his mark on English and European history anyway due to his strong personality. But who knows?
I think Catharine would have had better luck with having kids. Starting at a younger age and with having the spare brother would have helped. There would not be as much stress and desperation. One of the suspected reasons for her difficulties was her fasting way too much.
I love these thought experiments. You'd never think how much a relatively small thing like someone not dying or making a different decision could affect our world today. Please do more of these!
I found this video particularly fascinating! I was expecting something similar to the level of change created by Henry Fitzroy's survival (as you explored previously), but this got pretty wild! The only place I differ is that, if Catherine and Arthur had had trouble having children, I don't believe at all that Catherine would have agreed to step out of her marriage into holy orders. Even without the trauma of her widowed years, the humiliation of the "Great Matter"'s arguments, and the need to defend her daughter's rights... it really seems like there was a core of iron and pride in her that would have kept her where she was. She was Isabella and Ferdinand's daughter, after all.
I agree.
But she might very well have had no trouble having children with Arthur. There has been great speculation, given Henry's history with children, that the problem might have been with him, not her. Also, as Dr. Kat says, she wouldve been producing children at a much younger age. And I would add, that the years she lived as Arthurs widow were under quite bad conditions, both physically and mentally, and might also have affected her later childbearing.
That said, I agree, that Catherine would likely not have stepped aside for Arthur, any more than she stepped aside for Henry.
@@dfuher968 I agree- I think bad luck is the major or only reason Henry VIII only had 1 living male heir, & if Catherine had been married younger, I think there's a good chance she would've had more surviving children, & perhaps at least one surviving son. She had no trouble conceiving- she had 6 children in 9 years, & she had 2 healthy babies, it's just that the boy died later of illness.
Yes, I really can't see Catherine meekly giving up her place as Queen of England & retiring to a nunnery! Even if it was done "nicely", no way! And it's not just her- I really can't see her powerful family accepting it either, or the Pope giving Arthur a divorce/annullment... And from the little bit we know of Arthur, I find it hard to imagine him ditching her, particularly not when he had his brother to continue the dynasty.
Her daughter might have been a son though, so it wouldn’t have been an issue in the same way.
I was under the impression that Elizabeth and Henry tried for their last child in an attempt to provide another male heir because Arthur died unexpectedly. Perhaps she may not have died in childbirth because if Arthur survived, this last pregnancy may not have happened?
Why, oh, why did Arthur have to pass away before becoming king and producing heirs! I can not adequately express how much I enjoyed this thorough counterfactual history. Thank you for expounding upon not only Henry's Great Matter but all the other battles, border disputes, marriages, alliances, births, etc. I loved this!
🤴🤴👸👸👸🤴
Love this topic. One thing I always think about is what if Henry VIII was content to keep Mary as his heir and did not seek a divorce. What would the world have looked like? In both instances, I think the reformation either is delayed or non-existent and England does not become the large empire it doe sin our time.
OMG, so excited! This is my favourite what-if!... Or my least favourite, cos I'm so sad it didn't happen. Literally _anyone_ would've been better than Henry VIII, of course, but I did get some idea of what Arthur was like from a great bio by Sean Cunningham. He looked at Arthur's education & upbringing, & the plans you could see Henry VII making for him, & Arthur was very much stepping up & doing what was expected of him, taking it seriously & doing a good job, so I think it's reasonable to assume he would've been a LOT more like his father than his brother, & I think his father was an excellent king. Overall, Arthur sounds like the absolute opposite of Henry VIII, so the world was ROBBED. As were the people who loved him, of course- the story of Henry & Elizabeth hearing about his death breaks my heart.
Interesting take on alternative timelines. I thinks its highly likely that she and Arthur would have been a better match. If one looks at her family lineage, fertility was fairly evident with her own mother and siblings. One of things I had read about her union with Henry is that she got pregnant too frequently in the early years of her marriage, that it rendered her much weaker. So, with being with Arthur as his teenage bride there would have been less pressure in the early years of their marriage to have children.
I absolutely love these what if videos you do! So interesting to consider how much 1 thing forever alters history and the future!
I love a good bit of what-iftory! Thank you, Dr Kat! 💗🤴👸🤴👸👸
I love these processes. Few of the others, I like, are King Edward VI lived into his 20's, or Queen Mary's false pregnancy (the 1st one) was real. This is fun. I hope you do more.
Henry ruthlessly destroyed countless lives in pursuit of a son. The irony of his daughter Elizabeth having a wildly successful reign is just tragic.
I love this exploration of what may have been. Perhaps less tumultuous, perhaps more in different unknown ways. Anyway, I am, as my mother always called me, "The Queen Of What-Iffing" (both worrying and wondering) and this episode was right up my alley. What if Henry Tudor became pope !!?? Also, Dr. Kat, thank you for adding the important events and dates to the screen. Dates and numbers tend not to stick well in my memory, and that is very helpful. 🧒👧👧👧👦
It's fascinating to wonder how a life without Henry V111 & his children would have been.Would there have been rivalry with his brother Arthur as with our present day "spare"?? Another thought provoking video.Thank you Dr Kat
No one has ever explained counter-factual history so well ! Thank you🚀🌟
Thank you, this was genuinely fascinating. As a childless woman I believe that had Katherine of Aragon not bern so cruelly mistreated with presumably both her metal and physical health afffected even if not acknowledged, then this coupled with her attempts to become pregnant earlier in life would have meant she was able to produce more children than she subsequently did. The body and mind have a way of keeping account of hard times, sad times, and cruel times, and I fully believe that this has a way of affecting fertility, without taking into account the subsequent possibility of Henry VIII having a sexually transmitted disease which made conception and pregnancy by Katherine more difficult than it might. Had they had children, I'm sure they would have had many, but two of each remaining living would seem to be a happy outcome. ❤
ooh i am looking forward to your take on this, i've often thought of the what ifs and could've beens if arthur survived and stayed married to catherine
One of my favorite what ifs! Thanks for this!🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤
Absolutely fascinating detail. I think Arthur and Catherine would have been an excellent king and queen. How sad that Catherine arrived in England at the age of 16 years only to die of neglect when discarded by Henry.
You have the best topics.
I can just see "Spare" the blockbuster expose of 1510
This has been a fascinating conversation! 👶🧒👧👨🦰👩🦰👩🦰
Thanks! Missed you these past weeks during my African safari
Thank you, I hope you had a wonderful trip!
The incredible amount of research and knowledge that flows out of Dr Kat is truly astounding- this is perfection for an avid Tudor fan and novice alike
I’d love to see a further exploration of what Henry might have done in church. The thought of him as pope really tickled me. But you are right to raise ie. Why not. He was smart and ambitious and inventive. Why wouldn’t he have been. And what might he have done if he had made it to that position. What could he have affected. And in England, no destruction of all those monasteries….😱
One thing is for sure, he would probably not have issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis against his brother or daughter.....
Maybe would have been pro-English and anti-French.
Without his jousting injuries his character could have been very different to how he turned out.
As you explored each possible twist and turn based on Arthur living instead of succumbing to his illness, my jaw dropped lower and lower. The very existence of well-established countries and the shape of world power would have been radically different.
Fate is more powerful than the greatest of armies. Well done!
This is my second visit to this video. I really appreciate the possibilities you've raised.😮
This is a really marvelous "what if" and I never cease to be fascinated by the ramifications of changing one event in history and pondering how it ripples through time.
It's really mind boggling how one small event can change so many lives!
I love the videos where you're able to speculate with such a great understanding of the times and being able to use other historical references to back you up. This is a question ive often wondered for myself and constantly wonder if Catherine herself was wondering it too.
🥰 I loved this video. The what-if of Arthur surviving has always been fascinating to me. Thanks for the video!!
Isn't it interesting to think about how things might have been totally different if just one historical event had turned out differently? The potential impact on the colonialization of America really hit me (as an American) - wow! We could have been speaking Spanish over here instead of English! Thanks again for another thought-provoking video - I always look forward to them.👑👑👑
OMG, SAME. As someone with family traced back to the Mayflower - that was a very interesting personal thought! None of us would exist!
The simple sentence of “ugh, I really wish Arthur had lived” is relatively common for me. But you took that musing and RAN with it! 🏃♀️🏃🏃♂️ Thanks for all the great videos!
I love these what ifs and would be very happy if another one came out of your channel 😊
👦 Henry, prince of wales ( Future Henry VIII)
👧 Princess Elizabeth For both their mothers
👧 Princess Mary For the Virgin and both their sisters.
👦John, Duke of Richmond, For catherine's brother and John of gaunt.
👦Edward, Duke of Somerset. For Edward Iv and III.
I love that you chose names, AND titles for the younger princes! I've thought about names too, but I hadn't thought of "Elizabeth" for both their mothers, cos even tho it _is_ technically the English version of Isabel, the name "Isabel" was also used in England. I think it's a good idea though, & so is "Mary" for the Virgin Mary.... Anyway, my list:
👸Princess Isabel
🤴Arthur, Prince of Wales*
🤴Prince Henry
👸Princess Elizabeth
👸Princess Margaret*
🤴Prince Jasper*
*I think Henry VII was dedicated to the Arthurian symbolism, & Arthur would've continued it, but I do think Arthur would've named his 2nd son after his father.
*Henry VIII was very close to his sister Mary, but I've read that Arthur was closer to Margaret; & also for Margaret Beaufort, who did so much to get the Tudors on the throne.
*I like to think if Henry VII had had a 4th son, he would've named him after Jasper, for obvious reasons, but you're probably right- Arthur & Catherine would be more likely to choose John or Edward, with so many ancestors & relatives with those names, or maybe Edmund.
I just wanted to drop a note to say I LOVE your videos! Thank you. ❤
The What if's of Dr Kat witness her great creative and analytical intelligence. I'm in awe. What if Catherine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor would have also had the same issues to conceive and bear children?
It's possible that they may have. Blood theory isn't my area, but there is a theory that Henry VIII may have had a blood type that carried the rare Kell antigen.
A Kell negative woman who gets pregnant with a Kell positive man can have a healthy first child. However the antibodies she produces during the first pregnancy will attack any Kell positive fetuses in later pregnancies, leading to miscarriages or early infant death. Henry seems to have had no problem producing pregnancies but all of his women seem to have issues carrying multiple children to term.
This might explain why Katharine of Aragon swiftly conceived Henry's first son, who died as an infant, then had multiple miscarriages leading to only one surviving daughter.
Blood types run in families and it's possible Arthur may have also been Kell positive, if it's true that Henry was.
Thank you Dr Kat for such a thoroughly thought through counter factual history tutorial. You’ve given me so much to consider with the knock-on effect of each change. Thank you!
I adore your videos thank you so much for making them and putting in so much hard work❤
A fabulous video as always!
My answer to the question “What would you do if you could travel back in history?” has always been “Try to find a way to save Arthur.” This video hasn’t changed my mind, I think our history would have been far more harmonious, with much less bloodshed, had he survived. Especially if he and Catherine had produced an heir.
His death is literally the event I say is the most pivotal point in history. We literally shifted to the bad timeline when he died
Interesting, why do you think so?
@corrinewager3776 two words- his brother 😅
Its 1 of those event, that makes u say "if only I had a timemachine". Then again, as this thought experiment shows, there would need to be a lot more consideration of all the other events changed by this 1 premature death. If we had that timemachine and went back, snuck in and gave Arthur antibiotics or whatever, so he survived, we would definitely come back to a completely changed world. But it might also have caused later horrific events, we could not predict. The further back we go, the more widespread the effect of changes of todays world would be.
Hell, even if we had a timemachine and went back to smother Baby Hitler in his crib, that might lead to huge changes, good AND bad.
Really enjoyed this one!
Honestly, the What-Ifs of history fascinate me. Love them! It's always fun to do a little waltzing through history, to see how moving one piece on the board, changes the entire scene. What the Butterfly effect is, if you will, of letting one seemingly small thing change. In this case, a teenager doesn't die of sickness shortly after his marriage and lives to be as old as some of his other siblings managed. That one thing changes, and how it spirals from there, all the way to possibly no Mayflower, no UK, and no break from the Catholic Church.
Brilliant ideas. You've covered all bases!
I am fascinated by the idea of 'this small change' with one single person has an effect on the literal history of the world.
I totally agree with everyone else who have said that they really love when you do these types of historical deep dives into "what if." This is my cup of tea, and oh my goodness how different the world would be. I think all of North America would still be English. Would England weathered the Martin Luther craze and remained staunchly Catholic...maybe. So fun!!! Please do more of these types in the future. You are so brilliant and talented! Thank you! ❤
I think Luther wasn't that much of a craze in England. On him, Henry and the Pope agreed 100%. Neither of them liked Luther. Even after splitting with Rome, Henry still didn't like Luther. The craze was a Calvin craze. After Henry's death, a lot of the reformers were inspired by Calvinism and somewhat by Scottish Presbyterianism (e.g. Puritans), not as much by Luther. At the time, there was a triangle: Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism. Lutherans and Calvinists could be just as suspicious of one another as they were towards the Catholics. Just because they didn't like the Pope didn't mean they liked one another and the word "popery" was thrown around as an accusation, not just against Catholics.
Brilliant! I love all your vlogs ❤ Such clarity and so easy to follow history. Thank you so much 🙏
Rachael from Hever, Kent
I am loving these counter-factual videos you are doing. Would love LOVE love to hear one if Ann Boleyn had lived…either if she escaped the block and retired to a nunnery…or…if she was able to bear King Henry a son and remained his wife. I end my day with one of your videos…really love the format and how you are presenting information!❤
Thank you for all of your wonderful research.
I really appreciate following you down this rabbit hole! From the little I know of Arthur, his character was very different from that of Henry. I don't believe he was the braggart and in-your-face competitor that was Henry. Having been raised as the heir, he understood what it meant to rule and, I suspect, he would have cared for his people - something that was foreign to Henry. Though the thought of a Catholic England is unsettling for me (I'm in Canada, and we would likely now not exist), as you mentioned, the Reformation was on the move and would likely have arrived in England at some point. This is a very interesting exercise, and I appreciate being brought along to consider 'what might have been.'
Fantastic , very interesting , I agree with you things certainly would be different! ❤
Love this Dr. Kat!! What an interesting, thought provoking concept! It would be interesting to do one of these with the what if Anne Boleyn’s baby had been a boy
Loved this thought exercise!! Enjoy your work!!
That was probably the most interesting counter-factual topic you've presented thus far. By the end, I didn't exist, because my ancestors fled England shortly after The Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. I also had an ancestor at Jamestown. Poor Arthur. He had to die! I feel bad, because he was well prepared to be King.
I had an ancestor on the Mayflower so that was definitely a Whoa! moment for me that I'd never considered.
I love your content, but also your voice is so soothing!
I've always found this to be so remarkable. It's incredible how one person's death literally changed the course of history.
Oooh, have you done an episode about what might have happened if William 1 had failed to take over?
Love these counter factual videos
Dr Kat does them so well
Please make this a series!!! I’m in love with your historic speculation!
Fascinating premise, and I agree that the world and England in particular would have been a very different place had historical events turned out thusly. Thanks yet again for a splendid video.
I really enjoyed this video. It really made me think. Thank you.
PS: Did share this channel with some friends in a Discord group. They are loving it!
❤❤❤❤❤ great content. The "what ifs" are always fun.
What an insightful analysis of “what if”, Dr Kat! It’s very possible the spread of the English language and the English dominance in America may not have been what it is if Arthur had lived to become king.
Very interesting and informative video. I think you bring up many great points.
What a fabulous video?! I thibk it’s my favorite so far. More speculative-retrospective-butterfly-effect- counter factual histories please?!
Such a fun game to play a bit like pick your own adventure with the additional benefit that it challenges you to consider motivations, psychologies, all of it from fresh and multiple angles! Thank you!
What a fascinating explanation of alternate history! I loved it!
I love these discussions about “what if?“. I have one for you. What is Anne Boleyn’s first child had been a boy and had survived? Give that one to go Dr. Kat! Would she had cut off Cromwell’s head now that she was done with him? Would Henry have still wanted to get rid of her now that he had his boy or would the marriage have held together? And what of Elizabeth? Would she have been dutifully married into some foreign nation? That is a “What if?” worthy of your consideration!
Dr. Kat's analysis are always amazingly well thought out and presented. The scenario epitomizes the idea of a butterfly effect.
Thanks for this video. Very insightful.
This was an absolute delight. All through the years I've heard stories of Henry VIII and all of them have fed my dislike of the guy. I never had knowledge of the cast of characters that you have so I could never begin to put a good story together. I really loved hearing what might have happened. I think it would have been great. edit: I don't know that he'd have been a great Pope. I hope there'd have been better candidates than him.
I find it interesting to look at the many things that one event has the potential to effect.
I think Catherine's pregnancies would have been more successful as she may not have had the same high levels of stress and anxiety as she did when married to Henry. His constant wandering and his apparent clinical hunger for constant praise and validation would have been exhausting on top of that. I do still believe that Scotland would have eventually been annexed to another kingdom, whether by France or England or by whose domination I couldn't say
This is definitely my favorite what-if video ❤
It's amazing to think how different the world would have been had it Arthur survived
Thank you for your tip for attending the joust at Hampton Court! I’ll miss it because I went last Thursday, BUT I went also to Hever Castle yesterday, and there was…jousting! It was super fun, and I loved all of it!
Plus, I promoted your channel to anyone that would listen!
Another insightful and thought provoking video. Im so thankful to have found you during the pandemic and one day will make it to England (I'm in US) to see all those wonderful places!
It's interesting to think of Catherine and Arthur's potential children. I read an article (at least a decade ago, so I couldn't find it) that proposed that Henry might have had a different rh blood type to Catherine and Anne (and possibly Jane), thus making their pregnancies much more difficult. Given that Margaret and Mary both had multiple children, it's possible that Henry was the only one with the rh incompatibility. I think you may be right that Catherine and Arthur could have had multiple children, and would have at least had three or four (provided that Catherine could sustain a healthy pregnancy). They likely would have wanted an heir and spare of their own, and at least one girl for alliance purposes -- Catherine and her sisters showed how important alliances could be, so they would have probably seen the wisdom in it. Not to mention, two boys in a row isn't always a sureity, though it might have happened. Great video, as always, Dr. Kat!
I love counterfactual history, even better if it's the Tudors! Fascinating video.
I love it when you take on your Doc Brown (back to the future) persona 😉 I'll be your Marty McFly any time.
You really out did yourself with this one!
I wonder if Elizabeth of York would’ve even attempted to have an another child if Arthur hadn’t died. She may have lived for a few more years if they weren’t trying to replace their heir. Henry VII may have lasted even longer as King as well because her death caused a sharp decline in his health too.
This lecture has blown my mind. I’ve always thought of Henry the eighth turning way from the Catholic Church is what was the pedal move for England. Now I’m rethinking this and thinking how your father hadn’t died they would’ve remained Catholic in the country would be so different in so many ways. Thank you for the most enlightening talk.
I think that your analysis is spot on. I also think, given that they were so devout, Arthur and Catherine would have had many children living to adulthood. 🤴🏻🤴🏻👸👸🤴
Very thoughtful insights on this interesting "what if" scenario! I agree that England likely would have remained Catholic longer, and with the transition to Protestant faith being smoother and more aligned to the rest of Europe. But very curious to think that England and Scotland would not likely have been united!
Thanks!
😍😍😍
✨This was one of my favorites of your counter-factual history. Really enjoyed the conjecture of what would have become of King Arthur and Queen Catherine.
And the speculation of Henry's ecclesiastical journey was quite interesting. However, I do wonder if Arthur would have suffered from the same issues that Henry had since we now believe it was his seed that was responsible for the defects and still births.
Anyway...loved it Dr. Kat!
I love your videos. This one was very interesting and lots of fun. Please make more like it.
Thank you for a thoughtful scenario
First time I have seen work. Thanks
Im loving this "what if" history !♥️
I have been waiting for someone to make this video for YEARS.
Most of the time significant issues conceiving is a result of fertility issues in both partners. Often these people could (and do) have children successfully with other partners. The fact that Henry had some but not a great many conceptions with other women supports that theory (although given his age its not bulletproof.)