WI: Henry VIII, instead of breaking with Rome, has Catherine of Aragon executed

[Fabius Maximus]

Henry's already notorious for executing two out of his six wives (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard). Let's say he also decides to execute Catherine of Aragon when she refuses to go along with his anullment. Maybe Catherine expresses her frustrations with the whole anullment idea to Eustace Chapuys too unguardedly, and her words get twisted into an accusation of treason, or maybe Henry becomes convinced that she's committing adultery. Either way, Catherine gets her head chopped off.

How would this affect Henry's position going forward? On the one hand, with Catherine dead rather than simply dismissed, any subsequent marriage Henry contracts would be unimpeachably legitimate in canonical terms, so he wouldn't have to worry about people calling his future son (if he has one) a bastard. Butterflying away the English Reformation would also remove a lot of religion-related headaches for Henry and his successors. On the other hand, executing Catherine would go down very badly with Charles V, although Charles has a lot on plate and probably wouldn't be able to take any meaningful action against Henry.

 

[alexmilman]

Henry's already notorious for executing two out of his six wives (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard). Let's say he also decides to execute Catherine of Aragon when she refuses to go along with his anullment. Maybe Catherine expresses her frustrations with the whole anullment idea to Eustace Chapuys too unguardedly, and her words get twisted into an accusation of treason, or maybe Henry becomes convinced that she's committing adultery. Either way, Catherine gets her head chopped off.

How would this affect Henry's position going forward? On the one hand, with Catherine dead rather than simply dismissed, any subsequent marriage Henry contracts would be unimpeachably legitimate in canonical terms, so he wouldn't have to worry about people calling his future son (if he has one) a bastard. Butterflying away the English Reformation would also remove a lot of religion-related headaches for Henry and his successors. On the other hand, executing Catherine would go down very badly with Charles V, although Charles has a lot on plate and probably wouldn't be able to take any meaningful action against Henry.

Executing a close relative of a most powerful ruler of Europe would not be the best idea but she could die from the unfortunate accident.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Executing a close relative of a most powerful ruler of Europe would not be the best idea but she could die from the unfortunate accident.

Do you mean an unfortunate accident, or an "unfortunate accident"?

 

[Tudorfan]

The thing is, Henry technically could execute Catherine - as his wife, she's his subject. If he chose to take her head off for disobeying him, he legally could. She would have promised to "honour and obey" at her wedding vows and she's broken both of them; she's not honouring him by refusing to grant him his divorce and she's not obeying him by defying him over the divorce.

 

[Gabingston]

Do you mean an unfortunate accident, or an "unfortunate accident"?

Or he could slip a little something into her drink, and I'm not talking about pulling a Bill Cosby/Rick Ross.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

The thing is, Henry technically could execute Catherine - as his wife, she's his subject. If he chose to take her head off for disobeying him, he legally could. She would have promised to "honour and obey" at her wedding vows and she's broken both of them; she's not honouring him by refusing to grant him his divorce and she's not obeying him by defying him over the divorce.

He absolutely could, but she's also still a Spanish princess and aunt to the emperor. Executing Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard is one thing: they were nonentities rose up by the king, but Catherine would be a completely different precedent. Her wedding vows have nothing to do with the law of the land, and Henry VIII can't just knock off her head willy-nilly because she's refusing to divorce him so he can remarry. Per the Treason Act, adultery is one main thing that can get a queen in hot water (given it could impugn the royal succession) and plotting Henry VIII's death. Some of the charges levied against Anne Boleyn, such as incest were mainly meant to attack her moral character. And let's be real: no one in England c. 1529 is going to believe that Catherine of Aragon has committed adultery with anyone, and few would probably believe that the woman who's desperately trying to stay married to him is at the same time plotting to kill him.

Henry VIII would have to go through the process of trumping up evidence against Catherine, and even then she'd be subject to a trial before a jury of peers. Henry VIII may not get the answers that he's looking for: it's worth remembering that the English Reformation gave the crown all sorts of powers that it had never held previously, and allowed Henry VIII to pass a number of laws through Parliament that made his authority greater than any other king before him.

His only other option would be to press Parliament to pass a Bill of Attainder against her, which would allow her to be dealt with without the difficulties of a possibly public trial, but again, he'd have to trump up some evidence to have her convicted of it. It's also the slippery slope of passing judgement upon a foreign princess (even if she's become a subject of the king via marriage). I can't imagine any king or queen being comfortable marrying any of their children into England after this.

In the late 17th century, Anna Maria Franziska of Saxe-Lauenburg refused to travel to Florence with her husband because she believed the Medici had a habit of murdering their consorts. I could imagine the House of Tudor developing a similar reputation.

 

[Karl der Große]

Dude what. Great way to get himself overthrown. The nobles may be English, but Spanish money goes a lot farther when the king is a murderous lunatic too.

 

[alexmilman]

Do you mean an unfortunate accident, or an "unfortunate accident"?

Not all unfortunate accidents are products of a direct Divine Interference. Sometimes people also have something to do with them. The quoted variety would be dangerously close to the execution with all unpleasant consequences. But, say, slipping on the stairs would be unquoted version and, with the medicine being what it was, the result can be tragic while being quite natural.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Per the Treason Act, adultery is one main thing that can get a queen in hot water (given it could impugn the royal succession) and plotting Henry VIII's death. Some of the charges levied against Anne Boleyn, such as incest were mainly meant to attack her moral character. And let's be real: no one in England c. 1529 is going to believe that Catherine of Aragon has committed adultery with anyone, and few would probably believe that the woman who's desperately trying to stay married to him is at the same time plotting to kill him.

that's not the only way he can get her done for treason. We know that Kat was in correspondence with Karl V almost constantly. Wouldn't be difficult for a "suspect" letter- say, inviting the emperor to invade England [1]- to be slipped in. And produced as "evidence".

Katherine can twist and turn all she wants, but if she's fingered as having invited an invading army, I doubt the crowds are gonna be on her side. The only "argument" she can make is to point at her treatment when James IV invaded. But everyone knows her preference for her nephew over her brother-in-law. The jury will side against her- the same way as they did with Anne Boleyn- not because they believe the evidence but to deny it looks like they are in favour of the emperor invading.

[1] IIRC, Henry was paranoid about this OTL, not sure if Katherine or Karl actually would go so far as this, but such a letter being discovered would kick his paranoia into overdrive. The invite doesn't even have to be clear, it can be- as was done at the trial of Fisher/More- posed as a vague hypothetical about "if" they were to invade.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Henry VIII would have to go through the process of trumping up evidence against Catherine, and even then she'd be subject to a trial before a jury of peers. Henry VIII may not get the answers that he's looking for: it's worth remembering that the English Reformation gave the crown all sorts of powers that it had never held previously, and allowed Henry VIII to pass a number of laws through Parliament that made his authority greater than any other king before him.

If Henry can force the country to accept an entirely new religion, he can have his wife executed. The big obstacle to doing so would be the prospect of becoming an international pariah rather than domestic opposition.

Not all unfortunate accidents are products of a direct Divine Interference. Sometimes people also have something to do with them. The quoted variety would be dangerously close to the execution with all unpleasant consequences. But, say, slipping on the stairs would be unquoted version and, with the medicine being what it was, the result can be tragic while being quite natural.

The quoted variety wouldn't necessarily have unpleasant consequences, if Henry can maintain plausible deniability. Heck, he was accused of poisoning Catherine IOTL (her heart was found to be black and shrivelled after death, although that was more likely cancer than poison) and didn't suffer any noticeable bad consequences.

that's not the only way he can get her done for treason. We know that Kat was in correspondence with Karl V almost constantly. Wouldn't be difficult for a "suspect" letter- say, inviting the emperor to invade England [1]- to be slipped in. And produced as "evidence".

Or even a genuine letter -- something along the lines of "Are you going to just abandon me here? Please intervene and put a stop to this nightmare" could easily be spun as a call for invasion, particularly if Henry is already disposed to be paranoid.

 

[Avrorrange]

Executing a close relative of a most powerful ruler of Europe would not be the best idea but she could die from the unfortunate accident.

What more would Charles do than what he did from OTL? He left Catherine and Mary dry. He barely had enough resources to fight the French and deal with his German vassals. I do think that people would be unwilling to marry their relatives to Henry after what he did however.

 

[isabella]

Well, Henry in OTL cared little for political matches (only one of his six marriages was political and ended quickly in an annulment) so he would still not care for the abroad consequences of such choice, but you need to remember who Henry OTL was always sure to be in the right. Still I doubt he would go so far to execute Catherine for treason when existed ways more effective and quick for eliminating her, like arranging an accident or poisoning her

What more would Charles do than what he did from OTL? He left Catherine and Mary dry. He barely had enough resources to fight the French and deal with his German vassals. I do think that people would be unwilling to marry their relatives to Henry after what he did however.

Anything more would be extremely counterproductive (and his support to Catherine was quite strong, ending only with her death as Mary was Henry‘s own daughter and subject meaning who he could not and would not be able to do anything for her)

 

[Karl der Große]

If Henry can force the country to accept an entirely new religion, he can have his wife executed. The big obstacle to doing so would be the prospect of becoming an international pariah rather than domestic opposition.

The quoted variety wouldn't necessarily have unpleasant consequences, if Henry can maintain plausible deniability. Heck, he was accused of poisoning Catherine IOTL (her heart was found to be black and shrivelled after death, although that was more likely cancer than poison) and didn't suffer any noticeable bad consequences.

Or even a genuine letter -- something along the lines of "Are you going to just abandon me here? Please intervene and put a stop to this nightmare" could easily be spun as a call for invasion, particularly if Henry is already disposed to be paranoid.

He didn't force the country to accept an entirely new religion. It was exactly the same religion, just with the king at its head instead of the pope. It also took like a hundred years to fully dispose of Catholicism.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

He didn't force the country to accept an entirely new religion. It was exactly the same religion, just with the king at its head instead of the pope. It also took like a hundred years to fully dispose of Catholicism.

That's not really true, though. The new Church of England went through quite a few back-and-forth changes during Henry's reign, as reformist or conservative factions gained Henry's ear, and there are contemporary examples (e.g., in the petitions made by the Pilgrimage of Grace) of people noticing and complaining about all the changes being made. Henry's reforms didn't go as far as Edward's did, but they certainly weren't just an administrative matter with no bearing on the lived experience of the ordinary man in the pew.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

If Henry can force the country to accept an entirely new religion, he can have his wife executed. The big obstacle to doing so would be the prospect of becoming an international pariah rather than domestic opposition.

Having thought about this a bit more, the two closest OTL parallels I can think of are (1) Elizabeth's execution of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587, and (2) the English Parliament executing Charles I in 1649. In both cases there was a big outcry, but I don't think Elizabeth or the English Commonwealth suffered any practical consequences -- neither had noticeable difficulty finding foreign allies after the executions, for example. So whilst Henry executing Catherine would no doubt anger Charles V, and perhaps the next generation of Hapsburgs as well, I don't think relations with other European monarchs would be all that affected.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Well, Henry in OTL cared little for political matches (only one of his six marriages was political and ended quickly in an annulment) so he would still not care for the abroad consequences of such choice, but you need to remember who Henry OTL was always sure to be in the right. Still I doubt he would go so far to execute Catherine for treason when existed ways more effective and quick for eliminating her, like arranging an accident or poisoning her

Having her murdered would be the most rational (if ruthless) method. OTOH, Henry was (I would argue) a narcissist who wanted validation from everybody else, and quietly bumping off Catherine wouldn't give him that.

 

[isabella]

Having her murdered would be the most rational (if ruthless) method. OTOH, Henry was (I would argue) a narcissist who wanted validation from everybody else, and quietly bumping off Catherine wouldn't give him that.

Reason for which he wanted the annulment OTL. Catherine was a foreigner and a popular Queen and getting a treason case against her would not be so easy. If Henry decided who the best/only way for be freed from Cat heroine is her death then he would go for the quicker option of a “natural” death

 

[jacob ningen]

Having her murdered would be the most rational (if ruthless) method. OTOH, Henry was (I would argue) a narcissist who wanted validation from everybody else, and quietly bumping off Catherine wouldn't give him that.

nor would it help him and Woolsey accelerate their land reform

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Reason for which he wanted the annulment OTL. Catherine was a foreigner and a popular Queen and getting a treason case against her would not be so easy. If Henry decided who the best/only way for be freed from Cat heroine is her death then he would go for the quicker option of a “natural” death

That's why he wanted the anullment, yes, but I don't think it's impossible that he would instead seek validation by having her executed for treason, essentially portraying her as evil and forcing everyone else to go along.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

that's not the only way he can get her done for treason. We know that Kat was in correspondence with Karl V almost constantly. Wouldn't be difficult for a "suspect" letter- say, inviting the emperor to invade England [1]- to be slipped in. And produced as "evidence".

Katherine can twist and turn all she wants, but if she's fingered as having invited an invading army, I doubt the crowds are gonna be on her side. The only "argument" she can make is to point at her treatment when James IV invaded. But everyone knows her preference for her nephew over her brother-in-law. The jury will side against her- the same way as they did with Anne Boleyn- not because they believe the evidence but to deny it looks like they are in favour of the emperor invading.

[1] IIRC, Henry was paranoid about this OTL, not sure if Katherine or Karl actually would go so far as this, but such a letter being discovered would kick his paranoia into overdrive. The invite doesn't even have to be clear, it can be- as was done at the trial of Fisher/More- posed as a vague hypothetical about "if" they were to invade.

That essentially falls under plotting the king's death, as mentioned. Inviting any military force into England would be absolutely drastic: I can't imagine Catherine going that far, at all. This is the man she wanted to stay married too and was delusional enough to think that she could stop this divorce from happening. Inviting the emperor to bring an army into England isn't going to keep their marriage together.

There's nothing stopping Henry VIII from conjuring up whatever evidence he needs to get rid of Catherine, but it's an absolutely slippery slope to dispose of a foreign consort in that way. Even when queens were actually found guilty of adultery for instance, it was often more easier to shut them away than execute them.

IMO, the way he dealt with her IOTL was probably the best way she could've been dealt with. It wasn't pretty, but following her death Henry VIII and Charles were able to resume somewhat normal relations. I suppose the second best tack would be him conjuring up evidence of her inviting the emperor into England to threaten her into retiring into religious life. But of course, she was absolutely adamant that she wouldn't go IOTL, and her great faith means that she likely might accept death with grace as a martyr. But if she could be threatened with execution and make the decision to go, it would make everyone's lives easier. Bonus points that Henry VIII doesn't get blood on his hands from executing her or having her poisoned or whatever.