Arthur Tudor, the King Who Never Was - A Glimpse into England’s Lost Monarch

What if history took a different turn? Join me as we dive into the life of Arthur Tudor, the Prince of Wales who was destined to be king, but whose untimely death altered the course of history. We'll explore his upbringing, his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and the intriguing "what-ifs" that could have changed England forever. Was he the king that never was, or the legend that could have been?
Discover the secrets of the Tudor dynasty and imagine a world where Arthur Tudor ruled! Don't miss this deep dive into history's greatest "what if"!
Link to my video on Catherine and Arthur and the question of consummation - • Did Catherine of Arago...
#TudorHistory #ArthurTudor #WhatIf #BritishMonarchy #alternatehistory

[@kiernan415]

Prince Arthur being buried alone (without his family) at Worcester always seemed especially tragic to me. As everyone here is likely aware, his grandfather, Henry VII built the Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey and had himself, his wife and mother laid to rest there, along with other close family members so the act of excluding him seems quite intentional. The powers that be must've advised against it as they thought it best at the time that his body be kept out of London so the memory of him be forgotten sooner by the people. I suppose there were many good reasons for it, but that seems to be where his near erasure from history began. So sad. 😥

[@JaneEasterbrook-bn3ux]

Perhaps they worried over infection from his corpse as we don't know what he died of.

[@anneboleynfiles]

Yes, it does seem sad, but it was certainly the practical thing to do with disease being rife.

[@Kenzalina_]

@@anneboleynfilesI have never thought about the fact, that Prince Arthur’s upbringing would’ve absolutely been by design. Due to what happened to his Uncles in the Tower. It also explains why Henry was kept in Mothers household along with his sisters. Which was fairly late for a boy to still be in the world of women, at ten years old. Thank you for that. I love when one bit of information from a different perspective, can change your broader understanding. That was a light bulb moment for me.

[@travislong2810]

I agree but this very act also makes him more memorable just in a sad way

[@pbohearn]

What was so representative and so infuriating about Henry’s treatment of his wife of 25 years, cast off to a distant and cold Palace is that he continued to send his laundry to her which she happily mended his clothes and sent them back. Still wanting to be his wife. So cruel to her and to his eldest daughter, Mary,whom he had called his “Pearl of the world.” Then cast her as a bastard, as illegitimate, as no longer a princess. His sadism towards these women is breathtaking.😮

[@anneboleynfiles]

I think he genuinely considered her as disobedient and defiant, after all, he was the king, God's anointed sovereign, so I think he could justify his actions to himself. Horrible man.

[@JaneEasterbrook-bn3ux]

I visited Arthur's tomb and the church in Ludlow some years ago with my late husband. In Worcester Cathedral Arthur's tomb had fresh flowers and in the church at Worcester a memorial to him. The landlord in a Ludlow pub told Giles and I alot of Arthur. He's not forgotten!

[@anneboleynfiles]

That's so lovely to hear!

[@Sattva468]

I’m so glad you are covering Prince Arthur!

[@johnwhitehead4446]

A very well researched and argued case. Arthur was a tragic loss for his family and for his country

[@tomking3166]

It is funny to think how close we were to having an actual King Arthur

[@octavianpopescu4776]

It's odd that you didn't. I mean, Arthur is a pretty common name and it has connections to the idea of kingship. Meanwhile, you had a 8 Henrys and 8 Edwards, not to mention all the Anglo-Saxon kings whose weird names start with "Ae".

[@tomking3166]

@@octavianpopescu4776 It is strange. Surely an easy way to go 'this guy will be a good king' is to name him after the most famous mythical king. And, as you say, Arthur's been a popular name throughout history, so it wouldn't seem out of place.

[@eveywrens]

There is so much interest and focus on Henry VIII. I appreciate learning more about his older brother Prince Arthur. You had mentioned that Arthur had little contact with his father Henry VII. Would this have changed at some point if Arthur survived (e.g., he would eventually go to court)? And the course of Arthur's reign, if he survived, would have been different depending on whether/when he finally consummated his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, and whether she had living children. It would be interesting to create an if-then flow chart to examine the possible outcomes. Thanks so much, Claire. Cheers!

[@anneboleynfiles]

I think he probably would have remained at Ludlow governing there, but perhaps have come to court for things like Christmas.

[@ardiffley-zipkin9539]

Arthur might have lives a life similar to his father, remaining with Catherine in their marriage. Catherine would then have spent her younger years as a wife and mother. As Arthur’s death at a young age and a protracted time in widowhood before Henry married her to retain her Spanish Dowry, Catherine became less fertile with age. This unfortunate gap set up the next stage of drama. Marriage to Henry, some miscarriages and the birth of Princess Mary. It all seems predestined in a sad way.

[@thehistory_student]

Wouldn’t it be fascinating to know what kind of ruler Arthur could have been? Henry’s reign was so turbulent and he treated Katherine of Aragon so badly in the end, totally disregarding her loyalty to him. I wonder if Arthur would have been a better husband. He sounds somewhat more soft natured than Henry. Who knows…🤔

[@pbohearn]

What was so representative and so infuriating about Henry’s treatment of his wife of 25 years, cast off to a distant and cold Palace is that he continued to send his laundry to her which she happily mended his clothes and sent them back. Still wanting to be his wife. So cruel to her and to his eldest daughter, Mary,whom he had called his “Pearl of the world.” Then cast her as a bastard, as illegitimate, as no longer a princess. His sadism towards these women is breathtaking.😮

[@anneboleynfiles]

Arthur definitely had the beginnings of a reasonable husband and king, so I think Catherine would have been far better off with him.

[@juttapopp1869]

​@@anneboleynfilesas would have England. If only...

[@lynnekern3998]

Completely riveting. I always enjoy your videos but this one had me hanging on your every word. The images of the wedding, Arthur's schooling, the what ifs. Very informative and entertaining. ❤️

[@anneboleynfiles]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you so much.

[@FreeSpirit47]

Love your videos. Often, I have wondered about how history would have been different if Arthur had lived. Thank you for this video.

[@anneboleynfiles]

My pleasure!

[@tonyalogan5095]

Thank you Claire!! I have often wondered how different Tudor history might have been if Arthur had lived. No Great Matter, No Anne Boleyn, no Anne of Cleve's, no Mary queen of Scots, no Elizabeth I❤, no Reformation or no Claire Ridgeway!!!!

[@RiseeRee]

I think there would still be Mary Queen of Scots, because Margaret Tudor still would have married James IV

[@wendychavez5348]

I'm sure Claire Ridgeway would still have existed, though she might have divided all her generous talents on wondering what might have happened if Prince Harry had been the one who ended up taking the throne after good King Arthur died with only female heirs after a long and prosperous reign ... or whatever....

[@anneboleynfiles]

Perhaps I'd be doing something different.

[@alancumming6407]

Many thanks Claire for this interesting and thought provoking broadcast. It is so difficult to imagine English history without the reign of Henry V111. As you said - just so many potential outcomes.

[@sueamos3860]

Very interesting thank you

[@idgriffin56]

Loved this

[@charlottebruce979]

Thank you so much for this Claire, you are by far the best historian that I watch, you are always well researched, impartial and lay the facts before us in such a clear and concise way, you are impeccable, thank you I'm learning so much.

[@anneboleynfiles]

Thank you so much for your kind words.

[@cindyrobinson3077]

How sad ... We will all wonder how things may have been different had he not got sick. ..., sounds like it would have been very regal

[@starlightglazer9181]

Thank you for ALL your wonderful videos!!

[@anneboleynfiles]

Thank you!

[@joanndallas4683]

Well done!

[@attilathehen1555]

I most often listen to you while cleaning, cooking or doing crafts. Today I listened while mixing a batch of muesli and then hanging clothes to dry.

[@pbohearn]

The Elizabethan age would’ve been the Arthurian age. But what would have become of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard? Probably love and long life!

[@anneboleynfiles]

Yes, I expect they would have married courtiers and had a far happier life.

[@Bildgesmythe]

You can't discount the modern gifts that Queen Elizabeth the first bequeathed England. She was progressive for her time.

[@junipercats2472]

I think Henry would have been a military leader and still earned the title Defender of the Faith when the Reformation took place. Perhaps he would have been instrumental in helping his sister Mary when she married without permission and protected her from their elder brother's wrath or he would have been the one to escort her and maybe that would have turned out differently. Then I think of his behavior as he got older and I wonder if he would have tried to usurp the throne, especially if Arthur appeared to be incompetent or weak at that point or he could have been a cruel bodyguard (not cruel to his brother, but to those whom he thought were a threat).

[@anneboleynfiles]

Yes, perhaps Henry would have had a very different character.

[@EllaPlatten-f1c]

Yes! After our July members chat I hoped there would be an Arthur video incoming. Thanks Claire x

[@anneboleynfiles]

You're so welcome!

[@judithparker4608]

Thankyou...you answered your question...regardless, It happened in France and everywhere else,...so inevitable !

[@tessat338]

If Catherine and Arthur had not had any living sons, then they would have had less pressure to produce an heir or for Arthur to dissolve his marriage to Catherine if they couldn't, because there was still a spare, Henry. Henry would certainly have married someone else and probably produced other children, who also could have been married off at a younger age than his daughter, Mary, and had a chance to produce children of their own. Some sort of Reforming movement would still have arisen in England because it did in other countries independent of their monarchs. However, unless Arthur came under the influence of some Reform-minded mentor, the movement probably wouldn't have had royal support in Arthur and Henry's generation.

[@anneboleynfiles]

Yes, I think the pressure of providing a son and heir must have really affected Henry VIII's wives' health and fertility.

[@philcrawford7760]

Never too old to learn

[@ladyagnes7781]

I see your assessments as well researched and likely to have happened. Arthur was raised to be a compliment to his father & would have focused on stability rather than glory. Catherine of Aragon would have had 7( key) years of additional fertility. She also would not have lost the baby boy that she went into premature labor with because when Henry was out fighting in France she had to Rally an army for The Ballad of flooding to save his crown......& she prematurely delivered a son who died. The world woukd have been vetter.

[@aj.a1845]

Margaret Beaufort must have been the Mother in Law from hell.

[@animallover6645]

I think she was alright. Elizabeth and her got a long fine.

[@anneboleynfiles]

I can imagine her to be quite scary until you got to know her, and then she probably was very useful.

[@katherinecollins4685]

Enjoyed this

[@oliviah7115]

I always find it interesting to consider that if Arthur had lived, Elizabeth of York most likely would also have lived past 1503 as there would have been no intense pressure for her to have another son. I wonder how/if Arthur/Henry would use her advice giving she had been at the English Royal Court essentially since she was born, and would she take up a formidable 'My Lady the King's Mother'-esque role that Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort are known for?

[@philcrawford7760]

I like this stuff Claire is the best I like Anne boleyn so much too learn about English stuff

[@clarebirschel6951]

As a Scot, our history would also be so much different and likely all the suffering of the Jacobites/Culloden and the Stuart kings would not have happened... just shows you how everything is changed by one "small" incident...

[@miladyblue5077]

At some point, though it is not recorded, Katharine must have pointed out to Henry that even though Mary was "just a girl," it WAS possible for a woman to reign successfully in her own right, pointing out her own mother, Isabel, as a prime example. Henry probably didn't listen, but I think Arthur might have. Arthur would have carefully selected a bridegroom worthy of their daughter - presuming that Katharine had had only the one child who lived - and I bet he would even have figured out how to keep the Tudor name going. I was told - and someone from the Czech Republic is free to correct me - that in Czech noble families, if there are no sons to carry on the name/title, then the son or sons of one of the daughters of the family can receive the name/title so that the family line can continue. Being as there were ties to Bohemia (which is part of the modern Czech Republic), this tradition would have been known, and Arthur could have used it to continue the Tudor line. Younger children could have taken their father's family name, to keep the peace. From what is known of Arthur's character, education and upbringing, I think he would have done something like this.

[@Lyndell-P]

🇭🇲 This was wonderful, and very interesting! "Thank you" Claire

[@anneboleynfiles]

Thank you too!

[@allanvaillancourt5896]

The famous inquiry..did Arthur and Catherine consummate their marriage? Nobody will ever know

[@anneboleynfiles]

A question we all want clearing up!

[@judithparker4608]

With Mighty and Vast Empires....Strategic Holdings....rather than...Great Little Lands !

[@suellensheppard9734]

So sad😢

[@balthiersgirl2658]

A few strange things born early father barley botherd with him not buried with rest of family 🤔

[@theoldbear4213]

Is it known what regnal name they intended him to take, Arthur I or Arthur II? At that time, would they have taken the Historia Regnum Britania as real history, and considered the mythical king as Arthur I, or did they view their England as a seperate polity from the Britain of Arthurian Legend, and therefore the regnal number would start with Arthur Tudor? I don't recall seeing this addressed anywhere. If Charles III had chosen Arthur, another of his given names, I would assume he would have gone with Arthur I, as Arthurian Legend is now known to be myth, but back in the 1500s, they may have chosen otherwise...

[@Bildgesmythe]

England has so many Henry, Charles etc, why so few Arthur's?

[@carriepearcey2597]

Arthur would be more like his father and possibly more of his own person and hopefully more balanced. Henry was a "man child" and well known for his tantrums. King Arthur would have made a better king (hopefully not as paranoid as his father). Henry was a sociopath.

[@anneboleynfiles]

Yes, I think Arthur would have been far more conservative than Henry VIII.

[@racheloldridge4986]

I'm sure the break with Rome would still have happened eventually, just differently.

[@donaldbie8481]

Wasn't the portrait of Catherine,that of her sister Juana the mad?

[@anneboleynfiles]

No, but there is s similar one of Juana.

[@donaldbie8481]

@@anneboleynfilesokay so it could be either one

[@Bildgesmythe]

The world would have been less without Elizabeth the first!

[@Bildgesmythe]

Can you imagine not meeting your spouse before the wedding!?!?

[@judithparker4608]

Therefore....the Common Denominator...of Everywhere !

[@manuellubian5709]

Dear Miss Ridgeway: I've only in the last day or so stumbled across this particular video of yours. I did not know about it sooner. However being that as it may I, have some indirect subject questions to ask you as it relates to Anne Boleyn. I hope you don't mind and I hope you're not offended as, I've also posed the same set of questions to your colleague, Dr Owen Emerson, and am currently awaiting his redponse. I have a bit of a historical question for you. I happen to be a U.S teacher and was wondering about a possible rumor that is new to me. I'm curious to know your thoughts. Here are my questions: Have you heard of the name "JEAN ROMBEAU", as being the possible name / real identity of, Anne Boleyn's executioner? What's your opinion: Fact, Fiction, or purely Speculation? My follow-up question to that would be even if it is true how would his name have come down through the centuries? If I'm not mistaken from what I know of, world history..... people such as tanner's, dyers, gun powder makers and even executioners would have been people that literally lived on the fringes, or outskirts of town. The notion being the rest of the people IN THE town didn't want to be bothered or even associate with such people much less were ever interested in knowing their names. So, if that is the case that this "Jean Rombeau" is / was in fact THE executioner how did his name get leaked down through the centuries? Lastly I just have one bit of an aside comment. Do you think that Henry's reasoning for having a "French executioner from Calais" was intentional from a psychological standpoint? Since, she was raised in the court of Queen Maud and really and truly considered herself to be more 'French' than anything else ..... he knew and probably sensed that the best / cruelest injustice would be to have her killed by none other than, one of her own fellow kinsmen? Do you think that from a psychological standpoint him calling for a French executioner was meant to sort of, 'mess with her head' a bit B 4 she was executed ? Thank you for your consideration of the above and also for all of your good work that you put into each and every one of your videos.

[@anneboleynfiles]

I don't mind you asking a question at all. I've never found a name for the executioner in any of the records, and I'm afraid he's unknown. She spent a year with Margaret of Austria and then a few years at Queen Claude's court in France. It's hard to know how she felt about her nationality. She didn't leave England until she was about 12. She would have picked up French styles etc. but I'm not sure she would have thought herself French. I'm really not sure about Henry's choice of the swordsman. Perhaps he wanted to be seen as being more merciful.

[@suellensheppard9734]

Couldn’t they move Arthur now

[@anneboleynfiles]

There's really no need. He's in a beautiful cathedral.

[@gerrimilner9448]

the protestant movement, was well under progress (john watcliff), maybe Arthur would have bought a peaceful solution to differing beliefs without all the decades of burnings

[@JaneEasterbrook-bn3ux]

Is there any truth in Henry viii being groomed for the church before Arthur's death?

[@anneboleynfiles]

No, none whatsoever.

[@lhzook]

When Katherine made her journey to England, why couldn’t she just cut through France?

[@DulceN]

Because what was at the time the Kindom of France was an enemy of Aragon, ruled by Catalina’s father King Fernando II, and of England after the Hundred Year’s War (1337-1453).

[@jameshalley9763]

Because the trains were not invented yet. Can you imagine riding a coach thru hostile territory then!

[@judithparker4608]

History tells us how this land was dreaded...cold wet and boggy ?

[@anneboleynfiles]

Yes!

[@marymcmahan5603]

Well, a few women would have lived.

[@anneboleynfiles]

True!

[@here_we_go_again2571]

Arthur was a tragic loss for the Tudor family and the country! That said; it is too bad that Catherine of Aragon did not step-aside OR Marry-off Princess Mary at a young age to a second or third son; and raised both her and her husband in England. Henry needed a son and Catherine was, obviously, not capable of producing a healthy son (for whatever reasons; I suppose we will never know why) I also think that Henry and Catherine should have Maybe Henry should have gotten a bevy of young noble virgins (e.g. Bessie Blount) to pump out a few children; like an Old Testament patriarch. Could it have been any worse than it was without a male heir

[@animallover6645]

Why name him Arthur, no other king was named Arthur, and I hope most people knew he wasn't real.

[@eepmeep8550]

Medieval conceptions of history are a bit 'up there' and flow into native legends and biblical stories. So it's difficult to say if they 'knew' he wasn't 'real'. There was probably a famous British (not English! he would have fought against the English, who were the Saxons then!) war-leader called Arthur. Henry VII was pretty good at using native legends to his advantage, such as the Welsh Mab Darogan, the Son of Prophecy, to gain support. King Arthur was another Welsh legend that was also popular in Brittany and France, where he was in exile. The ideal of Arthur was hugely influential in Henry VII's time (and continued to be in Henry VIII's time) and incredibly popular with noble families whose support they relied on.

[@anneboleynfiles]

Henry VII seems to have been quite obsessed with the King Arthur legend and I think King Arthur was seen as very real.

[@purplepeace2188]

Henry surely would have known if Katherin was a virgin. A virgin usually bleeds after sex for the first time!!

[@anneboleynfiles]

He didn't realise Catherine Howard wasn't one! Not always, particularly when the woman has ridden horses a lot.