Aha good observation, it can be a fascinating adventure to try to imagine just how different England and the world might be had Arthur lived. The Church of England would not exist and we would all be good little Catholics, that is the stuff of nightmares, thank God I am an Atheist.

We still don't what the sweating sickness was.

@@LilySaintSin Thanks for that comment, I did not know that I always thought it was Typhoid. I was about to fire off a reply saying so but fortunately I checked first, always a good idea, once again thank you.

@@LilySaintSin The remarkable thing about the sweating sickness is that disproportionately struck young people who were well-nourished and healthy. Personally, I think that the sweating sickness was a disease that came to England with the troops Henry Tudor brought from France to defeat Richard III. I think that the sweating sickness was a hantavirus.

Would he be King Arthur I or King Arthur II?

Catherine of Aragon's fertility problems were probably not due to Henry VIII's DNA but due to infection. I know some documentaries say she had false pregnancy fallowing stillbirth of her first child, but at the time she wouldn't be that desperate as to have one(it was just after her 1st pregnancy after all). Infection is more likely what caused her belly to be swollen. My friend said it was swollen for at least 6 weeks, but actually letter from May informing her dad of her next pregnancy says she had huge belly already-yet at the time she'd be probably less than 2 months along. Unless it was baby-weight, she had infection in her for months. Inside her belly. That would have horrible implications for any pregnancy that fallowed.

Henry VIII was a mass murderer.

I consider the CATHOLIC CHURCH THE BIGGEST SERIAL MURDERER OF ALL TIME. Henry was not in the same LEAGUE AS CATHOLICISM OR ANY POPE IN HISTORY.

Catherine of Aragon would probably delivered many healthy babies between the age of 16 and 25, the time when she, as a widow, was waiting for the opportunity to marry Henry VIII. By starting her child-bearing years in her teens instead of her mid-twenties, she may have lost her best chance of delivering a male heir. Another alternate history question is to ponder what if Catherine had also succumbed to the disease that killed Arthur. With no Catherine of Aragon waiting in the wings, what princess would Henry VIII as his bride? Would he have maintained a Spanish alliance or would he have looked to France or the Holy Roman empire for a wife?

@@Orphen42O Catherine's age was never the main factor. Infection that made her belly huge fallowing stillbirth of her 1st child has made some internal damage making all her future pregnancies to likely end in failure. It is most likely the real cause of her reproductive issues. Everything else is just contributing factor. And you're right, being younger would help, but not for reason you think. Not because she'd be too old(many tudor women had child in their 30s even early 40s no problem), but because she had extremely early menopause. She wasn't even 35. What would have happened if she died alongside Arthur? Well, her parents would demand the dowry back, even if marriage was consumated. Their letters fallowing the Arthur's death, prove that they didn't care, they wanted money back in either case. Which is dishonorable as hell, and learning this, I lost all my respect for Isabella.

Would have been great

Nor would have mary. History would have been so different

Nor Edward IV. One life can make a big difference.

How do you know that...are you God???

Just noticed the typo. Edward vi.

Never impregnated Catherine of Aragon though. Both likely virgins up till Arthur's death.

Henry's ilegimate son also died as teen. Maybe they had weaker imunity systems around that age.

@@maearcher4721 Yes, Henry Fitzroy died at 17. Before he decided to divorce Catherine of Aragon, he had planned to legitimize his son and have her marry his daughter Mary so they could rule (thank Heavens that didn't happen). Instead he married Henry to Mary Howard. But, blaming his brother's death on his having sex at such a young age (15), he forbade Henry and Mary from consummating their marriage. It's thought that all three, Prince Arthur, Henry Fitzroy, and Edward VI possibly died of tuberculosis.

And they probably died of the same thing

Most of what you say is just plain WRONG. HENRY started the journey that led England to become the most powerful nation on Earth. He broke the Strangle Hold of the Catholic Church and created PROTESTANTISM. Yes it was Henry NOT Martin Luther that made it possible for Protestantism to survive and grow. Henry created a safe haven for the Protestantism movement, the Protestant church grew and prospered in England where the Pope could not reach. THANK YOU HENRY. Yes he destroyed the Catholic Monasteries because it was the Catholic Church that was FUNDING THE COMING INSURRECTION THAT WIULD HAVE OVERTHROWN HENRY and re-established Catholicism. The Monasteries were fabulously wealthy and were the main source of funds for the coming civil war. Henry took their money and raised the Monasteries to the ground, GOOD RIDDANCE.

@@oldedwardian1778.. England was constantly at war during his reign, with not much to show for it in the end. His repeated efforts to conquer Scotland ended up pushing that country into an alliance with France against him, while his alliance with Holy Roman Emperor Charles V soured during Henry’s crusade to end his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, the emperor’s aunt. In 1542, Henry and Charles would join forces again to fight France-traditionally England’s chief rival-in what would be the third French war of Henry’s reign. By that point, Henry was too fat to lead his men on horseback; he had to be carried on a litter along the battle lines. Even after Charles signed a treaty with the French, Henry continued the struggle, bankrupting himself in the process. Henry VIII inherited a large fortune, the equivalent of some £375 million today. But despite the influx of money from the dissolution of the monasteries and new taxes imposed by Cromwell, Henry’s government seemed always to be on the verge of going bankrupt, thanks to his profligate spending. Presenting the ultimate display of magnificence and power to the world didn’t come cheap-Henry’s court was one of the most lavish in history-not to mention his many expensive continental wars, hence his inheritance went quickly. Twice during his reign (in 1526 and 1539) Henry devalued England’s coinage, which provided temporary relief but ended up making inflation worse. He would die in debt. From 1536, when an Act of Parliament was passed to allow Henry VIII to close the monasteries, to 1540, shrines to saints were destroyed, libraries were burned, and many precious relics were lost. Great abbeys such as Rievaulx and Fountains, had to be surrendered to Henry and then deliberate, symbolic defacement took place. All items of property were then valued, and the systematic stripping and dismantling of buildings began. Along with the destruction of the monasteries, some of them many hundreds of years old, the related destruction of the monastic libraries was perhaps the greatest cultural loss caused by Henry VIII. Worcester Priory (now Worcester Cathedral) had 600 books at the time of the dissolution. Only six of them are known to have survived intact to the present day. At the abbey of the Augustinian Friars at York, a library of 646 volumes was destroyed, leaving only three known survivors. This was wanton vandalism and looting on a grand scale. The result of Henry VIII’s reign was a comprehensive dismantling and eradication of centuries-worth of medieval art and religious and cultural tradition. Here was a king who wantonly destroyed centuries of art and literature for financial gain. A king who literally left the country broke! A king who put to death thousands of innocent people without any thought. A king who blundered into wars but gained nothing! His dire military record showed him to be a king who didn’t understand warfare. A king who alienated England from the rest of Europe. No wonder, Henry VIII is regarded as a brutal tyrant and one of the worst kings of England.

@@oldedwardian1778 The Monasteries did play an important social role, that Henry did not replace. They were the closest thing to social security that existed at the time. You also make huge, unsubstantiated statements like 'HENRY started the journey that led England to become the most powerful nation on Earth.' England? You mean Britain, because Britain did not become the World power until the Seven Years War which ended in 1763. I think there was a bit more to Britain's rise to World supremacy than Henry's belated conversion to a religion he hated. I think you should think more about what you say before arrogantly accusing somebody else, who makes generally reasonable points, as just being 'plain wrong'. What is he 'plain wrong' about. Henry's foreign wars were a disaster, he did fritter away two huge fortunes, and he did destroy much of England's cultural treasures. England/Britain became a World power despite Henry's reign not because of it.

​@@geoffm9944 I agree with almost all of what you say, except 'England was constantly at war during his reign,'. What about Wolsey's attempts at a permanent peace/Field of the Cloth of Gold etc.? Apart from the fruitless invasion of France and the Scottish invasion of England in 1513 (the blame for which lies with James IV), there really wasn't much military activity until the 1540s (when Henry went for the old favourite tactic of war to distract from his domestic failings). Yes Henry was a rubbish general, but he was by no means the worst war-monger in English history.

@@PNETriffid BUT, BUT, BUT, BRITAIN would have remained a Catholic state had it not been for Henry. Henry may have been a lousy king even an incompetent one, but to look back on history from our vantage point you have to admit that the world would be a FAR WORSE PLACE had the Catholic Church been allowed to continue its reign of TERROR AND HORROR UNOPPOSED. The Catholic Church was the most TYRANNICAL, EVIL, CORRUPT GANG OF CROOKS OF ALL TIME. The thought that they could have continued the STRANGLEHOLD THAT HAD ACHIEVED OVER HUMAN SOCIETY and suppressed everything that they disapproved of is too horrible to contemplate. Without Henry’s reign and his monumentally incompetent bungling the supremacy of the Catholic Church was a distinct possibility. Fortunately for the world both Edward and Elizabeth became implacable enemies of Catholicism and encouraged the growth of Protestantism. I am a devout atheist but I was raised as an Anglican and still have a warm spot in my heart for the Church of England. I loved my school I had a marvelous education and strangely I found that School Assembly every morning with the singing of hymns was a beautiful experience. Best wishes.

Here is something else that wouldn’t have happened. To get his annulment Henry empowered Parliament to pass the necessary laws and to make himself sovereign in England. But the sovereignty did not just lie with Henry, it lay with the King in Parliament. Henry started England on the road that led to Parliamentary democracy.

@@brontewcat Well,said, but I maintain that Henry’s greatest ACT was to break forever the TYRANNICAL STRANGLEHOLD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The PURE EVIL of Catholicism was replaced by a lesser authoritarian Anglican Church, although I am a DEVOUT ATHEIST I still have a fond memory of the C of E and remember with a smile on my face singing the hymns at school assembly every morning.

@@oldedwardian1778 'All religions are poison' -- Mao Tse Tung.

@@trevorsmith7753 Sadly Mao WAS RIGHT. Stay safe.

@@oldedwardian1778 Without the break from Rome the enlightenment and later agricultural and industrial revolutions would not have happened

True, though it’s believed that Henry became progressively tyrannical after his jousting accident, before that he wasn’t *as* bad

@@yourmumsmells Wow. The Pilgrimage of Grace started 9 Months after the Jousting Accident 😶

Henry was 10 when Arthur died so he was groomed to be king from that point on.

@@blenderbanana I said he became progressively tyrannical.. and before he wasnt **as** bad

@@yourmumsmells I'm agreeing with you. The Savagry and Avarice against the commons got notably worse after he got lanced in the mouth.

Thanks Sarah!

Thanks :)

Thanks Steve!

Where do you get 70,000 from?

Thank you

@@pedanticradiator1491 quoted in this video.

@@charlotteillustration5778 I still think thats a very high number

Thanks Richard!

Thanks for your support Lou!

Beautiful county with superb beaches and lovely countryside.

Thanks for your kind words and support Sarah!

I have read some research that says that the change in Henry’s manner may have been because of a head injury he received in a jousting competition. Henry was a strong athletic young man and enjoyed taking part in jousting events. There is some evidence that he was hit by a lance that got under his helmet and injured his neck or lower part of his skull. This may have caused some form of brain damage which might account for the change in his character. In his younger days it was said that he was quite different, a gifted musician and poet, he spoke French and Latin as well as English and was an accomplished scholar. Sadly we shall never know.

@@oldedwardian1778 I have read a lot of Tudor history. There is that theory that it was the jousting accident in 1536, the same one that Anne Boleyn blames caused her to worry and thus blames it for her miscarriage, that caused a change in behavior. But there are other theories also. Truth is, we will never know. But it is interesting.

@@oldedwardian1778 I have heard the same theory, and the timeline of his injury and the onset of his psychopathic behavior is pretty suggestive of TBI-related personality changes. But they didn't have much in the way of fMRI, electroencephalography, or positron emission tomography back then, so we'll likely never lnow.

@@oldedwardian1778 I actually believe in this head trauma theory as well. And it wasn’t the only time Henry was hit in the face and fell off a horse, he did so much later in his life as well which resulted this the nasty leg ulcers that plagued him until his death. I’m sure there were other head traumas unaccounted for since he was very athletic and competitive, and he believed that as a king he couldn’t back down from participating in jousting himself, unlike many who chose not to once they became king. This could be something similar to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) that is still untreatable today, most commonly occurs in pro athletes, especially football players. Most recently Antonio Brown from the Bucs displayed more erratic behaviors and most fans believe this stemmed from the terrifying head injury he got a couple of seasons ago. It was terrible, watching the game I thought he was gone. Doesn’t excuse Henry VIII for what he did, but makes the possible cause more fascinating

@@RenRen2453 Thanks for you reply. Best wishes. I cannot fathom the 2453.

True, I shudder to think what history would've been like if the break Roman Catholic Church didn't occur and the creation of the Church of England, I like to think and hope there is more religious tolerance and acceptance nowadays than it was in the past. The other "good" thing that came out of Henry's reign is: we got our first true queen of England, Mary I who paved the way for her sister Elizabeth when she eventually took the throne after Mary's death.

@@carolinewolf_flame8123 I agree with you that the breaking of the strangle hold of the Catholic Church was a VERY GOOD THING. However your description of Mary I is very flawed, she was known as BLOODY MARY for a very good reason. As the daughter of Catherine of Aragon she was a DEVOUT CATHOLIC and tried to return England to Catholicism by killing those who stood in her way. Her marriage to Philip II of Spain was a complete disaster, she hated her step sister Elizabeth and had Mary not died when she did she would have undoubtedly have had Elizabeth EXECUTED. The only thing that Mary tried to PAVE was a path to the executioners axe for Elizabeth. No, Mary was not a good queen she was a DISASTER, fortunately Elizabeth survived and she became Englands first GREAT QUEEN.

​@@oldedwardian1778 I only said she was the FIRST Queen of England. I didn't say she was a GOOD Queen, so please read my comments thoroughly and not twist my words, thank you :) I don't condone Mary I's actions during her reign, her relentless religious reforms that brutally murdered thousands of innocent people during her short reign is absolutely wrong, it's murder! But I can't help but feel sorry for her. Why? Because all of Henry's children were emotionally and psychologically traumatized by their father and it makes sense to me, on some level, why she hung on to her religious Roman Catholic beliefs so fanatically because they reminded of her mother, Catherine of Aragorn, and the good times when she was a child when she was still regarded as heir to the English throne and was given the education that a Prince of Wales would've been given; and Henry once called Mary the "Pearl of his world" so yes, her overall actions of murdering innocent people who didn't share her faith, you're absolutely right, THAT IS WRONG! But, I can understand why she thought processes of why she did the things she did and the reasoning behind it. As for her marriage to Philip II of Spain, her life could've been different if her father approved of the marriage between Prince Philip of Bavaria, as even though they had religious differences, they were mutually fond of each other and openly affectionate, so you can imagine how England's history would've been fundamentally changed if this marriage was allowed, how that would've changed Mary's perspective, would it have encouraged to be more easy-going with her religious views, would she be more tolerant, who knows? Let alone what their children would've been like, considering we know of Mary's later false pregnancies. We will never know. Don't forget that it was during Mary I's reign and her implementation of the policies of fiscal reform, naval expansion, and colonial exploration that were later followed through during her half-sister Elizabeth's reign that we came to know as the Elizabethan Golden Age. So yes, Mary I may be known as "Bloody Mary" and you're not wrong and she did terrible things. If she didn't die in 1558, then you're probably right she would've found another excuse or reason to have Elizabeth executed but thankfully THAT didn't happen! I also recognize the little accomplishments that Mary I started in her reign with the creation of the policies of fiscal reform, naval expansion, and colonial exploration that were continued and expanded on during Elizabeth's reign. So in my opinion, Mary I did open the doors to a society that was politically dominated by men and in that regards paved the way for her half-sister when she became Queen. Not only that, Elizabeth learned from her sister's mistakes and the first thing Elizabeth did was practice religious tolerance and acceptance.

I have a relative buried in the cathedral. Sir John de Beauchamp of Holt was beheaded on trumped up charges of treason. He was a cadet family of the earls of Warwick.

Absolutely agree!

at least he had hair..

'American English', I understand the two individual words, but not when they are combined!

Especially if your brother is a spiteful murdering megalomaniac know for his treachery and deadly conspiracies. Am I the only one wondering if Henry might have had someone putting something in their food? It was all the rage for aristocrats back then and he had alot of motive to do so.

@@jerichothirteen1134 future Henry VIII was not even 14 at the time of his brother's death.

@@helene4397 so what? You grow up quick in those times.

france...

That is an interesting idea!

No, definitely not.

No the King Arthur from the stories wasn’t even English he was a Romano-British general/warlord (Dux Bellorum), he was fighting against the Anglo-Saxons who would later become THE English.

@@user-eb7pe9bp2q Well that is ONE of the theories, another is that he was of Roman heritage and there are others. Regardless, the epic stories of this character and the mythology that he created makes for wonderful reading and they have stood the test of time. Merlin was resurrected in WWII as an engine that powered the Spitfire and other war planes and helped once more to save England.

No

Yeah, 70,000+ people is such nonsense.

But then she wouldn't have provided a spare to the heir (who lived way past the age of 52 days), and Henry would've still divorced her for Anne - to get that spare

No. Bugs, small vermin, etc

They are sweet when young then grow up to be a tyrant.

England's Stalin; Hitler, Lenin, and every other despot combined.

Because he actually didn't executed as many people as you've been told. 70,000 is nonsense. His enemies stated that during Pilgrimage of Grace he executed 50,000 men, women and children. It was merely 215 men and 1 woman.He didn't even kill 5,000 in total during his reign. It's so overblown, it's ridiculous. But it wasn't about quantity, but about quality-or level of cruelness. He deserves to be called tyrant especially for his treatment of Carthusian monks and other clergy, the methods of how they died it's sickenning just to read about! But tbh, he was not nowhere near the level of Stalin, Hitler or Lenin. Partly because at the time, there was much lower population.

I'm not fond of Henry VIII either, but comparing him to Stalin and Hitler is just silly.

I don't know. Before he was injured a few times while jousting, he was considered to be a fun living, playboy type (in loose terms). I think it was the pain of a leg wound that wouldn't heal, and brain injuries from the jousts that made him bad tempered.

I think the same especially when you consider Henry was more York than Tudor. I think enough people in his ear and being the vain bugger he was would of thought yes, I'm the better king and made a move.

It is an interesting idea!

@@TheFortress It just seems that after they were separated, he, and his wife. She got better, and he didn’t. I don’t know what kind of poison would do that the sweating thing. Sounds like an awful way to go.

@@Kamina1703 Henry was only 10 years old at the time and many miles away

We cannot rule that out 100%(and the next year pope Alexander and his son both got poisoned one lived, one died.) But at time of Arthur's death poison was never suggested or even rumoured. That suggests they all knew what killed him. They just didn't record it. Catherine's parents wrote to Henry VII in May telling him to quickly remove her from unhealthy place Prince Arthur died at, later specified as unhealthy situation. Unlike myth Ludlow wasn't yet derelict and wasn't unhealthy to live, so they probably speak about some outbreak of disease lurking in the area. Some say plague, but I don't believe that because Arthur got big funeral, if it was plague they'd keep it small. Given how sudden his death was, it trully fits best the sweating sickness.

@@maearcher4721 I think we can rule out that his brother had anything to do with it though

You forgot to mention his inability to pronounce his” th “s

No not necessarily, there are many societies throughout the world where a widow would marry a brother of her dead husband. This was done for reasons that make sense, the widow would remain a vital,part of the family and any of her children would have a father who was related to their dead father. This was NOT always done for evil or gratuitous reasons.

How could it be BIGAMOUS, Catherine’s husband Arthur was DEAD and the Pope gave his permission. It was done for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.

@@oldedwardian1778 It was meant to maintain peace between England and Spain.

@@banana9106 No, not really. Remember at the period of history that this occurred England was a poor small island. There were two great powers at the time, France and Spain, the Kings and Queens of England played France against Spain to prevent one of those countries from invading Britain. And so there was a constant contest in which England signed throatiest friendship between first France then Spain and so on. One of the best ways of retaining the friendship of these nations was to marry the heir to the throne to a close member of the ruling families of France or Spain. This is EXACTLY why Arthur had married Catherine of Aragon, his death had with one stroke broke the agreement of friendship between the two countries. It was vital for England to re-establish that connection and that is why it was decided that Henry should marry his former SISTER IN LAW. It’s just POLITICS 16th century style. The result was that after the short reign of Edward VI, the throne of England was occupied by Mary, the elder daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Mary was known as BLOODY MARY for good reasons.Mary was raised by her mother as essentially a devout SPANISH PRINCESS, who then tried to change England back to Catholicism. She failed miserably and Elizabeth became queen, Elizabeth spent her life playing France against Spain dangling the prize of a being the wife of a French or Spanish prince. She did not marry but built England into a nation that was stronger than France or Spain and no longer needed the patronage of either country. Spain never recovered from the catastrophic loss of its Navy which was decimated by the English navy, Spain then continued its decline to almost 3rd World Status, leaving France and England to fight it out for top dog. FRANCE LOST.

They lived together for month prior to going to Wales, and then in Wales for even longer. However if the marriage of Arthur and Catherine was consumated, then Henry's and Catherine's would be incestous according to church law, not bigamous. Bigamy is when somebody has two spouses at once.

Henry maintained that because he had married his late brother's widow god was angry with him and that was the reason why Catherine had never bore him a son, or at least that was his excuse for wanting to divorce her to marry Anne Boleyn.

@@Mackeson3 Yet he made a different argument to the church when he was asking to marry his brother’s wife. He (and others, including Catherine) claimed that Arthur & Catherine never consummated the marriage because they both became sick right after they were married and then he died.

There’s 2 series that you’d like. I think both are on Netflix. The Tudors and The Spanish Princess.

@@lieslceleste3395 Netflix got rid of The Tudors and it's Starz for the other shows you mentioned. So good! The Borgias is really great too and the show Rome

@@armygirl85fuckhitler74 That’s a bummer that they removed The Tudors. I wanted to watch Rome again but it’s not on Amazon prime anymore is it? The other show I really liked was Domina but it doesn’t look like they’re making any more. Every few years I watch I Claudius. I remember my dad watching it in the 70s and thought it looked so boring at the time. I like to think I’ve grown but it could just be that I’m the old fart now.

Honestly, what else could they have done? Germ theory and asepsis lay hundreds of years in the future.

Do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that Henry was ever a 'kind king'. He certainly soured with age, that I don't doubt, but he was never a good person.

It seems to work for the rest of us, lol

No one is forcing you to watch :|

Being so opinionated, you wouldn't have lived very long under Henry VIII's rule.

@@KumaBean So? It doesn't work for me and I stated as much. 😄

@@mountainvenom I don't, especially now I'm attacked for stating my opinion. 🤪