WHAT IF...ANNE BOLEYN AND HENRY VIII HAD A SON?

If she had given the monarch a male heir, the crowns of England and Scotland might never have been united

- DR ELIZABETH NORTON

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. It's one of the most widely known mnemonics in British education. If Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's second wife, had given birth to a son, this turbulent era of British history might have been completely different. A daughter and a miscarried son preceded Anne's execution in 1536, but also led to the famous reign of Elizabeth I, the end of the Tudor line and the union of the crowns of England and Scotland. If Anne had given the king a male heir, British history could have taken a very different course.

Why was it vital for Anne to have a son?
The Tudor dynasty was not a fertile one. Henry VIII had no surviving brothers, while his father, Henry VII, was an only child. As a result, Henry VIII really needed to produce a male heir to ensure that the succession was settled. England had never had a crowned reigning queen before, with the only example of a female claimant - that of Empress Matilda in the 12th century - not a positive one. As far as Henry VIII was concerned, Anne needed to produce a son to stave off civil war.

How would a son have affected those close to the royal couple, such as Henry VIII's chief minister Thomas Cromwell and the Boleyn family?
The Boleyns would have been thrilled if Anne had produced a son. She was close to her parents, particularly her mother Elizabeth, as well as her brother George. All would have been pleased on a personal level, but their overwhelming reaction would have been relief since Anne's position would have become insurmountable.