Unpopular opinion: even if KoA was childless by the great Matter, she would have still fought to remain queen bc it was as much about her pride and want for status as defending Mary’s rights. (Not my opinion, but one I’ve seen kicked around.)

Hmm…yeah, I’d say I don’t know about this, honestly?

I actually think for KoA it was more about her pride and the feeling that she deserved her status, that it was her right to be Queen (it wasn’t like…her birthright but you know, she’d been anointed by holy oil at her coronation so ostensibly, that which is God-given can’t be taken away), than it was about or ‘for’ Mary but at the same time…

Without Mary she wouldn’t have had much of a case; her sort of counterargument to the whole Leviticus thing was like ‘if our marriage is so punished by God, and it says if I consummated the marriage with Arthur we’d be cursed with no children, then doesn’t Mary prove that I didn’t’; also ostensibly in the future Mary could wed herself and secure the line by having her own male heir. 

IIRC, Henry’s counterargument to that was, if I’m not mistaken, that the Hebrew translation specificed ‘sonless’ rather than ‘childless’ and I’m not a theologian/linguist/expert so idk if that was true but anyways;

I guess I’d say I disagree with that; I don’t think she would fought it to the same extent if she’d have no living children by Henry (actually, I think if she’d had no living children by like….1520, that probably would’ve been around the time he’d have asked for an annulment instead, so it might have been a moot point). I think also she might not have fought it as much because she probably wouldn’t have had the same foreign support despite her familial connections; it would have seemed more reasonable to annul a childless marriage had that been the case.