WI Habsburg England

I saw this touched on in the 'Failed Marriages and Pregnancies' thread, but it wasn't explored in as much depth as I'd like, so I figured I'd pose the question directly.

What If Mary I had Philip II's son?

During Phillip II's reign, Spain reached the zenith of its power across the globe, which also means it began to decline. Revolt in the Netherlands, the failure of the Spanish Armada, multiple debt defaults, and the ascendency of the House of Bourbon reigned in what had been Europe's superpower. England had a direct role in half of these, and indirectly in all; war with Elizabeth's England sapped the treasury, Elizabeth didn't lend support to the Catholic League in the French Wars of Religion, and England aided the Dutch rebels against the Spanish.

So what if England's king and his regent were die hard Catholic Habsburgs? In terms of Continental politics, could the Dutch Revolt have been stamped out? Could Spain and England keep the French politiques from gaining primacy, and if they did, would the French still be able or willing to stop Ferdinand II, with Tilly and Wallenstein, from stamping out the rebellious princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Reformation with it, and thus consolidating a national state?

English affairs are wholly outside my wheelhouse, so what effect would a reigning Spanish Habsburg have on English development, specifically regarding protestantism and parliamentarianism? Furthermore, English colonization of the Americas followed a very different pattern from the Iberians, who ruled over and mixed with the natives, rather than driving them off outright.

The Early Modern period was one of the most influential in shaping the world we live in, so a small change, like a particular woman becoming pregnant or not, is going to have serious ripples.

Even if he got a son (let's call him John/Juan for convinience) that wouldn't diminish Mary's overzeal and brutal repression of the Anglicans, while during her reign they weren't majority, they were a force to be reckon regardless, so she is going to have enemies anyways.

To complicate even more, if little John borns in 1554 (Mary's false pregnancy) he's crowned King of England at the age of 4, his hold of England is kinda shacky. Let's improve a bit, Mary lives for more 10 years (she was very sick in OTL, I think she needs a better health to have a son), still the boy is king at 14.

IF little John make everything out, then wow, we got another Habsburg realm! The problem is that the rulling King of Spain, England, Two Sicilies, Portugal, Lord of Ireland and the Netherlands is a pretty big realm that isn't really manageable for a single guy (Philip had already much problem without England) so be prepared for Charles V succession all over again.

For the Dutch Revolt, yep without English help it will be crushed, France is in too much trouble with the Wars of Religion to help.

Sorry for bad english.

I'm not sure there would be a huge swing of English culture towards Spanish. Afterall Austrian Habsburgs were a different cultural creature to Spanish Habsburgs.

Parliament would retain a lot of its powers and I imagine systems of Catholic primacy from the time of Henry VII would reassert themselves.

A Catholic England could drag the British Isles into the religious wars of the continent especially as a new theatre is Scotland still goes Calvinist.

Monter said:

To complicate even more, if little John borns in 1554 (Mary's false pregnancy) he's crowned King of England at the age of 4, his hold of England is kinda shacky. Let's improve a bit, Mary lives for more 10 years (she was very sick in OTL, I think she needs a better health to have a son), still the boy is king at 14.

Click to expand...

True, but at the terms of the marriage between Philip and Mary state that he will serve as regent for Juan (though I think Mary would be against naming him that; after 'Softsword', no English king has been named John) should she predecease him, so it's not like you have a regent who's sapping the crown's authority like a non relative, and Philip was quite a capable ruler.
Dealing with Elizabeth, the protestants, and parliament would definitely be a challenge though, and one the dynasty stands a chance of losing.

dandan_noodles said:

I saw this touched on in the 'Failed Marriages and Pregnancies' thread, but it wasn't explored in as much depth as I'd like, so I figured I'd pose the question directly.

What If Mary I had Philip II's son?

During Phillip II's reign, Spain reached the zenith of its power across the globe, which also means it began to decline. Revolt in the Netherlands, the failure of the Spanish Armada, multiple debt defaults, and the ascendency of the House of Bourbon reigned in what had been Europe's superpower. England had a direct role in half of these, and indirectly in all; war with Elizabeth's England sapped the treasury, Elizabeth didn't lend support to the Catholic League in the French Wars of Religion, and England aided the Dutch rebels against the Spanish.

So what if England's king and his regent were die hard Catholic Habsburgs? In terms of Continental politics, could the Dutch Revolt have been stamped out? Could Spain and England keep the French politiques from gaining primacy, and if they did, would the French still be able or willing to stop Ferdinand II, with Tilly and Wallenstein, from stamping out the rebellious princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Reformation with it, and thus consolidating a national state?

English affairs are wholly outside my wheelhouse, so what effect would a reigning Spanish Habsburg have on English development, specifically regarding protestantism and parliamentarianism? Furthermore, English colonization of the Americas followed a very different pattern from the Iberians, who ruled over and mixed with the natives, rather than driving them off outright.

The Early Modern period was one of the most influential in shaping the world we live in, so a small change, like a particular woman becoming pregnant or not, is going to have serious ripples.

Click to expand...

One of may favorite PODs! To begin with I agree that there's little chance of Mary naming her son John. Chances are the Prince of Wales would be named Henry, after her father and grandfather, or Edward after her brother and Yorkist ancestors. Probably the former as Mary highly respected her father (despite his actions towards her) and its a name that would be recognizable in Spain as well as Enrique.

Second, Queen Mary died of uterine cancer, which she had suffered from for several years (maybe as much as five, being sick at her accession). To have a son she'd have to never develop uterine cancer, which would mean that she'd live longer. How long is debatable. Her mother and grandmother died in their 50s, her maternal grand father in his 60s and her aunt Juana at 75. So at the very least she'd probably live into her 50s, meaning her reign would be extended by at least 8/9 years. So at the youngest Henry IX would be 11 to 13. Technically at 13 a boy does not need a regent, being the nominal age of majority.

Third, with a longer reign Mary would have a better lot in historiography. As one author put it "Although Mary's rule was ultimately ineffectual and unpopular, the policies of fiscal reform, naval expansion, and colonial exploration that were later lauded as Elizabethan accomplishments were started in Mary's reign.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England#cite_note-162" A longer reign means that the policies Mary began have the chance to take root, boosting her popularity.

Fourth, while Felipe II was indeed named Regent for any underage child, by the point Mary would have died he'd be King of the Spanish Monarchy, meaning he wouldn't be in a position to stay permanently in England for an extended period. On the other hand, with his wife having an extended reign and a son chances are Felipe would be making frequent visits to England, meaning that he'd probably have better relations with at least some of the English Nobility, enough to build up at least a small power-base that could act as his deputies in London. They could act as members of a Regency council or as a Privy council to advise Henry IX.

Fifth is a problem: Elizabeth. At best she'd be a rallying point for the discontented Protestants and those who hate the idea of a half-Spaniard on their throne. At worst she actively plots to depose her nephew and seize the throne. However, in my opinion Mary with a son would no doubt be more forceful in her dealings with her half-sister. Elizabeth would be married off to a foreigner to permanently remove her from England. I know that the major suggested match was with Duke Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy, so that could be the best bet.

Sixth, the Dutch revolt. Chances are it would be stillborn or die soon after it began. England is sure as hell not gonna support the revolt, considering that the Marian marriage contract gave the low countries to any son of Mary and Felipe. Although I wonder if we'd potentially see the Netherlands transferred to England early, before the crisis between Felipe and his Dutch nobles reached the point of rebellion?

Seventh, is France. After the death of Henri II of France in a jousting accident in 1558 French presence in foreign affairs basically collapsed and wasn't recovered for nearly 40 years. However, Henri II's death was basically a freak accident, one that could be butterflied away with a POD in 1555. But either way chances are that France will be focusing on domestic policies for at least the next decade, if not longer. Also, if Henri II lives another 10 to 20 years I doubt we'd see the French wars of Religion be as numerous or as destructive. Henri II would be more likely to keep up the war against the Huguenots until they are permanently crushed.

Eighth, the Parliament of England. Under the Tudor dynasty Parliament was a rubber stamp assembly, which it would no doubt remain with a native monarch at the helm. Parliament basically saw in opportunity with the accession of James I to gain the power they thought they deserved. Here, with the King a member of an international dynasty ruling much of Europe, that chance to challenge the Sovereign isn't there. The power of the purse-strings mean little when your father can send fleet loads of gold and silver your way.

Finally, as to Scotland, the thirty years war and the HRE, that's hard to guess. Scotland's Presbyterians only won against Mary of Guise thanks to support from Elizabeth I. No English support means no Protestant Scotland. But, with the Queen of Scots in France married to the Dauphin, there's a lot of opportunity for a Scottish Huguenot style group to develop, becoming a state within a state, like at La Rochelle. The HRE is harder to tell, as England had little role OTL with the thirty years war. The collapse of the HRE's semi-centralized authority was more due to France and Sweden rather than the Netherlands and England.

One last thing; the succession. Don Carlos would be the heir apparent, but he's crazy and everyone knows it. But if he's disinherited the vast Spanish domains fall to Henry, unless Felipe tries to bypass him in favor of a son from a third marriage, which could cause an international war. So in this situation, Felipe might allow Carlos to marry, if only to gain male grandchildren to insure the division of the Empire (England and the Low countries and Spain and the Italian possessions) remains intact. I know this is a really long post and I do apologize for that. This is just a highly interesting POD for me.

Emperor Constantine said:

One last thing; the succession. Don Carlos would be the heir apparent, but he's crazy and everyone knows it. But if he's disinherited the vast Spanish domains fall to Henry, unless Felipe tries to bypass him in favor of a son from a third marriage, which could cause an international war. So in this situation, Felipe might allow Carlos to marry, if only to gain male grandchildren to insure the division of the Empire (England and the Low countries and Spain and the Italian possessions) remains intact. I know this is a really long post and I do apologize for that. This is just a highly interesting POD for me.

Click to expand...

Or Mary carries twins or has two sons before finally kicking the bucket.

darthfanta said:

Or Mary carries twins or has two sons before finally kicking the bucket.

Click to expand...

Then the eldest will be Prince of Asturias, Girona, Viana etc. and the youngest will be Prince of Wales.

Well, a good match for Liz here might be either D. Carlos (which could ensure that the Habsburgs get a second stab at England if Mary's barren), or the duque de Segorbe (she's only a naturalized bastard of a king and Felipe's Segorbe's liege lord). The question then comes up of where does the Dowager Dauphine Mary, Queen of Scots marry? Darnley? James Hamilton? D. Carlos/Juan? Or another person in the French political sphere.

dandan_noodles said:

True, but at the terms of the marriage between Philip and Mary state that he will serve as regent for Juan (though I think Mary would be against naming him that; after 'Softsword', no English king has been named John) should she predecease him, so it's not like you have a regent who's sapping the crown's authority like a non relative, and Philip was quite a capable ruler.
Dealing with Elizabeth, the protestants, and parliament would definitely be a challenge though, and one the dynasty stands a chance of losing.

Click to expand...

I pulled John out of nowhere actually

But on the topic, the succession is going to be big deal. If Charles of Asturias dies as OTL, Mary's son is the oldest-surving, but Spain (and the empire) and Italy aren't possessions for a second son, it's Charles V and the Seventeen Provinces all over again.

A better solution for the problem of inheritance wuold be making the child of Philip and Mary a daughter... so we have Katherine Isabella, Queen of England and Netherlands (married to one of her Austrian cousin just for keep the reign in family) and either Don Carlos and his heirs (if Queen Mary live longer Elizabeth of Valois will marry him and not his father) or a son from a third or fourth wedding of Philip as next king of Spain and his other lands...

One thing I would like to say is that the English intervention in the Dutch revolt wasn't terribly important. Ok, the use of England as a safe haven at the start of the revolt was useful, but there were plenty of other places to hide. Also England was a useful distraction during the Armada, but Spain was running out of money, so parma couldn't do much anyway. Oh the most important thing England did was send that incompetent idiot of Leicester to the Netherlands so the Dutch provinces united to get rid of him, unifying the country, but hehimself was a major reason of the division.

Anyway, the Netherlands might have a harder time, but I would not cosider it already a lost cause. Engand was not that important. Also England itself might prove an distraction for the Spanish of their own protestants rise up (or flee to the Netherlands).

The French are going to go ape-shit crazy from this. Complete Hapsburg encirclement was the nightmare scenario for them. Might push them into a much stronger pro dutch revolt position, interesting what happens to the religious sentimental in France then.

pompejus said:

One thing I would like to say is that the English intervention in the Dutch revolt wasn't terribly important. Ok, the use of England as a safe haven at the start of the revolt was useful, but there were plenty of other places to hide. Also England was a useful distraction during the Armada, but Spain was running out of money, so parma couldn't do much anyway. Oh the most important thing England did was send that incompetent idiot of Leicester to the Netherlands so the Dutch provinces united to get rid of him, unifying the country, but he himself was a major reason of the division.

Anyway, the Netherlands might have a harder time, but I would not cosider it already a lost cause. Engand was not that important. Also England itself might prove an distraction for the Spanish of their own protestants rise up (or flee to the Netherlands).

Click to expand...

In OTL, perhaps, but the terms of the marriage contract stipulated that the Netherlands would become and English possession, so the switch from aiding the revolt to actively putting it down could be much more impactful.

And I don't think Spanish protestant would present much of a problem; from my understanding, institutions like the Jesuits and the Inquisition were quite effective in enforcing religious orthodoxy.

Emperor Constantine said:

The HRE is harder to tell, as England had little role OTL with the thirty years war. The collapse of the HRE's semi-centralized authority was more due to France and Sweden rather than the Netherlands and England.

Click to expand...

Right, but the alliance between Catholic France and Lutheran Sweden wasn't inevitable; the Bourbons who made the call (at Richelieu's counsel) to fund Gustavus Adolphus's (probably ill-advised) adventures in Germany were formerly protestant converts, after all, so perhaps with less French cash Tilly or Wallenstein manage to thrash him without as much men or guns.

Could the English+Spanish Habsburgs have locked the French out of the Americas, and would that affect the French economy and state much?

Another wrinkle I've been thinking about; what affect would continued Spanish supremacy have on the Papacy and the Magisterium? I recall the Jesuits enjoyed considerable favor among the Spanish Habsburgs; when the issue of Chinese Rites comes to a head, would the Spanish/English Crown weigh into the dispute?

I'd imagine Habsburg England would have definitely intervened in the events of the Thirty Years War given their ownership of the Netherlands.And unlike OTL where the Habsburgs locked in a fight with the Dutch,they would have been able to intervene more in Germany.Not to mention,I'd imagine they'd be able to blockade Sweden with their navy and cut them off from support.

As for the Americas,I highly doubt they could have bothered to stop the French from colonizing Canada.

darthfanta said:

As for the Americas,I highly doubt they could have bothered to stop the French from colonizing Canada.

Click to expand...

Canada wasn't that great anyway. Saint Domingue, though, was a goldmine for the French, supplying 40% of Europe's sugar and 60% of its coffee, and lacking that revenue stream, France is going to have a much harder time fighting off the Habsburgs encircling them in the post-Bohemian revolt period (if the Habsburgs win, it obviously won't be the 30 Years War, it'll be 'That time the Emperor and his crew stomped the Protestants flat').

I think the rise of Parliament was, if not inevitable, at least probable after Henry sold off the former monastic lands to raise money for his French adventures. This strengthened the wealth of the gentry vis-a-vis the crown, making it more likely that they'd expect a greater say in the running of the kingdom, and be able to get one. Trying to reverse the sell-off would be political suicide for whichever monarch tried it, so even in a TL where England turns ultra-Catholic I'd still expect Parliament to end up with a more important role.

Plus, depending on how unpopular Mary's anti-Protestant laws are by the time young Henry IX comes to the throne, the new king might need to find a way of conciliating the upper classes. Consulting with Parliament more and giving it greater influence would be an obvious way of achieving this.

With regards to foreign policy, without English support of Scottish protestants we'd probably see that country stay Catholic as well. Given that IOTL one of the factors behind the success of the union of 1603 was that both countries were Protestant, any TTL union would be less likely to survive (although it would still be possible -- plenty of unions between Catholic countries lasted for a long time, after all). In Ireland, meanwhile, the absence of religious differences might make any union there more successful than IOTL. Wemight end up seeing a Britain divided between the United Kingdom of England and Ireland and the Kingdom of Scotland.

As others have pointed out, England + the Spanish Empire would be too big for one man to rule, so most likely we'd see the two realms(*) separated again. Still, I'd expect a Hapsburg England, unlike IOTL's Elizabethan England, to be at least benevolently neutral towards the Spanish, who in turn might do better keeping hold of their Empire with one less annoying foreign enemy to deal with.

Another thing: with the British Isles having returned to the Catholic fold, Protestantism would largely be confined to Scandinavia and parts of Germany. Moreover, since these countries weren't very big colonisers, we'd expect it to largely stay there. Given this, perhaps subsequent generations wouldn't see the Reformation as such an earth-shaking historical event, but as simply one more of the various schisms and heresies which had long afflicted the Christian world.

(* Technically more, since the Spanish Empire was an agglomeration of several different kingdoms, but you know what I mean.)

Arafeel said:

The French are going to go ape-shit crazy from this. Complete Hapsburg encirclement was the nightmare scenario for them. Might push them into a much stronger pro dutch revolt position, interesting what happens to the religious sentimental in France then.

Click to expand...

The Dutch revolt will be strangled in it's craddle by English troops,given the Netherlands would most likely be given to the English branch.

It'd be interesting, if not terribly likely, if Philip continued to push for the dream of being the universal sovereign like Charles V had; without all the defeats suffered in wars with England, France, and the Dutch, Philip's line is going to be overlord over most of the known world. With possessions on every inhabited continent, through Spain, Portugal, England, and the Netherlands, they could possibly get a compliant pope elected to make the declaration.