Might Scandinavia be an alternate "Ireland" for a Catholic England?

[raharris1973]

What if England was reclaimed for Catholicism, under Mary or later, with either Spanish or French patronage.

With an alliance with one of those traditional rivals, and a disdain for Protestants, might England seek expansion at the expense of Denmark-Norway or Sweden, which allows them to beat up Protestants in a lower weight class in an area that does not conflict with a Catholic western European ally and provides cheap raw materials like iron and naval stores?

 

[raharris1973]

I suppose a problem with the Ireland analogy for Norway and Sweden is that it's colder and less agriculturally productive, although there's good fishing, timber and iron for any ruling power. Denmark though has strong agricultural potential in addition to its Baltic gateway position.

 

[Socrates]

Ireland wasn't invaded because it was Catholic. It was invaded because it is a staging ground for easy invasion to England.

 

[Tyler96]

I suppose a problem with the Ireland analogy for Norway and Sweden is that it's colder and less agriculturally productive, although there's good fishing, timber and iron for any ruling power. Denmark though has strong agricultural potential in addition to its Baltic gateway position.

And they're further away. And they have much less history of English involvement than Ireland did.

 

[kasumigenx]

Norway is possible, as it is the reverse side of the coasts of England and Scotland.

 

[BBadolato]

What if England was reclaimed for Catholicism, under Mary or later, with either Spanish or French patronage.

With an alliance with one of those traditional rivals, and a disdain for Protestants, might England seek expansion at the expense of Denmark-Norway or Sweden, which allows them to beat up Protestants in a lower weight class in an area that does not conflict with a Catholic western European ally and provides cheap raw materials like iron and naval stores?

Hell no. Ireland was technically under English jurisdiction from the Pope and no one really gave a damn to say otherwise once England became protestant. It was less religion that caused conflict and more Ireland was hard to subdue, it was divided into various clans both Irish and Hiberno-Norman with their own customs and traditions of extensive branch families. It took a voluntary flight for Ireland to be remotely subdued.

 

[edgeworthy]

Ireland wasn't invaded because it was Catholic. It was invaded because it is a staging ground for easy invasion to England.

Then there were the Irish Pirates raiding the British west coast, which strangely doesn't seem to get mentioned much?

 

[Lord High Executioner]

With England reclaimed for Catholicism, reformation might have sputtered in Scandinavia as well even if
I think the Swedes started earlier.

Ireland wasn't invaded because it was Catholic. It was invaded because it is a staging ground for easy invasion to England.

Huh?
Who, other than the Scotti and various other Ireland-dwellers, invaded Great Britain from Ireland?
Or did you mean that Ireland was invaded because it was conveniently located next to Great Britain
and thus easy to invade from there?
Or that it was preemptively invaded, so it couldn't be used as a staging ground?

 

[Zen9]

Ireland wasn't invaded because it was Catholic. It was invaded because it is a staging ground for easy invasion to England.

No it was invaded because Normans were setting themselves up as independent of the English state and ruler of said state could not tolerate a rival center of power and legitimacy.

 

[Milites]

I don’t think so. Ireland was close, politically fragmented and had for centuries been in some kind of subservient state to the English crown. Compare this to the better organised and (especially in Sweden’s case) highly independent Scandinavian kingdoms, I simply don’t think it would be worth the costs for the alt-Catholic king’s of England to attempt establishing control over the North.

With England reclaimed for Catholicism, reformation might have sputtered in Scandinavia as well even if
I think the Swedes started earlier.

By the time Mary I became queen, the reformation in Denmark-Norway had already been de facto and de jure effectuated by 1536. Similarly, Gustav Vasa had also enforced a princely reformation in Sweden through the Västerås reces of 1527.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

No it was invaded because Normans were setting themselves up as independent of the English state and ruler of said state could not tolerate a rival center of power and legitimacy.

Ireland wasn't invaded because it was Catholic. It was invaded because it is a staging ground for easy invasion to England.

Remember that England invaded Ireland a number of times:-
1) the Plantagenet invasion, which Zen9 more or less correctly categorises, there was a bit of concern by the Church about religious unorthodoxy and possible heresy and landless younger sons pushing for an opportunity to establish themselves to add to the mix as well;
2) The Tudor invasion, mainly prompted by the role of the Fitzgerald dynasty in backing Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel's rebellions, I suppose also meeting Zen9's definition;
3) Cromwell's invasion, mainly prompted by Ireland's support for the Royalist cause in the Civil Wars;
4 King William III's invasion due to Ireland's continuing support for James II.
So Zen9 is correct in the main in terms of motivation for invasion.
OTOH Socrates is correct in that this was the main strategic driver for a continuing British military presence in Ireland .

And they're further away. And they have much less history of English involvement than Ireland did.

As I recall from my university days, the Catholic Mary was much keener on Irish plantations and forcing the Irish to conform to English law and custom than the Protestant Elizabeth was. A Catholic England might not have been any less repressive to the Irish than Spain and France were to the Basques or than France has been to the Bretons. Indeed, without the religious bar, more of Irish culture may have survived OTL than would have TTL.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

By the time Mary I became queen, the reformation in Denmark-Norway had already been de facto and de jure effectuated by 1536. Similarly, Gustav Vasa had also enforced a princely reformation in Sweden through the Västerås reces of 1527.

Then John III (reigned 1568-1592) tried to work out some kind of compromise and was succeeded by his
Catholic son (who was deposed by his very protestant uncle), so it does not appear to have been
solidly set in stone quite yet then. Only mostly.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

i thik what would be necessary is continued greater links between the noblility of scandinavia and england isntead of the norman conquest in 1066, by the time of the tudors and protestantism the nobility of ireland were a permanent thorn in the side of the monarhcy and were hosts to most pretenders of tudor times, meaning an invasion was a dynastic necessity.

make norway the staging groung for rebellions and maybe there will be a greater impetus to conquer it.