France has always had a super large population: in 1328 the country had some 13 million people, and by 1500 it had 16 million. It was the most populous country in Europe even into the 18th century, having more people than Russia.

Germany as a whole had maybe a bit more than France—23 million in 1500 and anywhere from 27-34 million in 1600, though obviously it was much less centralized. With the imperial reforms being pushed through in Anno, it makes the empire a formidable rival for France.
Italy was also very populous, easily having over 10 million inhabitants in 1500. It is more impressive when we consider that Italy is geographically smaller than France and Germany, and also more mountainous. If Italy does not stagnate economically after the 16th century, it is very likely that its population will grow faster than OTL, although I think it would grow slower than Germany and France.

Screenshot_20240507-140814.png


In 1820, the states that would make up the future German Empire had 22 million inhabitants, while Italy had 20 million.

Screenshot_20240507-141911.png


Another nation that grew little demographically was Spain, which had the same population as Great Britain in 1700 (around 8.5 million) and in 1820 it had 12 million compared to Great Britain's 20 million.

 
Italy was also very populous, easily having over 10 million inhabitants in 1500. It is more impressive when we consider that Italy is geographically smaller than France and Germany, and also more mountainous. If Italy does not stagnate economically after the 16th century, it is very likely that its population will grow faster than OTL, although I think it would grow slower than Germany and France.
Italy was also very wealthy and economically developed before the destruction and upheavals of the Italian Wars. Much of the northern / central city states relied on the contado, or adjacent rural lands to feed them. As these cities expanded however, these lands weren't always able to meet their needs. Lucca's contados were in primarily mountainous territory, so Lucca's contados in more fertile areas were pushed to produce more. Some peasants could be held in super unjust arrangements. Even the super fertile Po River valley wasn't enough to meet demand for some cities. Florence was only able to supply enough food for about four months out of the whole year. This meant that Mezzogiorno became a major breadbasket and provided food to Florence and likely other cities. Essentially if a city couldn't produce the needed food it required, it was cheaply available to purchase somewhere.

Aside from economic issues (which as has been discussed before by Nuraghe—I dislike to use the word stagnation. Italy continued to develop and wages continued to rise, but not at the rapid levels seen in the Low Countries or Britain). Italy's population practically doubled between 1400 and 1600, from 7 million to 13 million. By 1700, Italy still had around 13 million people and had lost nearly 3 million from 1600-1699 from plagues and also a lack of agriculture to support such a population: of a total of 31 hectares in Italy, only about eight were producing grains; 15 of that were woodlands and plains for cattle; 4 were swamps and another four were lakes and mountains. Southern Italy and Sardinia were major cereal producers, but changes in the climate (Little Ice Age) meant frequent rains that ruined harvests and lower yields. Less grain + more people equaled higher prices and famines, which Italy suffered many during the OTL period. Add in the numerous plagues that 17th century Italy suffered and you have a horrible situation overall. The economic situation limited growth, but there were bigger issues in Italy that limited population growth.

Anyway, interesting stuff to ponder but that will unfortunately occur outside the scope of the TL.
 
Italy was also very wealthy and economically developed before the destruction and upheavals of the Italian Wars. Much of the northern / central city states relied on the contado, or adjacent rural lands to feed them. As these cities expanded however, these lands weren't always able to meet their needs. Lucca's contados were in primarily mountainous territory, so Lucca's contados in more fertile areas were pushed to produce more. Some peasants could be held in super unjust arrangements. Even the super fertile Po River valley wasn't enough to meet demand for some cities. Florence was only able to supply enough food for about four months out of the whole year. This meant that Mezzogiorno became a major breadbasket and provided food to Florence and likely other cities. Essentially if a city couldn't produce the needed food it required, it was cheaply available to purchase somewhere.

Aside from economic issues (which as has been discussed before by Nuraghe—I dislike to use the word stagnation. Italy continued to develop and wages continued to rise, but not at the rapid levels seen in the Low Countries or Britain). Italy's population practically doubled between 1400 and 1600, from 7 million to 13 million. By 1700, Italy still had around 13 million people and had lost nearly 3 million from 1600-1699 from plagues and also a lack of agriculture to support such a population: of a total of 31 hectares in Italy, only about eight were producing grains; 15 of that were woodlands and plains for cattle; 4 were swamps and another four were lakes and mountains. Southern Italy and Sardinia were major cereal producers, but changes in the climate (Little Ice Age) meant frequent rains that ruined harvests and lower yields. Less grain + more people equaled higher prices and famines, which Italy suffered many during the OTL period. Add in the numerous plagues that 17th century Italy suffered and you have a horrible situation overall. The economic situation limited growth, but there were bigger issues in Italy that limited population growth.

Anyway, interesting stuff to ponder but that will unfortunately occur outside the scope of the TL.
Adding to the France discussion is the lack of French Religious War here I think, still the deadliest conflict in France as they lost more people in it than in WW1 for instance and resulted in the utter ruination of the south and middle of France while the north also took hefty causalities on their own. A good example IIRC is the city of La Rochelle that was so brutalized that what was once a major French city only ended up with 5 Thousand people after the wars concluded.

A France that can avoid that will have a much better time demographically I think, as having more than 2 million people around does wonder for population growth, especially in Southern France
 
Adding to the France discussion is the lack of French Religious War here I think, still the deadliest conflict in France as they lost more people in it than in WW1 for instance and resulted in the utter ruination of the south and middle of France while the north also took hefty causalities on their own. A good example IIRC is the city of La Rochelle that was so brutalized that what was once a major French city only ended up with 5 Thousand people after the wars concluded.

A France that can avoid that will have a much better time demographically I think, as having more than 2 million people around does wonder for population growth, especially in Southern France
Yes, that's very true. Between two and four million people were killed throughout the entirety of the conflict between 1562-1598. I suppose it also speaks to France's resiliency and their 'excess' population that they were able to suffer such losses in the 16th century and still go on to have good population growth in the 17th century and to see growth by 1700 despite losses from Louis XIV's conflicts.

I think more people is absolutely a plus. France IOTL also suffered numerous famines in the 16th century (1569-1574; 1585-1587; and 1590-1598). These were pan-European famines that effected great portions of Europe from Muscovy all the way west through Germany to include Scandinavia, Italy and France. It's hard to say how much of this was because of the Religious Wars (it likely had a large impact) but some of it was probably also because of changes in weather conditions over the 16th century. Even if you've got more people to farm the arable land, if there's not enough rain or even too much rain and the grain crop is ruined, it just means you have more people who are going to go hungry.

Anyway, interesting stuff!

I am still hard at work on the next chapter, and I am hoping to have it out sooner rather than later. I've gotten bogged down in a bit of a Meereenese knot, as GRRM would say... I'm writing out of it, slowly but surely and attempting to finish up this war.
 
First I want to say that it's a great TL and I liked it, with lots of twists and turns.

Regarding countries, we have an interesting balance. Abandoning Austria while it makes sense because it is on the border of the Ottomans, is a bad idea for a long time. Soon the Ottomans will begin to enter their long process of decline. That could be great for Hungary, a country that rarely does well in TLs. Not only that, but it places them (the Habsburgs in a place that is more easily accessible to the French and English.). Other than that, a greater focus on organizing the HRE is smart. Dont know how viable it is to transform the empire into a nation. But more competence will do wonders for HRE

England is doing the best they can with the cucumbers they receive. And they have a very intelligent queen. Sooner or later a problem with Calais will occur and France will take the fort. The only way to stop this is to have more territory on the continent. However, it is expensive and requires more investment in the English army.

The Ottomans have a very good position in the world, the Habsburgs have their headquarters far from their territory. The biggest problem will be in the future with the Hungarians and Russians. Other than that, any idea of more control of the Mediterranean depends on Crete and Cyprus. Without first achieving this, any advancement is a dream.

Spain, while it seems to be in a worse position, is much better without having the cancer that the Netherlands was. Hopefully, they are smart and invest their money correctly. If they want, they can sit still and focus internally. If the opportunity arises, unify with Portugal, or try to prevent the Protestant advance. But other than that they are in a very stable position.

Bohemia interestingly will probably be one of the biggest "German" powers with its independence and lack of competitors. Poland and the Scandinavians are doing well too.

Portugal maintains its power but without reforms, it will have the same problems as OTL, perhaps with the big difference being the non-ascension of the Dutch. So they can very well secure their power in Asia (the great Portuguese dream). Even with other powers trying to reach Asia, they can maintain their monopoly for longer. I don't know what this means for their territories in America, and if they are going to be ignored even more. The New World gave Portugal a lot of money but also demanded a lot of money. Brazil then generated 40% of all the wealth of the Portuguese empire in the 16th century, but it required a lot of investment and work. Logistical complexity, local resistance, environmental adversities, and the lack of high-value products made the colonization of Brazil much more costly and challenging for Portugal, compared to the establishment of profitable trade with Asia in the same period.

Even though it was a bigger part of the pie so to speak (Asia accounted for around 30% of Portuguese profits ) they had greater profitability from Asian products (Products such as spices, silks, tea, and porcelain had much higher profit margins than Brazilian products).

Now let's go to the country with the biggest difference. France, the nation that won Italy. No matter how many obstacles there are at the moment, they are THE power of the region. As a whole, we can say that at the moment it is a French century. All of this new land in Italy will strengthen the Mediterranean trade and the great focus on the Levantine (Mediterranean) Fleet, which will make the Atlantic Fleet very irritated. In OTL the Levant fleet – at least before the Wars of Religion – was granted a regular bursary, and the Atlantic forces received the scraps. In both 1561 and 1562, its treasury recorded less than 40,000 livres being spent, compared to over 225,000 in the Levant. Financially, the kingdom prioritized the Levant fleet and would continue to do so into the early seventeenth century. In Europe, France will probably behave similarly to OTL so there is not much to speculate.

Now with the king allowing the Atlantic fleet to try to route to Asia and interact in Brazil, we are going to have a lot of tension. The Atlantic Navy was very decentralized and this venture would provide the funds needed to reform and truly centralize that navy. In OTL The intense French maritime activity is accompanied by numerous acts of piracy and aggression against the Portuguese to try to expel them from the region, both in Brazilian waters, as well as at mandatory crossing points on return routes. The situation got so bad that the French Atlantic merchant and military navy was attacking any Portuguese ship they encountered on the way to Brazil. This in my opinion demonstrates a certain desperation for resources on the part of the Merchant lords and admirals of the Atlantic fleet. The Fleet in all but name was in an open war with the Portuguese navy (even if France was not). That is why, in a spirit of appeasement, the French and Portuguese sovereigns, after signing a treaty of friendship in Lyon (July 14, 1536), convened in Bayonne, in 1537, a Court of Awards, intended to resolve conflicts between French and Portuguese shipowners. This Court, however, did not bring any agreement, except that Francisco I undertook to prohibit his subjects from trading in Brazil. The Atlantic navy pretended to obey but continued to act aggressively towards the Portuguese. This is something repetitive in this era, the Atlantic navy did not always obey the king. A grand admiral of the Atlantic navy even said that after the king he was the most powerful man in France. This is due to the search for financial sustainability and the fact that the ships did not belong to the king but rather to nobles who "lent" these ships to the king. So theoretically, if this group becomes strong enough, the king will have to deal with a parallel state using the colonial empire to strengthen itself against the Mediterranean navy and royal decisions against their interests. The Atlantic Admiral was different from the Mediterranean one due to its vast religious diversity (Protestants and Catholics) and ability to function without problems (at least until religious wars). But it was not as if Henri II ignored the Atlantic fleet he tried to increase it (something that occurred until the religious wars), but the Mediterranean was the priority.
 
Last edited:
he seeds of early French secularization could be planted in the future, with a decrease in the influence of the Catholic Church in France,
Secularization and loss of power in the Catholic church are not necessarily synonymous. I agree with the idea proposed by the article about the lack of religion and its consequences on fertility. But it's not like England was hyper-religious compared to France at the time. Also denying the impact of the French Revolution is wrong, their vast legal reforms had a big impact, as did slower Industrialization. The destruction of the Napoleonic wars also left a nasty scar on the demographic of France (losing 1/4 of its male population of military age is a nasty hit). Another thing that in my opinion has impacted French fertility and is not talked about is the lack of a colony that can accept French immigrants, allowing for less pressure at home. But what we are seeing in France, in my opinion, is less secularization and more religious freedom. Similar but not the same.
 
Last edited:
First I want to say that it's a great TL and I liked it, with lots of twists and turns.
Thank you so much, holycookie! I was amazed coming on yesterday and seeing about forty notifications from you. 😅 But I'm glad you were able to read through it!

egarding countries, we have an interesting balance. Abandoning Austria while it makes sense because it is on the border of the Ottomans, is a bad idea for a long time. Soon the Ottomans will begin to enter their long process of decline. That could be great for Hungary, a country that rarely does well in TLs. Not only that, but it places them (the Habsburgs in a place that is more easily accessible to the French and English.). Other than that, a greater focus on organizing the HRE is smart. Dont know how viable it is to transform the empire into a nation. But more competence will do wonders for HRE
Austria hasn't been abandoned perse—but it is definitely the "border" territory of the Habsburg dominions, especially following Charles V moving his court to Brussels and transferring imperial organs from Vienna and Innsbruck to Brussels. His son is King of Bohemia by right of his wife, but it seems likely that they retain Brussels as their capital: Bohemia and the Austrian territories likely are governed through governors, along with the small pieces of Hungarian territory they have managed to claim. Maximilian II is in a flux as his father had prioritized a western looking policy re: France, England, and Italy—his marriage to the Bohemian queen/heiress means that he inherits that foreign policy as well, primarily in that Elisabeth of Bohemia is a member of the House of Jagiellon and the sole legitimate child of the late Louis II of Hungary. Her mother long championed these rights, and she / her children will continue to hold them.

I agree in the long run that the HRE is not likely to become a formal nation-state—it transcends boundaries beyond that: @Nuraghe has talked quite a lot about the HRE in what it embodies as a successor to the Roman Empire, and it's religious connections to the Papacy in Rome. Even in this period (the 16th century especially) Germans identified strongly with the idea of the empire / Reich. Earlier attempts to in the 13th/14th centuries to create an independent/hereditary Kingdom of Germany independent of the Holy Roman Empire was met with horror in Germany: the Germans had a strong attachment to the title of emperor and it had been so entrenched that it was seen as unacceptable to separate the imperial title from the German kingship. For many, the two were connected.

. But I think more centralization will do wonders, especially if it can prevent further fragmentation and avoid giving the princes of the empire too much authority. The electors will always play important roles, of course, but something akin to Westphalia where even the most minor princes are free to conduct their own foreign policies would be very detrimental.

Spain, while it seems to be in a worse position, is much better without having the cancer that the Netherlands was. Hopefully, they are smart and invest their money correctly. If they want, they can sit still and focus internally. If the opportunity arises, unify with Portugal, or try to prevent the Protestant advance. But other than that they are in a very stable position.
Yep, I'd say Spain being divorced from the Netherlands is only a benefit. It's also entirely likely that Spain and the Habsburg line in Brussels could diverge in terms of foreign policy.

Portugal maintains its power but without reforms, it will have the same problems as OTL, perhaps with the big difference being the non-ascension of the Dutch. So they can very well secure their power in Asia (the great Portuguese dream). Even with other powers trying to reach Asia, they can maintain their monopoly for longer. I don't know what this means for their territories in America, and if they are going to be ignored even more. The New World gave Portugal a lot of money but also demanded a lot of money. Brazil then generated 40% of all the wealth of the Portuguese empire in the 16th century, but it required a lot of investment and work. Logistical complexity, local resistance, environmental adversities, and the lack of high-value products made the colonization of Brazil much more costly and challenging for Portugal, compared to the establishment of profitable trade with Asia in the same period.
Yep. I'd also say that even without a Dutch Revolt, you still have the Imperial Habsburgs ruling over a centralized polity of what was the OTL Netherlands and Belgium—we might very well see Flemish and Dutch merchants attempting to strike out on their own and seeking to build up trade abroad and outside of Europe. I think that the English, even remaining Catholic will likely desire to trade (though likely not until much later: 1570-80s and forward, towards the end of the story) and France of course had interests too.

I do have some interesting ideas for Brazil... just may make a minute for them to come to fruition. 😅

Now let's go to the country with the biggest difference. France, the nation that won Italy. No matter how many obstacles there are at the moment, they are THE power of the region. As a whole, we can say that at the moment it is a French century. All of this new land in Italy will strengthen the Mediterranean trade and the great focus on the Levantine (Mediterranean) Fleet, which will make the Atlantic Fleet very irritated. In OTL the Levant fleet – at least before the Wars of Religion – was granted a regular bursary, and the Atlantic forces received the scraps. In both 1561 and 1562, its treasury recorded less than 40,000 livres being spent, compared to over 225,000 in the Levant. Financially, the kingdom prioritized the Levant fleet and would continue to do so into the early seventeenth century. In Europe, France will probably behave similarly to OTL so there is not much to speculate.
Indeed—we shall have to see how long France's domination can hold. But you're correct, they're at the top of their game as of right now.

Now with the king allowing the Atlantic fleet to try to route to Asia and interact in Brazil, we are going to have a lot of tension. The Atlantic Navy was very decentralized and this venture would provide the funds needed to reform and truly centralize that navy. In OTL The intense French maritime activity is accompanied by numerous acts of piracy and aggression against the Portuguese to try to expel them from the region, both in Brazilian waters, as well as at mandatory crossing points on return routes. The situation got so bad that the French Atlantic merchant and military navy was attacking any Portuguese ship they encountered on the way to Brazil. This in my opinion demonstrates a certain desperation for resources on the part of the Merchant lords and admirals of the Atlantic fleet. The Fleet in all but name was in an open war with the Portuguese navy (even if France was not). That is why, in a spirit of appeasement, the French and Portuguese sovereigns, after signing a treaty of friendship in Lyon (July 14, 1536), convened in Bayonne, in 1537, a Court of Awards, intended to resolve conflicts between French and Portuguese shipowners. This Court, however, did not bring any agreement, except that Francisco I undertook to prohibit his subjects from trading in Brazil. The Atlantic navy pretended to obey but continued to act aggressively towards the Portuguese. This is something repetitive in this era, the Atlantic navy did not always obey the king. A grand admiral of the Atlantic navy even said that after the king he was the most powerful man in France. This is due to the search for financial sustainability and the fact that the ships did not belong to the king but rather to nobles who "lent" these ships to the king. So theoretically, if this group becomes strong enough, the king will have to deal with a parallel state using the colonial empire to strengthen itself against the Mediterranean navy and royal decisions against their interests. The Atlantic Admiral was different from the Mediterranean one due to its vast religious diversity (Protestants and Catholics) and ability to function without problems (at least until religious wars). But it was not as if Henri II ignored the Atlantic fleet he tried to increase it (something that occurred until the religious wars), but the Mediterranean was the priority.
The next chapter actually covers a bit on France's maritime policy in this period! You are absolutely spot on it in that the majority of it focuses upon the Flotte du Levant, primarily it's wharfs/harbors in Marseilles and changes in policy to ensure a steady stream of convicts for the war galleys—but it also focuses on the present king's policy that truly sees a centralized French navy as something to augment the French army, and for the first time some decent resources are given to it (primarily to the Levant fleet, as you've stated, but the Atlantic Fleet isn't ignored either). I agree that there are likely Franco-Portuguese troubles as IOTL (I'm sure that François Ier's marriage to the Infanta Beatriz probably had clauses in the marriage treaty to deal with issues of French piracy and attacks against the Portuguese). The most important start would be to do whatever possible to dilute the Atlantic's fleet autonomy: use of royal ships that are built for the king versus nobles loaning out ships. I think one big issue is that the Atlantic fleets, at least royal ships require sailors, men that will need experience and training: it's easier to get ships from the nobles / great merchants who likely have their own men. Recruiting sailors runs counter and conflicts with the need to recruit men for the army... so one can see why the Levantine fleet received such favor, as it could be staffed primarily using convict/slave labor as rowers. Rowers do not need the kind of training or experience that a sailor upon a warship might: they merely need to learn how to row in conjunction with the others.
 
If the Dutch merchants have any major successes in their colonial ventures, I don't see the Emperor not getting involved. This in turn would open the door for Dutch colonial ventures to become imperial colonial ventures, albeit with the Dutch disproportionately represented.
 
If the Dutch merchants have any major successes in their colonial ventures, I don't see the Emperor not getting involved. This in turn would open the door for Dutch colonial ventures to become imperial colonial ventures, albeit with the Dutch disproportionately represented.
Exactly. And with the major powers (England, France, the HRE) being Catholic sovereigns.... it could be quite interesting. I know that France IOTL essentially didn't give a fig about the Treaty of Torsedillas; François I declared: "The sun shines for me as it does for others. I would very much like to see the clause of Adam's will by which I should be denied my share of the world." I imagine that a Catholic England and the Catholic Habsburgs centered in Brussels will likely feel much the same way.

But I definitely see imperial colonial ventures having the Dutch disproportionally represented among them. The merchants out of the Low Countries could have much different aims/views than the Hanse merchants, for instance.
 
Yep, I'd say Spain being divorced from the Netherlands is only a benefit. It's also entirely likely that Spain and the Habsburg line in Brussels could diverge in terms of foreign policy.
It really is, without Burgundy there is nothing to stop the Spanish kings after Ferdinand from continuing some initiatives of the Catholic Kings that were left aside, like limiting the power of the Mesta in favour of developing the agricultural and textile/manufacturing sector (the Spanish have all the silver from the Americas to buy every expert or other illustrious mind) or focusing on managing trade between the viceroyalties (I think Spain at the end of the century could free up internal trade and create certain trading ports).

Exactly. And with the major powers (England, France, the HRE) being Catholic sovereigns.... it could be quite interesting. I know that France IOTL essentially didn't give a fig about the Treaty of Torsedillas; François I declared: "The sun shines for me as it does for others. I would very much like to see the clause of Adam's will by which I should be denied my share of the world." I imagine that a Catholic England and the Catholic Habsburgs centered in Brussels will likely feel much the same way.

But I definitely see imperial colonial ventures having the Dutch disproportionally represented among them. The merchants out of the Low Countries could have much different aims/views than the Hanse merchants, for instance.
I can imagine some Dutch under imperial flag with 0 respect for authority making the terrible mistake of repeatedly messing with Iberian colonies causing the break up between Habsburg branches and that most of the Latin world unites to burn the empire during the next great war ( the English seeing the coming chaos go into passive mode while they wreck themselves on the continent) .
 
What is the Danish succession situation and claimants like, especially after the Woodstock farce? Considering how Catholic Denmark-Norway ITTL defines itself in opposition to Lutheran Sweden, any potential successor to Christian II will almost certainly have to be Catholic, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
What is the Danish succession situation and claimants like, especially after the Woodstock farce? Considering how Catholic Denmark-Norway ITTL defines itself in opposition to Lutheran Sweden, any potential successor to Christian II will almost certainly have to be Catholic, IIRC.
With John’s death and Mary vetoing any possibility for any of her younger sons to serve as a potential successor to Christian II, it leaves only two lines of descent through Christian II’s daughters.

The eldest, Dorothea, was married off to the Duke of Pomerania. She has male issue with her husband, but there has been an uptick in the Lutheran faith in her husbands domains—Dorothea’s children are likely raised as such or sympathetic to the faith.

Christina was married to Louis X of Bavaria, who co-ruled with his brother. Christina likewise had male issue with Louis, but her underage son was denied any right to co-rule with his uncle or to inherit the districts his father had possession of. Christina returned to Denmark as a widower with her children, they’ve essentially been reared and raised as Danish princes / princesses.

While you are correct that Christian II’s restoration means that Denmark-Norway has swung back towards Catholicism, it also endured the period of the 1520s / early 1530s where there were attempts to introduce a State Church / Lutheranism—and with a further 20 years (1536-1550s) where Christian II has tried to swing things back.
 
Christina was married to Louis X of Bavaria, who co-ruled with his brother. Christina likewise had male issue with Louis, but her underage son was denied any right to co-rule with his uncle or to inherit the districts his father had possession of. Christina returned to Denmark as a widower with her children, they’ve essentially been reared and raised as Danish princes / princesses.
I would love for Christina's children to inherit the Danish thone to be honest.
 
With John’s death and Mary vetoing any possibility for any of her younger sons to serve as a potential successor to Christian II, it leaves only two lines of descent through Christian II’s daughters.

The eldest, Dorothea, was married off to the Duke of Pomerania. She has male issue with her husband, but there has been an uptick in the Lutheran faith in her husbands domains—Dorothea’s children are likely raised as such or sympathetic to the faith.

Christina was married to Louis X of Bavaria, who co-ruled with his brother. Christina likewise had male issue with Louis, but her underage son was denied any right to co-rule with his uncle or to inherit the districts his father had possession of. Christina returned to Denmark as a widower with her children, they’ve essentially been reared and raised as Danish princes / princesses.

While you are correct that Christian II’s restoration means that Denmark-Norway has swung back towards Catholicism, it also endured the period of the 1520s / early 1530s where there were attempts to introduce a State Church / Lutheranism—and with a further 20 years (1536-1550s) where Christian II has tried to swing things back.
Sounds like Christina’s kids are in a better position but Dorothea’s line may have something to say about that especially if they can get the backing of other mostly Lutheran polities
 
What’s next for this TL in terms of intentions, goals etc.? Spoilers are fine.

P.S. What’s the current condition of British Catholicism without the religious upheaval of the Pilgrimage of Grace, the dissolution of the monasteries and Somerset and Northumberland’s Radical Reformation? And how have the leaders of the Pilgrimage, e.g. Aske, fared in this TL?
 
Top