English Catholic Monarch

Is it possible for the English to colonize North America by 1700s, and have extensive holdings in Africa, Australia, and India by 1850s (the real life British Empire "classic") if Henry VIII married an Austrian Hapsburg and decided a female heir was OK?

See, a lot of the colonies were made with religious reasons. So now all that's left is economic and prestige ones. Except that for the most part, the colonies sucked at making money thanks to smuggling.
 
He wouldn't need a Habsburg. He would just need an annulment from the Pope, and boom, there's your English Catholic monarch!
 
He wouldn't need a Habsburg. He would just need an annulment from the Pope, and boom, there's your English Catholic monarch!

Except... Anne Boyln didn't give him a son either.

Anyways, let's just go with my suggested one so that we don't have the Hapsburgs being mad at the Pope to keep things simple. Um... do we get British or at least English overseas expansion?
 
What makes it so she doesn't give him a son? There's nothing making it so she can't, no infertility or anything! She just wasn't lucky IOTL. But the alternative, her having a son, is totally plausible.
 
We'd almost certainly get at least some (being Catholic didn't stop the French from putting together a decent colonial empire, even if it did cause conflicts with the Spanish).

They might be less successful without the religious aspect, but it wasn't religious dissenters who settled Virginia or Barbados.
 
What makes it so she doesn't give him a son? There's nothing making it so she can't, no infertility or anything! She just wasn't lucky IOTL. But the alternative, her having a son, is totally plausible.

The thing is... it's the guy who determines the gender of the child. And while he did manage to have a son, here is the balance. There are 2 living daughters and 2 son. For legitimate children, that's either 2 daughters and 1 son or 1 daughter depending on how you want to go it. Actually, a case can be made Elizabeth I wasn't even his daughter (not very plausible, but there is more uncertainty here than it was for most English monarchs) For those that include died within 7 days of birth we have 22 daughters and 3 sons, Wikipedia missed some unmentioned children that was mentioned in the sources they cite.

But you know what? I just realized it doesn't matter. Either he gets his son or he accepts a female heir, either way we have both the Tudors and Hapsburgs being fine with the Pope.

So do we get our colonies?

We'd almost certainly get at least some (being Catholic didn't stop the French from putting together a decent colonial empire, even if it did cause conflicts with the Spanish).

They might be less successful without the religious aspect, but it wasn't religious dissenters who settled Virginia or Barbados.

I'm not saying being Catholic stops colonization, it certainly didn't stop the Spanish. I'm saying a lot of the impetus for ENGLISH colonization was religiously motivated. Barbados and Virginia were some of the more populous and lucrative English colonies. If they can't be managed well with -70% starting population, we might have a shrunken expansion.

What do you guys think?
 
Just have the 52 day old Prince Henry survive and you've got an English Catholic Monarch without all the drama..
 
Just have the 52 day old Prince Henry survive and you've got an English Catholic Monarch without all the drama..

Works too.

So what do you think about English overseas expansion? Someone said religious dissenters were important for Barbados and Virginia, key parts of British NA.
 
I'm not saying being Catholic stops colonization, it certainly didn't stop the Spanish. I'm saying a lot of the impetus for ENGLISH colonization was religiously motivated. Barbados and Virginia were some of the more populous and lucrative English colonies. If they can't be managed well with -70% starting population, we might have a shrunken expansion.

What do you guys think?
Virginia and Barbados were principally settled for money (and in the latter case, largely by indentured servants and later slaves). They will do fine. What you likely won't see as much of is New England-style colonization, where the largely unprofitable colonies become a major dumping ground for religious malcontents.

So you'll have more limited settler colonialism, but still quite a lot of resource/trade colonies. Not to mention whatever they capture from the French/Spanish/etc. in various wars.
 
The thing is... it's the guy who determines the gender of the child. And while he did manage to have a son, here is the balance. There are 2 living daughters and 2 son. For legitimate children, that's either 2 daughters and 1 son or 1 daughter depending on how you want to go it. Actually, a case can be made Elizabeth I wasn't even his daughter (not very plausible, but there is more uncertainty here than it was for most English monarchs) For those that include died within 7 days of birth we have 22 daughters and 3 sons, Wikipedia missed some unmentioned children that was mentioned in the sources they cite.

On Henry's paternity, and we're not even counting the illegitimate kids (and I'm not limiting them to the Careys) that he didn't acknowledge:

(by Bessie Blount) Elizabeth Talboys (b.1520)
(by Jane Pollard, Lady Stukeley) Thomas Stukeley (b.1520)
(by Mary Boleyn) Catherine Carey (b.1524)
Henry Carey (b.1526)
(by Mrs. Agnes Edwardes) Richard Edwardes (b.1525)
(by Joan Dingley/Dobson) Ethelreda Malte (b.1527)
(by Mary Berkeley, Mrs. Perrot) John Perrot (b.1528)

All of which survived past 7 days, and if Henry was their father that means 5 living daughters to six surviving sons. Not sure where/how you get 22 daughters?
 
What you likely won't see as much of is New England-style colonization, where the largely unprofitable colonies become a major dumping ground for religious malcontents.

You might do, depending on how the Reformation goes in England. If Protestantism does well enough to threaten or seem to threaten the stability of the country but not well enough to take over, it's possible that the government would encourage (or "encourage") Protestants to go and settle in the New World.
 
Virginia and Barbados were principally settled for money (and in the latter case, largely by indentured servants and later slaves). They will do fine. What you likely won't see as much of is New England-style colonization, where the largely unprofitable colonies become a major dumping ground for religious malcontents.

So you'll have more limited settler colonialism, but still quite a lot of resource/trade colonies. Not to mention whatever they capture from the French/Spanish/etc. in various wars.

Derp, I read "wasn't" as "was" thank you for your correction.

You might do, depending on how the Reformation goes in England. If Protestantism does well enough to threaten or seem to threaten the stability of the country but not well enough to take over, it's possible that the government would encourage (or "encourage") Protestants to go and settle in the New World.

Let's go with Catholicism maintaining a 75% grip on the total population and the Calvinists not making much headway. Ireland is uniformly Catholic while in England, the Protestants (and its various branches) are restricted to the cities as they don't make any headway among the peasants.

We established the rich colonies of Barbados and Virginia will probably still be established. New England was a dumping ground, but for the most part loyal to the crown until... you know what. Do we get Africa, India, and Australia centuries down the line? For that matter, since we just got rid of Elizabeth I, we accidentally butterflied away one of England's best administrators. Colonies take set up time and money upfront, and impoverished England isn't going to be able to touch anything not on the Atlantic. That means no Rhodesia (or whatever it would be called in this time line), no East India Trading Company, and no Australia.

Well, maybe not getting invaded by Spain might allow our Catholic English Monarch who succeeds Henry VIII to focus on administrative reform and balancing the budget. Even though he wasn't going to war with his enemies that much, he managed to put his successors into a debt hole.
 
Do we get Africa, India, and Australia centuries down the line?

"Centuries down the line" is too far after the POD to say with any certainty. Either outcome would be perfectly possible, depending on how the butterflies go.

For that matter, since we just got rid of Elizabeth I, we accidentally butterflied away one of England's best administrators.

I dunno about that; Elizabeth wasn't a bad monarch, but she wasn't as great as Tudor/Protestant propaganda made out, either.
 
Henry Carey was highly unlikely to have been Henry VIII's son. In fact, Henry VIII's relationship with Mary Boleyn Carey was so fleeting that the Queen's spies didn't find out about it or Queen Anne Boleyn would be an aborted idea. (Because it would be bruited about the court and to Rome and the Pope that Henry was just repeating himself, just putting himself in Katherine's position for variety.) It's just an idea people won't give up. And it looked good for Henry's fertility to let everyone believe Catherine Carey was his daughter, whether or not she was. So, scratch the one son in 1526.
 
Top