Assuming that both England and Scotland will stay catholic, and enter XVII century as major catholic powers (I think the best POD is to have Henry XVIII beign succeded by his son by Catherine of Aragon - that should also change James V's fate and), how different the balance of power in Europe during late XVI/early XVII century would have been? Are potential catholic sons and daughter english kings good enough for Habsburgs? How different Thirty Years' War is in this timeline? Would England support Spain against France, France against Spain, or try something different? And how potential Anglo-Scottish union would have beign without any religious problems?
European politics with catholic England and Scotland
- Thread starter Emperor Lucas I
- Start date
Yes - part of the intradynastic marriages of the Habsburgs then was due to the lack of available catholic royalty that wasn't opposed to them (which leaves out France and after 1640, Portugal) - for most of the 17th century, on that front pretty much all there was available was Bavaria and the Italian principalities.
I don't see much reason for them to get involved on the Thirty Years' War, though. But for all we know it might not even happen.
Last edited:
Henry VIII's reign was a financial disaster for the crown. Without the dissolution of the monasteries, the crown faces a monumental budget crisis that may cripple his later reign and leaves his Catholic son (Henry IX, I'm guessing) with such a mess that parliament may grow more powerful much faster in ATL.
VVD0D95
Banned
he'd need to start getting the right to tax the monasteries and church lands, like James v got otl.
He could remain Catholic and still seize corrupt monasteries, IIRC Isabel la Catolica did something similar in Castile.
I doubt it - Without Acts of Supremacy, there's no real reason for Tudor to call parliament so often - after all the main reason why Henry started to do so was because he needed all support he could find. Before it - during the Wolsley era - the crown could get away without it. Also, most what they gained from it was used to buy more support anyway.
Given the territorial strife between England and France over England's remaining claims on the continent (including Calais), I think England aligning with Spain against France is almost inevitable.
The dissolution of the monasteries didn't actually help Crown finances all that much, because most of the land was sold off to fund yet another unsuccessful attempt to conquer lands in France. A Catholic England would probably be in a similar long-term financial situation to its OTL equivalent.
True - but on the other hand, during Henry VIII reign' England tried to prevent Spain from becoming too strong. I can totally see change in next kingd politics, assuming that Spain will have too much adventage.
If the Tudor line continues on, there will be no personal union between England and Scotland, and the latter probably remains an ally of France. That could have significant butterflies for the next century and beyond.
Frankly, it sounds like it could create more problems for Tudors and their succesors than solve problems for Habsburgs.
It's always possible that Tudor will die out in 3rd or 4th generation though. And while OTL Henry VIII did everything to exclude Margaret's descendands, his daughters both considered this option. I think that the idea of unified Britain is just too tempting to be ignored, especially in this timeline, where union is possible without religious turmoil it caused OTL.
Would be strongly contested by Mary and Catherine and cause far more problems than just letting Mary succeed as Queen Regnant.
It could happen ... but I would tend to doubt it, especially happening within the next century. The OTL situation required England having a monarch who refused to marry, which is very unusual.
Well, potential catholic son of Henry VIII could always be Edward Confessor 2.0 or be infertile. He could also die relatively young, without any kids, or have only daughter, that would decide to marry King of Scots.
