Valois-Angoulême united France and British isles for the win.
European politics with catholic England and Scotland
- Thread starter Emperor Lucas I
- Start date
mickeymouse
Donor
The easiest way to go about getting a unified Catholic Britain is to kill Henry VIII off any time between 1509 and 1513. With Henry having no surviving child, Margaret Tudor ascends to the throne, and since Margaret is married to James IV of Scotland its much easier to unify Britain. And the Battle of Flodden not happening means that James’s death will be avoided, meaning that there’s more time to solidify the union for James and Margaret’s heirs.
You could go back even further–kill Henry off before he ascends to the throne and after Margaret’s marriage to James takes place, and Margaret will be Henry VII’s heir presumptive. Though in this scenario there is a strong likelihood that Henry VII will remarry and try to produce another heir.
VVD0D95
Banned
Do you mind if I drop you a message just to run some things by you for it?It sounds interesting!
In scenerio where Stewards are taking over England i early 1510's, we should have completly different personal union than OTL. And completly different style of rule than either Tudors, or Darnley line of Stuarts.
While this scenario is very interesting but still seemed too focused on England and little to nothing on both the possible Scottish pod to keep it Catholic and the possible implications from a Rome aligned surviving/independent Scotland that'd have their dynastic alliance politics.
Particularly if this TTL Scotland would still be a French ally and if as the England royals, they would wish/be able to marry with the Habsburgs.
Also, perhaps, would be possible that the more than likely possibility of inter -dynastic marriages with the Habsburgs would, (similar to the OTL, Catherine of Braganza), brought as royal bride's dowry some continental territories/Habsburgs domains.
And, even, more interesting would be the possibility that the Low Countries, as a whole or a part of it, would come in Dynastic union/personal domain (like OTL; Hannover) of the English dynasts... Though, dunno, as feasible, it'd be for the times politically and in genealogical/royal inheritance, terms...,
Particularly if this TTL Scotland would still be a French ally and if as the England royals, they would wish/be able to marry with the Habsburgs.
Also, perhaps, would be possible that the more than likely possibility of inter -dynastic marriages with the Habsburgs would, (similar to the OTL, Catherine of Braganza), brought as royal bride's dowry some continental territories/Habsburgs domains.
And, even, more interesting would be the possibility that the Low Countries, as a whole or a part of it, would come in Dynastic union/personal domain (like OTL; Hannover) of the English dynasts... Though, dunno, as feasible, it'd be for the times politically and in genealogical/royal inheritance, terms...,
Last edited:
I think that this depends from personalities of british monarchs, sentiments among both english and scottish subjects, behaviors of Spain and France etc.
It was always problematic for english kings to keep good relations with France, elites in England believed that you can't leave France alone for too long, as it means risk of french dominance on the continent. On the other hand, at the start of XVI century, Spain is much bigger problem. Plus, I don't see England just ignoring potential of New World.
kham_coc
Banned
Sure, which is the problem, how would the Orange order function if they were all Catholics?
Arguably the only reason there is an Ireland is because of the Catholic/Protestant divide - Going by what happened everywhere else in GB, the Irish would just have been integrated, though I'm by no means an expert on that particular divide.
kham_coc
Banned
That's basically my point. Since the other issues are essentially class based, I dont see how any Irish/Anglo divide can persist. The Irish language basically died out as is, and that's with an Irish state backing it.
So no sinn fein, but rather something like INP though that doesn't roll of the tongue like SNP does.
VVD0D95
Banned
You’re going way too far in the future. For all we know the development of parties as we know them could be butterflied with a pod this early
But doesn't this rather prove my point? The crown is a financial mess and Henry VIII is, at heart, an adventurer king who's kind of shit at making war. What happens in ATL when he doesn't have that money? Henry's never been one for self-control, so I doubt the campaign is canceled in ATL. Henry VIII already squandered the greatest cash reserve in English history and passed on the biggest debt in English history to his children in OTL -- just how much more debt is Henry VIII leaving behind in ATL? Whether his heir is Henry IX, Mary, or a Catholic Edward, this seems rather destabilizing to the balance of crown-parliamentary power in the second half of the 16th century.
You see only part of the problem - like it was said, Crown didn't gained that much from this - Henry had to buy supporters to Act of Supremacy for something, and England was on a brink of another Civil War anyway. Plus, many monarchs had constant financial problems in XVI century - it's not like Holy Monarch Emperor or Francis I were swimming in gold either. And why there's need for calling parliaments in this timeline in the first place - during Wolsley era, parliament was slowly phasing out. It's Acot of Supremacy that saved it.
Wasn't there a huge problem during Plantagenet era that anglo-norman colonizers liked to go native though? Change of faith solved this problem OTL, as made going native much harder. Also, we should remember that Henry VIII becamed King of Ireland after Act of Supremacy.
I'm not really sure where the idea that the crown didn't get much is coming from when it gained some 1.5 million pounds from the Dissolution of the Monasteries. I say again, if Henry is going to continue to be himself and plow this much money into another half-assed war on the continent (and does anything think he'll just stop trying to be Henry V 2.0?), then where does it come from? If the answer is debt, this seems like a crippling blow to royal power and national stability.
Also, the Habsburgs and Valois had financial problems, but not like England faced. The cost of war had grown significantly with technological innovations of the late 15th/early 16th century, and England simply couldn't keep up. Henry VIII's attempt to do so hobbled the country well into the Stewart era.
I could see a situation where a combined English/Scottish crown, just like in Spain, would lead to some of the other European powers being wary of Britain. Consider that the New World is now well known and that Britain and Ireland are well placed to explore across the ocean to look for more wealth. They also present a potential problem when it comes to the North and Baltic Sea trade with the rest of Atlantic Europe and the Mediterranean. The Habsburgs may perceive Britain as a new rival to their mastery of the New World and western trade routes to Asia.
Henry might not be able to prosecute his war ITTL -- if Parliament won't vote him the funds, and he can't borrow enough money, there's not a lot he can do, no matter how much he might want to invade France again.
Alternatively, he could try and start taxing Church income, or even seize monastic land (other Catholic monarchs did so under various pretexts). Maybe TTL's John Fisher and Thomas More could be martyred for opposing this rather than opposing the break with Rome.
Alternatively alternatively, Henry or his successor could declare bankruptcy. This would be bad for the Crown's credit in the short term, but it would at least mean that it didn't have to find money to pay off the enormous debts Henry's racked up.
Maybe, although there's no reason to suppose that a combined English/Scottish realm would immediately rise to become a first-rate power -- it took a good hundred years or so IOTL, and even then a big part of Britain's rise to power was the financial reforms passed under William III which enabled the British state to raise more money per head than most of their European counterparts (I've seen it estimated, for example, that by around 1700, the British government had about the same income as the French, despite France having three times the population).
hardly possible, I calmly see Fisher or More agreeing with the dissolution of monasteries if done with criteria and within certain limits with respect to Otl, a bit like other Catholic sovereigns did on the continent (the Catholic kings, Charles V or the Duke of Bavaria to give some examples) it is also good to remember that the dissolution took place with the consent of Rome and really start under the government of Wolsey (not really a Lutheran or reformist but a cardinal of Rome) for the foreign policy of this ATL England / Scotland or union dynastic between the two, I see it very similar to Otl in principle at least in the first period (the kingdom should stabilize sooner in the event of a joint inheritance, it will aim to be the balance between France and the Habsburgs, with Rome very happy about this, furthermore we must bear in mind that a part of the population can easily become Protestant (I would say mainly nobles or bourgeois from the South-East who oppose real policies, a little along the lines of France with the Huguenots, I see the formation of a party (small in number of people) but very influential in the politics of the kingdom (due to the wealth and prestige of the people involved in it, perhaps even some parliamentarians)
moreover, yes, the crown with the dissolution of monasteries, in theory I came into possession of more than 800,000 pounds per year (total figure that the monasteries yielded annually) but I only got 1/5 of it (in practice they didn't know what to manage and make lands like the old owners)
another interesting fact will be what the Holy See is willing to do or give to keep these two kingdoms loyal to it (Otl the reform was considered an unprecedented shock, but not for the loss of the kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark or the north of the HRE, but due to its frightening diffusion and above all the conversion of London (a real blow that is difficult to digest for Rome, compared to Stockholm, Berlin of the moment) it is the almost loss in the hands of the heretics of France and Austria (which terrorized the papacy until to about 1630) therefore I see Rome almost willing to make false papers to keep the British Isles in the Catholic Church (even going so far as to grant similar treaties to the monarchs of "Spain" and France)
Last edited: