Habsburg King(s) and Parliament

[DocJamore]

Lets say that Henry and Catherine get lucky and have a son. Or his elder brother Arthur survives his trip to Wales and becomes king. Regardless, England would be a member of the largest and most powerful political dynasty in Europe.

In order to maximize the effect this would have, Henry and/or Arthur should die within a few years. Perhaps in battle? This gets us to the heir becoming king faster, the last native King of England dead, and the country under the control of the Hapsburg dynasty.

What would be the effects of this on the English Parliament?
Would the Habsburg King feel bold enough to ignore Parliament and run the country by themselves?
How would this effect the balance of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
Would Parliament try to assert their rights with this dynasty or would they be too afraid to do so?
Would there be a earlier English Civil War between the King and Parliament and would France support Parliament as a way to weaken the Hapsburgs?

 

[alexmilman]

Lets say that Henry and Catherine get lucky and have a son. Or his elder brother Arthur survives his trip to Wales and becomes king. Regardless, England would be a member of the largest and most powerful political dynasty in Europe.

In order to maximize the effect this would have, Henry and/or Arthur should die within a few years. Perhaps in battle? This gets us to the heir becoming king faster, the last native King of England dead, and the country under the control of the Hapsburg dynasty.

Arthur’s or Henry’s son will be a Tudor (just as Mary was) so there would be no need in any new arrangements and no Hapsburg control over England. Following your schema, one may claim that after the death of Louis XIII France was under control of Hapsburg dynasty because Hapsburg mother should make Louis XIV a Hapsburg.

 

[Ivan Lupo]

Catherine "technically" wasn't a Habsburg, as her relation to Charles V was actually through the Castillian/Aragonese connection she shared with her sister Juana the Mad, Charles' mother. However, had Arthur survived to father children with Catherine, there is a very good chance one or more of those children marry a Habsburg.

 

[DocJamore]

Arthur’s or Henry’s son will be a Tudor (just as Mary was) so there would be no need in any new arrangements and no Hapsburg control over England. Following your schema, one may claim that after the death of Louis XIII France was under control of Hapsburg dynasty because Hapsburg mother should make Louis XIV a Hapsburg.

I don't think that analogy works. Louis and Henry were born generations apart. At the latter's time the Hapsburg's were at the peak of their power. France was also surrounded by Hapsburg lands and so did not have the same geopolitical interests England would have. My schema allows for Catherine to be the Queen Dowager until her son is of age. There is precedent for this as she did do some ruling at home while Henry was warring in France. So Hapsburg influence will begin immediately, not wait until the heir is of age.

While the name "Tudor" may not die out, it would still essentially have also become a Hapsburg cadet branch and the King would have a lot of incentives to exploit the connections they have to the continent now. So I think the using the name "Hapsburg" is apt here. An alliance with the Spanish and the Austrian Branches is a natural counter to keep the French and the Auld alliance in check and push their interests in France or the Low countries. Would they want to reconquer Normandy? All of a sudden it looks possible! It's all paper of course, but they would have a shot at it.

But the main topic I wanted this thread to address is what would the relationship between the Hapsburg king and Parliament and how would that relationship evolve over the next 100 years.

Catherine "technically" wasn't a Habsburg, as her relation to Charles V was actually through the Castillian/Aragonese connection she shared with her sister Juana the Mad, Charles' mother. However, had Arthur survived to father children with Catherine, there is a very good chance one or more of those children marry a Habsburg.

And how would Parliament react to that? What would the English Court look like?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

At the latter's time the Hapsburg's were at the peak of their power.

But Katherine's not a Habsburg, she's a Trastamara. And keeping England friendly was a goal of Habsburg policy.

So Hapsburg influence will begin immediately, not wait until the heir is of age

If we work on an OTL premise (the New Years' Boy surviving, b.1511) for a regency under Katherine that needs Henry VIII to die before 1530 (I think the majority age was 18, but given that James II specified Mary of Modena was to be regent until son was 21yo and George IV and his Brunswick nephew got into a fight over when a regency ended (18 in Germany vs 21 in England), I'm leaning to the top end of the spectrum). Which is fine. Then the chances that you would get a pro-Habsburg England is reasonable.

But Katherine will not be regent. England's never had a tradition of queens regent AFAIK. (Henry III had a council, Richard II's was John of Gaunt, Henry VI's was likewise his uncles, Edward VI was a council led by a strongman). So it doesn't matter diddly-squat that Katherine served as regent during Henry's absences abroad (had that been the sole criteria, Kathryn Parr should've been appointed regent for Edward VI, not the duke of Somerset). Which means that England will ally with whomever seems most likely to give what whoever is regent (I imagine it'd be a combo of Norfolk and Suffolk (Buckingham too if Henry dies before he's beheaded) which will be fun since Norfolk-Suffolk hated one another) what they want most. Or more likely, England withdraws behind the Channel (except for Calais) and doesn't do much until Henry Jr is of age.

A son by Katherine and Arthur is trickier. The earliest they are likely to have a kid is around 1503. If they're lucky, and said kid is a boy, there's a regency from when Henry VII/Arthur dies until TTL Henry VIII turns 18-21yo. If he's born in 1503, that's in 1524. If dad's predeceased Henry VII, then our regent from 1509 is noneother than Henry, duke of York (OTL Henry VIII). Maximilian of Austria died in 1518, while Katherine's father did in 1516, and with Arthur surviving, any number of combos could happen. Fernando remarried and althoguh his OTL son died, Joan, prince of Girona could live here.

While the name "Tudor" may not die out, it would still essentially have also become a Hapsburg cadet branch and the King would have a lot of incentives to exploit the connections they have to the continent now. So I think the using the name "Hapsburg" is apt here

No, it really isn't. The Aviz in Portugal are what could be considered a Habsburg cadet branch with all the intermarrying going on there. One queen of England (who wasn't even a Habsburg) don't make it one. The name Tudor is a later invention by historians anyway, apparently (much like how Capetians are differentiated by direct, Valois, Aviz and Bourbon etc). ISTR that Henry VII/VIII considered themselves Plantagenets first and foremost. And if they did, renaming yourself "Habsburg" after a foreign dynasty, with a castle that they no longer own is stupid, when the family name you've got (technically Anjou but called Plantagenet) is a) older than the Habsburgs and b) been ruling longer than the Capets (admittedly, not in England. The dynasty's founder died in 888. Almost as a whole century before the Capets began to rule in France).

Besides, what happens when the English get tired of a Habsburg alliance - probably because the Habsburgs are using them (as the Habsburgs tended to do)? They gonna start calling themselves Valois instead? Go back to Tudor-Plantagenet.