Impact of Aztec/Incan Gold and Silver on England/France?

So, let’s assume that neither Portugal nor Spain were the first European nation to discover the Americas and instead of were either England or France in the early 1500s. Let’s also assume that whichever of these two discover the Americas, they’re able to conquer the Aztecs and Incas and secure access and control over the gold and silver deposits.

How would these resources impact the development of England/France economically, socially, and, politically?
 
France would, I think, spend the gold much as the Spanish Hapsburgs did initially, using it to pay for continental wars (and suffering when output drops, which may prevent them from paying their armies).

England may spend their money this way (an ATL Henry VIII-type King would definitely do that) but unlike France they do have the option of taking a step back from continental wars without having to fear hostile powers beyond controlling the border with Scotland and the coast of Ireland. Assuming the Spanish (or just the Castillians) are a factor ITTL, the English may put the money towards building fleets to keep Spanish pirates and invaders out of their New World holdings.
 
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it's a big, BIG assumption that either European power could faceroll both states as a given. Especially the Inca. Reading the Spanish conquest there reads more like divine intervention than anything else.
 
Would the English monarchs be able to stifle Parliament with all of that gold and silver?

They wouldn't need the gold to stifle parliament-England's (relatively) democratic structures are not a given and could have been reversed or prevented in multiple ways-Anglophiles feel free to correct me, but I think an alt-Charles I with unimpeachable Protestant credentials could have steamrolled parliament if he wanted to.

Though if you believe some political scientists talking about modern regimes, the need to tax their population is what makes governments more answerable to their population. A king who could finance his pet projects without having to tax the people would have less need to gain some sort of consent through parliament. Without the need for taxation, the king can just ignore representation, so I do think that gaining wealth through colonialist brutality would be more likely to harm than to help or be neutral towards democracy in England.
 
It's also a big assumption that they could not, at least eventually.

Considering the framing of the question in the OP...your response is rather baseless since it pretty much specifies 'Get this done in the 16th century'. Neither England nor France would be able to muster the resources and manpower to pull off what the Spanish did AND have men with the devil's luck leading the charge. There's a reason Spain was able to ship so many men to the New World that were versed in war in that era. And unlike the English or French, they pretty much had to bleed their lesser nobility onto the New World, it was easily the path of least resistance.
 
Top