WI: Mary I and Philip II had issue?

A protestant on the French throne is completely unacceptable for the Habsburgs, and Philip would rather die a thousand deaths and lose all his dominions than see a realm reject the true church. The next most pressing threat is the occasional rebellion in Iberia, notably by the moriscos in the south. If they manage to stamp the Bourbon out and keep Iberia secure, then there's the matter of German protestants preventing Habsburg domination of the HRE, and the Ottomans threatening both the Austrian possessions and the maritime Catholic states.
 
A protestant on the French throne is completely unacceptable for the Habsburgs, and Philip would rather die a thousand deaths and lose all his dominions than see a realm reject the true church. The next most pressing threat is the occasional rebellion in Iberia, notably by the moriscos in the south. If they manage to stamp the Bourbon out and keep Iberia secure, then there's the matter of German protestants preventing Habsburg domination of the HRE, and the Ottomans threatening both the Austrian possessions and the maritime Catholic states.

Perhaps we could have the Bourbon cardinal rule instead..
 
That's just kicking the can down the road; the cardinal's line ends there, so as soon as he dies (without naming an heir, anyway) it's open season on the throne again.
 
There's also the question of how Dutch imperialism develops; the 17th was their golden century, and in ATL, there's still a ton of money to be made trading between China and India.

I've read some AH works that discussed the beginning of the Dutch colonial empire. It was mostly attributed to the breaking of the Lisbon-Antwerp trade route which enabled the Dutch/Flemish to control the flow of international goods in the North Sea. Demand for these goods caused the Dutch to send out tentative expeditions that had wild success. If that trade route never breaks then who's to say the Dutch would go colonizing at all if they remain the supreme middlemen of Europe?
 
So then it's likely that the Portuguese face less opposition it controlling the East Indies trade, which may be integrated into the Spanish trade network depending on whether or not Sebastian of Portugal dies without issue.
 
I've read some AH works that discussed the beginning of the Dutch colonial empire. It was mostly attributed to the breaking of the Lisbon-Antwerp trade route which enabled the Dutch/Flemish to control the flow of international goods in the North Sea. Demand for these goods caused the Dutch to send out tentative expeditions that had wild success. If that trade route never breaks then who's to say the Dutch would go colonizing at all if they remain the supreme middlemen of Europe?

This is true, the supply of salt from the Setubal peninsula needed to preserve herring led the Dutch to travel to modern-day Venezuela for salt and they eventually began trading there too. The end of the supply of sugar from Madeira and Brazil was also critical as the Netherlands was the leading sugar refining centre of Europe. Also, the embargo of spices, led the Dutch to organise their own voyages to the Indies. It also didn't help that New Christians made up the bulk of the merchant class in Portugal and under the Hapsburgs the inquisition led many to emigrate along with their skills to places like the Netherlands and Hamburg.
 
Henry II of France (b. 1519: d.1570) m. Catherine de' Medicis
1) Francis, Dauphin of France (b.1544 – d. 1560). Married Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1558.
2) Elizabeth (b. 1545). Married Carlos of Spain, Prince of Asturias, in 1559.
3) Claude (b 1547 – d 1575). Married Charles III, Duke of Lorraine, in 1559.
Louis, Duke of Orléans (b.1549 – d.1550).
4) Charles IX, King of France (b 1550). Married Elizabeth of Austria (b. 1554) or Anne of Austria (b. 1549) in 1570 and had descendants.
5) Henry, Duke of Anjou (b. 1551). Married Marie of Cleves (b.1553) in 1571 and had descendants.
6) Margaret (b. 1553). Married Henry, King of Navarre in 1572.
7) Francis, Duke of Alencon (b. 1555)

Just to point out, France can still ensure a half-Valois successor for the Navarrese throne even if Henri and Margot's marriage is still childless. There were considerations at a point - alongside his negotiations for a marriage to England's Elizabeth - of the duc d'Alençon to marry Henri III of Navarre's sister, Catherine. I'm not entirely sure why the match foundered (I suspect religious reasons might've played a role, from what I recall, Catherine was a rather diehard Calvinist, so much so that she was an unofficial minister for Protestant affairs after her brother became king, and the pope refused to grant the dispensation for her OTL marriage to the hyperCatholic duke of Lorraine).
 
So we likely end up in 1600 with a Spanish Habsburg dynasty ruling the Iberian Peninsula and the Spanish lands in Italy; an English Habsburg dynasty in England and the Low Countries; and an Austrian Habsburg dynasty in Central Europe? That looks pretty bad for the French.

Does the Dutch Revolt still happen?
 
If Phillip doesn't force a Habsburg on the French throne as well then all of Protestant Europe is pretty much fucked

German protestant states will still exist. Scandinavian Protestant states will still exist. Protestant Swiss cantons will still exist. Protestant Scotland will still exist. Protestants in France, with or without Habsburg on the throne, will be minor, just as in OTL the Huguenots were never a huge presence though they impacted history greatly. Prussia and Sweden will be the big protectors of Protestantism.

I see such a Habsburg wank as is developing here causing a big anti-Habsburg backlash especially in Germany which could even cause an early demise to the Holy Roman Empire.
 
Doubt it; you wouldn't be able to tell by the result, but the Holy Roman Empire was winning for much of the Thirty Years War; Tilly smashed the Bohemians, and the Danes and allied German princes got their shit packed in against him and Wallenstein. Even after Sweden joined the war (paid for by the French), Wallenstein was able to go toe to toe with Gustavus Adolphus, and Spanish tercios met the new model Swedish army at Nördlingen and thrashed them. Even at Rocroi, the tercio repelled multiple assaults under heavy artillery bombardment, until it was given the terms of surrender one would a fortress; they retired from the field with standards and arms.

The Habsburgs would have much greater strength to turn against the Protestants in the empire without also having to fight England, France, and the Netherlands, and each advantage given to the Habsburgs compounds itself. Without constant English raids on Spanish shipping, for instance, the Habsburgs are going to be able to borrow more money at lower costs, both reinforcing their military strength and drying up funding for Protestants to make war against the dynasty, especially if a Habsburg friendly regime takes power in France.
 
German protestant states will still exist. Scandinavian Protestant states will still exist. Protestant Swiss cantons will still exist. Protestant Scotland will still exist. Protestants in France, with or without Habsburg on the throne, will be minor, just as in OTL the Huguenots were never a huge presence though they impacted history greatly. Prussia and Sweden will be the big protectors of Protestantism.

I see such a Habsburg wank as is developing here causing a big anti-Habsburg backlash especially in Germany which could even cause an early demise to the Holy Roman Empire.

Almost eveyhing you said is right but protestant Scotland... Without Elizabeth on English trone Scotland will be Catholic... OTL became and Stayed protestant mostly because Queen Mary wanted being recognized as heiress of England much more than rule on a Catholic Scotland.
 
Almost eveyhing you said is right but protestant Scotland... Without Elizabeth on English trone Scotland will be Catholic... OTL became and Stayed protestant mostly because Queen Mary wanted being recognized as heiress of England much more than rule on a Catholic Scotland.
in OTL Scottland had gone through a reformation before Mary had returned to Scotland, and the powerful men that the Monarch would rely on to govern the Kingdom were firmly in charge, mostly as Protestants. Scottish Kings had difficulty under normal circumstances controlling the Great lords of the Kingdom. In the ^ years of Mary's reign, her secretary was killed in her presence by a group of disaffected lords, her husband was murdered, possibly with her connivance.
Then Mary was abducted, and maybe raped by her second husband. Finally, as a result of all this she faced a rebellion which captured and imprisoned her.
Clearly this was not a woman who had the sort of support that would have enabled her to begin a conflict, with the very people, on whom her reign would have depended.
 
in OTL Scottland had gone through a reformation before Mary had returned to Scotland, and the powerful men that the Monarch would rely on to govern the Kingdom were firmly in charge, mostly as Protestants. Scottish Kings had difficulty under normal circumstances controlling the Great lords of the Kingdom. In the ^ years of Mary's reign, her secretary was killed in her presence by a group of disaffected lords, her husband was murdered, possibly with her connivance.
Then Mary was abducted, and maybe raped by her second husband. Finally, as a result of all this she faced a rebellion which captured and imprisoned her.
Clearly this was not a woman who had the sort of support that would have enabled her to begin a conflict, with the very people, on whom her reign would have depended.

First Bothwell was Mary's third husband not the second (who was Darnley)
Second the protestant revolution in Scotland happened before Mary's return but after Elizabeth became Queen of England and bring back the other half of the island on the protestant side
Third: while Mary was often deceived by others and do not knew well Scotland her main mistake was supporting the Protestant elite hoping to being recognized as Elizabeth's heiress. The Catholic party in Scotland at the time of Mary's return was neither so big or so consolidated as you think and a Queen who really wanted bring back Catholic Church in Scotland only two/three years after the reformation wuold be able to do it (the other Mary had bring back Catholicism in England after almost twenty years)
 
First Bothwell was Mary's third husband not the second (who was Darnley)
Second the protestant revolution in Scotland happened before Mary's return but after Elizabeth became Queen of England and bring back the other half of the island on the protestant side
Third: while Mary was often deceived by others and do not knew well Scotland her main mistake was supporting the Protestant elite hoping to being recognized as Elizabeth's heiress. The Catholic party in Scotland at the time of Mary's return was neither so big or so consolidated as you think and a Queen who really wanted bring back Catholic Church in Scotland only two/three years after the reformation wuold be able to do it (the other Mary had bring back Catholicism in England after almost twenty years)
Bothwell was her third Husband. However the part played be Elizabeth in the actual Scottish reformation was small. The idea that Mary was motivated mainly by a remote possibility of being recognised as Elizabeth's heir is small.
The Lords of the congregation had managed to call a Parliament to reform the Scottish religion passed acts and established a form for the new religion, they also managed to create a mechanism for the decline of the Catholic Church that was not oppressive, by the time of Marys return they were largely in control of the Government.
Her Privy Council was largely made up of the same group. This shows her relative powerlessness.
For Mary to have challenged those men woyuld have involved maneuvering her supporters into positions of power, building up support, learning how to manage and manipulate power in Scotland, and building up a group of Catholic supporters who would back her in any confrontation.
As you, yourself say, the Catholic party was not that consolidated. Instead Mary lurched from crisis to crisis, most of them of a personal nature. Ironically the woman that you claim wanted Elizabeth's favour, responded by antagonizing her in her choice of husband.
The situation in England under Mary Tudor was very different. but even in England Mary's counter-reformation was readily reversible.
What a Catholic Queen who wanted to return Scotland to Catholicism needed was Power and support.
What Mary got was the protestant Bothwell.
 
Geoffrey Parker writes a lot about Philip II, and noted that some of his biggest failures came after his greatest triumph, the conquest of Portugal. This convinced him of his infallibility; whereas he had been previously quite cautious and willing to let his agents 'on the spot' direct affairs according to their knowledge, he refused to accept argument from his subordinates, which led to defeats in France, the Netherlands, and the English channel. If Philip and Mary's union butterflies away King Sebastian of Portugal's death, then it's possible that the Habsburgs could sweep away the last vestiges of opposition.
 
Geoffrey Parker writes a lot about Philip II, and noted that some of his biggest failures came after his greatest triumph, the conquest of Portugal. This convinced him of his infallibility; whereas he had been previously quite cautious and willing to let his agents 'on the spot' direct affairs according to their knowledge, he refused to accept argument from his subordinates, which led to defeats in France, the Netherlands, and the English channel. If Philip and Mary's union butterflies away King Sebastian of Portugal's death, then it's possible that the Habsburgs could sweep away the last vestiges of opposition.

AFAIK Philip II was a workaholic with a 'Protestant work ethic';), but prone to micromanage too many things. I don't disagree, that after gaining Portugal, he started to believe too much in himself.
Also whereas his father Charles was basically always travelling, he didn't do that often enough. Last time Philip II was in the Habsburg Netherlands was in 1559, when he left, he made a promise to the nobility and more in general the Estates General, he would return one day, but he never did.
There were a number of things, which contributed to the Dutch revolt, not just religious*, in fact Dutch Catholics weren't pleased with the representatives from their Sovereign Lord either. There's high taxation, ignoring the traditional rights of the Estates (and provinces), local nobles saw their role in governing the region being diminished etc. And then there's the elephant in the room, that Philip II, unlike Charles V (of Ghent), basically was a foreigner and didn't command the same degree of loyalty as his father, who was a native of the Burgundian Netherlands. It didn't mean Charles V never had conflicts, but he had a much better understanding of the region, so he was better equipped to settle conflicts here.

(*= one might argue, that certainly initially, the revolt and the religious conflict were two parallel conflicts; it's only after the religious one radicalised, that lines really started to get blurred)
 
Definitely; the initial plan for the Duke of Alba's march north was that Philip would meet him there, and that his soldiers would put him in a stronger negotiating position with the Dutch, but he missed the ship north due to a child being born at the time. If the English Match lasts longer, then the Lord of the Netherlands is going to spend a lot more time in northern Europe, so its possible he'd have a stronger grip on the Dutch.
 
Top