WI: Phillp II and Mary I had an heir?

I must point out that this Philip-Mary 'empire' is smaller than that of Charles V , who managed well enough with the instruments of the day. I doubt that either Philip or Mary would have seen a need for such dramatic measures. In fact, for Philip and Mary themselves, the issue was no more complex than OTL-.
 
But I think you giving way to much power to the Cortes (which is who I assume you are referring to when you mention Courts). Aragon was on the decline from the moment it was joined in union with Castile. Sort of like the Scotland to Castile's England. The only Cortes that seemed to retain its authority was that of Castile.
Good, i knew that Aragon eventually was becoming secondary, but wasn't sure on the timing.

As for different administrations, I'm not following you. Each realm already had a Viceroy/Regent (Regent was the title of Habsburg Governors). And why would the King want to strengthen the powers of the various Cortes/Parliaments? That would weaken his own authority. Better to appoint a trustworthy Viceroy to strengthen the Crown's authority. And to encourage intermarriages between the Various national nobles, a large scale version of Spanish policy in Italy. If the nobility have lands in all or most of the dominions then they will want to stay loyal to the crown to keep from running the rick of losing lands.
The idea is to give enough power to each kingdom so as they don't get the impression they are being ruled from outside, and take the first chance to opt out whenever a successional crisis happen. If each nation believes it rules itself, and believes they can set laws the king, or the regent, has to abide with, they have a lot less reason to try become independent.

Regarding the OTL viceroyalties, when i studied them (the ones Spain set up in America), i got the impression they were more of an administrative layer than positions with actual political power.

Personally I see the Western Empire becoming more and more international in its outlook as time go's on. If the various nobility's are merged together then it will be in the elite's best interests to retain the empire.
I like this, but this will not happen overnight.

And really, using the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an example:rolleyes:? Their governing style was a disaster from the get-go. It gave WAY to much power to the Nobility, which ultimately led to the Nation's collapse and division among Russia Austria and Prussia. So WHY would ANYONE want to use something like that in a TL? No better to focus on centralization and strengthening the Monarchy.
Haha :D well, it was a disaster, but it was a disaster that lasted more than two centuries and made 2 smaller nations into 1 regional power. And it was only brought down by the coalition of 3 nations with the most powerful militaries of their time.
Henry would be lucky to create a failure of this magnitude ;)

But Brussels might be the best solution for a capital. Better to equally offend the English and Spanish.
I agree with the problems of an Italian city, it's terribly located.
Having said that: Yes! Brussels! i love the idea.
The problem is that the united provinces might be a bit too small. Could do with a bit of ampliation. Like southwards. The French have a lot of extra room they aren't using, anyway.
A bit more seriously, if the united provinces are used to seat the throne, they might have to be removed from the English crown control, unless Brussels would be separated into its own state.
 
Last edited:
A radical thought.

In this scenario, England remains Catholic (of some sort). Scotland also. Spain is of course Catholic. The butterfly effects on the Low Country are hard to predict, but it seems not unreasonable that it may remain Catholic also, in the absence of English support (and, indeed, perhaps, England as a base to suppress any Protestant rebellion.)

Now, if we add that to the OTL successes of the Counter-Reformation, may we ask "Does Protestantism survive at all ?" . The Protestant base seems to be reduced to some of the Rhineland German states, and isolated enclaves in such places as Hungary and Savoy. And Brandenburg, I guess.And, with a Catholic Low Country so close to hand, would the Protestant Rhine states survive ?
 
Well, ISTM that this would not be a monolithic empire, but rather a number of realms held in personal union. Like Britain and Hanover, later. Or, for that matter England and Scotland for about 100 years. Each country retaining its own capital, its own laws, and with a Regent or Viceroy deputing for the King when he could not be there.

That worked well enough, we see the historical examples.

The problem comes when one of the realms has aspirations that conflict with those of another. So long as the national direction is harmonious (England , Scotland) , or they are quite different and thus non conflicting (England, Hanover; or Spain and Germany in the case of Charles V ) , all is well. But when Realm A wants to do that which Realm B sees as opposed it its interest , what then? Can the realms go to war ? (Remember , they have the same King - can he fight himself?). If the King arbitrates, odds are the loser will not accept with good grace.

In the case cited, England and Spain will be at loggerheads. And England and the Low Country. How long would it all hold together?

One question? What if the child of the Mary-Philip union is a girl? Are any of the realms under Salic Law? England is not, nor Spain, nor Flanders. I do not know about the Italian states, though Rene of Anjou inherited Naples from a female.

Yes this empire would be a massive conglomeration of Nations. It kind of reminds me of the Austrian Empire on a massive scale. But I'm not quite sure why everyone is seeing that this empire will be at constant internal odds. I mean the only difference between this Empire and the Empire of Charles V is membership. The HRE is substituted for England (and Ireland).

I can see the possibility of England being at odds with the other Dominions but I think your vastly overestimating the power of England at this point in history. Mary I's England was a second tier power when Compared to Spain and France. So even if the want to start an argument with Spain or the Low Countries I doubt they would win. Also, what would be the bones of contrition? Would the really be irreconcilable, as you seem to be implying? Because I can't see what would end up being such an issue. Also England would still be independent until 1598, when Henry IX/ John II would become Enrique V/ Juan III. So with decades of English policy being aligned with Madrid, it might not end up being as big a deal. Finally, the various realms wouldn't declare war on each other. It never happened OTL and I can't see it happening TTL.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the best thing to do would be to bind the various national nobility's together. Encourage marriages between English, Spanish, Italian, and Flemish nobles. Grant them overlapping lands in each Dominion. Make it so they would stand to lose more then they could gain if they rebelled/ went against the crown.

Finally, we are going with a male heir. But in the Marriage contract, a female would inherit England, Ireland and the Low Countries.

This is where I think resurrecting the claim to the Byzantine Imperial titles, as sold to Ferdinand and Isabella by Andreas Palaiologos, comes in handy. If any more permanent administrative union came about from this marriage, I don't believe it would be solidified under any new administrative organization until it was under the personal union of a single monarch. However, if a Roman Imperial state could be resurrected under Henry's (questionably) legitimate(ly purchased) claim to the Byzantine Imperial title, especially if the Austrian Habsburgs and a Pope could be convinced to name a second Roman Emperor. Considering this was the par for the course for much of Roman history, it could probably be pulled off.

So, imagine that each kingdom still has its own identity and is ruled by regents or viceroys named by the King-Emperor, or even elected by the nobles of each kingdom/province.

By the way, I agree that a new capitol may need to be named. Rome, Ravenna... or even Milan! Reviving the old Roman capitol, as set up by Diocletian, may set up the right feeling of nostalgia for the old Roman Empire; plus, Milan has the benefit of already being under the "Empire's" control.

So, New Western Roman Empire as the top administrative level, England, Ireland, Spain, Portugal (or the two as "Hispania"), the Two Sicilies, and all the other Kingdoms as their own, still semi-independent Kingdoms within the Empire, etc...

Again I don't think using the old Byzantine titles would go over well. However I can see a unified Bureaucracy being created to help manage the huge empire. Perhaps the language of Government could also be centralized perhaps as Latin? The language wasn't nearly as dead then so its an option. However, the Neapolitan Kings claimed the title King of Jerusalem and that was also bought so its a possibility. I think you would almost need a second Sack of Rome, a repeat of a Pope Clement VII. If the Pope is cowed to the King of Spain then he wouldn't be in any position to refuse such a demand. Maybe the Pope sides with France in a war against Spain and history repeats itself. It might take a bit of work but I think the Austrians will agree to it, perhaps in exchange for a few changes in their own Empire. Perhaps they get their own Eastern Empire?

But yes each Nation/Province would still have the same Viceroy/Regent system, though I doubt you'll see an elected Viceroy. It would take to much power away from the Monarch and might give the nobles ideas about electing a new King....

As for a capital, as I said earlier no to Rome or Ravenna.Both are outside of Western control and wouldn't be good strategic locations. After all this isn't a Mediterranean empire, its more of an Atlantic one. Though Milan would be interesting, I have to stick with Brussels.

I agree with most of the Administrations, but the Two Sicilies are still attached to Aragon, so there might be a fight there, depending on how strong the Cortes is. But what do you see happening to the various Cortes/Parliaments/Assemblies? Personally I can see them continuing to exist with their power limited, and perhaps a revived Senate in the new Capital.
 
..
I can see the possibility of England being at odds with the other Dominions but I think your vastly overestimating the power of England at this point in history. Mary I's England was a second tier power when Compared to Spain and France. So even if the want to start an argument with Spain or the Low Countries I doubt they would win. Also, what would be the bones of contrition? Would the really be irreconcilable, as you seem to be implying? Because I can't see what would end up being such an issue. Also England would still be independent until 1598, when Henry IX/ John II would become Enrique V/ Juan III. So with decades of English policy being aligned with Madrid, it might not end up being as big a deal. Finally, the various realms wouldn't declare war on each other. It never happened OTL and I can't see it happening TTL.

.

The constitutional arrangements could perhaps borrow from the HRE when it was still effective. That too was an Empire consisting of a number of semi independent states. Not all of the same race or language (back then) . And that model would of course be very familiar to men of the time.

I don't think the parts of the empire can fight each other - as I said, how can the King fight himself. Though the components of the HRE managed it!

Whether they would get along harmoniously, I think more dubious. ISTR that some of the American (British) colonies ended up practically at war with one another at some point ! The connections between the Low country and England are old, and strong, and they share a similar economic rationale. Those between either of the former and Spain, much weaker and more recent , and the economies very different (IMHO far too little attention is given to economic factors in historical analysis) . And there is that big chunk of neutral or enemy territory in between.

It could end up with two counterpoised empires - the (German) HRE and the (Spanish) Western Empire (whatever it ends up being called) . In such a scenario , it would suck to be France! The Spanish Road is too tenuous . I think that S-N-E has to either seize the old Burgundian territories or the two halves will sooner or later drift apart. If S-N-E does seize and hold Burgundy/Lorraine/Bar/Luxembourg etc then France is in a very bad way.
 
The constitutional arrangements could perhaps borrow from the HRE when it was still effective. That too was an Empire consisting of a number of semi independent states. Not all of the same race or language (back then) . And that model would of course be very familiar to men of the time.

I don't think the parts of the empire can fight each other - as I said, how can the King fight himself. Though the components of the HRE managed it!

Whether they would get along harmoniously, I think more dubious. ISTR that some of the American (British) colonies ended up practically at war with one another at some point ! The connections between the Low country and England are old, and strong, and they share a similar economic rationale. Those between either of the former and Spain, much weaker and more recent , and the economies very different (IMHO far too little attention is given to economic factors in historical analysis) . And there is that big chunk of neutral or enemy territory in between.

It could end up with two counterpoised empires - the (German) HRE and the (Spanish) Western Empire (whatever it ends up being called) . In such a scenario , it would suck to be France! The Spanish Road is too tenuous . I think that S-N-E has to either seize the old Burgundian territories or the two halves will sooner or later drift apart. If S-N-E does seize and hold Burgundy/Lorraine/Bar/Luxembourg etc then France is in a very bad way.

I think that, for the course of the joint monarchy between Mary and Philip, the par for the course administration of the Spanish dominions and the British isles would probably persist. I don't see any major overhaul occurring during their lifetimes/reigns. However, under the rule of a single King, especially a King with the right kind of ambitions, he'd probably start encouraging the inter-regional marriages and land grants as mentioned previously. The process of unification, if that's what "Henry" wants, is going to have to be carefully managed, but pursued actively. He'll need the right allies, and he'll have to be a shrewd politician to pull it off.

jotabe1789: "I agree with the problems of an Italian city, it's terribly located.
Having said that: Yes! Brussels! i love the idea.
The problem is that the united provinces might be a bit too small. Could do with a bit of ampliation. Like southwards. The French have a lot of extra room they aren't using, anyway."

I see this as a problem too... although I had mentioned the idea of Milan, as a previous Roman Imperial capitol in the west and already under Spanish control, is nowhere near central enough to make an effective nerve center for this budding empire. Brussels does seem like a likely candidate, though I'd love to hear more about it.

Also, you mentioned France... one serious possibility I see happening here is a future "Henry" getting an itch to invade France, perhaps under the pretense of putting down Protestants, but I see him as either wanting the French throne for himself (like every English king has since Edward III), or to take back (Aquitaine, Burgundy, etc...) some juicy French real estate and try to stitch his patchwork Empire together a little more cohesively.

Might France work a little harder to try and get the Turks to get involved here? With so few allies nearby and completely surrounded by enemies, I see the French getting a little desperate, and pushing a little harder to get into the Ottomans' good graces.

JedidiahStott: "In this scenario, England remains Catholic (of some sort). Scotland also. Spain is of course Catholic. The butterfly effects on the Low Country are hard to predict, but it seems not unreasonable that it may remain Catholic also, in the absence of English support (and, indeed, perhaps, England as a base to suppress any Protestant rebellion.)
Now, if we add that to the OTL successes of the Counter-Reformation, may we ask "Does Protestantism survive at all ?" . The Protestant base seems to be reduced to some of the Rhineland German states, and isolated enclaves in such places as Hungary and Savoy. And Brandenburg, I guess.And, with a Catholic Low Country so close to hand, would the Protestant Rhine states survive?"

It may be possible that ITTL, Protestantism may eventually be relegated to the status of a relatively obscure Christian offshoot, relegated to the status of Christian Gnosticism and Arianism.
I don't know if that's the most likely outcome... it seems that it had a fair amount of support in several HRE provinces and in the Nordic regions. It could end up being a primarily Germanic branch of Christianity. Or, it may even end up a Germanic national church, like Anglicism, the Armenian Apostolic Church, or the Coptic Church.
 
The child might have wound up missing like those two princes in the Tower of London. I don't think anyone would have stood in Elisabeth's path to the throne.
 
The child might have wound up missing like those two princes in the Tower of London. I don't think anyone would have stood in Elisabeth's path to the throne.

OK why would Mary's son, who we are estimating to be in his late teens early 20s, be looked in the Tower by his bastard aunt? I mean give Mary 15-20 years and Elizabeth won't matter.
 
The child might have wound up missing like those two princes in the Tower of London. I don't think anyone would have stood in Elisabeth's path to the throne.

Elizabeth only inherited the throne because Mary I died without an heir. We're specifically keeping Mary alive much longer and giving her an heir. I doubt Elizabeth has the influence to manage anything like this ITTL... not without major backing by rebellious Protestant nobles.
 
Top