Not meant to be serious, but in short here's my lore, im horrific at writing lore lmao
In this timeline, one of Mary's phantom pregnancies turned out to be real, and a son, Philip is born, being Mary's first born and Philip's second.
Mary would die on November 17th, 1558 (there's a typo where i put 19 November over 17 November, ignore that lmao).
Forcing England into a regency with the boy's father Philip II of Spain as the regent as Tudor and Catholic, loyalist Regniald Pole died earlier that day.
Elizabeth Tudor would be kept alive, but married off to King Erik XIV of Sweden as her brother didn't want her around spreading anti Catholic beliefs, and who doesn't love the Swedes?
After Philip's brother Carlos dies in 1568, this leaves 13 year old Philip the heir of a soon to be Spanish Empire
England would go onto conquer Scotland sometime after Mary Stuart's abdication as her Protestant son James would become King, though only a boy.
Love some what if lore! How do you think this would have affected France. Surrounded by Spain, Austria, England and the Netherlands all belonging to the Hapsburg Empire. I think Catherine Medici and her sons are in for a rough ride.
I honestly think that England and the Empire could march on Paris and simply just take the French crown for themselves, because I stole Charles IX’s wife from him and gave her to Philip I lmao
Really interesting outcome! I've always wondered how much things would change if Mary had a son, instead of suffering from a phantom pregnancy. Although I find it hard to imagine Philip gaining a regency over his son, mainly due to anti-Spanish sentiments among the nobility. If anything, they'd want Mary's son to be raised English. How would Philip manage to convince them, I wonder?
Also, I'm not sure if Elizabeth would be married off in this scenario. If she had sons with Eric, their claims would pose a threat to Mary's son (and thus Philip's regency.) There's a lot to unpack with this scenario, but I enjoyed reading your take on it!
I didn’t know what to do with Elizabeth here, I could of have her killed, but that’s just dark lmao, in hindsight I should have let Reginald Pole live as I would had gone with him as regent. But I would imagine since Philip is Philip’s father he would probably scare most of the nobility into respecting him. And thank you for liking it!
Oh, that's fair lol I imagine they'd keep Elizabeth as a prisoner, although that's pretty risky. I guess marriage would make the most sense, but maybe to a Catholic loyalist. As for Pole, he'd make the most sense to be regent, but he'd been gone from England for a long time that he really doesn't have a good understanding of the political situation. That was a common sentiment in our timeline, I believe.
Regardless, this is a very interesting idea to explore!
Well, if England conquered Scotland at that time, it would be with the help of Emperor Phillip, or whoever his Spanish/Habsburg regent was. The mercenaries would be shouting "¡Santiago y cierre España!" Remember that England did not conquer Scotland in the 16th century. They would have needed help to do that, so I am suggesting Spanish help. Charles V, and Phillip II found that the centre of gravity of their Habsburg Empire lay in Spain. That would still have been the case if there was an English Habsburg.
Charles V may have held onto the Holy Roman Empire for a time. But that hold was tenuous. I am well aware that Phillip II's focus was not central Europe, Germany or the Balkans! The Spanish line controlled the various kingdoms of Spain (with customs barriers still maintained between them); the Low Countries, the Balearic Islands, and the southern half of Italy for a time. They controlled colonies in the New World, and the Phillipines. For a time, Phillip II also ruled Portugal, so he visited Lisbon a couple of times to do business.
Yeah but u called him as emperor Philip when, in actual reality by then, Emperor Ferdinand who was charles brother was to keep the austrian lands and the hre for his family. Maximilian II his son would be the next emperor
Tbh, I doubt Philip would be made Regent. He's already the King of another country that he's got to manage and he was not well liked in England. I think Parliament would insist that there was an English Regent, but I don't know who that'd end up being.
I also don't think Elizabeth would be married away unless it was to someone under Philip's influence. I think he'd either marry her himself, to secure a Catholic, Habsburg succession in England, or she'd be offered to Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy who was Philip's cousin and a staunch Catholic and Philip was interested in the match irl. Marrying Elizabeth off inherently comes with the risk though, no matter to who, since she could produce rival claimants. I think if Elizabeth married, her daughter would almost definitely be married to Mary's son for the sake of unity.
I kinda doubt Scotland would get conquered either. The Tudors didn't really have any claim to Scotland except from way back in the 1100s, it was the Stuarts who had a claim on England, not the other way round. I do think Philip would be in a very strong position to potentially leverage James VI into marrying one of his daughters with Elisabeth of Valois though, which would still put Scotland into Spain's sphere of influence.
Long story short, it's a Habsburg dominated Western Europe.
As I sit in my condo balcony looking at the Chesapeake Bay in the US state of Virginia, Mary having a living child of either sex is really one of history's great what ifs.
"Virginia" would probably be called "Maryland" instead if Elizabeth I never became Queen. (Or, if we go by Australia, "Queensland" would also be a plausible alternative name.)
Neat! One note: this Philip would probably numbered II for England, as his father claimed to be Philip I of England by right of his marriage.
Same reason why he’s Philip II of Spain, because his grandfather was Philip I of Castile by right of his wife.
I mean yes.
But on a serious note, do you realise how lucky the UK monarchy were as a European Monarchy to never have an injection of that DNA can of worms. It was bad enough with the Hanoverians marrying their cousins in the 1700’s so add in some Habsburg and we’d have had an incest party!
This childless marriage was the closest.
The Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain states that Philip couldn’t claim the throne for himself if he outlived Mary, so I think that would have blocked any regency. Parliament would have insisted on an English Regent, which was the custom and practice rather than a foreign monarch. I can’t aww the powerful English families such as the Seymours or Queen Catherine Park allowing a Spanish takeover.
If Catherine Parr's daughter, Lady Mary Seymour, lived in this scenario, she would probably be one of the more powerful Seymours at court, as she was an heiress, as well as the only daughter of a former queen consort, like Catherine of Valois's Tudor sons. If she manages to find a more powerful husband, that could help or hinder the Habsburgs.
A son of Philip and Mary would definitely have been known as Philip II of England, as his father was seen as an actual monarch of England, in a titular sense at the very least.
Not meant to be serious, but in short here's my lore, im horrific at writing lore lmao In this timeline, one of Mary's phantom pregnancies turned out to be real, and a son, Philip is born, being Mary's first born and Philip's second. Mary would die on November 17th, 1558 (there's a typo where i put 19 November over 17 November, ignore that lmao). Forcing England into a regency with the boy's father Philip II of Spain as the regent as Tudor and Catholic, loyalist Regniald Pole died earlier that day. Elizabeth Tudor would be kept alive, but married off to King Erik XIV of Sweden as her brother didn't want her around spreading anti Catholic beliefs, and who doesn't love the Swedes? After Philip's brother Carlos dies in 1568, this leaves 13 year old Philip the heir of a soon to be Spanish Empire England would go onto conquer Scotland sometime after Mary Stuart's abdication as her Protestant son James would become King, though only a boy.
Love some what if lore! How do you think this would have affected France. Surrounded by Spain, Austria, England and the Netherlands all belonging to the Hapsburg Empire. I think Catherine Medici and her sons are in for a rough ride.
I honestly think that England and the Empire could march on Paris and simply just take the French crown for themselves, because I stole Charles IX’s wife from him and gave her to Philip I lmao
“Haha I’m in danger.” - France probably.
Really interesting outcome! I've always wondered how much things would change if Mary had a son, instead of suffering from a phantom pregnancy. Although I find it hard to imagine Philip gaining a regency over his son, mainly due to anti-Spanish sentiments among the nobility. If anything, they'd want Mary's son to be raised English. How would Philip manage to convince them, I wonder? Also, I'm not sure if Elizabeth would be married off in this scenario. If she had sons with Eric, their claims would pose a threat to Mary's son (and thus Philip's regency.) There's a lot to unpack with this scenario, but I enjoyed reading your take on it!
I didn’t know what to do with Elizabeth here, I could of have her killed, but that’s just dark lmao, in hindsight I should have let Reginald Pole live as I would had gone with him as regent. But I would imagine since Philip is Philip’s father he would probably scare most of the nobility into respecting him. And thank you for liking it!
Oh, that's fair lol I imagine they'd keep Elizabeth as a prisoner, although that's pretty risky. I guess marriage would make the most sense, but maybe to a Catholic loyalist. As for Pole, he'd make the most sense to be regent, but he'd been gone from England for a long time that he really doesn't have a good understanding of the political situation. That was a common sentiment in our timeline, I believe. Regardless, this is a very interesting idea to explore!
Well, if England conquered Scotland at that time, it would be with the help of Emperor Phillip, or whoever his Spanish/Habsburg regent was. The mercenaries would be shouting "¡Santiago y cierre España!" Remember that England did not conquer Scotland in the 16th century. They would have needed help to do that, so I am suggesting Spanish help. Charles V, and Phillip II found that the centre of gravity of their Habsburg Empire lay in Spain. That would still have been the case if there was an English Habsburg.
Philip's line of the Habsburgs didnt inherit the Holy Roman empire nor the paternal lands of Austria. It went to Ferdinand, Charles brothers line.
Charles V may have held onto the Holy Roman Empire for a time. But that hold was tenuous. I am well aware that Phillip II's focus was not central Europe, Germany or the Balkans! The Spanish line controlled the various kingdoms of Spain (with customs barriers still maintained between them); the Low Countries, the Balearic Islands, and the southern half of Italy for a time. They controlled colonies in the New World, and the Phillipines. For a time, Phillip II also ruled Portugal, so he visited Lisbon a couple of times to do business.
Yeah but u called him as emperor Philip when, in actual reality by then, Emperor Ferdinand who was charles brother was to keep the austrian lands and the hre for his family. Maximilian II his son would be the next emperor
Tbh, I doubt Philip would be made Regent. He's already the King of another country that he's got to manage and he was not well liked in England. I think Parliament would insist that there was an English Regent, but I don't know who that'd end up being. I also don't think Elizabeth would be married away unless it was to someone under Philip's influence. I think he'd either marry her himself, to secure a Catholic, Habsburg succession in England, or she'd be offered to Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy who was Philip's cousin and a staunch Catholic and Philip was interested in the match irl. Marrying Elizabeth off inherently comes with the risk though, no matter to who, since she could produce rival claimants. I think if Elizabeth married, her daughter would almost definitely be married to Mary's son for the sake of unity. I kinda doubt Scotland would get conquered either. The Tudors didn't really have any claim to Scotland except from way back in the 1100s, it was the Stuarts who had a claim on England, not the other way round. I do think Philip would be in a very strong position to potentially leverage James VI into marrying one of his daughters with Elisabeth of Valois though, which would still put Scotland into Spain's sphere of influence. Long story short, it's a Habsburg dominated Western Europe.
Marrying an Austrian princess (first cousin) is the most predictable thing here
Habsburgs keep Habsburging
Iirc they did plan to have Philip son inherit Spain and their other child England and the Netherlands
As I sit in my condo balcony looking at the Chesapeake Bay in the US state of Virginia, Mary having a living child of either sex is really one of history's great what ifs.
"Virginia" would probably be called "Maryland" instead if Elizabeth I never became Queen. (Or, if we go by Australia, "Queensland" would also be a plausible alternative name.)
Neat! One note: this Philip would probably numbered II for England, as his father claimed to be Philip I of England by right of his marriage. Same reason why he’s Philip II of Spain, because his grandfather was Philip I of Castile by right of his wife.
Ahh the alternative history take where the UK monarch get an unhelpful dose of Habsburg blood…. Shooo shoooo away with it!
Flair checks out
I mean yes. But on a serious note, do you realise how lucky the UK monarchy were as a European Monarchy to never have an injection of that DNA can of worms. It was bad enough with the Hanoverians marrying their cousins in the 1700’s so add in some Habsburg and we’d have had an incest party! This childless marriage was the closest.
The Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain states that Philip couldn’t claim the throne for himself if he outlived Mary, so I think that would have blocked any regency. Parliament would have insisted on an English Regent, which was the custom and practice rather than a foreign monarch. I can’t aww the powerful English families such as the Seymours or Queen Catherine Park allowing a Spanish takeover.
Catherine Parr and the more powerful Seymours would be dead
Yeah true, I suppose they won’t be around to cause bother 🤣 getting my dates mixed up !
If Catherine Parr's daughter, Lady Mary Seymour, lived in this scenario, she would probably be one of the more powerful Seymours at court, as she was an heiress, as well as the only daughter of a former queen consort, like Catherine of Valois's Tudor sons. If she manages to find a more powerful husband, that could help or hinder the Habsburgs.
I wish Mary would’ve had a child who succeeded her, just not a Habsburg
The best alternative timeline
Where did you get the portrait from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Howard,_1st_Earl_of_Northampton#/media/File:Portrait_of_Henry_Howard,_Earl_of_Northampton_-_English_School.jpg
It's weird that you didn't just use Philip III's portrait
How did you make this image?
They used an image of a portrait of Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton.
No I mean what he used to make this, it looks like it was edited
A son of Philip and Mary would definitely have been known as Philip II of England, as his father was seen as an actual monarch of England, in a titular sense at the very least.
The horror