What If - the Spanish Aramada had succeded

[Al B. Sure!]

Actually, yes it is. Which is why the line from Edmund Duke of Langley is so important. All the Stuart claims come from Henry VIII sister, and would be the basis for their claims, and for the claims of the current Hanoverian branch.

One woman, whom you've probably never heard of. The Tudors were a minor, overrated dead-end, but the most significant of them all is Henry's sister Margaret.

So according to your logic, Felipe Habsburg had a better claim to the English thrown than Henry VIII?

Tudors were a minor, overrated dead-end... something tells me the jackass Catholic in you is giving a biased account of history.


It's amazing how wrong you can be. Wrong on Doug Flutie, wrong on Randall Cunningham, wrong on Vinny Testaverde, and wrong on European history.

[molly bloom]

There was no kicking the Catholics out in England.

Unfortunately there was some kicking out- effectively due to various laws passed against non-attendance of Anglican masses and demands of oaths of loyalty to the non-Roman Catholic sovereign- mainly in response to a variety of Roman Catholic conspiracies and attempts on Queen Elizabeth's life. And of course, efforts to replace her with the Roman Catholic Mary Stuart.

This is hardly surprising given the number of Marian exiles who avoided the grisly fate of many non-Roman Catholics in Mary Tudor's reign, and the increasingly rabid quality of the Roman Catholic powers in France, Spain and Italy- autos da fe in Spain, the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France and the Pope's Bull excommunicating Elizabeth I:

Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who perserved in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives.

Elizabeth I was hardly fond of Calvin or the more Puritan leaning wing of the Anglican Church. Not many monarchs would put up with being excommunicated by a Pope and having their Roman Catholic subjects 'absolved' of loyalty to her by a foreign potentate.

Protestantism was not simply state-driven either- many English people felt that the Church of Rome was corrupt, that priests and monks were often uneducated and that the various religious foundations had acquired too much wealth and too much property.

[molly bloom]

Why do you think the Spanish were so keen on invading England if not for English Protestantism?

Well, Philip II of Spain was part of the greater Royal family of England- being descended from John of Gaunt (a point emphasised during the marriage ceremony to Mary Tudor).

[molly bloom]

I just don't see anyway England would have been maintained by Spain as a client. They would have revolted and there was nothing Spain could do about it.

Install an English Roman Catholic Governor ? There was still a Roman Catholic English population- and a Scottish one, and an Irish one. An army of occupation (or liberation) could have been made up of home grown elements who had not forgotten the Pilgrimage of Grace or the Rising of the North or the Prayer Book Rebellion in Cornwall. The English army and militia were not sizable, which is why the navy and the 'unofficial' navy were so important.

[molly bloom]

And besides, the Spanish Armada does what it does at sea, picks up the troops from Flanders, and drops them off in England. You're talking an amphibious invasion in 1588 against a prepared English army and then a land campaign to subdue all of England...

The Elizabethan standing 'army' was really a collection of trained bands- effectively a militia. The relatively few professional soldiers tended to be on duty in garrisons or guarding the Queen. They would not have been a match for the Spanish shock troops.

[molly bloom]

The Dutch revolt was extremely problematic, especially as it denied the Spanish crown the main source of tax revenue, and the superior Spanish armies couldn't subjugate the Netherlands.

To be fair the Spanish were also occupied with the Ottomans and North Africa, an American Empire, the Portuguese...

[Al B. Sure!]

Well, Philip II of Spain was part of the greater Royal family of England- being descended from John of Gaunt (a point emphasised during the marriage ceremony to Mary Tudor).

And yet, as I pointed out, he was only King-Consort. Mary Tudor was the Head of State of England, NOT Philip. Upon her death, Philip had no claims. That is why he also attempted to wed Elizabeth so he could remain King-Consort.

The fact of the matter is, Philip did NOT claim the English throne. If being a descendant of John of Gaunt mattered, don't you think he would have brought it up?

No, after Elizabeth refused him, Philip's intention was to dethrone Elizabeth in favor of Mary Stuart but once she was killed, Elizabeth removed the only legitimate claimant to the English throne with a power base. Philip was not a legitimate claimant.

Install an English Roman Catholic Governor ? There was still a Roman Catholic English population- and a Scottish one, and an Irish one. An army of occupation (or liberation) could have been made up of home grown elements who had not forgotten the Pilgrimage of Grace or the Rising of the North or the Prayer Book Rebellion in Cornwall. The English army and militia were not sizable, which is why the navy and the 'unofficial' navy were so important.

And yet the Spanish couldn't even successfully invade or hold Kinsale, Ireland a few years later? The Catholic Irish who hated the English hardly flocked to the Spanish banner when Spanish troops landed both during the first Armada and this 'fourth' Armada.

I wish there were statistics on religious affiliation in England at this time. Parliament was overwhelmingly Protestant, I believe. I suspect by 1588, the majority of English had become Protestant.

They are in Europa Universalis, at least

The Elizabethan standing 'army' was really a collection of trained bands- effectively a militia. The relatively few professional soldiers tended to be on duty in garrisons or guarding the Queen. They would not have been a match for the Spanish shock troops.

The English had quite a few German mercenaries.

Regardless, my supposition is that the Duke of Parma would not have been able to land a force in England. The entire invasion plan was flawed for all the reasons I stated earlier. The Dutch flyboats would have ravaged the barges, the barges that made it to the protection of the Armada would then have to do an 16th century amphibious invasion, and then their supply lines would be easily struck by the fact that the ships of the Armada couldn't defend the first 12 miles from the coast of Flanders. English and Dutch ships could make sure those troops that landed would have nothing coming their way.

To be fair the Spanish were also occupied with the Ottomans and North Africa, an American Empire, the Portuguese...

Exactly. And Aragon revolted in 1590, I believe. Spain was in a far more tenuous position than any of you are giving credit to. Fast forward even just 50 years and Spain was a shadow of its former self.

[Ben Kenobi]

So according to your logic, Felipe Habsburg had a better claim to the English thrown than Henry VIII?

Yes, and because he wasn't just Habsburg. He was Burgundian in origin and actually came from the Low Countries. He was a foreigner in Spain. The Burgundian side was very close to the English for trade reasons, and it was this side that had strong ties to the English throne for centuries.

Henry VII had a very weak claim to the English throne, but strengthened his claim substantially through marriage to a direct male-line descendent, Elizabeth of York. This is why the Tudors were celebrated as a union of York and Lancastrian.

Tudors were a minor, overrated dead-end... something tells me the jackass Catholic in you is giving a biased account of history.

The entire 'dynasty', lasted 3 generations. Massively overrated, when the most significant figure gets the least amount of press.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes, and because he wasn't just Habsburg. He was Burgundian in origin and actually came from the Low Countries. He was a foreigner in Spain. The Burgundian side was very close to the English for trade reasons, and it was this side that had strong ties to the English throne for centuries.

Henry VII had a very weak claim to the English throne, but strengthened his claim substantially through marriage to a direct male-line descendent, Elizabeth of York. This is why the Tudors were celebrated as a union of York and Lancastrian.

What the hell are you smoking?

Henry VII and Henry VIII were ACTUAL Kings of England. How the **** is Felipe Habsburg supposed to have a better claim to the English throne than two men who actually WERE Kings of England?

If any of this were actually true, WHY THE HELL DID FELIPE NOT BRING IT UP?! He was nothing more than King-Consort and he lost that title once Mary died. Why did he not bring it up?

And I guarantee that the rest of Europe would not have been too keen on one man ruling Spain, Portugal, The Low Countries, Milan, England, Ireland, and an entire global empire.

The entire 'dynasty', lasted 3 generations. Massively overrated, when the most significant figure gets the least amount of press.

After hearing you describe how Doug Flutie was better than the 'massively overrated' Jim Kelly, John Elway, and Randall Cunningham, I don't take any of your opinions seriously EVER.

[Ben Kenobi]

What the hell are you smoking?

Molly Bloom and I agree on this point, which is rather remarkable.

Henry VII and Henry VIII were ACTUAL Kings of England. How the **** is Felipe Habsburg supposed to have a better claim to the English throne than two men who actually WERE Kings of England?

That's circular reasoning. At the time, yes Philip of Spain had a better claim than Mary.

If any of this were actually true, WHY THE HELL DID FELIPE NOT BRING IT UP

It was well known to contemporaries at the time, and was commented on.

He was nothing more than King-Consort and he lost that title once Mary died. Why did he not bring it up?

The succession to the throne of England is not always straightforward. The largest deteriminant at present, and has been since Electress Sophia is that the heir must be a descendent of her protestant descendents. Not only are there Jacobin descendents, there are also Catholic Hannoverians with superior claims.

The same is true for this period in question, the tail end of the wars of the Roses. The succession was very convoluted when you take the fact that Mary and Elizabeth were both removed, several times for different reasons.

[Al B. Sure!]

Only in the Beniverse is Margaret Tudor more significant than Henry VIII or Elizabeth

What planet are you from? What history did you learn? Henry VIII could have sat on his ass his entire reign and did nothing more than break from the Catholic church and he still did something hugely significant. That is why this topic is even being discussed because Henry VIII's break from the Catholic church had a huge effect on the history of England, of Europe, and of the world, and the part of the discussion here is if a successful Armada would have changed the religious composition and direction of England.

[Al B. Sure!]

It was well known to contemporaries at the time, and was commented on.

Cite please.

This says otherwise:
http://www.archontology.org/nations/uk/england/king_england/01_philip_titles.php

The third session of Parliament (2 Apr 1554 - 5 May 1554) summoned by Queen Mary I passed "An act touching the articles of the Queen's highness most noble marriage." This act approved the terms of the marriage treaty between Mary and Philip of Spain, the son of the Holy Roman Emperor Karl V (Carlos I of Spain). In regard to Philip's status as the future titular King of England, the Act provided for the following scheme:

"First it is covenanted and agreed, ... that as soon as conveniently may be, a true, pure, and perfect marriage shall by words of the present tense be contracted, celebrated, and consummated between the foresaid noble Prince and most noble lady the Queen in their proper persons in England; by virtue of which marriage so contracted, celebrated, and consummated, the said most noble Prince Philip shall for so long as the matrimony endureth be allowed to have and enjoy jointly together with the same most noble Queen his wife the style, honor, and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most noble Queen appertaining, and shall aid the same most noble Queen his wife in the prosperous administration of her realms and dominions; saving nevertheless the rights, laws, privileges, and customs of the same realms and dominions."

This excerpt and the rest of the treaty leave no doubt regarding the fact that Mary continued to be the sole sovereign, notwithstanding Philip's sharing in the royal style and title and even preceding Mary therein, as is proper and meet for a Christian husband and wife.

"When Philip learned the terms of the marriage treaty, he was deeply annoyed. He considered them dishonourable, and contemplated abandoning the entire project. In the end the lure of a crown was too great, and he contented himself with making a formal but secret disclaimer, on 4 January [1554], declaring that he did not consider himself bound by the terms of a treaty which had been negotiated without his knowledge: 'he intended to grant the said power [to ratify the treaty] and swear to observe the articles in order that his marriage with the said queen of England might take place, but by no means in order to bind himself or his heirs to observe the articles.' (quoted from "Calendar of State Papers, Spanish", ed. by R. Tyler et al., 1862-1954). [1]

After the wedding took place at Winchester on 25 Jul 1554, Philip's authority was limited by a number of parliamentary acts. "An Act touching letters patent" (1&2 Philip & Mary c.1) confirmed that letters patent, etc., issued, as agreed, in the name of both King and Queen, derived their validity solely from the sign-manual of the Queen "as if she were sole and unmarried."

Philip's subordinate status is further documented by the provisions for a minority of a successor to Mary upon her death; the relevant Act of Parliament made Philip regent during the successor's minority, but while extending to him the protection of the Treason Laws during the marriage — they were not automatically applicable to him by virtue of the marriage treaty — did not extend them to such a regency. Philip was never crowned king of England and Mary was even dissuaded from "crowning" him with the coronet used for queens-consort.

Therefore, the status of Philip significantly differed from that of his wife. Excluded from political influence in England, Philip left England on 29 Aug 1555 and never returned.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, Henry VIII is vastly overrated. Is he the most significant king in England from the conqueror to Victoria? No. The two most important members in the overall history of the monarchy in the Tudor dynasty were Elizabeth of York and Margaret Tudor. That's it. Henry VIII's entire legacy disappeared with the death of Elizabeth.

If I had to argue the most significant monarch of all time, it would be Edward III, because every single king after him is descended in some way shape or form, from him. All their accomplishments, can in part be attributed to him.

The same is true of Henry V, and his line. There is no functional difference between the Tudorians and Henry V's senior plantagenents. Both lines failed and died out. One is a historical footnote save for Catherine of France, who you might even have heard of.

[Ben Kenobi]

Albert, I'm talking about the connection between Philip of France to the English throne. Yes, it was well known, yes it was commented at the time. Molly even agrees with me here! It wasn't exactly news to them, but it is news to a world today that has forgotten about most of the old connections that once bound the world together.

[Al B. Sure!]

First, Henry VIII is vastly overrated. Is he the most significant king in England from the conqueror to Victoria? No. The two most important members in the overall history of the monarchy in the Tudor dynasty were Elizabeth of York and Margaret Tudor. That's it. Henry VIII's entire legacy disappeared with the death of Elizabeth.

If I had to argue the most significant monarch of all time, it would be Edward III, because every single king after him is descended in some way shape or form, from him. All their accomplishments, can in part be attributed to him.

The same is true of Henry V, and his line. There is no functional difference between the Tudorians and Henry V's senior plantagenents. Both lines failed and died out. One is a historical footnote save for Catherine of France, who you might even have heard of.

What the **** planet do you come from? Margaret and Elizabeth of York? What the ****?

Edward III? Do you even understand what SIGNIFICANCE means? Who the **** cares what the descendants do. How does that determine significance? It's what they do in their reign that is significant or not!

God damn, Ben. Everything about you is wrong. Like holy ****. This is like Doug Flutie all over again.