POLL: What's your favourite pre-modern England-wank scenario?

What's your favourite pre-modern England-wank scenario?

  • The White Ship doesn't sink, 1120 (No Anarchy)

    Votes: 26 15.8%
  • Richard the Lionheart stays out of the crossbows' range, 1199 (Angevin wank ensues)

    Votes: 36 21.8%
  • Edward of Angoulême doesn't die of illness at age five, 1370 (Plantagenet wank ensues)

    Votes: 12 7.3%
  • Henry V doesn't fall ill, 1422 (Lancastrian wank ensues)

    Votes: 43 26.1%
  • Richard III wins at Bosworth Field, 1485 (Yorkist wank ensues)

    Votes: 18 10.9%
  • Arthur Tudor doesn't die of illness at the age of fifteen, 1502 (Tudor wank ensues)

    Votes: 18 10.9%
  • Another POD, upon which I shall elaborate in the comments

    Votes: 12 7.3%

  • Total voters
    165
If it's not too far outside the scope of the thread, I'd like to put forward the 'Mary and Philip have a son who inherits the Netherlands' scenario, combining the maritime strength of England and the low countries under one crown indefinitely.
I would say better Mary married earlier Emperor Charles V and their child inherited England and Netherlands...
Or a double Habsburg/Tudor match with Mary marrying Charles and Elizabeth marrying Ferdinand of Austria (or Philip, if he is available and Charles and Mary are childless)
 

VVD0D95

Banned
I would say better Mary married earlier Emperor Charles V and their child inherited England and Netherlands...
Or a double Habsburg/Tudor match with Mary marrying Charles and Elizabeth marrying Ferdinand of Austria (or Philip, if he is available and Charles and Mary are childless)
Oh why is that?
 
My favorite (which is outside the spirit of this thread but in the letter) involves Guthrum giving lots and lots of puncture wounds as a Christmas gift to Alfred the Great.

I'd then make the tl with the increased manpower an Anglo Scandanavian wank 600 years early.

The one within the spirit of what you want I call "good Uncle Richard" where Richard the 3rd doesn't become the 3rd but is a good and loyal regent for his nephews who grow up, live long lives and marry and have lots of babies while the Earl of Richmond dies forgotten in exile.

That or Margret of Burgundy having male spawn and Burgundian dynasty pressing a Yorkist claim. Burgundian wank ensues.
 
Last edited:
That suggests the interesting ATL idea, where Henry creates the new Church of England without any Acts of Parliament. Perhaps if Thomas Cromwell died in 1527, and without his advice/support Henry uses Royal Declarations instead of acting through Parliament. Power in the Church of England would be divided between the Monarch (Henry) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas Cranmer), and Parliament would have no say.
Many lords would oppose King Henry, as it would provide him with a source of funds independent of Parliament, which would slow down (but not stop) the English Reformation.
As a result of Henry's attachment to Catholic doctrines, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be basically the Pope of the Church of England (e.g. crowns the king, approves annulments, runs the Church) but gains and loses the position by royal decision.

Would that work, though? A change of the magnitude Henry was pushing for would really need the support, or at least acquiescence, of most of the nobility, and being seen to impose a change of religion without even consulting anyone would make Henry look arbitrary and tyrannical, possibly stirring up enough opposition for him to get overthrown, or at least forced to change course.
 
Would that work, though? A change of the magnitude Henry was pushing for would really need the support, or at least acquiescence, of most of the nobility, and being seen to impose a change of religion without even consulting anyone would make Henry look arbitrary and tyrannical, possibly stirring up enough opposition for him to get overthrown, or at least forced to change course.
It was actually less of a change than many wanted, Henry just used their beliefs to gain what he wanted (more money and a new wife). Other monarchs suppressed or supported their country's Reformation movement, King Henry hijacked it.
The majority of the changes occurred later under King Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth I.

Many English resented the idea that an Italian (the Pope) could dictate matters of faith to them. Many previous Kings had acted to limit the power of the Pope, such as Richard II's Statute of Praemunire (1392).
Martin Luther's ideas (and that of other Protestant writers) had begun to arrive in England, and convert people. The first mass produced Bible in English had already had it's first printing.

Henry VIII already looked arbitrary and tyrannical, especially because he was regularly replacing wives, ministers, friends, bishops, etc. He did consult people, but selected advisors on the basis of whether he agreed with their opinion.
His charisma and political ability let him get away with many things that other English Kings could not.
 
We've had Richard III and Richard I, but what about Richard II? He's yet another king the popular view of whom has been formed by a Shakespeare play! He was married to Anne of Bohemia for 12 years and they apparently loved each other, yet OTL had no children. But 12 years is plenty of time to produce at least one, maybe two sons, as well as daughters. Additionally/alternatively if Anne doesn't die in 1394 perhaps she can influence Richard away from his misguided policies of later years? With a family and no rebellion Richard himself will live longer. So if there's either no rebellion by Henry Bolingbroke, perhaps he's not disinherited and maybe even reconciled with the King, or the rebellion fails, then the Wars of the Roses are butterflied away, as probably would be a resumption of the Hundred Years War.

The Plantagenet Dynasty continued by the children of Richard II - does anyone think this POD has legs?
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
The Plantagenet Dynasty continued by the children of Richard II - does anyone think this POD has legs?

Certainly. It does require a few assumptions of things going right, but that can also be said of my Edward of Angoulême POD. It's just as valid a POD as that one.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
We've had Richard III and Richard I, but what about Richard II? He's yet another king the popular view of whom has been formed by a Shakespeare play! He was married to Anne of Bohemia for 12 years and they apparently loved each other, yet OTL had no children. But 12 years is plenty of time to produce at least one, maybe two sons, as well as daughters. Additionally/alternatively if Anne doesn't die in 1394 perhaps she can influence Richard away from his misguided policies of later years? With a family and no rebellion Richars himself will live longer. So if there's either no rebellion by Henry Bolingbroke, perhaps he's not disinherited and maybe even reconciled with the King, or the rebellion fails, then the Wars of the Roses are butterflied away, as probably would be a resumption of the Hundred Years War.

The Plantagenet Dynasty continued by the children of Richard II - does anyone think this POD has legs?
Tbis is an idea I’ve
Long toyed with myself. More than happy to talk about it with you and others if interested
 
It was actually less of a change than many wanted, Henry just used their beliefs to gain what he wanted (more money and a new wife). Other monarchs suppressed or supported their country's Reformation movement, King Henry hijacked it.
The majority of the changes occurred later under King Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth I.

Many English resented the idea that an Italian (the Pope) could dictate matters of faith to them. Many previous Kings had acted to limit the power of the Pope, such as Richard II's Statute of Praemunire (1392).
Martin Luther's ideas (and that of other Protestant writers) had begun to arrive in England, and convert people. The first mass produced Bible in English had already had it's first printing.

Henry VIII already looked arbitrary and tyrannical, especially because he was regularly replacing wives, ministers, friends, bishops, etc. He did consult people, but selected advisors on the basis of whether he agreed with their opinion.
His charisma and political ability let him get away with many things that other English Kings could not.

I think you're overstating the penetration of Protestant beliefs in England pre-1532. Yes there were some Protestants, chiefly in the south-east, but the country as a whole seems to have been quite content with their religion. Henry's religious reforms attracted some major opposition, most notably the Pilgrimage of Grace, a rebellion 30,000 strong (by comparison, Henry could only get together 8,000 men to oppose it) which was only defeated through treachery (Henry pretended to accept their demands, then had the leaders arrested and killed after the rebels had all gone home). Historians generally agree that the country didn't become majority-Protestant until several decades into Elizabeth's reign ("Protestant" in the sense of accepting a broadly Protestant theology, that is). So whilst Henry reforms didn't go as far as England's Protestants might have wanted, they went further than the English populace as a whole wanted.

And I agree that Henry already looked arbitrary and tyrannical, but I think his image would be even worse if he started imposing religious doctrines by fiat, without even pretending to consult Parliament.
 
I want to say Richard III, but the reason why that interest me is a non-wank scenario for the Yorkists. That is a time of uneasy peace due to the rumors surrounding the princes in the tower, lingering debate on legitimacy and positions in the royal line of succession. But if it qualifies as a wank with an elderly Richard dying having ensured stability and peace for his dynasty for centuries, and his heirs resting easy? Yes, I would approve of that. That scenario a wank to you?
 
Top