AHC: Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I as Anglican Saints

IOTL, King Charles I of England was named a saint by high church Anglicans who saw his execution as a martyrdom. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to sed how or why the Tudor monarchs, except Henry VII and Mary I, could also be accepted as Anglican saints.

Any thoughts?
 
My thought is your first obstacle: Protestantism is anti-saint, it's one of the many reasons they split from the Roman Catholics and the veneration of saints was considered idolatry.
 
My thought is your first obstacle: Protestantism is anti-saint, it's one of the many reasons they split from the Roman Catholics and the veneration of saints was considered idolatry.
The Anglican Church is different to what you would normally expect to be protestant.
 
My thought is your first obstacle: Protestantism is anti-saint, it's one of the many reasons they split from the Roman Catholics and the veneration of saints was considered idolatry.

I know, which is why I found it strange that some people consider Charles I a saint.
 
My thought is your first obstacle: Protestantism is anti-saint, it's one of the many reasons they split from the Roman Catholics and the veneration of saints was considered idolatry.

Anglicanism is Catholicism with a lot of Protestant stuff incorporated (like priests marrying etc). The High Church is closer to the Catholics (some have even accused High Church Anglicans of being crypto-/pseudo-Catholics) and are more about "the smells and bells" while the Low Church is closer to the Protestants. Think about Charles I's kids is a reasonably simple way: Charles II and James II were high church - before both converted; Elizabeth and Henry, duke of Gloucester were closer to the low church tradition (probably due to circumstances).

Well, until Henry VIII got into his own issues with the pope, the Tudors had actually wanted to have Henry VI canonized.
Henry VIII seems a very unlikely fit for sainthood. Edward VI I could maybe still believe, but then you're going to need the propaganda machine working overtime. Elizabeth can end up there, but again, you need a ministry of propaganda. Edward ends up as a saint because he's the young Joash nipped off in the prime of his youth (perhaps by unscrupulous, anti-Protestant ministers). He's not too difficult, despite the fact that he was a prig.

Elizabeth's virginity and unwed status can be played in another fashion - nun-like almost. That she was wed to God and all that, and thus would not take an earthly husband. Just a thought.
 
The veneration of saints and icons were two of the things targeted by Henry VIII's reformation of the church - primarily because they diverted funds that went to the shrine/church the saint or icon was at. High Church or not, they're not going to "go Catholic" by having saints (and if they had, Jane Grey would have been the first). It goes against a big part of the basis for the reformation - the so-called corruption of the church (the veneration of saints was considered/still is considered idolatry).
 
IOTL, King Charles I of England was named a saint by high church Anglicans who saw his execution as a martyrdom. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to sed how or why the Tudor monarchs, except Henry VII and Mary I, could also be accepted as Anglican saints.

Any thoughts?

Because he after all founded the Anglican Church in the 1st place Henry VIII would
make a strong candidate for sainthood- even
though I can think of very few persons in
history(outside of Hitler, Stalin, & Tammerlane)who deserve it less.
 
Last edited:
Top