AHC/WI: Reconcliation between Rome and England

England will be prepared to return to Communion with Rome

Hell no!. This isn't going to be popular. There will be mutterings, petitions, broadsides, sermons. Probably riots somewhere (not really because those involved understand it, but any excuse is good for a riot and a bit of looting). Maybe even a mild insurrection.

But the deal with being a King who rules, not just reigns, is he has to rule. He is God's vice regent, the Lord's anointed, to whom the Almighty has especially revealed His purpose. (I'm not being sarcastic, BTW).

He, the King has made his decision and it is the duty of every true Christian to accept that , with pious and passive obedience, at the least (I suspect by now people will be talking about divine right again, Filmer will have a new burst of popularity). And, if some are so foolish as to imperil their souls by resistance , well "See this sword. Very sharp, it is. See all those soldiers, also with sharp swords. Ah, you think on consideration that it's not such a bad idea. Good. Now shut up , you'll like it once you get used to it".

I assume that the Pope is going to be pretty vexed by all this. Going to denounce it etc. Maybe not so much the English bit, though even there the fact that it's not on his terms will grate. But certainly the French and German parts (as he was OTL).

The accusation that will be leveled in England (very loudly), will be "You are delivering us back into Papal bondage. This is Popery". The answer to which is "Don't talk nonsense , the Pope hates this idea. See he has denounced it. How can it be Popery when the Pope is against it. If it were Popery , the Pope would be in favour of it. Obvious". The Englishman could accept Roman Catholicism, but never "Popery".Granted , he didn't really know what Popery was, but he knew that it was absolute evil, and that it was headed by the Pope.So, important to convince him that this wasn't Popery . Sticking it to the Pope was every Englishman's duty.f the Pope hates this new dispensation, then it must be good.

As to your last query , I really have no idea. Portugal, maybe? Dunno. Religion in Spain is weird, they are sort of super traditional and super nationalist at the same time. I think really the question is not "could it" but rather "how long". By the 20th century, yes, no doubt. By the 19th. Much less certain. By the 18th, doubt it.

The more significant players in the "would they come along too ?" stakes, would be Poland and Hungary. Both loyal Catholic, but both with relatively recent histories of Protestantism. If they go along with the "pure" Papal position, it could get tricky. I assume the Italian states will be for the Pope all the way.
 
Hell no!. This isn't going to be popular. There will be mutterings, petitions, broadsides, sermons. Probably riots somewhere (not really because those involved understand it, but any excuse is good for a riot and a bit of looting). Maybe even a mild insurrection.

But the deal with being a King who rules, not just reigns, is he has to rule. He is God's vice regent, the Lord's anointed, to whom the Almighty has especially revealed His purpose. (I'm not being sarcastic, BTW).

He, the King has made his decision and it is the duty of every true Christian to accept that , with pious and passive obedience, at the least (I suspect by now people will be talking about divine right again, Filmer will have a new burst of popularity). And, if some are so foolish as to imperil their souls by resistance , well "See this sword. Very sharp, it is. See all those soldiers, also with sharp swords. Ah, you think on consideration that it's not such a bad idea. Good. Now shut up , you'll like it once you get used to it".

I assume that the Pope is going to be pretty vexed by all this. Going to denounce it etc. Maybe not so much the English bit, though even there the fact that it's not on his terms will grate. But certainly the French and German parts (as he was OTL).

The accusation that will be leveled in England (very loudly), will be "You are delivering us back into Papal bondage. This is Popery". The answer to which is "Don't talk nonsense , the Pope hates this idea. See he has denounced it. How can it be Popery when the Pope is against it. If it were Popery , the Pope would be in favour of it. Obvious". The Englishman could accept Roman Catholicism, but never "Popery".Granted , he didn't really know what Popery was, but he knew that it was absolute evil, and that it was headed by the Pope.So, important to convince him that this wasn't Popery . Sticking it to the Pope was every Englishman's duty.f the Pope hates this new dispensation, then it must be good.

As to your last query , I really have no idea. Portugal, maybe? Dunno. Religion in Spain is weird, they are sort of super traditional and super nationalist at the same time. I think really the question is not "could it" but rather "how long". By the 20th century, yes, no doubt. By the 19th. Much less certain. By the 18th, doubt it.

The more significant players in the "would they come along too ?" stakes, would be Poland and Hungary. Both loyal Catholic, but both with relatively recent histories of Protestantism. If they go along with the "pure" Papal position, it could get tricky. I assume the Italian states will be for the Pope all the way.

Well I think popular would be very unlikely. I meant that the English would have time to get used to the idea. Its certainly gonna piss people off but at least it won't spring up on them. And I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a minor uprising, but considering England's army it will quickly fail.

And I agree that at this point the ideals of Divine right of Kings will certainly undergo a surge in popularity, as a bulkwork against Parliament's claims of supreme authority. Not to mention the size of the army and the fate of the failed rebellions in the early 1680s will be a good thing to point at for those thinking about rebellion.

And I think that the Pope hating it will also go a long way to smoothing the wrinkled feathers in England. After all the Pope will have Spiritual authority but nearly all his temporal powers will remain with the King. Also, the creation of National churches in France and the Empire will also help to smooth over the English, seeing that other nations will have a status similar to England. And no doubt the Pope will also be pissed off about the situation with Germany and France, but in all honesty there wouldn't be much he can do. After all the Pope has no armies, no real enforceable authority over Kings and Emperors. Its either accept the new status quo with bad grace or lose France and the Empire forever. And if the Pope tries to denounce the English compromise I think he'll be called an idiot by a vast majority of Europe. Here is a nation, the first one sense the Reformation, willing to return to the Universal Church, in exchange for some concessions of course. If the Pope turns his back on the idea I bet you a large section of the College of Cardinals will be disgusted with him. He'd be an idiot to thumb his nose at the English.

And yeah I was unsure of the National church system. I think its doable but it will take some work. Portugal would be on board, both because of the English alliance and their existing problems with the Papacy. Spain, that's the tricky one. Very pious and devote but very Nationalistic. I know for a fact that many Spaniards were sick of the overgrown power of the Spanish Inquisition but I'm not sure about the Church itself. But Fernando might want to copy his brother's reforms to increase his own power and wealth. Fairly realistic. As for Hungary, I think it could be folded into the reforms in the Empire, though it will of course be separate. The Commonwealth is gonna be difficult. The country had little central authority and the Church has a large amount of influence (the Primate of Poland governed when the throne was vacant). But there was Protestant and Orthodox elements in Poland as well, so its a bit of a clusterf*ck, like Ireland in a way. I think any Polish national church will be tied to whether or not the Commonwealth will be able to centralize. But another thought: with England returning to Rome with terms, we could see other nations do the same. I think it would mainly be in nations with Absolute monarchies, like Denmark or Sweden. More Denmark. But I might be overestimating things.
 
No, I don't think it would be wise to give people time to get sued to it. The English hate change , if you give them time in advance , they just use it to find more reasons to object to the change. Nor, I think would England explicitly ever return to communions with Rome. But see below how this can be done.

How I see this working, is the King uses the twenty odd years between roughly 1680 (when he crushes the dissenters ) and 1700 to steadily stack the CoE with High Church neo-Laudian Catholics, but gradually and without making a fuss. So, by 1700 the CoE will be pretty much Catholic in spiritual aspects . Though, note , this may be more so at the Oxford college and Bishop's palace end ,and much less so in the parish rectory. Because in England the priests are appointed by the Squire (by and large), neither the King nor the Bishop has all that ability to control them. If Parson Curmudeonly doesn't like the new ideas that Bishop is pushing, he will simply ignore them and carry on the old way. So, for example, getting service back into Latin, universally, would be hard. Parson would simply keep holding them in English. Not a problem, really, time will settle things down.

Then in 1700 and something, Louis is still holding to his Gallican Church, and the Pope pisses the Emperor off mightily about something. At this point the Emperor encounters a learned divine (who does not exist OTL, invent someone) who has invented a proto-Febronianism. OTL , Febron didn't come along for another hundred years , so *Febron will have to invent it from scratch, but with the example of the Gallican church that shouldn't be hard. Joseph decides he likes this idea (especially the bit where the Emperor is top dog). And the Pope is being a royal PITA. At which point Joseph also remembers that the first Emperors claimed the right to call Church Councils. And Gallicanism, Febronianism also supports that. So, he does. Invites along Louis and his Archbishops, *Charles and his archbishops .

They go into a huddle, decide that they are all pretty much on the same wavelength, and if they stick together the Pope will eventually have to admit defeat.

*Charles goes back to England , and summons a Royal Commission of learned divines from Oxford, to investigate the Gallican and Febronian churches , and what separates them from the Anglican church.

The Commission (and note, that being drawn from Oxford, they all support Divine Right, and will all be Ultra High Church , and all be unmarried - Dons could not marry, if they did they had to resign. No, I have no idea if they were gay, probably quite a few were) reports , that God in his great mercy , has moved his vice-Regents to cleanse the Churches of France and Germany of superstition and idolatry , etc etc. And that now very little separates the divinely ordained Church of England from the churches of France and Germany. And of that little, on some points the Church of England might best serve Gods purpose by adopting the practice of France (or Germany as the case may be). The main one being clerical celibacy, none of the commission seeing any reason why a godly priest should object to that.

So, *Charles releases the report, and sets in motion what is needful to implement it. And the three rulers set up the National Catholic Church Union, of the National Catholic Churches of England France and Germany.

The Pope is of course irate, but they ignore him

In England, the clergy will be unhappy but acquiesce. After all, a High Church Anglican cannot oppose the King's will. It would be blasphemous. And the already married clergy have a dispensation. And the rest of it will settle down into a pamphlet war, harmless and erudite.

Squire will as always, look first to his property. "Hey? What's all that then ? What about my advowson? Is that safe ? I still get to appoint the parson, yes ? I do. Well then what do I care, I don't agree with it , mind. It's a change and I abhor change. But I have other more important things to do, like hunting, and killing things , and drinking. Never did think parson should be allowed to marry anyway, disgusting really. And the Pope hates the idea, so it must be a good thing. So does that insufferable insolent dissenting cobbler in the village, so much the better if it brings him to heel, fellow needs a good flogging.. "

Be watchful though, least anyone use popular discontent to try to engineer a coup. Shaftesbury's role in the Lords will have been taken by someone else (no idea who, but someone will have picked up the vacant role, probably a Russel or a Cavendish, they're like cockroaches, no matter how hard you try you can never quite eradicate them). And rebellion in the Lords is a lot harder to deal with

I must , in passing, correct a statement that there will now be no dissenters in Parliament. There will be, just not admitting to it. To pass the Test, one only needs to attend a CoE service once a year and take communion. A thing distasteful and obnoxious to dissenters, but something that they are willing to do (as they did OTL, this is the famous vexed question of occasional conformity). So there will be quite a lot of MPs who have passed the Test , but are still dissenters at heart - wolves in sheeps' clothing.

But , *Charles has an army (and I assume that by now he has reformed the peace keeping capabilities of the counties, probably restoring to the Sheriff his ancient military force). So , any opposition can be crushed. Evil dissenters, stirring up trouble.

So, by , say , 1710 the National Catholic Churches of England France and Germany (maybe others) are in full communion on a broadly similar basis. Around then the Pope , or a successor, will admit defeat (he has to , or be permanently sidelined), and accept the National Catholic Church Union churches as being in full communion with Rome. And the Church of England, as a member of the National Catholic Church Union, goes along for the ride. No need to rub the idea of communion with Rome into peoples faces. Just let it happen as an irresistible, inevitable development.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't think it would be wise to give people time to get sued to it. The English hate change , if you give them time in advance , they just use it to find more reasons to object to the change. Nor, I think would England explicitly ever return to communions with Rome. But see below how this can be done.

How I see this working, is the King uses the twenty odd years between roughly 1680 (when he crushes the dissenters ) and 1700 to steadily stack the CoE with High Church neo-Laudian Catholics, but gradually and without making a fuss. So, by 1700 the CoE will be pretty much Catholic in spiritual aspects . Though, note , this may be more so at the Oxford college and Bishop's palace end ,and much less so in the parish rectory. Because in England the priests are appointed by the Squire (by and large), neither the King nor the Bishop has all that ability to control them. If Parson Curmudeonly doesn't like the new ideas that Bishop is pushing, he will simply ignore them and carry on the old way. So, for example, getting service back into Latin, universally, would be hard. Parson would simply keep holding them in English. Not a problem, really, time will settle things down.

Then in 1700 and something, Louis is still holding to his Gallican Church, and the Pope pisses the Emperor off mightily about something. At this point the Emperor encounters a learned divine (who does not exist OTL, invent someone) who has invented a proto-Febronianism. OTL , Febron didn't come along for another hundred years , so *Febron will have to invent it from scratch, but with the example of the Gallican church that shouldn't be hard. Joseph decides he likes this idea (especially the bit where the Emperor is top dog). And the Pope is being a royal PITA. At which point Joseph also remembers that the first Emperors claimed the right to call Church Councils. And Gallicanism, Febronianism also supports that. So, he does. Invites along Louis and his Archbishops, *Charles and his archbishops .

They go into a huddle, decide that they are all pretty much on the same wavelength, and if they stick together the Pope will eventually have to admit defeat.

*Charles goes back to England , and summons a Royal Commission of learned divines from Oxford, to investigate the Gallican and Febronian churches , and what separates them from the Anglican church.

The Commission (and note, that being drawn from Oxford, they all support Divine Right, and will all be Ultra High Church , and all be unmarried - Dons could not marry, if they did they had to resign. No, I have no idea if they were gay, probably quite a few were) reports , that God in his great mercy , has moved his vice-Regents to cleanse the Churches of France and Germany of superstition and idolatry , etc etc. And that now very little separates the divinely ordained Church of England from the churches of France and Germany. And of that little, on some points the Church of England might best serve Gods purpose by adopting the practice of France (or Germany as the case may be). The main one being clerical celibacy, none of the commission seeing any reason why a godly priest should object to that.

So, *Charles releases the report, and sets in motion what is needful to implement it. And the three rulers set up the National Catholic Church Union, of the National Catholic Churches of England France and Germany.

The Pope is of course irate, but they ignore him

In England, the clergy will be unhappy but acquiesce. After all, a High Church Anglican cannot oppose the King's will. It would be blasphemous. And the already married clergy have a dispensation. And the rest of it will settle down into a pamphlet war, harmless and erudite.

Squire will as always, look first to his property. "Hey? What's all that then ? What about my advowson? Is that safe ? I still get to appoint the parson, yes ? I do. Well then what do I care, I don't agree with it , mind. It's a change and I abhor change. But I have other more important things to do, like hunting, and killing things , and drinking. Never did think parson should be allowed to marry anyway, disgusting really. And the Pope hates the idea, so it must be a good thing. So does that insufferable insolent dissenting cobbler in the village, so much the better if it brings him to heel, fellow needs a good flogging.. "

Be watchful though, least anyone use popular discontent to try to engineer a coup. Shaftesbury's role in the Lords will have been taken by someone else (no idea who, but someone will have picked up the vacant role, probably a Russel or a Cavendish, they're like cockroaches, no matter how hard you try you can never quite eradicate them). And rebellion in the Lords is a lot harder to deal with

I must , in passing, correct a statement that there will now be no dissenters in Parliament. There will be, just not admitting to it. To pass the Test, one only needs to attend a CoE service once a year and take communion. A thing distasteful and obnoxious to dissenters, but something that they are willing to do (as they did OTL, this is the famous vexed question of occasional conformity). So there will be quite a lot of MPs who have passed the Test , but are still dissenters at heart - wolves in sheeps' clothing.

But , *Charles has an army (and I assume that by now he has reformed the peace keeping capabilities of the counties, probably restoring to the Sheriff his ancient military force). So , any opposition can be crushed. Evil dissenters, stirring up trouble.

So, by , say , 1710 the National Catholic Churches of England France and Germany (maybe others) are in full communion on a broadly similar basis. Around then the Pope , or a successor, will admit defeat (he has to , or be permanently sidelined), and accept the National Catholic Church Union churches as being in full communion with Rome. And the Church of England, as a member of the National Catholic Church Union, goes along for the ride. No need to rub the idea of communion with Rome into peoples faces. Just let it happen as an irresistible, inevitable development.


OK so no adjustment time. So the upper Anglican Church will be more or less Catholic by the early 1700s, with the Parishes remaining more Anglican. To language, we will probably see a compromise, with most services English and important High services, like Christmas and Easter, being in Latin.

To get the ball rolling the Pope will again piss off the Emperor, no doubt over one of the Electoral Archbishoprics, who's not gonna take it lying down. With a POD of 1666 I'm sure a TTL learned man will exist by 1708-12. So the Bishop will suggest a National church with the Emperor on top, like the one in France. He'll love it, seeing as it'll make him talk dog and increase his power in the Empire. He'll summon a Church council to consider the proposal. Now to bolster his support he invites his fellow Monarchs with similar churches to either attend or send representatives to debate the new ideas. I'm unsure if Louis XIV would attend himself, as he would be in his 70s at this point, but maybe one of his Grandsons could be sent (OTL the Duc de Bourgogne was very devout so he could be a good choice). Now I think we could also see other nations send reps, just to keep their options open. Portugal will like it, and the Spanish will send reps out of familial loyalty. They will have their big debates Council style and discover that, whatever their political differences, they are all on the same age religiously. Especially Louis XIV, who always wanted to return England to the fold.

So Charles III and his bishops go back home assured of Foreign support and having an example of what an autonomous Church could look like. Charles creates a Commission in Oxford to investigate the Council decisions, which will of course agree with his Majesty and support the Council. Now the three churches, being so similar to one another, will begin to enter communion with each other, with England finishing up changes to more closely reflect their co-churches. Of course Clerical celibacy will be re-introduced, with the current married priests and bishops are fine but all new ones most be single.

Now the Pope is in a tough bind. He's played his hand and lost horribly. The revenues from France, the Empire and Portugal (who no doubt will love a chance to stick it to the Papacy and boost their own wealth) are gone, and worse, they have elevated their Kings and the Emperor to the true heads of their churches. For Rome this will be even worse then the reformation. Now his holiness has a choice: either back down in humiliation or risk losing those nations permanently. Now the cardinals are gonna be beating down the Vatican's door, having lost nearly ALL their income they are gonna be pissed OFF. With everyone against him, the Kings, the Emperor, ambassadors, Cardinals, and prelates the Pope will have to back down. Now once he backs down and acknowledges the new National Church systems, the Kings and the Emperor restore communion with Rome. Charles III, in a very sneaky move, will join with his fellow Kings in restoring communion.

Most of the British will be shocked and no doubt quite a bit angry. Parliament will be foaming at the mouth. But remember, the King has precedent to claim supreme authority in ecclesiastical matters with the Declaration of indulgence. Now the gentry is gonna be worried, but once they are assured that their powers over the parishes remain intact, they will shrug their shoulders and accept it. After all, no skin or power of their backs.

Now yes I agree that someone will take up Shaftesbury's mantle but remember his legacy: a failed traitor. So the opposition will have to be much more careful in their actions, for thanks to the actions of Shaftesbury and some of the Whig lords, any open opposition could and would be interpreted as seditious or treasonous.

And your right about the dissenters as well. No doubt some of them will grid their teeth and accept Anglican communion to remain in Parliament. But they can't be too loud in their opposition, as no doubt their fellow MPs will remember that they "used to be" Dissenters and would love to report on them in exchange for Royal favor.

But yes Britain has a large army, supported by the Royal Bank of England and the county sheriffs will no doubt have their old powers restored, especially in areas that previously rebelled. But remember, some of the militia took part in the rebellions, so the King has used this to encourage Parliament to rely less on them and more on a standing army. Its hard to say no when the militiamen have joined with rebels. So there will be more garrisons scattered around England, to ensure those dastardly, treacherous dissenters and "former" Whig lords don't disrupt the peace and stability of the glorious Kingdom of Great Britain. If there are riots or rebellions the Loyal army will be called in to ensure the welfare of the state against the small minority of rebels who would go against the anointed Sovereign.

Does this sound about right?
 
Yep. I think that's it. And it all hangs sensibly together. Taken a bit at a time, nothing that would make an educated man of the era open his news-letter and exclaim "What utter nonsense, this must be some sort of silly joke ", which is sort of my rule of thumb for 'feasible'.

The language thing BTW is pretty much OTL. You are more likely nowadays to hear a Latin service in an Anglican church than a Roman one.

I hate militias, I think that no King should rely on them. Have Charles build up the power of the Sheriffs, (and have him appoint them directly as paid officials , not the silly "pin prick selection for one year" thing). Ten professional trained men are worth a hundred militia men, and the militia is always in danger of being taken over by Parliament.

But, the religion thing, I think that will work. I don't even know that Parliament would be that irate, I think the only risk is of someone using it as an excuse for troublemaking. There could be trouble in the Colonies, though, they were more radical dissenting and harder to control. But hardly in a position to do much , no matter how irate they may be.

I doubt incidentally that there will be any Whig lords left, as we understand the term. The whole Whig agenda and platform is a long dead corpse. But there will be someone who sees political mileage in challenging the King's Ministers. Probably not challenging the King, that's gotten a bit dangerous now, like taking a swing at Henry VIII, but undermining the Ministers, can be a good career move, leading to the troublemaker either being bought off by being included in the Ministry, or , if things go badly for the Ministry, toppling the Ministers and replacing them. Of course, TTL there will be nothing like a Prime Minister, but there's always one guy who is the 'top dog' - like Burleigh for Elizabeth .

It has massive long term European butterflies, though.
 
Yep. I think that's it. And it all hangs sensibly together. Taken a bit at a time, nothing that would make an educated man of the era open his news-letter and exclaim "What utter nonsense, this must be some sort of silly joke ", which is sort of my rule of thumb for 'feasible'.

The language thing BTW is pretty much OTL. You are more likely nowadays to hear a Latin service in an Anglican church than a Roman one.

I hate militias, I think that no King should rely on them. Have Charles build up the power of the Sheriffs, (and have him appoint them directly as paid officials , not the silly "pin prick selection for one year" thing). Ten professional trained men are worth a hundred militia men, and the militia is always in danger of being taken over by Parliament.

But, the religion thing, I think that will work. I don't even know that Parliament would be that irate, I think the only risk is of someone using it as an excuse for troublemaking. There could be trouble in the Colonies, though, they were more radical dissenting and harder to control. But hardly in a position to do much , no matter how irate they may be.

I doubt incidentally that there will be any Whig lords left, as we understand the term. The whole Whig agenda and platform is a long dead corpse. But there will be someone who sees political mileage in challenging the King's Ministers. Probably not challenging the King, that's gotten a bit dangerous now, like taking a swing at Henry VIII, but undermining the Ministers, can be a good career move, leading to the troublemaker either being bought off by being included in the Ministry, or , if things go badly for the Ministry, toppling the Ministers and replacing them. Of course, TTL there will be nothing like a Prime Minister, but there's always one guy who is the 'top dog' - like Burleigh for Elizabeth .

It has massive long term European butterflies, though.

Glad you agree!

To language, that's a bit ironic but true sense Vatican 2.

As to militias, I completely agree. They were worthless most of the time and usually ended up being a puppet of Parliament. I know that during wartimes the Lords Lieutenant raised the militia forces of their counties, so could the Sheriff be in charge of a county Regiment, to stay on full time and act as a garrison for each county? Would that work or no?

I can agree that there would be trouble in the Colonies but I have a plan to strengthen Crown authority there. I have two ideas. First I'm thinking that three dominions could be created, out of the three groups of colonies, New England, Middle and Southern. The names will of course be changed to sound better but I think it could work. Sure there will be pushback from colonists but the early 1700s is a lot different from 1776. No chance of the Colonies successfully breaking away or of it even being that popular yet. And second, a more Royal version of Ben Franklin's Albany plan, with a Governor-General/Viceroy/President General and an advisory council made of of two reps from each colony. Basically a mini House of Commons. The Advisory council will have some powers but most will be focused in the hands of the Crown Representative. Also, there will be military garrisons in the colonies as well. Partially drawn from the British isles and partially from the colonies, they will act as protection against native American raids, any potential war with France and to ensure that the British have forces on hand to eliminate any uprising or resistance.

To the Whigs, your right. They won't be the original Whigs by any means but I can see an opposition group revive the old name as a symbol of Parliamentary opposition to the Crown Ministers. And yes there won't be an office of Prime Minister but there will be Chief or favorite ministers who end up dominating any Ministry. But as time goes on I think you will see Charles III assume direct control, copying Louis XIV by ruling without a chief minister. It will be controversial but it will make it difficult to attack the Ministers if the Monarch is directly leading them.

And yeah massive European butterflies. I'm essentially moving up the idea of Enlightened Absolutism and what it could have been without the French revolution stopping everything in its tracks.
 
Well, once upon a time, the Sheriff was a military officer. With a corps of trained full time soldiers (not perhaps so vigorous as the Regular army, but experienced), and a castle . Think of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Over time he became a pure functionary. Eventually the task of peacekeeping, once matters went beyond the ability of the watchman, devolved into a police force. In the 18C , it was betwixt stools. The Sheriff no longer had any force, and the police did not exist.

But, the idea of the Sheriff as an armed man at the head of men at arms, was certainly not forgotten, which we may see if we look at how he evolved in the USA. The newly independent states took the office of Sheriff, which they knew, and evolved him into the Sheriff of the cowboy and the Wild West.

So I think it would not be hard to restore to him at this point his ancient military standing. Lodged behind defensible walls, with a small but professional body of fighting men , full time in the King's service.

The problem with riots and such like in the 18C was that it took so long to mobilise the forces of law and order. In theory, the magistrates were supposed to turn out first and command the rioters to disperse. If they did not, the magistrates had no force to compel them. They might in theory require the Sheriff to call out the posse comitatis (another idea that the Wild West borrowed), but by now that took days , and once assembled they had no idea what to do. After that the law knew only the summoning of the fyrd. Or, the Regular army, which , strictly, was unknown to the law.

Give the Sheriff a dozen armed men and it all becomes simple.
 
Truth is again stranger than fiction.

I have discovered, what I did not know before, that between 1718 and 1720, Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury and one du Pin, a doctor of the Sorbonne, unofficially, but in both cases with official oversight (ie they were not acting ex officio, but their respective governments knew what was happening) , embarked on a project to unite the Anglican and Gallican churches. It came to nothing, because of the collapse of the Gallican movement, but clearly neither the Archbishop nor the Sorbonne saw anything insurmountable.

And that was with the much more Whig church of George I's time.
 
Truth is again stranger than fiction.

I have discovered, what I did not know before, that between 1718 and 1720, Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury and one du Pin, a doctor of the Sorbonne, unofficially, but in both cases with official oversight (ie they were not acting ex officio, but their respective governments knew what was happening) , embarked on a project to unite the Anglican and Gallican churches. It came to nothing, because of the collapse of the Gallican movement, but clearly neither the Archbishop nor the Sorbonne saw anything insurmountable.

And that was with the much more Whig church of George I's time.

Now THAT is very interesting indeed. This was when the Church was very anti High Church and France was an unofficial enemy (hell I'm pretty sure they still recognized the Stuarts as the legitimate Kings!), so if it was attempted then, its much more realistic with a High Church Anglican Church, a continuing Galicanism and stronger relations between the two nations.

Also, I had a thought to help in the Empire: Make a Habsburg Archbishop-Elector, to help boost support for both centralization and a national church. I think its realistic, as Leopold I was originally destined for the Church, so its likely that he would earmark one of his sons for the Clergy. Plus, the Bavarians had several Electors of Cologne around this time so its not like there's no precedence.
 
Now THAT is very interesting indeed. This was when the Church was very anti High Church and France was an unofficial enemy (hell I'm pretty sure they still recognized the Stuarts as the legitimate Kings!), so if it was attempted then, its much more realistic with a High Church Anglican Church, a continuing Galicanism and stronger relations between the two nations.

Also, I had a thought to help in the Empire: Make a Habsburg Archbishop-Elector, to help boost support for both centralization and a national church. I think its realistic, as Leopold I was originally destined for the Church, so its likely that he would earmark one of his sons for the Clergy. Plus, the Bavarians had several Electors of Cologne around this time so its not like there's no precedence.
The answer is pretty simple - one word - Regency. Duc d'Orleans supported the alliance with Britain against his Spanish cousin, and such negotiation is not OOC for him in the slightest.
 
The answer is pretty simple - one word - Regency. Duc d'Orleans supported the alliance with Britain against his Spanish cousin, and such negotiation is not OOC for him in the slightest.

I had forgotten about the about face French foreign policy did under Monseigneur le Regent. But its still surprising to me that the British would entertain the possibility of a Church union.
 
.... But its still surprising to me that the British would entertain the possibility of a Church union.

One word. Dissenters. No, two words. Dissenters and tithes. The CoE establishment (and the squirearchy) had theological difference with the Church of Rome. And they hated the Pope.

But they hated dissenters even more, and they feared the latter. The Pope was far away and could do them little harm. The dissenters were right there in England, had a power base in Parliament , and openly advocated ideas that were unspeakably evil to the Church. Like, abolition of tithes. The dissenters were incredibly resentful of the fact that they had to pay 10% of their income to a Church they rejected. Strange, that. And confiscation of church property.

And the new Whig government was sympathetic to the dissenters. The Church mourned for the dear old Tory Queen Anne, and felt very alone. An ally was needed. The Church of France seemed a very suitable ally. Catholic (even the most Whiggish bishop was a Catholic at heart); and not too keen on the Pope. Any spiritual differences could be accommodated ; and the Gallican Church was sound on the matter of Church property, which was the important thing. As for France being France, well, better France than the Netherlands.
 
Top