Catholic England, Anglican* France?

A random idea/question I just had - is there a way to not only keep England (and possibly Scotland) Catholic but to get the French monarchy to create an independent "Church of France"?
 
All right. Is there any way to get a Gallican France with an independent state church a la Henry VIII's creation, while also preventing the emergence of the Church of England?
 
Catholic England and Scotland would be quite possible (England more easily).

I think that if the Jansenist history ahd developed differently it might have led to a Gallican Church, though probably not the Established Church.

A particular feature of the Church of England (not the broader Anglican church) is that it is "by law established". This is unusual and would be difficult to achieve in other countries (Neither Scotland nor Wales are now Established , though efforts were made to establish both at different times)
 
Maybe weaken the Huguenots? That might leave more breathing room for more conservative Protestantism.
 
How Catholic may your Church of France be ? Calvinist or 'Church of Rome sans the Pope' are your extremes (the latter being Henry VIIIs original Church of England.
 
A Gallican Church is very do-able, as the French state had a lot of influence over the Church in France in our timeline. However, you should be aware that an independent Gallican Church would be much more Catholic than the Anglican Church is. It would be more like the Church of England under Henry VIII.

Catholic England is harder in my opinion. I can't see the mercantile classes that held the power in England to be willing to submit to the Pope's edicts longer term.
 
Catholic England is harder in my opinion. I can't see the mercantile classes that held the power in England to be willing to submit to the Pope's edicts longer term.

A Protestant movement in England is probably inevitable. Keeping England Catholic, on the other hand, is easy. Without the support of the monarch, Protestantism will have a harder time to spread. An English government that is friendly to Rome would allow in *Jesuits and other orders to lead a counter-reformation. Areas that were hotbeds of militant Catholics IOTL like Northern England could provide recruits for Catholic militias to put down the Protestant movement.
 
I do agree. As far as France as well as England are concerned, or even the german principalities, it is the king's or princes's or duke's, or count's choices and decisions that were the key factor.
 
I'm sure you could do something with a surviving anti-pope in Avignon. Although you'd have to bridge the rather large gap between "WE are the real Catholics" and the antipopes recognizing themselves as a religiously separate organization from the Roman Church.
 
Is there any way at all for Henri IV to gain the throne without embracing Catholicism? Or, maybe more realistically, remaining a Protestant in secret, and then coming out in the open when he felt secure? Certainly the hardcore Catholics (and the Habsburgs) opposed him... maybe some outside Protestants could help him gain the throne, and he feels less need to convert.

In that potential TL, the wars of religion, already a bloodbath, would probably be even longer and even worse. But it seems plausible.
 
Moving affairs ahead just a little, now I'm wondering what the Catholic hierarchy in this TL's English North America would look like (when the first dioceses would be erected, what the first city to become an archdiocese would be - especially that last; when did the overseas Anglican churches in OTL start getting archbishops as peers to Canterbury and York?)
 
Not till C19 (by which time it was not British North America of course) . The question of Anglican bishops is BNA in pre revolutionary C18 was a very vexed one .

The first bishop in BNA of the CoE was in 1787, though Inglis was consecrated by the Episcopalian Church Of Scotland in 1784 .

The first primate of Canada was not until 1893 however.

This would probably be different if England were Papist.
 
Not till C19 (by which time it was not British North America of course) . The question of Anglican bishops is BNA in pre revolutionary C18 was a very vexed one .

The first bishop in BNA of the CoE was in 1787, though Inglis was consecrated by the Episcopalian Church Of Scotland in 1784 .

The first primate of Canada was not until 1893 however.

This would probably be different if England were Papist.
No, you are confused. Charles Inglis was ordained regularly and officially as the CofE bishop for Nova Scotia.

It was Samuel Seabury from the US who was ordained by the episcopal church of scotland.

At that point, there was no 'Anglican Communion', and the validity of the Scottish ordinations was questioned by many.
 
Yes. You are quite right. I reversed Inglis and Seabury.

Mea culpa.

You are also correct about the vagueness of the relationships. The "Anglican Communion" did not arrive until C19. But an American bishop could not strictly be a bishop of the Church of England. On account of not being in England, which caused all sorts of legal problems. Basically the issue was carefully avoided as long as possible.
 
I'm sure you could do something with a surviving anti-pope in Avignon. Although you'd have to bridge the rather large gap between "WE are the real Catholics" and the antipopes recognizing themselves as a religiously separate organization from the Roman Church.
Perhaps it be like Korea, "WE are the real Korea" even though neither side can really claim any control over the other.
 
Fairly much, I guess, theologically and legally . The Peace of Augsburg allowed Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. Calvinism was still on the outer. The CoE ignored it all of course and proceeded on its own unique path . Which at one point involved High Church Calvinism, complete with Calvinist bishops. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Top