DBWI: England goes Protestant

samcster94

Banned
Henry VIII had a son named Arthur and he grew to be a mediocre king. England remained fiercely Catholic(OOC:imagine it going on a path more like a scaled down France politically). What if England had turned Protestant and what would it take???
OOC:Stay within the 16th century.
 
Henry VIII had a son named Arthur and he grew to be a mediocre king. England remained fiercely Catholic(OOC:imagine it going on a path more like a scaled down France politically). What if England had turned Protestant and what would it take???
OOC:Stay within the 16th century.
It'd likely take a massive uprising or a huge cultural shift, like a massive influx of Scottish protestants. Henry the 8th was one of the most anti-Lutheran kings in his time. Beyond the executions of protestants he wrote massive essays basically attacking Luther as a person and creating an entire subculture of debate in England's educated class where they'd basically import writings just to spend time taking them apart. Maybe if that encouraged actually following the faith after Henry's death maybe there'd be a large minority in the upper class who'd want to see themselves free of what was becoming an increasingly political papacy. Arthur himself likely wouldn't break from the church, if for no other reason then the fact he rarely actually ran the country, nor would his son Willam after due to having a lot more pressing matters with Ireland and Parliament. The Tudors were not the most worldly people after all. Not for nothing they're seen largely as a bunch of fops who spent their days riding and hunting and jousting and nights sleeping around and watching plays. The one thing they did well was pick men loyal enough to run things for them and such it'd take a strong willed advisor or two to sway their king into breaking with the church.
 
Come now, no serious power ever went protestant. A few German statelets, yes, and some Scandinavian kings on the backend of nowhere, but noone can take the hit to diplomatic options that going protestant entails and remain a relevant power.
 
Come now, no serious power ever went protestant. A few German statelets, yes, and some Scandinavian kings on the backend of nowhere, but noone can take the hit to diplomatic options that going protestant entails and remain a relevant power.
I mean there is a question on if there's a difference between the population becoming converted and the official national religion being changed. Like Scotland never really had an officially protestant government until the early 1800's but the nation itself was majority protestant within Arthur's life. It's never been bigger than 70% but no one would claim that Scotland wasn't seen as a protestant nation since. A similar thing could in theory have happened in England, though the differences in culture make a similar spread unlikely.
 

samcster94

Banned
It'd likely take a massive uprising or a huge cultural shift, like a massive influx of Scottish protestants. Henry the 8th was one of the most anti-Lutheran kings in his time. Beyond the executions of protestants he wrote massive essays basically attacking Luther as a person and creating an entire subculture of debate in England's educated class where they'd basically import writings just to spend time taking them apart. Maybe if that encouraged actually following the faith after Henry's death maybe there'd be a large minority in the upper class who'd want to see themselves free of what was becoming an increasingly political papacy. Arthur himself likely wouldn't break from the church, if for no other reason then the fact he rarely actually ran the country, nor would his son Willam after due to having a lot more pressing matters with Ireland and Parliament. The Tudors were not the most worldly people after all. Not for nothing they're seen largely as a bunch of fops who spent their days riding and hunting and jousting and nights sleeping around and watching plays. The one thing they did well was pick men loyal enough to run things for them and such it'd take a strong willed advisor or two to sway their king into breaking with the church.
Arthur not existing might make a break possible. It'd still be a longshot though.
 
Arthur not existing might make a break possible. It'd still be a longshot though.

Well, it certainly dident help that the merchant and professional classes took to Protestantism quite readily across much of Europe (hence it's political rise mainly in the Hansa, Neatherlands, and Scandinavian Baltic Sea trade zone). If the historical political clashes between the rising "commercial" forces with their newfound wealth and the entrenched land-rich but constantly indebted landed gentry still occur, than the later might not be so hard line on remaining Catholic as a sign of loyalty to the old regime and stiffen their alliance with the monasteries to protect land privileges and insure the continued dominance of in-castle retainers and monks over crafts as opposed to the better organized and efficient guilds/trades men's associations.

Still, it ended up as their lose when they started exiling the dissidents and creditor Protestants like they'd already done with the Jewish moneylenders/scholars before them. The massive brain drain and urban decay really dident do Catholic Europe any favors when it came to surpassing the feudal economy and ultimately proved a huge shot in the arm for the Dutch, Swedes, and Ottomans in starting up their colonial Empires and trade dominance in the Americas and Indian Ocean, creating the long-held distinction between the Papal "Land" and non-Papal sea Emperors.

Or, to quote Bayezid II "Those who piously say 'I am a most a Catholic Prince" are indeed fools; for they send willingly to me, his enemy, their national treasures. The physician, the tinkerer, the master of monies and craft: all are now his enemies' to command."
 
I was thinking the Irish stay Catholic their conversion was largely based around culturally not being English.
 
Well, it certainly dident help that the merchant and professional classes took to Protestantism quite readily across much of Europe (hence it's political rise mainly in the Hansa, Neatherlands, and Scandinavian Baltic Sea trade zone). If the historical political clashes between the rising "commercial" forces with their newfound wealth and the entrenched land-rich but constantly indebted landed gentry still occur, than the later might not be so hard line on remaining Catholic as a sign of loyalty to the old regime and stiffen their alliance with the monasteries to protect land privileges and insure the continued dominance of in-castle retainers and monks over crafts as opposed to the better organized and efficient guilds/trades men's associations.

Still, it ended up as their lose when they started exiling the dissidents and creditor Protestants like they'd already done with the Jewish moneylenders/scholars before them. The massive brain drain and urban decay really dident do Catholic Europe any favors when it came to surpassing the feudal economy and ultimately proved a huge shot in the arm for the Dutch, Swedes, and Ottomans in starting up their colonial Empires and trade dominance in the Americas and Indian Ocean, creating the long-held distinction between the Papal "Land" and non-Papal sea Emperors.

Or, to quote Bayezid II "Those who piously say 'I am a most a Catholic Prince" are indeed fools; for they send willingly to me, his enemy, their national treasures. The physician, the tinkerer, the master of monies and craft: all are now his enemies' to command."
Eh, I think you'll find tolerance, which some Catholic and some protestant nations had (and the muslim Turks), was the real determining factor. Several of the convinced protestant German statelets expelled their Catholics and got just as far in trouble as the intolerant among the Catholics.

And let's remember THE examples of rising wealth of the previous era, the Italian republics, never seriously considered protestantism. They lost their wealth not because of Catholicism, but because of Atlantic trade.
 
I was thinking the Irish stay Catholic their conversion was largely based around culturally not being English.

Well, that's a bit of a misunderstanding of what really happened. The Irish never officially 'converted'; the Archdiocese of Armagh came under the control of reformers who wanted to return the local church to a more traditional - and local - form of Christianity. This was largely the result of the Pope's support for Arthur's failed invasion of the island during the O'Sullivan Uprising. So, there was never a 'conversion', its just that the Archbishop of Armagh left its union with the Church in Rome and then introduced a number of reforms, such as priests and bishops being able to marry - all of which they justified by saying it was the original forms of Christianity practiced in Ireland during the first centuries of Christianization. The Celtic Church never went to the theology of "Scripture Alone" like the other Protestant Churches and rejected most of the notions of Calvin, Luther and others. Its relationship to Rome is much more similar to that of the Orthodox Churches and the Catholics, rather than the Reformed Churches and Catholics.

You know, maybe the best way to make England go Protestant would be to have Henry VIII struggle to have a son. On a side note, if he doesn't have any sons, there is a chance that the Scottish Stewarts could end up inheriting the throne. Imagine an England dominated by Scotland! And, if Argmagh doesn't divorce itself from Rome, then the bishops of Scotland can't follow suit; meaning that reform minded Scots might feel an even greater draw to Calvinism than they did in OTL. That would certainly short circuit the alliance between Scotland and the Irish Kingdom that emerged following the conclusion of Arthur's ill-fated war.
 

Deleted member 97083

Maybe instead of turning England "fully" Protestant, what if they just choose an important archbishop, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, and declare him to be the leader of the "English Church"? I guess that would be Orthodox, instead of Protestant, because it's more like what the Russian Tsars did--elevating the bishop of Moscow to Patriarch of Moscow who thereafter becomes leader of the Russian Orthodox Church. Still, it's a possibility.
 
Maybe instead of turning England "fully" Protestant, what if they just choose an important archbishop, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, and declare him to be the leader of the "English Church"? I guess that would be Orthodox, instead of Protestant, because it's more like what the Russian Tsars did--elevating the bishop of Moscow to Patriarch of Moscow who thereafter becomes leader of the Russian Orthodox Church. Still, it's a possibility.

So, kinda like what the Irish did, only by royal decree (rather than by the Archbishop taking matters into his own hands). Interesting! I suppose this would give a chance for moderate reformers to come to power; though I suspect it would cause all sorts of problems with the die hards.
 
It'd still be a longshot though.
Yeah. Imagine Henry, KNOWN as the "Defender of the Faith", go PROTESTANT!

what if they just choose an important archbishop, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, and declare him to be the leader of the "English Church"?
The question is would they respect his authority though? The Pope, after all is considered be Peter the apostles representative on Earth.

I suspect it would cause all sorts of problems with the die hards.
Imagine if Mary (Arthurs sister) got into power. That would definitely cause some problems! I don't know about you but she seemed the type that would be rather... militant when it came to defending her faith. That's if her collection of essays are anything to go by.
 
I was thinking the Irish stay Catholic their conversion was largely based around culturally not being English.

It depends, one of the main reasons for Ireland's conversion was to defy the Laudabiliter which recognised the King of England as the rightful sovereign of Ireland. If Catholic Europe refuses to support Irish independence efforts in favour of trying to make a Catholic the King of England then Ireland may convert anyway. If they do support the Irish however then the Irish could become a powerful nation far earlier with the backing of the Spanish or French whereas in OTL Ireland came very late to the great-powers table in the late 18th and early 19th century.
 
Eh, I think you'll find tolerance, which some Catholic and some protestant nations had (and the muslim Turks), was the real determining factor. Several of the convinced protestant German statelets expelled their Catholics and got just as far in trouble as the intolerant among the Catholics.

And let's remember THE examples of rising wealth of the previous era, the Italian republics, never seriously considered protestantism. They lost their wealth not because of Catholicism, but because of Atlantic trade.

That tolerance was certainly the motivating factor for why the exiled populations went where they went, but if we're talking in broader political-historical trends the relatively small scale of Catholic displacement makes them the exception rather than the rule. That's not to say Protestants coulden't get downright intolerant when they managed to gain enough political power if we're talking about the more threatened/fundimentalist sects (Just look at the Great "Ana-Baptism by Fire" of Brunswick).

As for the Italian Republics, of course none of them seriously considered Protestantism; how could they with the shady forces of the Papal and Imperial Inquisition digging around and squished between the Patramony of St. Peter, the Spainish, French, and Austrians who's military and political presence were all four a very heavy hand in the region? It's suicide to try to convert with a Crusader's boot on your neck, though even then quite alot of scholarship has revealed there were quite a few "Crypto-Protestants" to be found among the lower classes. As for the decline in their trading power, the recantation of Venice's trade agreements with the Ottomans (The result of Papal and Spainish pressure following the Conquest of Malta and Sicily) certainly diden't do them any favors, nor did their lose as the position of prefered distributors to the Hussite exile community, or the additional money that got drained out of the region's economy after the Church doubled the manditory tithes in 1630 just as the states of Northern Europe were pushing through their pro-merchantile customs reforms and promoting the "stock market" concept (While Catholic Europe basically had no functional large-scale banking sector)
 
It depends, one of the main reasons for Ireland's conversion was to defy the Laudabiliter which recognised the King of England as the rightful sovereign of Ireland. If Catholic Europe refuses to support Irish independence efforts in favour of trying to make a Catholic the King of England then Ireland may convert anyway. If they do support the Irish however then the Irish could become a powerful nation far earlier with the backing of the Spanish or French whereas in OTL Ireland came very late to the great-powers table in the late 18th and early 19th century.

I can't imagine that'd be the case: as harsh as Ireland's long struggle to maintain its independent and Protestant identity and throw off incursions by the English was, it was the vital crucible that allowed the Sullivan dynasty to forge the squabbling clans of the isle into a unified nation, as well as take its huge military-technological leap forward via its Dutch advisors and bussiness connections and the infant dynasty it's huge initial cash infusion via the a Confiscation of the Monestaries that nationalized Rome's huge swaths of property on the island. A Catholic Ireland, freed by forgein hands, wouldn't get those advantages and would find it that much harder to coallice around one domestic ruler
 
Kerneu could still be considered a part of england if you make england protestant as a whole. The spread of breton bibles and religious practises among the kernuish was a pretty defining moment in nationalism and gave a reason for continuing use of the language in religious settings. Without that continued use (some in devon said during the 17th century that it was easier to get a kernuish bible than an english one) the revival and ensuing nationalist movement in later centuries was made possible.
 
Protestant England equals catholic ireland instead of Puritan Ireland. Without the rise of Irish Capitalism, do we ever have an industrial revolution?
 
What does this mean for Empire? After all it was the who Pope decreed that the Americas would only be split between Iberia, France and England. Maybe a protestant England breaks the mould and other Lutheran states could have empires. Who knows maybe the triple alliance between France, Spain and England wouldn't dominate the world.
 
Top