DBWI:Protestant England

samcster94

Banned
Henry IX is known as one of the strongest English kings and he unified England and Scotland through marriage. He was devoutly Catholic and is sighted as starting a trend towards absolutism. France, on the other hand, became Protestant after a series of destructive wars. Languedoc is the last place one might see a Catholic these days.
 
Not sure what POD could have made England a Protestant country. Henry VIII engineered a schism so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon. Then he killed his subsequent wives and St. Thomas More, which turned public opinion against him. His daughters resented his attempt to retroactively illegitimize them, thus their quickness in reconciling with Rome.

Can't see any subsequent monarch or later, prime minister, following in the footsteps of England's most reviled king.
 
Not sure what POD could have made England a Protestant country. Henry VIII engineered a schism so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon. Then he killed his subsequent wives and St. Thomas More, which turned public opinion against him. His daughters resented his attempt to retroactively illegitimize them, thus their quickness in reconciling with Rome.

Can't see any subsequent monarch or later, prime minister, following in the footsteps of England's most reviled king.
Could he just not kill his next wife and St. Thomas More? Or is that ASB?
 
Could he just not kill his next wife and St. Thomas More? Or is that ASB?

Well, he technically could, but he probably wouldn't have. Sources from the time described him as being intensely paranoid and somewhat unstable - perhaps due to the traumatic events of his father's reign, when no fewer than eleven different Yorkist pretenders rose up against Tudor rule and in some cases came quite close to succeeding. It was this paranoia that led to his execution of his second wife, Thomas More, and several other members of his court. Perhaps, if Henry was less paranoid (maybe if there were fewer Yorkist rebellions, or none at all), then he would have taken much more moderate action - but on the other hand, a more benevolent Henry might not even have split with Rome in the first place.
 
Another question: How would a Protestant England change the US? In OTL, we rebelled and gained our independence in the 1820s after France's colonies did the same. We abolished slavery by boiling the frog -- we inherited the protection of slave marriages and the ban on working slaves on a Sunday from England. After independence, we imposed a work limit of 10 hours a day, allowed slaves to own property, and limited the ability to buy and sell. We finally ended it once and for all by allowing free movement of labor in 1880.

If we were a Protestant nation, would we have been more like Quebec, where slavery was abolished early as an affront to the Huguenot work ethic, or would we have looked more like Orleans which practiced the most brutal and inhumane form of slavery in modern times, and their conquest by New Spain was required to end it?
 

Gian

Banned
Wasn't Louisiane partitioned by the U.S., New Spain, and Canada though*?

In all seriousness, there was little chance Bohemia could've survived as a Protestant nation without the massive help from France. After all, once France was all in on the Twenty Years War (alongside Sweden), itwasall over for the Habsburg forces. Sure, they had to contend with a Spanish invasion of the Languedoc, but it was of course rebuffed. And come the War of the Spanish Succession,the French came knocking and gained Navarre and Catalogne in the process (as well as the Bourbon Felipe V who converted to Catholicism just to be crowned King of (the rest of) Spain)

(*Just needed to put that there)
 
I can't imagine a world without Calvinist France. The Burning of Rome, the German Synaxis, the Twenty Year's War... Plus, it would mean that the average Continental Bible would be far longer. Everyone knows how Calvinist forces removed James, Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Revelation, and even the Gospel of John, alongside Esther, Ecclesiastes, Judith, Esther, the Maccabees, Tobit, and Daniel. Though, perhaps if some of the Radical Reformers got hold of power, maybe you even could have gotten rid of the entire veneration of saints? Eh, imagine how weird Bordeaux would look without the massive Cathedral of St. Dirk Willems.
 
I cannot imagine England ever becoming Protestant. If you chart the history of the Faith in England, it has always been one of the most devoutly Catholic nations in the world. They don't call it Mary's Dowry for nothing! In the 16th century, folk religion (with all the antecedent sodalities and devotions) was blooming, and it had some of the foremost theologians (lay and religious) in the world. The English people would not allow themselves to have Protestantism foisted on them from above by kings and bishops; it was deeply rooted into their daily lives and sense of being. For them to cast aside Catholicism would be one of the biggest shifts of identity in the history of Christendom. Even today, the United Kingdoms of England and Ireland have a well-earned reputation as the most devout realms in Europe. An England without the Blessed Union of Queen St Mary I Tudor and King Reginald I would be so very different. When you consider the vast artistic, architectural, and cultural achievements of the Dual Monarchs, you almost tremble at the prospect of anything else.

I wonder what would the situation in Ireland be if England became Protestant... would it have taken the heresy have taken root there, or would it have done what Scotland did in OTL and gain independence?

Also, what brand of Protestantism would have taken root in England in this TL? Would it have been Calvinist, or Lutheran, or neo-Gnostic, or something else? I strongly doubt it could ever have become Calvinist, simply due to the geopolitical pressures of France and Scotland. Henry VIII condemned Lutheranism, of course, but neo-Gnosticism... it caught on in Yorkshire, I suppose, but I doubt it could ever be forged into a national movement outside of the Balkans.
 
Last edited:
I cannot imagine England ever becoming Protestant. If you chart the history of the Faith in England, it has always been one of the most devoutly Catholic nations in the world. They don't call it Mary's Dowry for nothing! In the 16th century, folk religion (with all the antecedent sodalities and devotions) was blooming, and it had some of the foremost theologians (lay and religious) in the world. The English people would not allow themselves to have Protestantism foisted on them from above by kings and bishops; it was deeply rooted into their daily lives and sense of being. For them to cast aside Catholicism would be one of the biggest shifts of identity in the history of Christendom. Even today, the United Kingdoms of England and Ireland have a well-earned reputation as the most devout realms in Europe. An England without the Blessed Union of Queen St Mary I Tudor and King Reginald I would be so very different. When you consider the vast artistic, architectural, and cultural achievements of the Dual Monarchs, you almost tremble at the prospect of anything else.

Good points - then again, English religious opinion (whilst ostensibly completely Catholic) has always been slightly different to continental Catholicism. Even today, Cardinal Farron has been accused by some religious commentators of incorporating neo-Catharist thought into some of his works, whilst the influence of empiricism in the 16th and 17th centuries transformed English Catholicism into something very interesting indeed. I do agree that the entirety of England converting to Protestantism (or at least to any form of it we'd recognise; some of the smaller schismatic factions that emerged during the Twenty Years' War might have been palatable, such as the Osnabruck World Chapel, or maybe the Petitioners to the Vatican) is unrealistic.
As for the Dual Monarchy, England would never have become Protestant with that. Perhaps, if Henry VIII had learned from his father's mistakes (Henry VII had an opportunity to kill the Princes in the Tower, but didn't, for whatever reason), and killed or disinherited those (Mary and Elizabeth) who could have threatened Edward's rule, then we'd have avoided Mary's reign, and Protestantism might have had more time to become established under Edward and Jane.

I wonder what would the situation in Ireland be if England became Protestant... would it have taken the heresy have taken root there, or would it have done what Scotland did in OTL and gain independence?

Irish religion is a whole other issue - they've never been entirely orthodox in their opinions over there, what with the influences of traditional Celtic belief and the extremely devolved nature of religious and political authority on the island. As for whether they could have broken away, though, I'm doubtful - they'd be more successful than the Scottish rebels were, what with the difficulty of supplying English armies across the Irish Sea, but they probably wouldn't have lasted. If they'd broken away at the same time as the Scottish rebellion, then things would have got very complicated and problematic for England indeed.
 
Well, that is less likely than that novel I read where France becomes staunchly Catholic under some guy named Louis XIV in the late 17th century who made Protestantism illegal.

Isn't that the really ASB one where the Bourbons, who had spent years fighting in the name of making France Protestant, suddenly convert back to Catholicism after winning power?
 
Isn't that the really ASB one where the Bourbons, who had spent years fighting in the name of making France Protestant, suddenly convert back to Catholicism after winning power?

And then side against the Catholics in their "Thirty Years' War" (they really could have thought of a more inventive name, I must say), purely because they didn't like Austria or whatever. Some authors seem to see religion as something you can just turn on and off for your own personal convenience.
 

samcster94

Banned
And then side against the Catholics in their "Thirty Years' War" (they really could have thought of a more inventive name, I must say), purely because they didn't like Austria or whatever. Some authors seem to see religion as something you can just turn on and off for your own personal convenience.
The idea of a king reigning for 72 years seems a bit unrealistic too, and he passed away conveniently after a major war but before France underwent bankruptcy.
 
The idea of a king reigning for 72 years seems a bit unrealistic too, and he passed away conveniently after a major war but before France underwent bankruptcy.

I don't think the author wanted to damage his reputation too much - he's clearly a bit of a creator's pet. The whole 'let's name every single king Louis' thing gets a bit tiresome too...
 

samcster94

Banned
I don't think the author wanted to damage his reputation too much - he's clearly a bit of a creator's pet. The whole 'let's name every single king Louis' thing gets a bit tiresome too...
French kings in OTL had much less repetitive names including Francois, Charles, Hugh, and Jean. There even was a queen Marguerite once who only reigned for two years.
 
French kings in OTL had much less repetitive names including Francois, Charles, Hugh, and Jean. There even was a queen Marguerite once who only reigned for two years.
They had them early on. When you get into a less secure cadet branch like the Bourbons, it might make a certain amount of sense to go by the same name to give a sense of continuity, especially since it means steadily increasing numbers next to their names. Happened often enough in the Germanies, or at least the duchies and Electorates that had enough doctors and good hygiene to make sure the first born sons made it to adulthood. And if they didn't split up property between all the kids.


Henry IX is known as one of the strongest English kings and he unified England and Scotland through marriage. He was devoutly Catholic and is sighted as starting a trend towards absolutism. France, on the other hand, became Protestant after a series of destructive wars. Languedoc is the last place one might see a Catholic these days.

It is a bit like French history, actually. I mean with the Kingdom of Brittany. Marriage to secure it for some generations, infiltration of the language, and effective dropping of the kingdom title later on. Hence why England reversed the historical accidents that kept Pictland and Scotland out of England. Does get annoying trying to read through old history text though, as they kept refering to those in the Highlands as Scots instead of Picts. Though maybe there is more truth in it, since the Lowlands don't see themselves as anything but English for the most part, I would say. Besides for those Calvinist freaks...

(Scratch that second part, I see it contradicts other things.)
 
Last edited:
I read a really weird ATL where - as it turns out - Elizabeth takes a third option when she became Queen (ITTL Mary married Philip II of Spain, of all people!) and decides to placate both hardline Protestants and lukewarm reformers by retaining church hierarchy even with a clean break with Rome and some doctrinal differences.

Guess even in ATLs England can't get TOO Protestant. ;)
 
Top