I am making a few assumptions about the psychology of the characters. I think, later in his life, Henry VIII would have taken the opportunity to repair the relationship with France. It had been his initial foreign policy as a young king to seek reconciliation with France to stand against the perceived greater threat of Suleiman and the Ottoman Empire. The title of "Defender of the Faith" is one that he obviously took very seriously and, in this matter, he would have seen himself as a prince of Christendom.
Almost every young Christian prince believes that a Crusade against the (insert Muslim power of the day) is a good idea. Then they start thinking that maybe taking that (city, duchy, town, kingdom) next door looks a lot more appealing.
The title "Defender of the Faith" was awarded for his theological arguments against Lutheranism. He had been trained as a Churchman while his brother Arthur was alive, and took a lot of interest in the rising problem of Lutheranism.
I believe that, with the heir secure and with him matured (by this time, he would be in his earlier forties), he would have realised that Wolsey and his divorce had pissed nearly everybody off, and the French were causing trouble up north in his own backyard. Plus, I think that Anne's influence would have been far greater in TTL. Having had a father as a diplomat, she would have been well-versed in statecraft. I suspect that Henry had destroyed her relationship with the Earl of Northumberland on the instigation of her sister, Mary, who was a regular for the king and his esquire for a while, then felt guilty about doing so after he stopped doing the horizontal folk dance. And Anne wanted recognition from France, where she grew up, on her marriage.
Why did Anne crave foreign recognition, she was the Queen-Mother and now had a rather large part to play in the domestic affairs of England. Her husband was satisfied with his kingdom now secure, and maybe he would do something fool-hardy and she could start really running things.
And for Henry, the blessing of a son would confirm to him that he had done the right thing, psychologically impacting his straying habits.
If the son confirmed that he had done the right thing enough that he toned down his extra-maritial affairs, then how would it not also back up his idea that what he had done in regards to the Churches and Monasteries was "God's Will"? If you go along this line of reasoning, Roman Catholicism was barren for him, but his "Protestant"-ism was fruitful. With the Protestant Anne as his Queen, he may push more toward Protestantism. The push toward greater Protestantism could probably be seen in Henry's mind as strengthening his dynasty, since religious loyalty and state loyalty were already conflated in his monastery "reform".
Also, I have a feeling that Anne would be less concerned with Henry's affairs if she had a son. That boy means that she is now Queen for the long-term, and that she will have an important part to play in politics.
After the mess of the divorce, but with a secure marriage now on him, I think he would have had greater confidence in the Acts in Restraint of Appeal, and would have prevented the Ten Articles, making takes the whole issue back to what it actually was, a declaration of England's independence from Rome. Henry didn't want to change doctrine; he wanted to move the locus of power from the Vatican to the Palace.
Henry didn't even want to move the locus of power that much. All he wanted was a son. But once politics forced him to nationalize the Church he saw the amazing opportunities that this nationalization allowed him, and he took full advantage of it.
I think that with Anne and her family in the ascendancy there will be a push toward more Protestantism. Once the monasteries and other church lands are cut-up and handed out to the nobility, the Rubicon has been passed, and Protestantism has clearly won.
With Katherine of Aragon dead, you could pass a law making her legitimate again and putting her into the line of succession. After all, that is what Henry did in OTL anyway with the Third Succession Act. Plus, putting Mary into the French line of succession works; it gives the dynasty credibility as well. Both she and the Duke were "spares" (Mary is not marrying the Dauphin) and the Tudors were ones for making marriage alliances. For Francis, the possibility that his sons will be kings of England and France if the little blighter across the channel dies.
If Anne's marriage and her son are recognized as legitimate in France (as you have Anne desperately wanting) then Katherine's marriage and its issues (Mary) had to be illegitimate. So why would Francis marry his son, even a spare one, to a bastard?
Furthermore, I still don't think that you're going to change the generally anti-French (and therefore pro-Hapsburg) direction of Henry's policy. Henry was not thinking like a 16th of 17th century strategist, weighing the balance of power and what not. He was very much in a 15th century mindest, still quite set on the long English obsession of warring with France.
So IF your going to have Henry marry off Mary to a foreign prince across the channel (I think Scotland would be a good place to look for a husband) then I would think that foreign prince would be Protestant. If Henry marries her to a Catholic then you've just made their court the center of pro-Catholic intrigues against England. And given her Catholic husband a relatively good claim to the English throne, and her children quite a convincingly good claim to the English throne. A Catholic marriage would cause domestic instability, and possibly threaten the long-term prospects of the Tudor Dynasty. Therefore, Henry would not let that happen.
Yes, admittedly, it was an engineered political crisis. Why was Henry VIII creating that crisis? Because he needed to buy off the uproar about the changes in doctrine, which he never really supported in the first place and thought was necessary because no son had thrown himself and thus God must be angry with him. Plus, Jane Seymour was much more the Protestant than Anne Boleyn. so the crisis may not have occurred this time around at all, but Henry would have kept the monasteries idea on the backburner for future capital raising, and I have him doing exactly that. Cromwell would have kept pushing and, when it goes unpopular, there is no Cromwell around to confirm or deny anything that was said because he's been the "fall guy".
Your really missing the point here. The monasteries weren't about buying people off so that they accept some doctrinal changes in the English Church (after all, the big BIG HUGE change, splitting from Rome, already happened, so after that its small potatoes). The "reform" of the monasteries was about tying the English nobility to the survival of the (Protestant) Tudor Dynasty. The Tudors, as I stated previously, had a very weak claim to the throne (the fact that Henry VII was alive at the end of Bosworth Field was about the extent of their legitimacy) and both Henry VII and VIII were fearful of renewed attempts to topple their dynasty. Once Henry split with Rome, the monasteries presented an opportunity to Henry. He gave them to the nobles, who accepted them gladly. But, if the Catholic Church (and some other royal claimant) were ever to come back, all that land would have to be given back. Thus the nobles had a very great interest in making sure that a Tudor was on the throne.
By this stage, both Henry and Francis certainly weren't going to insist upon the money back and I doubt that Pope Paul would be happy with nothing less than a kiss on the ring.
I think the idea that the French would nationalize their Church ala England is silly. It simply would not happen. End of story.
What's the use of maintaining an allied military if you aren't going to use it to back the biggest bully on the block, Charles V? Because Charles V has been busy with England and France, he doesn't have the equipment to deal with Saxony, which was a hotbed of Lutheranism, and the much of the territory surrendered by the Emperor belonged to the Electors of Saxony.
Why is England fighting in the Holy Roman Empire to begin with? So France can gain the Rhine? Why what a wonderful idea, lets help our oldest enemy make major territorial gains in an area that is an essential piece of our economy. I'm shocked Henry VIII didn't think of this himself.
I agree with you here. There would have been a revolt of some kind with Mary carted off, but I needed that to make sure she isn't TOO Roman Catholic. The question is then whether the revolt would have been successful. So let's push back Mary's arrival in England until 1552 to ensure that there is no rebellion at all. Also, the Auld Alliance will not need to be cancelled in TTL, so one of the major causes of concern for Scots nobility is removed. That would comply with all the major Scots demands of the era.
The Scots didn't want to be dominated by England. The Auld Alliance was important insofar as it kept the English from dominating Scotland. If France was allied to England, then the Scots would go looking for another anti-English sponsor, who is this TL apparently is the Emperor Charles V. He would be more than willing to sponsor an uprising in Scotland, since it would appear that the English had conquered the Netherlands (despite the fact they would be militarily incapable of doing the aforementioned action).
In our TL, Henry VIII left a will that established a Council of Regency until the child was eighteen. He would have done the same in TTL, so Edward VI would have, at the latest, assumed his powers as King by 1551. I gave it to him a year earlier.
If there is a struggle within the regency, then don't be shocked if *Edward VI declares his majority early. The kingdom was not in any legal way bound by Henry's will, so though it could be followed, it could just as easily not be.
I read the remainder of your comments and disagree that medieval monarchs necessarily ascribed to the theory of just war, and especially not if they were leading a reformed Church calling into question all that Catholic theology.
If you think Philip II was a medieval monarch then I think that we have more serious issues then a lack of understanding on the monastery issues. What I was saying was that wars, generally, are fought with a goal in mind. Especially when war was simply a frequently used tool of foreign policy. Philip II will probably go to war with the French, but there will be some gain that he is looking for. For instance, if France stays in Milan, or invades Milan, or maybe there is a succession dispute in France and Philip decided to see if the Tericos could solve it, or something along those lines.
And war for territory is not "Just War". Its state-supported armed robbery.
