England stayed Catholic

During the rein of Henry VIII the son of his First wife survived and grew up to be king as Henry VIV, also in this world durng the Tudor rule Protestant Reformantion didn't happen due to the fact that Luther was stopped 1520. He is a martyer to the Protestant rebels,


Ther current year is 1954, and I need to know what were the Tudor plans for North America.

LW
 
Henry IX, surely.

Henry didn't create a Protestant church per se. His only concern was removing the Church of England from Papal power and placing himself at the head of it. This provided a way for actual Protestant factions to gain power within the CoE but actual theology went back and forth for the next few hundred years which is why the Anglican church today tends to be a wide association of congregations on varying theological bents from full on evangelical right across to the Anglo-Catholics. Even if Henry doesn't take control of the CoE, England is still going to see a power struggle between Protestants and Catholics.

As for saying what happens by 1954, well it all depends on how everything plays out. Historical events are going to be increasingly divergent as time moves on.
 
Henry IX, surely.

Henry didn't create a Protestant church per se. His only concern was removing the Church of England from Papal power and placing himself at the head of it. This provided a way for actual Protestant factions to gain power within the CoE but actual theology went back and forth for the next few hundred years which is why the Anglican church today tends to be a wide association of congregations on varying theological bents from full on evangelical right across to the Anglo-Catholics. Even if Henry doesn't take control of the CoE, England is still going to see a power struggle between Protestants and Catholics.

As for saying what happens by 1954, well it all depends on how everything plays out. Historical events are going to be increasingly divergent as time moves on.

I think Christopher Haigh got it basically right in English Reformations; without Henry VIII's split with Rome, England would stay predominantly Catholic both in the sense of being officially Catholic by law and in the majority of the people actually observing Catholicism. There would be Protestants, of course, but they would not approach a majority and would suffer official persecution. The Protestants might cause the occassional civil war, but I doubt they'd be a very serious threat to actually take over the country.

Actually, contrary to what is often assumed in the AH community you don't even need to avoid the split with Rome for such a scenario to be plausible. Haigh points out that if Henry VIII died in September 1546 the regency for Edward VI would most likely be dominated by traditionalists like the Duke of Norfolk and Bishops Gardiner and Tunstall. However, when Henry actually died in January 1547 the traditionalists were out of favor and the Protestants took control of the regency.

A POD of Henry dying in September or earlier could lead to the Norfolk faction taking control and at least maintaining the more conservative regime of the Six Articles. With a child on the throne, I don't think it's too hard to imagine this faction eventually giving up on royal supremacy (maybe in return for a dispensation allowing the nobles to keep all the monastic land they stole during the dissolutions?). We'd probably end up with a Catholic England that would be quite different from medieval Catholic England (no/few monasteries, plenty of Protestant dissidents) but would still be officially and predominantly Catholic.
 
There are some problems with his 1546 suppositions though - 1) the influence of the Archbishop Cramner, 2) the strong Protestant views of the young King - he was no where near the cypher that he is often portrayed and was showing every inch of being as autocratic as his father.

However i think the basic premise is correct - had Henry had a male heir by Catherine of Aragon or had he been granted an annulment in 1529 then I think the chances of a largescale conversion fades. Assuming Henry and Anne married 1530 and that one of her three known pregnancies resulted in a male heir - she perhaps becomes much more of a reformist Queen whilst staying within the Universal church - in the style of Margaret of Navarre for example.

I wouldn't rule out strong Protestant influences particularly in the South and it doesn't prevent later more Calvinistic conversions - for example Henry dies as per our time and is succeeded by Edward VI (the son of Henry and Anne) - under the influence of his mother - perhaps a man more tolerant of reformers than his devout father then who knows.
 
During the rein of Henry VIII the son of his First wife survived and grew up to be king as Henry VIV, also in this world durng the Tudor rule Protestant Reformantion didn't happen due to the fact that Luther was stopped 1520. He is a martyer to the Protestant rebels,


Ther current year is 1954, and I need to know what were the Tudor plans for North America.

LW

Assuming that MNPundit is right in assuming you meant 1594, the answer is likely to be something very similar to RL. For a start, the English state never really took an influence in starting colonial ventures - it merely sponsored individuals who had their own plans. There would be no "Tudor plans for North America". What you would more likely have is individuals such as Raleigh forming colonial ventures exactly as RL, basing settlements around Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay with the intent of attacking Spanish shipping (I'm not anticipating a Spanish Armada but I'm also not anticipating England not holding predatory instincts about the Spanish success in Mesoamerica. These settlements probably wouldn't work (after all, it didn't work OTL) but they would carry over the intention to establish self-sufficient colonies and they would lend to England locations conducive to settling. Essentially the colonies would form like they did OTL.
 
Assuming that MNPundit is right in assuming you meant 1594, the answer is likely to be something very similar to RL. For a start, the English state never really took an influence in starting colonial ventures - it merely sponsored individuals who had their own plans. There would be no "Tudor plans for North America". What you would more likely have is individuals such as Raleigh forming colonial ventures exactly as RL, basing settlements around Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay with the intent of attacking Spanish shipping (I'm not anticipating a Spanish Armada but I'm also not anticipating England not holding predatory instincts about the Spanish success in Mesoamerica. These settlements probably wouldn't work (after all, it didn't work OTL) but they would carry over the intention to establish self-sufficient colonies and they would lend to England locations conducive to settling. Essentially the colonies would form like they did OTL.

So essentially what you are saying is that a Catholic England would lead to the settling of the predominately Catholic 13 colonies -would there also be a United States as in OTL, or would we remain part of the (Catholic) British Empire?
 
Well, I'd have to disagree with the uniform creation of the Colonies as per OTL - most of them were formed as either outright penal colonies, or as refuge-outlets for the "religious exiles du jour"...who mostly wouldn't exist here.

It really depends on how much you want to fiddle with the TL: does a "mysterious stranger" whisper in Hank's ear, or is it simply that the little tyke lives? If the former, the sky's the limit on the direction you can go.

If the latter, it won't take an advanced economics course to see the looming disaster in the Spanish economy, so there is a chance that Henry may sponsor missions to NA to "see what the Spaniards are missing"...And finding the naval storehouse that is New England, I think you'd likely see Henry making a bid for Royal Estates north of the Chesapeake.

Also, that brings Henry the possibility of the military glory he sought, since a Catholic England would almost have to go to war against the Protestant Dutch at some point.

In effect, whether it's 1594 or 1954, the only difference in divergence will be one of degree...
 
Well, I'd have to disagree with the uniform creation of the Colonies as per OTL - most of them were formed as either outright penal colonies, or as refuge-outlets for the "religious exiles du jour"...who mostly wouldn't exist here.

It really depends on how much you want to fiddle with the TL: does a "mysterious stranger" whisper in Hank's ear, or is it simply that the little tyke lives? If the former, the sky's the limit on the direction you can go.

In fairness, I never mentioned that far ahead. I just said that in the early years, English colonisation genuinely was just about planting settlers to claim land for England, to find new revenues for the markets of Bristol and London, and to bring the native tribes under English rule. These are the constants which I don't see changing in 1594.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict as far ahead as the 13 Colonies, or even to the foundation of most of the bigger colonies, save to say that there is plenty of scope under a Catholic England for a reversal of OTL where Protestants form the majority in Virginia instead of Catholics.
 
Well in this setting Martian Luther in 1520 was stopped by the Catholic Church, so there was no Thirty year war Calvinism was driven underground. Also Henry and Catherine of Aragon first son survived, The Fitzroy family also survived in this timeline as well.


The Star Chanber became the secret police of the Tudor England and America or North America depending on which way it's colonized.


LW
 
With a Catholic England -- ?Would the Anglo/Spanish alliance against France Continue?

With no divorce? Almost certainly. Also, there would likely be greater Anglo-Scottish penetration of the Carribean with less Spanish resistance, and much less in the way of privateering attrition on the Spanish treasure fleets...
 
Top