England stays officially Catholic - what happens to Ireland?

Had Henry VIII had a different marital experience it seems possible that there would not be the top down reformation which happened in otl.

What happens to Ireland. In olt Catholicism and "original Irish people" were the same more or less.

Well would faith be of no special significance?

Might and Irish form of Protestantism or reclaimed Celtic Chrisitianity beome possible/

Would relations be different overall
 
Of more importance may be what Scotland does. Protestantism if it still takes hold in Scotland affects Ulster's religious make up. And a Catholic England radically changes the dynastic line. We dont get any of George's Hanover line, and the US Revolution will look different. Before that the Pope wont call for every nation to wipe put the English and we dont get the Spanish Armada. These effects are much more important and far reaching than the religious make up of Ireland, which will remain Catholic per as OTL, what may change is Ulster. In fact Ireland probably assimilates more into the UK, doesnt get independence in 1922 and by 2016 speaks about as much Irish as the Welsh people speak Welsh OTL.
 
Had Henry VIII had a different marital experience it seems possible that there would not be the top down reformation which happened in otl.

What happens to Ireland. In olt Catholicism and "original Irish people" were the same more or less.

Well would faith be of no special significance?

Might and Irish form of Protestantism or reclaimed Celtic Chrisitianity beome possible/

Would relations be different overall

Well, the concept of a 'Celtic Church' is an invention of 19th century Romantics and has no real basis in fact. The Irish Church did have some unique attributes and practices on the local level, but this isn't all that surprising; Catholicism of the Middle Ages wasn't as monolithic as many people believe. Furthermore, despite these differences, the Irish certainly viewed themselves as 'Catholic' and not an independent Christian group. So I don't think any revival of that is going to happen.

Now, Irish Protestantism is an interesting notion. I don't know enough of Irish Christianity of that era (a real shame!) to say how successful Protestants were being at that time in gaining Irish converts prior to Henry VIII's conversion. My gut instinct is, that if it does happen, it would likely be Presbyterianism imported from Scotland.

However, its important to realize that the Irish didn't need religion in order to cause them to rise up and see themselves as distinct from the English. The rebellion on Don Cam O'Sullivan and the Irish Republic set up during the English Civil War show that the urge was still there. Hell, half the revolutionaries during the 1798 Rising were Ulster Protestants. So I don't think a Catholic England would naturally lead to a more peaceful island.
 
Almost all divisions of nations have been the result of religion. Ireland/Northern Ireland; Palestine/Trans-Jordan; india/pakistan; israel/palestine; bosnia and herzegovina power sharing; indonesia/timor-leste; rebelions by muslims in philipines; one can even make a realistic claim that chechnya is religious motivated as well as tibet and uigur separatism. Ireland and england both being catholic does take away alot of motivation on separation and lack of assimilation, and makes the english more likely to treat the irish as equals.
 
Of more importance may be what Scotland does. Protestantism if it still takes hold in Scotland affects Ulster's religious make up.

Not necessarily. It did IOTL because the British monarchs sent Protestants to settle there. If England and Ireland are of the same religion, there might be no plantation of the latter.
 
Big difference would be far less of a split between the Old English (descendants of early English colonists who mostly stayed Catholic and assimilated into Irish identity) in Ireland and later English colonists.
 
Not necessarily. It did IOTL because the British monarchs sent Protestants to settle there. If England and Ireland are of the same religion, there might be no plantation of the latter.

The Ulster Protestants begin with Scotland's pre-Act of Union "colonization"/immigration and pre-dates British which would be the time from James on after 1707.
 
I read somewhere (here?) that it wouldn't be totally out of the question for Ireland to go Protestant as a means of opposing the English. Something like the Methodists or another 18th/19th century Protestant movement could have a chance in Ireland under Catholic English rule.

In fact Ireland probably assimilates more into the UK, doesnt get independence in 1922 and by 2016 speaks about as much Irish as the Welsh people speak Welsh OTL.

So better survival of the Irish language, then, than OTL? I dunno, since Scottish Gaelic isn't doing too well either compared to Welsh.
 
I read somewhere (here?) that it wouldn't be totally out of the question for Ireland to go Protestant as a means of opposing the English. Something like the Methodists or another 18th/19th century Protestant movement could have a chance in Ireland under Catholic English rule.



So better survival of the Irish language, then, than OTL? I dunno, since Scottish Gaelic isn't doing too well either compared to Welsh.

I mean Welsh as a primary first language used for normal conversation and standard living. In which case Welsj is not as strong as AH posters tend to love to say it is. Instead its a novelty.
 
You guys are forgetting the special states of Ireland before the English Reformation, that of the Lordship of Ireland, a Papal Fief "leased" to the King of England.

No English Reformation means no excommunication of Henry VIII, no question of legitimacy of English rule on Ireland, no Tudor invasion, etc.

It has to be analyzed.
 
Almost all divisions of nations have been the result of religion. Ireland/Northern Ireland; Palestine/Trans-Jordan; india/pakistan; israel/palestine; bosnia and herzegovina power sharing; indonesia/timor-leste; rebelions by muslims in philipines; one can even make a realistic claim that chechnya is religious motivated as well as tibet and uigur separatism. Ireland and england both being catholic does take away alot of motivation on separation and lack of assimilation, and makes the english more likely to treat the irish as equals.

I diSagres with the "almost all" bit. Since all of your examples were 20th century i'm.also using 20th century counterexamples:
Czech republic/slovakia
East/west Germany
Russia/ukraine/Belarus
Turkey/iraq/Syria from ottoman empire
Austria/hungary/Czechoslovakia from Austrian empire
China/Taiwan
Etc.
 
The Ulster Protestants begin with Scotland's pre-Act of Union "colonization"/immigration and pre-dates British which would be the time from James on after 1707.

Yes, but this was when England and Scotland were in personal union, and James I sought Protestant settlers for Ireland. When I say "British monarchs" I mean post-1603.

If England is of the same (Catholic) religion as Ireland, it would stand to reason that it would not want to send Protestants there.
 
Yes, but this was when England and Scotland were in personal union, and James I sought Protestant settlers for Ireland. When I say "British monarchs" I mean post-1603.

If England is of the same (Catholic) religion as Ireland, it would stand to reason that it would not want to send Protestants there.

It would still send Englishmen there. Since the Plantagenets, it had been sending Norman knights there.
 
I diSagres with the "almost all" bit. Since all of your examples were 20th century i'm.also using 20th century counterexamples:
Czech republic/slovakia
East/west Germany
Russia/ukraine/Belarus
Turkey/iraq/Syria from ottoman empire
Austria/hungary/Czechoslovakia from Austrian empire
China/Taiwan
Etc.

If one expands the definition of "religion" which itself is a weird Western construct and not helpful as a term, to include Capitalism/Communism divide then East/West Germany and China/Taiwan bolster my claim and leave your column. I concede to you the remaining 4 on your column. I add to my column- Belguim/Netherlands; Sudan/South Sudan; Ethiopia/Eritrea; adding again with the Communism as an ideology on par with add N/S Korea, N/S Vietnam, and the two Yemen's. I think maybe not "almost all on religious grounds" but change my statement to "a majority have been ideological/religious and not based on language/ethnicity" and it stands up to criticism.
 
I think that it wouldn't make an absolutely huge difference for the Irish at all. Religion was just an excuse for oppressing the Irish. The English government would find something or other to justify ruling Ireland from London. Heck, we'd probably still wind up with Englishmen (albeit Catholic Englishmen) and Calvinist Scotsman immigrating and maybe becoming the majority or significant minority in an area. Ulster would be a touch convergent but the geography works out for the Anglo and Scots Irish.
 
Except most of the Protestants moving to Ireland were Scots and not English. And neither group were British, that's a name not used until 1703; separate administrations and nations in simple dynastic union using the same monarch. See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots_people

I feel like we're talking in circles here. I understand the concept of personal union. (James I actually styled himself as "King of Great Britain" after 1603, incidentally, but this is a tangent.)

What I don't understand is why you seem to think that Protestant settlement of Ulster would still happen ITTL.

IOTL, James I championed the colonizing of Ulster with both English and Scottish settlers, provided they were Protestant, as a bulwark against further rebellion by the Catholic populace. ITTL, where England and Ireland are both Catholic, the monarch might still send English/Scottish people over, but it's very doubtful that he/she would want to send Protestants over. Why would the king/queen send subjects of questionable loyalty to pacify a troubled region?
 
I think that it wouldn't make an absolutely huge difference for the Irish at all. Religion was just an excuse for oppressing the Irish. The English government would find something or other to justify ruling Ireland from London. Heck, we'd probably still wind up with Englishmen (albeit Catholic Englishmen) and Calvinist Scotsman immigrating and maybe becoming the majority or significant minority in an area. Ulster would be a touch convergent but the geography works out for the Anglo and Scots Irish.

I'm not sure. English colonial policy towards Ireland was definitely sustained and brutal, but it wasn't senseless. Much of it was elaborated in the context of the religious warfare of the 16th and 17th centuries, when England was consistently fighting wars against Catholic empires of one kind or another and the Irish were themselves recalcitrantly Catholic. The temptation to treat the Irish as the enemy was very real and something that the English could justify to themselves.

If we're talking about a scenario where there is not a religious distinction between the ruling English and the ruled Irish, this changes things radically. There will continue to be English incentives to control Ireland, but there won't be a perceived need to undermine the Gaelic aristocracy, for instance. There may well be a diminished perceived need to colonize Ireland, replacing an intrinsically disloyal one with a loyal one.

In a best-case scenario, I could imagine Ireland being recruited into the nascent British imperial project much as Scotland was, freely and with the consent of its indigenous elites. This would be a huge improvement on Ireland's status in our history.
 
Top