Henry VIII Imprisoned by Palace Coup and then goes Mad

Suppose that when Henry VIII tries to start the English reformation and in 1528 combines the Act of Supremacy WITH the dissolution of the monasteries, seven noblemen (6 of which are Earls or countesses) march in their personal armies and seize control of London... with Henry VIII inside it. They declare that Henry VIII had gone mad like his cousin Henry VI (7th cousins 3rd removed?), and therefore a regency council is needed. Who is the council? They are, because by some insane troll logic parliament had poisoned the monarch's mind, and start restricting parliamentary power. They declare any decision made by 6 of them to be the same as Henry VIII's royal wits.

A counter force tries to restore order. Three earls in Southern England, none of which have land connections to each other, try to march on London, but the coup forces stop them. They are stripped of their lands. 3/4 of it is entered into the royal demesne while some of the rest goes to 2nd/3rd/4th sons of some noblemen or daughters/sisters of noblemen who have brothers (in other words these people don't inherit the primary family lands normally). It's a complete coincidence all those who are given new lands are brothers/ sons/ daughters/ daughter-in-laws/ 1st cousins/ 2nd cousins of the seven on the regency council, they were just chosen nobles who didn't follow rebels. It's also a complete coincidence that these men on the council seem to be getting richer.

The next order of business is the undoing of the dissolution of the monasteries. 7/8 of the lands are resorted and the rest somehow finds its way into the family members of the regency council, but that's not embezzling officially they are merely trying to safeguard themselves from rebels since the monks themselves proved powerless to stop them.

The council them allows anyone to see the King and reassure everyone that Henry VIII is being treated properly and not tortured or poisoned or something. His family choses the food, not them. Of course, this is a constant source of instability since any would be counter coup forces (loyalists? Would they be called loyalists?)

The regency council works on balancing the budget. Henry VII worked the treasury out of the red and in the last decade was simply grabbing wealth for the sake of greed (they were out of debt by that point). Henry VIII proceeded to squander almost all of it, and most of the money didn't even go to the navy. They trim 70% of the annual royal expenses from... somewhere. Wherever it was going before. So the treasury is now running a surplus even with the oddly inflated salaries of the regency council.

The council puts down a counter rebellion in 1530 and 1535. The last one was a real scare since the rebellion outnumbered the council's forces 3 to 1 and the rebels only lost by trying to storm fortifications head on instead of... leaving being a small number to siege and most of the army going AROUND. Thomas Cranmer burns at the stake when the council realizes he coordinated the third counter rebellion and was trying to kickstart the English reformation.

After seven years of being under house arrest, but otherwise being treated well, Henry VIII really does start to go mad. he starts showing symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. To the untrained 1530s eye, the first sign is that he becomes really, really, really, forgetful, before actually going mad. The council then tells Catherine of Aragon something along the lines of "see, he really was mad. Didn't you think something was wrong when he asked for a divorce when you were faithful." The Queen consort signs several papers, retroactively legitimizing the coup.

The eight now try to talk about stabilizing England and what to do with Mary's marriage. The seven say "we prefer a local noble, but as her mother we will allow you a wide degree of latitude in choosing, as long as it's not Castilian or French. We don't like Phillip because (inert some trivial unimportant reason here that has more to do with Phillip than Castile)"

What's next? A fourth counter-revolt?
 
I don't think nobles had personal armies by this period; Henry VII had successfully done away with them. Locking Henry VIII up as a madman would probably be unlikely; more likely they'd follow the more usual method of tyrant-handling, forcing him to reverse some of his unpopular reforms and to govern in concert with a council to make sure he doesn't try to overstep the mark again. In the short term we'd probably see a fair bit of instability as Henry chafes at the restrictions and tries to undo them; in the longer term it might well be better for England: the English Reformation destabilised English politics, directly or indirectly, for the best part of two and a half centuries, so TTL's England would quite possibly be more stable than OTL's equivalent.
 
Reality check: The only people with the people to do this sort of thing are the dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk. Suffolk's a friend and Norfolk is a loyal kingsman (and he doesn't care, like his father, who the king is). Earls (and especially Countesses) do not have the funds or the personnel to do this sort of thing.

Also, in 1528, Henry was just starting his quest for an annulment, why would he go full beserker and do something so whacko when he hadn't even gotten a hearing on his 'great matter'? He had every expectation of getting what he wanted, most kings did (get that convenient document from the Office of Vatican Annulments and Dispensations - I'm sure he was thinking the Pope would be reasonable as soon as the troops left and do what he wanted. There's no logical reason for him to do any of this without a major butterfly sometime before 1525/6 - it would take time and he would expect that.
 
7th cousin 3rd removed whaaa? I think that Henry VI was Henry VIII's half-uncle, as the closest and most logical relation. His mother was also the mother of Henry VII, father of Henry VIII.
 
Private Armies had been done away with by the time Henry VII came to the throne. He campaigned fiercely against so-called "bastard feudalism" that allowed the great magnates to become overly powerful with what essentially amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaris who masqueraded as servants by wearing the liveries of their lords). If nobles were loyal to Henry, he was content to let them have regional influence: such as the Stanley family in Lancashire in Cheshire—it was an inexpensive way to keep the peace, but Henry VII demanded they stay within the law. Overly powerful subjects were brought to heel by force: Henry VII passed laws against "livery" (the upper classes' flaunting of their adherents by giving them badges and emblems) and "maintenance" (the keeping of too many male "servants"). These laws were used shrewdly in levying fines upon those that he perceived as threats.

His greatest weapon was the Court of Star Chamber. It revived the old practice of using a tight knit Privy Council as a personal court, which was able to cut through the cumbersome legal system and act swiftly. Serious disputes using personal authority or threats to royal authority could easily be dealt with. Henry VII also built up the Justices of the Peace, appointing them in every shire for a year at a time. Their powers would steadily increase throughout the Tudor period, and they became effective instruments of royal power. The days of the War of the Roses ended and were shattered on the Field of Bosworth. Henry VII was not a man to be trifled with, and Henry VIII inherited a very different England because of it.

Regardless of the nobility's thoughts of Henry's religious reforms, there were already divided parties at the court—those who supported the supposed mistress, Anne Boleyn, and adherents to Catherine of Aragon. But regardless of this, Henry's early reforms were basically in name only: he placed himself above the jurisdiction of the Pope, but in the early period he did little to alter the practice of the English Church. That came later—with piecemeal reform in Cromwell's time, followed by a reaction after that minister fell from grace. When Henry VIII died in 1548, the English Church was still somewhat Catholic. The reforms turning it into the Protestant Church we know today would come during the reign of Edward VI, and later, Elizabeth.

The attack on the monasteries wasn't necessary unpopular, either. Maybe among the Ultra-Catholic adherents, but even among those who supported Papal authority, there were many who saw numerous abuses in the monastic setting and wanted to correct them. This wasn't isolated to just England. France had a similar movement, and even Spain—during the time of the Catholic Monarchs, the Spanish Church underwent reforms that attacked clerical abuses without undermining Papal Authority. Erasmus was heavily against monastic communities as well, and criticized them profoundly. In England, this chance to do away with these so-called "abuses" also had an ulterior motive: it gave the King a way not only to enrich his own coffers, but those of his supporters, as well. Secular authorities, and most especially the nobility profited from the dissolution. So, why oppose it? Even among the Catholics, there was a chance to profit. Many of the great English country houses and so-called estates have their beginning from Monastic lands and even buildings that were confiscated and sold off to the nobility.

Even when Mary Tudor eventually succeeded Edward VI... she brought back monastic communities, such as at Westminster, Syon and Greenwich. A small community of Carthusians was re-established in their old house at Sheen, as also were eight Dominican canonesses in Dartford. A house of Dominican friars was established at Smithfield, but this was only possible through importing professed religious from Holland and Spain. Mary's plans floundered, because it was difficult to convince the former Monks and Nuns to return the old religious life. New religious houses floundered because of a lack of volunteers, and those monastic communities that were restored were restored precisely because they were on royal lands. But the old confiscations and dissolution carried out by Henry VII stood: because the nobility had profited from these. None of her lay supporters were prepared to return lands for religious use, and the House of Lords were overwhelmingly hostile. If Mary had succeeded in restoring "mitred" abbeys, the House of Lords would ended up with an ecclesiastic majority. There were a widespread suspicion that the return of religious communities to their former premises might call into question the legal title of lay purchasers of monastic land, and accordingly all Mary's foundations were technically new communities in law. Cardinal Pole later secured a papal dispensation allowing the new owners to retain the former monastic lands—essentially legalizing the dissolution in the eyes of the Church, and in return Parliament enacted the heresy laws in 1555. Everything floundered upon Elizabeth's succession, and the communities founded by Mary once more went into exile.
 
I don't think nobles had personal armies by this period; Henry VII had successfully done away with them.

Oops, your right, Henry VII got rid of them. That's kind of strange since it's cheaper to deal with rebellions by boosting the royal army with local levies than using only the royal army, but he did it and it's a done deal. I guess the rebelling earls would need to bride a few army officers and use persuasive logic of "trust us, he's tyrant."

Locking Henry VIII up as a madman would probably be unlikely; more likely they'd follow the more usual method of tyrant-handling, forcing him to reverse some of his unpopular reforms and to govern in concert with a council to make sure he doesn't try to overstep the mark again

That would be the rational method of tyrant handling and invite the least instability.

Here, the seven declared a sane, although arguably a tyrannical, monarch mad. This is treason even if you accept Henry VIII went tyrant.

I'm a protestant by the way and while I think some aspects of the English Reformation did good, a LOT of Henry VIII's actions associated with it I consider tyrannical, like the dissolution of the monasteries. But let's ignore that for the moment.

Also, during Henry VI's insanity, the regency council was chosen by precedent. In this case, the "council of seven" made a bunch of mistakes.

First off, they basically committed treason when they marched on London with bribed officers.

Second, they let other nobles have access to Henry VIII during his house arrest, to reassure everyone he is being treated well. This is why they don't chose his meals, as that could invite poisoning accusations. While the conversations with outsider are monitored by pro-coup forces, the outsiders can clearly see Henry VIII hasn't lost it (yet...). So they just created a situation where Henry VIIIV can ask his supporters to do something directly.

Third, they broke precedent and did little effort to build support. Again, a regency council chosen for a monarch in minority or insanity is chosen by precedent, not the military strongman. This irregularity can be seen as a seizure of power for the sake of greed, the inflated salaries of the reagents add to this speculation. Who are their allies? Not dukes, who probably are wondering why a few earls are calling all the shots with only one duke on the council. Not the monks. In TTL, Henry VIII ordered all their lands, relics, and donations confiscated. There, the council returned all the relics and... most of the lands and donations, apparently embezzling some with an excuse about rebels. Not army officers as a class, since when the rebellions broke out, the land was redistributed to the royal demesne and the seven families. They are kept in check by bribes, not a sense of loyalty to the council of seven. Not the Pope, who probably wouldn't have said anything or offered explicit support (true, he's glad Henry VIII's attempted English reformation failed, but since declaring a tyrannical but sane king mad is dumb, it's easier to imagine no official encouragement of this). Local clergy? With no noble personal armies, even if the council of seven had their support, they don't offer any protection to a counter coup. The minor nobles? Given that they used insane logic to attempt to restrict parliamentary power, it seems that the seven are simply trying to consolidate power for themselves, so that area of support had been neutered. Katherine of Aragon? Well, as upset as she is with Henry VIII, again declaring a sane king insane is basically treason, so even she isn't going to offer any explicit support at first.

In short, the council of seven set themselves up for accusations of treason (duh), embezzlement, and being tyrants themselves (although nothing they did in power aside from taking a slice of monastery lands and donations was tyrannical, the most tyrannical thing they did was commit treason in the first place). They just invited the other nobles to conspire and a counter-rebellion, all while hoping to restore the king's powers and get some gratitude. The only thing keeping the council of seven in power was their quick seizure of power and inertia. The pro-Henry VIII forces (loyalists? Would be they called loyalists?) only need time to organize and use their better support to win. The pro-coup forces are simply bribed army men (not exactly the most loyal), the family members of the seven, and perhaps few others. The seven turned many potential allies away from them, who would be sitting by and metaphorically eating popcorn.

This is why a counter rebellion happened in 1528, which got quickly defeated thanks to the over eagerness of the loyalist forces. Nethertheless, the council of seven has few people truly loyal and most following their orders are doing so simply because they hold the king. Counter rebellions happen two more times. The 1535 one showed that the seven don't have extensive support and only failed due to idiots trying to storm into the teeth of prepared fortifications (MANY times this has been tried in OTL in various wars usually with predictable results). It seems that it would only be a matter of time before a successful counter rebellion kicks them off London and they would be branded traitors.

In another decade of the status quo, they are doomed. The loyalists simply need to regroup and march on London.

Of course, Henry VIII actually going insane suddenly starts making the coup look justified. The seven could say "see, we told you he was mad. He wasn't just a tyrant but slowly descending into madness we constantly visited him in court and you guys either weren't in court years ago or simply didn't notice. And we kept him comfortable, so it's obviously not being stuck in chains that did that since he wasn't in chains. he was mad all along and it's just more obvious now." Katherine can safely sign documentation supporting their accusations without exposing herself to treason charges since... well, he's going mad now.

So they say, look, he's the defender of faith and did all this stuff, he's a religious man and what caused him to do a 180? He started going mad, and now what we saw years ago is getting obvious to every palace servant and visitor.

With Henry VIII being a general tyrant in 1528, Henry VIII actually going mad in 1535, Henry VIII and London in control by the council of seven, and Katherine endorsing the council's actions, they can finally count on some genuine support rather than people following them out of habit since the king is under their control. What do you think the other earls would think? The seven restricted parliamentary power and seemed to concentrate lands into their family's hands, but on the other hand most of the Earls probably weren't so keen on a tyrannical king.

Oh, for the sake or argument, the seven aren't trying to hold power forever, although other might not know that. They simply wanted to hit "ctrl Z" on the English reformation, restore the budget, stabilize England. and get some wealth for their families while at it. Once Mary becomes Queen, they aren't intending to keep power over the throne. the fact that some of the counter-rebel lands were put into royal demesne instead of all into their own hands indicates this. Of curse, given that they ignored precedent, they might have trouble convincing anyone otherwise.

Also, I just realize as stated, requiring 6 of the 7 do agree to do anything probably would render them impotent, but let's hand wave that and say they manage to agree on stuff.

In the longer term it might well be better for England: the English Reformation destabilised English politics, directly or indirectly, for the best part of two and a half centuries, so TTL's England would quite possibly be more stable than OTL's equivalent.

Really? I thought aside from the instability of Henry VIII's children reigns (protestant-Catholic-protestant, oh Spanish armada) and the Jacobites, there were few destabilization effects on internal affairs of England. Obviously, Henry VIII's desire for a divorce caused problems for Ireland, but that's not England is it?

7th cousin 3rd removed whaaa? I think that Henry VI was Henry VIII's half-uncle, as the closest and most logical relation. His mother was also the mother of Henry VII, father of Henry VIII.

Some troll on Wikipedia last night put a fake family tree of John of Gaunt. Anyways, the closer relation, the easier it is to imagine. Henry VI suffered from "vanilla" madness for awhile (bouts of madness with moment lucidity) but from 1448 to the end, he started getting forgetful and the symptoms read out like a textbook of an early onset but slow progression of Alzheimer's. Without a brain autopsy it's impossible to be sure, but some people say it's like a 30% chance or more it was that. So if he did have Alzheimer's and Henry VIII is so closely related, it's not hard to imagine Henry VIII getting it. Also, identical twins don't get them, so it's possible Henry VIII was susceptible by genetics, but environment spared hi in OTL. In TTL, let's say he had the genes and he got the external trigger.

Private Armies had been done away with by the time Henry VII came to the throne. He campaigned fiercely against so-called "bastard feudalism" that allowed the great magnates to become overly powerful with what essentially amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaris who masqueraded as servants by wearing the liveries of their lords). If nobles were loyal to Henry, he was content to let them have regional influence: such as the Stanley family in Lancashire in Cheshire—it was an inexpensive way to keep the peace, but Henry VII demanded they stay within the law. Overly powerful subjects were brought to heel by force: Henry VII passed laws against "livery" (the upper classes' flaunting of their adherents by giving them badges and emblems) and "maintenance" (the keeping of too many male "servants"). These laws were used shrewdly in levying fines upon those that he perceived as threats.

His greatest weapon was the Court of Star Chamber. It revived the old practice of using a tight knit Privy Council as a personal court, which was able to cut through the cumbersome legal system and act swiftly. Serious disputes using personal authority or threats to royal authority could easily be dealt with. Henry VII also built up the Justices of the Peace, appointing them in every shire for a year at a time. Their powers would steadily increase throughout the Tudor period, and they became effective instruments of royal power. The days of the War of the Roses ended and were shattered on the Field of Bosworth. Henry VII was not a man to be trifled with, and Henry VIII inherited a very different England because of it.

Regardless of the nobility's thoughts of Henry's religious reforms, there were already divided parties at the court—those who supported the supposed mistress, Anne Boleyn, and adherents to Catherine of Aragon. But regardless of this, Henry's early reforms were basically in name only: he placed himself above the jurisdiction of the Pope, but in the early period he did little to alter the practice of the English Church. That came later—with piecemeal reform in Cromwell's time, followed by a reaction after that minister fell from grace. When Henry VIII died in 1548, the English Church was still somewhat Catholic. The reforms turning it into the Protestant Church we know today would come during the reign of Edward VI, and later, Elizabeth.

Hmmm, maybe I need to have Henry VIII combine the act of supremacy, desolation of mosntaries AND some of Cromwell's reformation efforts all in one package in 1528?

What does the Star Chamber do aside from making the seizure of power even less legitimate? I imagine the seven would either shut it down or simply pack it with their own supporters once they gave enough bribes to army officers to march on London, but this action makes them look like the traitors, possibly because tis shows they are commit treason.

Let's say the seven reauthorize Livery among the gentry. of course, giving their own adherents badges when they are traitors might be counterproductive....



I have a few questions for you all that I'm a bit more curious about than the other facts.
@Fabius Maximus @William Adelin @DrakeRlugia

First, regardless of how likely the events that took us to TTL 1535 (you make it clear this isn't a very likely sequence of events, I can see), what is the most probable development from here? Another counter rebellion?

Second, what should the council of seven and Queen Katherine do given their goals? The seven aren't intending on holding permanent power, just keep England stable and wealthy and the regency council would step down peacefully once the mad Henry VIII kicks the bucket letting the sane and not minor Princess Mary ascend. And not let anyone "get back" at them for enriching themselves earlier. Katherine's goals would be... I don't know. Are they going to fight over Mary's marriage (Katherine and Mary might want Phillip, they don't)

Third, what would the Earls and their relatives think? The council of seven took power in a coup and this is not the normal regency council. The Court of Star Chamber is packed with their supporters. parliamentary power has been restricted and royal power restored... except that the seven are acting in Henry VIII's name. On the other hand, Henry VIII is now actually going mad and now Katherine asks the other Earls to support the regency council (council of seven). All eight assure the other earls that this state of affairs is temporary (except the restoration of royal power) and once Mary ascends, things will be back to normal. Would the earls now be supportive? How does reauthorization of Livery make them feel?
 
Getting Henry VIII legitimately going mad would require a minor POD.His jousting accident is a little more severe or earlier.Or the ointment he applied to the ulcers on his legs contained a little more lead than in OTL,throw in some Mecury and other assorted heavy metals commonly used at the time and it becomes a real possibility.
 
Really? I thought aside from the instability of Henry VIII's children reigns (protestant-Catholic-protestant, oh Spanish armada) and the Jacobites, there were few destabilization effects on internal affairs of England. Obviously, Henry VIII's desire for a divorce caused problems for Ireland, but that's not England is it?

Well, let's see. There were various rebellions in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I against the reforms (the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Prayer-Book Rebellion, and others whose names I can't remember). The English Civil War was mainly about the powers of the Crown vs. Parliament, but it also had a religious dimension (disquiet over Charles' "papist" reforms, and of course the war with the Scottish Covenanters) which would be absent in a Catholic England TL. After the Civil War, and even during it, there were dissensions between the English and the Scots due to religious differences (the Scots wanted to enforce Presbyterianism on the Church of England as the price of their support, whereas lots of the English wanted to keep episcopacy). After that you had James' II ouster, which led to two major uprisings (in 1715 and 1745) and also the creation of an alternate line of succession which foreign rivals (i.e., France) could use as a way of goading England/the UK.
 
Well, let's see. There were various rebellions in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I against the reforms (the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Prayer-Book Rebellion, and others whose names I can't remember). The English Civil War was mainly about the powers of the Crown vs. Parliament, but it also had a religious dimension (disquiet over Charles' "papist" reforms, and of course the war with the Scottish Covenanters) which would be absent in a Catholic England TL. After the Civil War, and even during it, there were dissensions between the English and the Scots due to religious differences (the Scots wanted to enforce Presbyterianism on the Church of England as the price of their support, whereas lots of the English wanted to keep episcopacy). After that you had James' II ouster, which led to two major uprisings (in 1715 and 1745) and also the creation of an alternate line of succession which foreign rivals (i.e., France) could use as a way of goading England/the UK.

I did concede that James II's ouster was related. I think the English Civil War was mainly a crown vs parliament thing and religion was a sideshow, so in a Catholic England it was going to happen in some form. Maybe a "seven day rebellion" if the royalists win early instead of "English Civil War" but I think that was going to happen anywys.

Anyways, if we have TTL events (maybe Henry VIII got hit in the joust and his madness wasn't obvious until 1535?), what do you think of my three questions about probable developments, the council of seven and Katherine's best options, and what the English Earls would think?
 
7th cousin 3rd removed whaaa? I think that Henry VI was Henry VIII's half-uncle, as the closest and most logical relation. His mother was also the mother of Henry VII, father of Henry VIII.

Henry VI was the maternal uncle of Henry VII. After Henry V died, Henry VI's mother, Catherine of Valois, remarried to Owen Tudor; their son Edmund was the father of Henry VII. However, a widow has no claim to her husband's hereditary title, and cannot pass it on to a child of a later husband.

Henry VII's claim to the throne came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, great-great-granddaughter of Edward III. After the deaths without offspring of Henry VI and his son, and Henry V's brothers, she was Edward III's senior descendant through his fourth son, John of Gaunt. (The York claim was from Edward III's third son, Lionel. through his daughter Philippa, Philippa's son Roger Mortimer, and Roger's daughter Anne, the mother of Richard of York.)
 
Last edited:
Henry VI was the maternal uncle of Henry VII. After Henry V died, Henry VI's mother, Catherine of Valois, remarried to Owen Tudor; their son Edmund was the father of Henry VII. However, a widow has no claim to her husband's hereditary title, and cannot pass it on to a child of a later husband.

Henry VII's claim to the throne came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, great-great-granddaughter of Edward III. After the deaths without offspring of Henry VI and his son, and Henry V's brothers, and the exclusion of John of Gaunt's Iberian descendants, she was Edward III's senior descendant.
Ahhh okay! So there was another step between, so VI is VIII's half-great-uncle. Inheritable mental illness, though, usually doesn't care about male vs. female.

Is there any English king before Henry VI who was mad? I can't think of one, so maybe his French mother gave him some of Charles VI of France's madness? Could be, but there are many many factors at play of course.
 
Ahhh okay! So there was another step between, so VI is VIII's half-great-uncle. Inheritable mental illness, though, usually doesn't care about male vs. female.

Is there any English king before Henry VI who was mad? I can't think of one, so maybe his French mother gave him some of Charles VI of France's madness? Could be, but there are many many factors at play of course.

Henry VI seemed to actually have two sources of mental problems. One is similar to Charles VI. Later on he started getting forgetful and the symptoms are like Alzheimer's, although even in modern times we can't diagnose it without an autopsy, even if the symptoms read out like a textbook case and the MRI scan looks Alzheimer-like (hippocampus shrinkage, yadda).

For both Charles VI 'vanilla" madness and Alzheimer's (if it was that), it's a great uncle since "Inheritable mental illness, though, usually doesn't care about male vs. female"

What do you think are the most probable developments after the OP?
 
Hmmm, maybe I need to have Henry VIII combine the act of supremacy, desolation of mosntaries AND some of Cromwell's reformation efforts all in one package in 1528?

Possibly. But in 1528, Thomas Cromwell hadn't even appeared onto the scene—he wasn't even elected to Parliament until 1529, so it'd be difficult to make a single "package" as early in 1528. You have to remember—Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and he tried his hardest to do it within the bounds of the Church at the time. It was only when that failed, and urged on by Anne Boleyn that he made a total break with Rome. But even then, he remained a very Orthodox man, and very much disliked Protestantism in the vein of Luther.

What does the Star Chamber do aside from making the seizure of power even less legitimate? I imagine the seven would either shut it down or simply pack it with their own supporters once they gave enough bribes to army officers to march on London, but this action makes them look like the traitors, possibly because tis shows they are commit treason.

The Court of the Star Chamber is a Court of Law—it has roots going back to medieval times. It oversaw the lower courts, and was essentially set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against the English upper class, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. It also acted as a court of equity. It's justice however, could be quite arbitrary, and later on in history it was used for oppression—it was an arm of royal power, and Henry VII used it to break the gentry in the aftermath of the Wars of the Roses.

Let's say the seven reauthorize Livery among the gentry. of course, giving their own adherents badges when they are traitors might be counterproductive....

This is really just asking for trouble. Plus, Liveries had been gone for over forty years. Times had changed. Assuming this scenario happened as you describe it, I don't see this Regency Council deciding to re-legalize private armies. It would be a complete and total mess.

First, regardless of how likely the events that took us to TTL 1535 (you make it clear this isn't a very likely sequence of events, I can see), what is the most probable development from here? Another counter rebellion?

Personally, I don't know. You might see the adherents of the King attempt to raise a force to free him. Civil War, perhaps? Even if the King is insane, reformers might want to force their own regency to push their own agenda.

Second, what should the council of seven and Queen Katherine do given their goals? The seven aren't intending on holding permanent power, just keep England stable and wealthy and the regency council would step down peacefully once the mad Henry VIII kicks the bucket letting the sane and not minor Princess Mary ascend. And not let anyone "get back" at them for enriching themselves earlier. Katherine's goals would be... I don't know. Are they going to fight over Mary's marriage (Katherine and Mary might want Phillip, they don't)

Well, in 1535, Philip is an eight year old child. I don't think he's going to make a very good bridegroom, anyways. There would probably be some squabbling over Mary's marriage though—there often was when queen's ascended thrones, whatever country it was. Katherine of Aragon would probably champion a match approved by the Emperor, Charles V. He has no children of age, and he and his brother are married, but a match could be found in the Portuguese Royal House: the Infante Luis? Some might want a domestic match, such as one of the grandsons of the Countess of Pole, who have Yorkist blood.

Third, what would the Earls and their relatives think? The council of seven took power in a coup and this is not the normal regency council. The Court of Star Chamber is packed with their supporters. parliamentary power has been restricted and royal power restored... except that the seven are acting in Henry VIII's name. On the other hand, Henry VIII is now actually going mad and now Katherine asks the other Earls to support the regency council (council of seven). All eight assure the other earls that this state of affairs is temporary (except the restoration of royal power) and once Mary ascends, things will be back to normal. Would the earls now be supportive? How does reauthorization of Livery make them feel?

It would definitely be a difficult period. I still think that the King's supporters would try and free him, even perhaps trying to raise a force to take London. But if Henry really does end up being mad, then Katherine legitimizing the coup would go quite away to smoothing things over. Kingship is always fraught with troubles, of course. I think once Mary is on the throne, things could be smoothed over and there could be a reconciliation. It really depends on Mary and her style of rule. Does she lean on the Earls to support her government, or does she strike out on her own, a personal rule with her own Councillors?
 
Ahh Thanks

Possibly. But in 1528, Thomas Cromwell hadn't even appeared onto the scene—he wasn't even elected to Parliament until 1529, so it'd be difficult to make a single "package" as early in 1528. You have to remember—Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and he tried his hardest to do it within the bounds of the Church at the time. It was only when that failed, and urged on by Anne Boleyn that he made a total break with Rome. But even then, he remained a very Orthodox man, and very much disliked Protestantism in the vein of Luther.

Ok, first of I guess I'll need a POD in 1525 to put Thom on the scene since I forgot about that. Also, I don't know what you mean by he remained a very orthodox man. OTL Henry just wanted his divorce (and Anne) but once he broke with Rome, he went reformation, maybe not with the gusto as Edward but he did it. The Great Bible was published in 1539... during Henry VIII's time.

This is really just asking for trouble. Plus, Liveries had been gone for over forty years. Times had changed. Assuming this scenario happened as you describe it, I don't see this Regency Council deciding to re-legalize private armies. It would be a complete and total mess.

Liveries aren't the ONLY aspect of private-armies, so re-legalizing them just adds one aspect right? Also, wouldn't a group of seven nobles who seized power in a coup want that? A normal regency council obviously has no reason to want that back, since as you mentioned times has changed. But would TTL regency want to try to drum up support by giving aristocratic freedoms (admittly, they botched the drum up support step quite bad so this wouldn't help them much, but they might not know that). or... maybe you're right and they wouldn't want that. I'm less sure of myself now that you mentioned that.

Personally, I don't know. You might see the adherents of the King attempt to raise a force to free him. Civil War, perhaps? Even if the King is insane, reformers might want to force their own regency to push their own agenda.



Well, in 1535, Philip is an eight year old child. I don't think he's going to make a very good bridegroom, anyways. There would probably be some squabbling over Mary's marriage though—there often was when queen's ascended thrones, whatever country it was. Katherine of Aragon would probably champion a match approved by the Emperor, Charles V. He has no children of age, and he and his brother are married, but a match could be found in the Portuguese Royal House: the Infante Luis? Some might want a domestic match, such as one of the grandsons of the Countess of Pole, who have Yorkist blood.

It's OK, if you personally don't know, in fact I like speculations like this, so I'm very grateful for your help. A fourth counter revolt seems to be still in the cards if adherents of the king try to do that. They wuld probably be emboldened by the fact that three revolts already happened and they might be plotting their next one. Oh and I thought Phillip was 18 in 1535, Lol. The Infante Luis seems like a likely choice.
 
Ok, first of I guess I'll need a POD in 1525 to put Thom on the scene since I forgot about that. Also, I don't know what you mean by he remained a very orthodox man. OTL Henry just wanted his divorce (and Anne) but once he broke with Rome, he went reformation, maybe not with the gusto as Edward but he did it. The Great Bible was published in 1539... during Henry VIII's time.

It'd be kind of hard to do that. Henry VIII didn't even become enamored with Anne Boleyn until 1526, and the steps to considering a divorce only occurred in 1527. In 1525, Cardinal Wolsey is still an all important adviser to the king, and Cromwell is in the Cardinal's household as one of his more senior and trust-worthy advisers. Cromwell was all about seeing where the wind blew. When Anne's star was on the rise, he took her side and managed to escape Wolsey's fall unscathed, and even profited from it. When Anne's star began to wane, he turned against her and profited from the fall of her family too.

What I mean is that Henry's religious views were still very conservative. The Great Bible's publication was largely directed by Cromwell, and it was pretty deficient as a reformation text, anyways—it used Tynedale's translation with objectional reformist features revised, because the words and vocabulary used by Tyendale were unacceptable to the King and to the English clergy. The Old Testament was also translated from the Latin Vulgate and a German translation rather than the original Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek texts. Because it's a translation of the Latin Vulgate, it's basically nothing more than a translation of the Bible used by the Catholic Church. Hell, not long after the Great Bible was released, Parliament passed the Six Articles which basically reaffirmed Catholic doctrine. Henry VIII's Anglican Church was nothing more than the Catholic Church without the Pope.

Liveries aren't the ONLY aspect of private-armies, so re-legalizing them just adds one aspect right? Also, wouldn't a group of seven nobles who seized power in a coup want that? A normal regency council obviously has no reason to want that back, since as you mentioned times has changed. But would TTL regency want to try to drum up support by giving aristocratic freedoms (admittly, they botched the drum up support step quite bad so this wouldn't help them much, but they might not know that). or... maybe you're right and they wouldn't want that. I'm less sure of myself now that you mentioned that.

Yes. Livery refers to just the badge of emblem that was given to a servant by their lord. The bigger problem was the system of retaining, where lords retained many more male servants than they actually needed. Obviously, retaining wasn't completely abolished—a great lord was still able to have some retainers, and obviously had the right to maintain a household befitting their status as a noble, which required retainers, but Henry VII restricted the practice and levied fines against those who broke the law. Technically retaining had been condemned as far back as Edward IV—he passed a law that outlawed retaining except in the cases of domestic servants, estate officials and legal advisers. However, the law was effectively ignored and it also had a major weakness contained within it – it allowed retaining for ‘lawful service’. Therefore lords continued to maintain their retinues claiming that the men in them were for ‘lawful service’. Therefore, these retainers continued to provide a possible threat to the king. Henry VII's laws in 1487 and 1504 built upon this: Both members of the Houses of Parliament had to swear that they would not retain illegally, they were still allowed to retain within the law. Henry’s two laws clarified what was meant by ‘lawful’ retaining and they did contain the rider that a retinue was not to be misused. The 1504 law brought in a licensing system whereby a lord could employ retainers for the king’s system alone. He needed a licence with the seal of the Privy Council and the licence was only valid for the lifetime of the king.

Essentially, Henry VII co-opted the retaining system into something that he was control of, but the number of retainers actually increased during his life-time. Two nobles—Buckingham and Northumberland evaded the rules set up by Henry VII by employing more men to work on their estates as hands than they actually required. Both men covered their tracks very well, though, because they were never fined. Many nobles adhered to the system because those that were caught were fined: Lord Burgavenny was deemed to have too many retainers for his needs and was fined £5 for every retainer. His fine ended up totaling £70,550—a HUGE sum of money. For reference, Queen Elizabeth's annual (yearly) income in 1588 almost eighty years later was only about £392,000, so no noble would've been able to pay such a costly fine. The Earl of Oxford was fined about 15,000 marks when Henry VII found out he had more retainers they he ought too.

I don't think the council would want to loosen restrictions on retainers or allow liveries to flourish again. Because yes, while it would give the aristocracy more power, it could go both ways—you could easily see those nobility who support the king use these loosened restrictions to build up a massive private force in an attempt to free him. It's better for the council to keep things restricted and co-opt them just as Henry VII did.

It's OK, if you personally don't know, in fact I like speculations like this, so I'm very grateful for your help. A fourth counter revolt seems to be still in the cards if adherents of the king try to do that. They wuld probably be emboldened by the fact that three revolts already happened and they might be plotting their next one. Oh and I thought Phillip was 18 in 1535, Lol. The Infante Luis seems like a likely choice.

Nope, Philip was only born in 1527. He was eleven years younger than Mary Tudor. Charles V was only finally married in 1526, to the Infanta Isabella of Portugal. There was a Spanish match afoot for Mary early on though—Charles V was engaged to Mary Tudor in 1522 when was just a child, but it was broken off a few years later.
 
Top