King Henry IX?

I'm interested in what would have happened if: Prince Henry Stuart had not died aged 18 of typhoid after swimming in the River Thames, and: He had succeeded his father King James I of England instead of his younger brother, who became King Charles I of England and whose reign ended in revolution. Any thoughts? Cheers Chris
 
There is no revolution against the crown as Henry IX is more liberal than his brother and keeps the Parliament happy. Of course this butterflies away the Glorious Revolution and perhaps even the union of the crowns of England and Scotland which can have serious repercussions for the future.
 
Thank you for the signpost to the OTL - it's given me a most entertaining afternoon! As an aside, I thought more could have been made of the popularity of Henry (in real life) at the start of his reign: it seems that he was becoming increasingly loved by the nation at the time of his death, and this could have been reflected more in the narrative. However, kudos to Quiet Man for an impressive piece of research! Cheers.
 
Is there any actual evidence that Henry Stuart was really more liberal than Charles I? I know that he was seen as a "good Protestant" but does it mean that he would accept Puritan ideas, while controlling the Anglican Church through the bishops was certainly more useful to the monarch? Or would he accept more control of his absolute power by Parliament?
 
Are we certain that he'd marry Henrietta Maria? Henry Frederick was twelve years her senior. By the time he's in his early 20s and getting married, she's still a mere child.
 
Oliver Cromwell stays loyal to the Crown, and eventually becomes Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Far more likely he finds it harder to work up sizable support and emigrates to one of the colonies. I'm sure that I read somewhere that he or some of his close companions were on the verge of emigrating before the conflict between King and Parliament suddenly stirred things up.
 
So, something like The Bloody Man, then?

I will admit I never read that TL, but from the quick flick over it I'd say kind of, yes. Something approximating, though I doubt he would be so lucky as to get his own land grant. Far more likely (in my admittedly limited opinion) he becomes merely a wealthy landowner and writer of religious tracts - the sort, in short, who are liable to become forgotten by history, unless his writings were particularly well-received and lauded by his fellow colonists, but the sort who fails to really ruffle any feathers and instead is content to accept a life lived under his own Puritan style because of an inability for the King's influence to reach him - like most of the New England Puritans, then, really.

Just my own two-penneth of course.
 
Top