No 1381 rebellion in England - consequences for the Lollards

The Lollards were a kind of early Protestants that were led by John Wyclif. His teaching had an appeal not only to the poor, but also to people from the nobility and in parliament, probably because the Lollards wanted to confiscate church property. However, the Lollards were accused of taking part in Wat Tyler´s rebellion and the Lollards then lost the support from the higher estates in society.

What if there had never been any rebellion? Is it possible that the Reformation could have started much earlier?
 
Without the printing press or some equivalent to spread ideas, I don't think a successful Lollardist movement would have spread like Lutheranism did. It may have survived, but would have remained highly localized like the Moravian movement, another pre-Protestant reform movement.

That said, if the movement survives locally in some region in England, that could make the reformation happen earlier. Trade with the Netherlands could spread Lollardist ideas into mainland Europe. If an OTL version of Gutenberg decides he likes there ideas, he could spread them quite rapidly a few decades before OTL's Protestant movement started.
 
Without the printing press or some equivalent to spread ideas, I don't think a successful Lollardist movement would have spread like Lutheranism did. It may have survived, but would have remained highly localized like the Moravian movement, another pre-Protestant reform movement.

That said, if the movement survives locally in some region in England, that could make the reformation happen earlier. Trade with the Netherlands could spread Lollardist ideas into mainland Europe. If an OTL version of Gutenberg decides he likes there ideas, he could spread them quite rapidly a few decades before OTL's Protestant movement started.

What if the English king had decided to cut the ties with Rome in order to get control of the church and not the least to get control of the church property? That seems to have been an important reason in many OTL cases, and maybe in particular in England, where there differences in theological views did not initially seem to have been that important. The fact that the Lollards had support among many nobles and in the Parliament could have made it easier for the king to nationalize the church.
 
That would have completely isolated England from Europe. At this point the Scandinavians were Christianized, and even if the English could reach the Iberian peninsula regularly enough for trade there is no guarantee that the Muslims there would have anything meaningful to do with them, Protestantism or no. Yes, in the short run England gains church property, but in the long run it becomes a target to everyone, fair game for crusades and just generally hated. Which, yes, that happened to some degree under King Henry VIII's reforms, but he had the Netherlands, the Scandinavians and various German principalities to potentially fall on for support. A high medieval Lollardist king would have none of that. Perhaps England could survive under those circumstances, but it would not thrive. The historical moment is simply not yet there.
 
But the Reformation would have to start somewhere. I am not sure which king/duke (or whatever title the person had) where first to break with Rome in OTL, but someone must have been first. Wouldn´t England breaking with Rome make it easier for other monarchs to do the same?
 
Top