Protestants without the English Monarch

WI Catherine of Aragon had given birth to Henry thee 9th who survived.

My guess is that Anne Boleyne would have been a Royal Mistress as was tolerated for male morarchs.

How much of a Protestant movement would there be.

How severe would be the repression under Henry
 
Could go either way in the future, all depends how this new king ends up. He could make friends with protestant nobles and look on them well, he could end up a fanatically catholic 'monk-king'.
Under King Hal....Well...earlier in life he did write that book in defence of catholocism...but look how quickly he dropped it when it was convenient- albeit not for protestantism but catholocism with the pope replaced by him.
I'd guess he would be anti-protestant to a degree, but fundamentally would be practical and try and use them where he can.
 
Henry's conception of the Church of England was as a state-controlled Catholic Church that did not recognize the supremacy of the See of Rome. Even after his break with Rome, he was still very reluctant to adopt the Lutheran faith. Henry also had a nasty polemic written about him by Martin Luther in response to Henry's written defence of the Roman Church. It was only various nobles in Henry's court whom secretly supported the Reformation (such as Thomas Cromwell).

If Catherine of Aragon manages to produce a healthy male heir, Henry might have no need to break with Rome, but the actions of his successors would be more difficult to predict.
 
Britains stays within the Catholic fold and is a moderating influence in the counter reformation. Henry's protestantism was over authority rather than dogma. Any attempts at extreme protestantism that threatened the authority of the crown would be met with repression from Henry as was the Catholic Pligrimage of Grace but I expect there may have been an equivalent of Elizabeth 1st refusal to make a window on men's souls with protestantism being tolerated in high places provided outward loyalty to the crown was demonstrated.

The problem would occur with Scotland where the reformation went all the way. Would England intervene in support of Mary Queen of Scots? As she wouldn't have been a threat to a catholic english monarch there would be no execution. Provided peaceful relations were maintained with Scotland the civil wars of the 17th and 18th centuries could have been avoided. Union with Scotland would have been unlikely unless there was a succesful English backed counter reformation north of the border and relations with Ireland might have been better
 
If England never reforms Scotland may not either - Protestant preachers such as John Knox were aided and abetted by Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth. When Mary was on the English throne they didn't have an awful lot of success north of the border. Also, if Henry VIII never secedes from Rome then James V might live longer, meaning he sires a son and thereby avoids the reign of Mary.
 
Britains stays within the Catholic fold and is a moderating influence in the counter reformation.
Britain doesn't exist at this time.

Provided peaceful relations were maintained with Scotland the civil wars of the 17th and 18th centuries could have been avoided. Union with Scotland would have been unlikely unless there was a succesful English backed counter reformation north of the border and relations with Ireland might have been better
What "Civil wars" of the 18th century?

When you suggest a "successful English backed counter-reformation" you're totally ignoring the fact that the reformation in Scotland was much more muscular than the English version.
 
Henry VIII not getting a divorce and not having Elizabeth and Edward only makes a union with Scotland more likely.
 
Henry VIII not getting a divorce and not having Elizabeth and Edward only makes a union with Scotland more likely.

How? I don't think England would ever have been able to invade Scotland, and without the Tudor line perishing, the Stuarts certainly aren't going to inherit the English throne.
 
How? I don't think England would ever have been able to invade Scotland, and without the Tudor line perishing, the Stuarts certainly aren't going to inherit the English throne.

With a few more generations of Tudors the Stuarts are going to be pushed down the line of succession, so if Henry VIII has a son and the Tudors last for at least two or three generations more then another house is closer to the throne than the Stuarts.
 
How? I don't think England would ever have been able to invade Scotland, and without the Tudor line perishing, the Stuarts certainly aren't going to inherit the English throne.
If Henry's only child is Mary then the Stewarts are pushed up the line of succession. However Catherine of Aragon died not long after the divorce in any case so Henry would be free to remarry.
 
Britain doesn't exist at this time.
Correct I had meant England

What "Civil wars" of the 18th century?

Two Jacobite rebellions 1715 and 1745 as they were largely about a catholic successor then it wouldn't have been an issue plus the likelihood that there would have been no Stuarts in the line to the throne. The 1715 rising did have some active support from some of the landed gentry i.e the Earl of Derwentwater but the fate of the participants and sequestration of lands resulted in little support in England for the 1745 but they were civil wars. However the wars would not have taken place in a Catholic England.

When you suggest a "successful English backed counter-reformation" you're totally ignoring the fact that the reformation in Scotland was much more muscular than the English version.

In which case any counter reformation would have needed English support but no intervention may have been a wiser policy depending on how much pressure the Pope would put on England to intervene
 
Henry's early reign was characterised by very traditional and highly devout Roman Catholicism - heretics in the Lutheran model were merriely rooted out and burnt (under Lord Chancellor Thomas Moore for example).

At the time of the 'great matter' those more liberal people at court desperate for Royal approval were happy to point the King and the Boleyn faction at ideas coming from Luther. Henry's break with Rome was gradual, not dogmatic (thought to his Archbishop and his new Queen it was) and was largely supported by a packed Parliament with many of those supporters eager to pick up the spoils.

Certainly there was a moderate resentment of the church and like in other Northern European countries distrust of Rome was one factor in their willingness to embrace change.

The resentment for the change was largely amongst the ultra devout (the King's eldest daughter Mary for example and many of his traditional Bishops) and the poorer sections of society.

Had Catherine delivered a living son then Henry was unlikely to have abandonded the papacy. And like Mary that son would have been given a traditional education, however there is no reason to believe that that child might not have been tempted by the increased royal authority that might be gained by abandoning Rome at a later date.

England would have still been influenced by events in France and the Low Countries and Scotland.

One change will be the amount of support or not England gives - if she remains Catholic then there will be no refuge for reformers and no cash for them which might have helped delay reform in Scotland - but that would depend on the relationship between James V and the future Henry IX/Edward VI for example.

Has our imaginary Henry IX embraced Lutheranism or some form of Calvinism then England will have a church far closer to that of the German protestant states and reformed Scotland which might mean more support the French, Dutch and Scots. Which would have been the result if Edward VI had lived as his education and upbringing had made him as devoutly Protestant as his sister Mary was Catholic.

Elizabeth was always a reluctant supporter given her distaste for people she saw as rebels against their lawful sovereign which is why aid and help was patchy.

There could be some advantages to an English reformation that was later and closer to the continental model - the Anglicanism that was enforced by Elizabeth and amended by James VI (essentially the church we have today) trod a middle ground - dogmatically Protestant but in form and manner closer to Catholicism - it was a reform that never satisfied many protestants who were drawn to the more low church models and the Royal Supremacy tied the crown and church so closely that religion became a significant issue around the throne. That was one significant cause of the religious and political strife of the 17th century and it also fuelled early migration to British North America. Take that away by giving England a later reformation or remove the reformation all together and you have a very different world!
 
Top