What if England Remained Catholic?

Unless there is something I don't know about Shakespeare's ancestry, I don't see why he would be butterflied away.

No, he would. Small changes in people's lives can cause them to never meet the person they were with in OTL, and the act of conception is so random and religion being such a huge difference that the presence of Shakespeare in a Catholic England created before his birth is ASB.

I blame Ray Bradbury for inventing the butterfly affect and then in the same story vastly understating it's affects and cause. And time travel couldn't logically work that way.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5719

Unless there is something I don't know about Shakespeare's ancestry, I don't see why he would be butterflied away.

I think it is a probable that sometime from the 17th century the House of Commons would seek more power, including more control over finance.

A William Shakespeare with the same ancestry is possible, if his parents were both born before your point of departure. However, it wouldn't be the same person because, even if the same egg was released during the same menstrual cycle as OTL (massively unlikely), and was fertilised (also quite unlikely), the sperm which fertilised it had an incalcuably small probability of being the same one as OTL. It's just impossible to have the same Shakespeare this time line.
 
No, he would. Small changes in people's lives can cause them to never meet the person they were with in OTL, and the act of conception is so random and religion being such a huge difference that the presence of Shakespeare in a Catholic England created before his birth is ASB.

I blame Ray Bradbury for inventing the butterfly affect and then in the same story vastly understating it's affects and cause. And time travel couldn't logically work that way.

Yes but according to one popular interpretation of parallel universe theory everything that can happen will happen in a different universe, so there's no reason there cannot be a universe where England is Catholic and Shakespeare becomes a celebrated playwright.

Speaking as a moderate butterflyist.
 

Deleted member 5719

Yes but according to one popular interpretation of parallel universe theory everything that can happen will happen in a different universe, so there's no reason there cannot be a universe where England is Catholic and Shakespeare becomes a celebrated playwright.

Speaking as a moderate butterflyist.

But that's not alternate history, it's just mucky sci-fi!

Be off with you, sir! Don't you know there are conventions for your sort? I suggest you try there. :mad:
 
The butterflying away of the Reformation in England would have certain effects on the development of English literature. Two pillars on which the modern literary English language rest are the King James Bible and the Prayer Book. As much as I dislike what Cramner did to the medieval English liturgy, his replacement liturgy is a literary masterpiece that has had a long and enduring influence on English. Ditto the KJV, which is not an accurate translation by modern standards but contains beautiful passages, especially of the Psalms and of wisdom literature. I would be interested to know what literary and religious works would substitute for these works in an un-Reformed England.

Please note that the medieval religious rituals of England were not the same as the Roman rite (Extraordinary Form, 'Latin Mass') that is celebrated today. The most common in pre-Reformation England was the Sarum (rite of Salisbury), which contains the same eucharistic prayer as the Roman Mass but is otherwise somewhat different in prayer and ceremonial. The Reformation in England happened just about the same time as the codification of Roman Catholic liturgy at Trent, so the English of Henry's time would not have been familiar with the Mass we know today. The Sarum Mass has been "reconstructed" and celebrated occasionally in the past few decades, even though it died out before the Catholic Emancipation and the introduction of the Tridentine liturgy into England in the late 18th century.
 
Last edited:
Mary I & England's Catholicism

Another possibility would be with Mary I. Although popular opinion holds that she was the hated "Bloody Mary," she actually wasn't that unpopular of a monarch, and had she lived a long life and been a bit more flexible, she could have "reconverted" the island.

Let's assume she doesn't die in 1558 and lives a long life as queen, with or without an heir. What made Elizabeth a good queen was her ability to accommodate a large variety of people. She wasn't a hardcore Reformer; she was actually quite conservative, and she was more interested in the appearance of conformity and social peace than making sure people really "believed" in Protestantism. Had Mary been more like that, she could have, over a long reign, been effective at reuniting England with Rome. Her issue, though, was she was more devoted to her religion than to her country, so she ended up making more problems for herself than she needed. But, Catholicism itself was still pretty widespread. Especially in the countryside, many people were not too hot on the Reformation; a lot of churches that had been ordered to destroy icons during Edward VI's reign had actually only hidden them, and brought them out when Mary took office. Her main problem will be dealing with the merchant class and those people who got lands from the dissolution of the monasteries.

So let's assume she does a few things:
1) She allows the Bible to be translated into English.
2) The Anglican service is pretty conservative, but she institutes a more formal Mass in English, retaining more of the Roman practices.
3) She reaffirms her devotion to the Pope on spiritual matters, but asserts her power as supreme governor of the English people. Such a move would essentially maintain Henry VIII's separation from Rome, but would at least seem to play ball with the Vatican, which would perhaps be all they need.
4) She purges the clergy both of the corrupt (pluralists and absentee priests) and of hardcore reformers. She takes their land and turns part of it over to the various monastic orders that had been dissolved.
5) She allows moderate reformers to remain, but forces them to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Pope (as well as her authority as ruler of England).
6) She institutes certain protestant-minded reforms (bans the sale of indulgences, etc, but affirms priestly celibacy).
7) She demands conformity (a la Elizabeth) in practice, but like her sister, does not wish to look into the souls of men.

I think this would end up creating a Catholic-lite England, slightly more Romish than the Anglican church, but still nominally affiliated with the Vatican.

Short-term & long-term effects:
1) Shakespeare. There was already a strong theatrical tradition in England (mystery plays and such), so there's no reason to assume a Catholic England would not retain it. The main issue, though, is what the nature of the public theatre would have been. Assuming the man we know as Shakespeare was still born, he could have gone into the theatre. Although, would he have been able to so easily leave his wife behind in Stratford to go to London? Who knows.
2) The effect would be much stronger on later poets. John Donne and George Herbert, for example, assuming they still exist, would be very different writers. And John Milton would probably not exist.
3) The new world: a joint Spanish-English production? There would probably still be colonies consisting of Protestants, but they'd probably be less exclusively of the Puritan bent. No reason to assume that there wouldn't eventually be a rebellion, although its outcome is hazy...
 
So let's assume she [Queen Mary] does a few things:

1) She allows the Bible to be translated into English.

It is extremely likely that the Bible would have been translated into English. The Douay-Rheims Bible (finished 1610) conformed to the Catholic canon and was an almost word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate. Direct translations from the Vulgate offer the added advantage of being keyed directly to the Vulgate scripture readings of the Mass.

2) The Anglican service is pretty conservative, but she institutes a more formal Mass in English, retaining more of the Roman practices.

I am almost certain that she would simply reinstate the medieval rites of England and Scotland. I doubt that she would implement the Tridentine liturgical reforms given Pius V's explicit permission for the continued celebration of liturgies more than 200 years old. The Tridentine Mass is an amalgamation of southern European liturgies, with special emphasis on the papal liturgy and the liturgies of the churches of Rome. This liturgy would likely be foreign to the clergy and people of England (save the ancient Canon 'Te Igitur' which was common across medieval liturgies of the West).

I strongly doubt she would meddle with the doctrinal and dogmatic texts of the Mass, particularly the Canon. Her opposition to Protestantism necessarily translates into liturgical fidelity. Remember that Cramner unabashedly replaced the Canon of the Mass with a non-sacrificial thanksgiving prayer reminiscent of Lutheran-Reformed theology.

3) She reaffirms her devotion to the Pope on spiritual matters, but asserts her power as supreme governor of the English people. Such a move would essentially maintain Henry VIII's separation from Rome, but would at least seem to play ball with the Vatican, which would perhaps be all they need.

Remember that the Popes of these times were Habsburg employees essentially. The idea of playing both ends of the field may result in a clash with the Vatican, the Spanish Habsburgs, and her newly minted merchant-aristocratic class.

4) She purges the clergy both of the corrupt (pluralists and absentee priests) and of hardcore reformers. She takes their land and turns part of it over to the various monastic orders that had been dissolved.

Will the new merchant class hand over their land that willingly? I would doubt it. I could see some of the new merchant class propping up Lutheran and Calvinist sympathizers in a bid to prevent the monasteries and bishops from gobbling up land stolen under Henry VIII. In this ATL, Mary will not be able to fully snuff out Protestantism. It will survive in either a recusant or quasi-tolerated movement encouraged by segments of the rising upper classes. Nonconformity will very much remain part of the social tableau of her reign.

6) She institutes certain protestant-minded reforms (bans the sale of indulgences, etc, but affirms priestly celibacy).

In this case Mary merely enforces many of the reforms set forth at Trent without adopting the counter-reformation Roman liturgy. The enforcement of clerical celibacy might be difficult, given long standing disregard for this norm. She might have to officially submit the clergy to the Roman celibacy practice as a concession to papal spiritual oversight, but intentionally overlook priests who decide to take a "housekeeper" or similar. I do not see priestly celibacy taking hold in all parts of her realm, given that the medieval English church often did not emphasize this discipline.
 
Last edited:
what would happen if england remain catholic due to henrey getting his annulment from catherine?









I'm trying to finish this but I'm kind of at a stand still. Do you guys have any ideas where I can go from here?

Have you made any progress lately?
 
Top