WI: Charles I, Closet Puritan

[Saepe Fidelis]

There was widespread fear prior to the Civil War (indeed it was one of the War's main causes) that Charles I was a closet Catholic who wanted to bring England back into the Catholic Church. Indeed, both his sons, the future Charles I and James II, were indeed Catholic. But, what if instead of embracing High Anglicanism (or Catholicism) Charles I was instead a closet non-conformist, who was hostile to the Church of England.

What effect would this have on the Civil War: would it happen? Would the dividing lines between royalists and rebels be different?

Then, there's the effects on English religion. Would non-conformism become recognized earlier, or would it forever be seen as disruptive and seditious, and dissenters' rights set back another two centuries?

 

[Cymraeg]

It would certainly change some of the factors behind the war - there would be less fear of Strafford perhaps, and the possibility of him bringing an Irish army back. However, if Charles the Cretin (I've always called him that after hearing one of my next-door neighbours call him Charles the Martyr) still believes in the divine right of kings then there's always going to be a clash with Parliament.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

There was widespread fear prior to the Civil War (indeed it was one of the War's main causes) that Charles I was a closet Catholic who wanted to bring England back into the Catholic Church. Indeed, both his sons, the future Charles I and James II, were indeed Catholic. But, what if instead of embracing High Anglicanism (or Catholicism) Charles I was instead a closet non-conformist, who was hostile to the Church of England.

What effect would this have on the Civil War: would it happen? Would the dividing lines between royalists and rebels be different?

Then, there's the effects on English religion. Would non-conformism become recognized earlier, or would it forever be seen as disruptive and seditious, and dissenters' rights set back another two centuries?

Would he still marry a French Princess? Perhaps during his time in Madrid when courting the Infanta, he is so disgusted with Catholicism that when he returns to England with Buckingham demanding war, he also denounces the Catholics and High-Church Anglicans (thinking them Catholics in all but name), demanding the hand of a Protestant Princess, war with Spain, and support for the Count Palatine of the Rhine in recovering his domains.

James I had essentially been duped by the Spanish ambassador, using the possibility of the marriage to keep English troops from aiding the Count Palatinate of the Rhine. Seems like an ideal period to shape Charles' views. He sides with Parliament over his father and demands troops be sent to aid his brother-in-law. So his early reign could see Protestant adventures in Germany, perhaps a Dutch Princess in lieu of Henrietta. Since I find him developing Puritan views unlikely if he marries Henrietta. He could still have pseudo-absolutist views, especially when it comes to taxation... but if he's a Protestant and more Protestant aligned, Parliament might just be malleable. Or maybe we see opposition from the High Church Anglicans who could dominate Parliament instead? He caused troubles in Scotland trying to restore the Episcopacy in Scotland. So a conflict could begin when he instead tries to abolish it in England and set up a Presbyterian system.

Am I going off base? Just musing some possible ideas. Charles I and his Calvinist Dutch (or perhaps German, from Hesse-Kassel) wife, hated by Catholics and High-Church Anglicans. Trying to rule on his own, extracting ship money, working to abolish the Espicopacy in the Church of England, trying to bring the CoE to be more in line with the CoS. If Charles I is still a figure of wanting/desiring more authority for the crown, I think he'd be bound to cause a sort of conflict or war. The Stuart kings had a lofty view of their rights, compared to Elizabeth who did not treat Parliament with such contempt. She often sidestepped it, yes, and like Charles I and II would prorogue it when it would not bend to her will, and even had it dissolved for almost five years until their support was needed to raise taxes or subsidy was needed.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Would he still marry a French Princess? Perhaps during his time in Madrid when courting the Infanta, he is so disgusted with Catholicism that when he returns to England with Buckingham demanding war, he also denounces the Catholics and High-Church Anglicans (thinking them Catholics in all but name), demanding the hand of a Protestant Princess, war with Spain, and support for the Count Palatine of the Rhine in recovering his domains.

James I had essentially been duped by the Spanish ambassador, using the possibility of the marriage to keep English troops from aiding the Count Palatinate of the Rhine. Seems like an ideal period to shape Charles' views. He sides with Parliament over his father and demands troops be sent to aid his brother-in-law. So his early reign could see Protestant adventures in Germany, perhaps a Dutch Princess in lieu of Henrietta. Since I find him developing Puritan views unlikely if he marries Henrietta. He could still have pseudo-absolutist views, especially when it comes to taxation... but if he's a Protestant and more Protestant aligned, Parliament might just be malleable. Or maybe we see opposition from the High Church Anglicans who could dominate Parliament instead? He caused troubles in Scotland trying to restore the Episcopacy in Scotland. So a conflict could begin when he instead tries to abolish it in England and set up a Presbyterian system.

Am I going off base? Just musing some possible ideas. Charles I and his Calvinist Dutch (or perhaps German, from Hesse-Kassel) wife, hated by Catholics and High-Church Anglicans. Trying to rule on his own, extracting ship money, working to abolish the Espicopacy in the Church of England, trying to bring the CoE to be more in line with the CoS. If Charles I is still a figure of wanting/desiring more authority for the crown, I think he'd be bound to cause a sort of conflict or war. The Stuart kings had a lofty view of their rights, compared to Elizabeth who did not treat Parliament with such contempt. She often sidestepped it, yes, and like Charles I and II would prorogue it when it would not bend to her will, and even had it dissolved for almost five years until their support was needed to raise taxes or subsidy was needed.

Interesting thoughts, but I think that despite all the changes to Charles' beliefs he'd still be a bit...thick, for lack of a better word, and not a great politician. I think that had he been a little more competent as an absolute ruler he would've been rather more popular, or at least been able to side-step Parliament like Elizabeth did (although your points in this regard are still very valid and cogent).

I think that he'd still be as forceful in religion, iof not in foreign policy, but do we reckon he'd try and impose a more austere form of Protestantism on England or do something like what the Commonwealth did and allow some amount on religious belief, if not of practice (e.g. Jews were encouraged to return to England but the Sabbath was strictly enforced.)

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Interesting thoughts, but I think that despite all the changes to Charles' beliefs he'd still be a bit...thick, for lack of a better word, and not a great politician. I think that had he been a little more competent as an absolute ruler he would've been rather more popular, or at least been able to side-step Parliament like Elizabeth did (although your points in this regard are still very valid and cogent).

I think that he'd still be as forceful in religion, iof not in foreign policy, but do we reckon he'd try and impose a more austere form of Protestantism on England or do something like what the Commonwealth did and allow some amount on religious belief, if not of practice (e.g. Jews were encouraged to return to England but the Sabbath was strictly enforced.)

Yeah, I think he'd botch things, either way. Simply have Parliament dominated by High Anglicans rather than Puritans and you could have your opposition there. He'd be able to cause problems religion wise by attempting the abolish the Episcopacy in England. He tried to restore in Scotland and started the Bishop's War IOTL, so here we could see a conflict erupting in England when he attempts to impose the Presbyterianism upon the Anglicans, much to the horror of the Bishops. He'd certainly work to get the dissenters some degree of toleration, too, which would earn him some ire.