WI: Elizabeth I keeps England Catholic?

[Fabius Maximus]

What if Elizabeth I didn't return England to Protestantism when she became Queen, but instead kept the country Catholic as it had been under her sister Mary. How would the history of Britain and the world be different? Would Elizabeth send troops to support the Scottish Catholics, rather than the Protestants as IOTL? And, given that England and Scotland were IRL drawn closer together by their shared Protestantism, would a union of Catholic England and Scotland (assuming it still happened) be less likely to survive?

The union with Ireland, OTOH, would probably be more likely to survive, because, whilst religious differences weren't the only factor in that country's divisions, they were certainly a complicating issue. So would we perhaps see today a United Kingdom of England and Ireland, with Scotland having broken away?

And what of foreign policy? Historically England was quite close to Spain during the early 16th century, and the two became enemies largely due to the Reformation. So would England have continued this friendly policy do you think, or would fear of growing Spanish power have caused them to cut ties as IOTL?

Ah, so many potential butterflies...

 

[SvoHljott]

Why would Elizabeth do this when she herself is a Protestant?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Why would Elizabeth do this when she herself is a Protestant?

Obviously in this timeline Elizabeth would be a Catholic like Mary.

 

[black angel]

Elizabeth isn't going to do this, she is only Queen if her father was right, if the Catholic church is right and true, then Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was bigamous thus not legitimate, in the eyes of the Pope and the Catholic Church Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon from 11 June 1509 till her death 7 January 1536, and was never married to Anne Boleyn, there for in the eyes of the Church Elizabeth was a bastard, to stay Catholic would be to endorse her bastardy, something personally very painful for her and it would undermine her rule in a major way

 

[Rstone4]

So, Henry VIII broke from the church in Rome for 2 good reasons. Male Heir, and Money. He squandered his father's money and the Church properties had lots of it. Also selling those properties after they were looted helped develop a loyal support base.

Elizabeth I to convert to Catholicism would essentially have to break her father's support base down and beg forgiveness from the church for her father's sins and restore the church property. This would have some major repercussions. One the men who bought the land were rising merchants and gentry to challenge the existing old aristocracy, this has repercussions in the English civil war.

Two, the church helps sustain the poor, so without unsustained poor, English colonial ventures get off much slower. This has repercussions for the 4 Anglo-Franco colonial wars in the 1600s and 1700s which also reflects upon the American Revolution. (But it might make where ever the puritans and pilgrims land larger at first... and they might break away much sooner because Elizabeth bringing England into the Papal fold doesn't erase the Calvinists in England, unless she manages to kill them all, "Bloody Beth"? )

Being Catholic might make her take a catholic husband and have catholic children. No Stuart Dynasty and maybe no act of union. England survives to the modern time as a thing, rather than as a part of a bigger thing. This has repercussions as France and Scotland tended to tag team England.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Elizabeth isn't going to do this, she is only Queen if her father was right, if the Catholic church is right and true, then Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was bigamous thus not legitimate, in the eyes of the Pope and the Catholic Church Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon from 11 June 1509 till her death 7 January 1536, and was never married to Anne Boleyn, there for in the eyes of the Church Elizabeth was a bastard, to stay Catholic would be to endorse her bastardy, something personally very painful for her and it would undermine her rule in a major way

Ah yes, I forgot about that (although technically Elizabeth was a bastard even for Protestants, since Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn had been annulled). Maybe if Mary sought to secure her succession by getting the Pope to declare Elizabeth her rightful heir (assuming the Queen didn't have any sons), that would lessen the political problems caused by her bastardy.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

So, Henry VIII broke from the church in Rome for 2 good reasons. Male Heir, and Money. He squandered his father's money and the Church properties had lots of it. Also selling those properties after they were looted helped develop a loyal support base.

Elizabeth I to convert to Catholicism would essentially have to break her father's support base down and beg forgiveness from the church for her father's sins and restore the church property. This would have some major repercussions. One the men who bought the land were rising merchants and gentry to challenge the existing old aristocracy, this has repercussions in the English civil war.

Two, the church helps sustain the poor, so without unsustained poor, English colonial ventures get off much slower. This has repercussions for the 4 Anglo-Franco colonial wars in the 1600s and 1700s which also reflects upon the American Revolution. (But it might make where ever the puritans and pilgrims land larger at first... and they might break away much sooner because Elizabeth bringing England into the Papal fold doesn't erase the Calvinists in England, unless she manages to kill them all, "Bloody Beth"? )

Being Catholic might make her take a catholic husband and have catholic children. No Stuart Dynasty and maybe no act of union. England survives to the modern time as a thing, rather than as a part of a bigger thing. This has repercussions as France and Scotland tended to tag team England.

Mary had already agreed not to return the confiscated lands to the Church, and there's no reason for Elizabeth not to continue with that policy.

 

[black angel]

Ah yes, I forgot about that (although technically Elizabeth was a bastard even for Protestants, since Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn had been annulled). Maybe if Mary sought to secure her succession by getting the Pope to declare Elizabeth her rightful heir (assuming the Queen didn't have any sons), that would lessen the political problems caused by her bastardy.

Mary would have (on a personal level) rather eaten broken glass, she demonized Anne Boleyn and the idea that "that woman's daughter" would be Queen was loathsome for her, it was her husband that twisted her arm to force her to recognize her as the heir, because Philip didn't want to turn England over to the French by having (Catholic) Mary Queen of Scots take over

plus the Church would have to legitimize Elizabeth to bless her as heir, which again would be them saying they were wrong and Henry VIII was right also if thats true then Catherine and Henry's marriage was always wrong in the eyes of God and thus not a real marriage so the reigning queen (Mary) would be the bastard

now, a catholic coup could take control of Elizabeth's person and force her to do what they want and marry her to a Catholic (maybe Philip who did ask her or some some Catholic lord) and enforce a Catholic government

for that to happen though Mary's government needs to handle the religion issue better, by the time of her death she and the idea of the Catholic Church was wildly unpopular and the Protestants were organized and willing to do anything to stop a Catholic monarchy, in latter years during Elizabeth's reign they talked about a Republic (as a stop gap measure to elect or pick a monarch) if Elizabeth died and Mary Queen of Scots was the heir

 

[Roger II]

for that to happen though Mary's government needs to handle the religion issue better, by the time of her death she and the idea of the Catholic Church was wildly unpopular and the Protestants were organized and willing to do anything to stop a Catholic monarchy, in latter years during Elizabeth's reign they talked about a Republic (as a stop gap measure to elect or pick a monarch) if Elizabeth died and Mary Queen of Scots was the heir

And this is the problem; if one thing is consistent about Elizabeth it is that she does what she needs to do politically. No amount of personal scruples over religion are going to induce her to commit political suicide.

 

[black angel]

And this is the problem; if one thing is consistent about Elizabeth it is that she does what she needs to do politically. No amount of personal scruples over religion are going to induce her to commit political suicide.

agreed, likely even if Catholics took Elizabeth its unlikely they'd ever get her to sign anything, her own power and place meant everything to her and I don't see any one cowing her into being openly Catholic or even marriage, with 0 support from her any coup would likely fail.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

plus the Church would have to legitimize Elizabeth to bless her as heir, which again would be them saying they were wrong and Henry VIII was right also if thats true then Catherine and Henry's marriage was always wrong in the eyes of God and thus not a real marriage so the reigning queen (Mary) would be the bastard

Well IOTL the Pope didn't formally relieve Elizabeth's subjects of their oaths of allegiance to her until 1570, twelve years after she ascended the throne. Then again, I'm not sure whether that means that the Catholic Church recognised her as legitimate ruler before then, in spite of her bastardy.

Alternatively, maybe Mary could have taken a leaf out of the Roman Emperors' book and made Elizabeth joint (though still subordinate, obviously) queen with her. Then again, I'm not sure whether such a procedure would have been accepted by the nation as a whole, or whether Mary could actually be induced to try such an idea. (It would probably be quite difficult, given that Mary's mother had been humiliatingly cast aside in favour of Elizabeth's. Then again, Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had both ended up being screwed over by Henry, so maybe the sisters could bond over that? )

Or alternatively alternatively, we could rejig the history of England somewhat so that Elizabeth would be legitimate in Catholic eyes as well -- say, the Pope had managed to escape the sack of Rome in 1527, and hence wasn't a prisoner of the Emperor and more amenable to granting Henry his annulment. Later the King tried to annul his marriage to Anne too, the Pope told him that two annulments was too much, and the split happened over that instead, a few years later than IOTL. Or that Catherine died after the Reformation had got going but before Henry married Anne (assuming that the Henrician Reformation would have built up enough momentum to keep going even if the need for an annulment was removed). Or even that Catherine gives Henry a second girl, *Elizabeth, who ends up having much the same personality as OTL Elizabeth did. My main purpose in making this thread was to explore what the consequences might be if England's reversion to Catholicism was permanent; how exactly this comes about is of secondary importance.

 

[Velasco]

Elizabeth was illegitimate when she ascended the throne - as was Mary - and yet was still the legitimate successor to the Crown, per Henry VIII's succession act.

Mary had already done all the hard work of restoring bishops and church property.

For one remaining Catholic would forestall support for Mary Queen of Scots - perhaps some tweaking around with the Anglo-French war going on at the time (giving the French a stronger position? maybe some manifestation or invasion of England in the Queen-Dauphine's name?) could impel Elizabeth to stay Catholic in order to assure herself of continued Spanish aid against France.

 

[Velasco]

Alternatively, maybe Mary could have taken a leaf out of the Roman Emperors' book and made Elizabeth joint (though still subordinate, obviously) queen with her. Then again, I'm not sure whether such a procedure would have been accepted by the nation as a whole, or whether Mary could actually be induced to try such an idea. (It would probably be quite difficult, given that Mary's mother had been humiliatingly cast aside in favour of Elizabeth's. Then again, Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had both ended up being screwed over by Henry, so maybe the sisters could bond over that? )

Throughout did the Middle Ages you did have crown princes being crowned rex junior as a means of securing the succession indisputably in their favour. That said I don't think it was ever done in favour of a princess, let alone a sister, since there was always the chance the monarch would produce a male heir who would demote the female heir from the succession.

The sisters did get on at some point, mainly clashing over religion and the constant Protestant plotting which claimed to/might have had Elizabeth's hand in.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Well IOTL the Pope didn't formally relieve Elizabeth's subjects of their oaths of allegiance to her until 1570, twelve years after she ascended the throne. Then again, I'm not sure whether that means that the Catholic Church recognised her as legitimate ruler before then, in spite of her bastardy.

Alternatively, maybe Mary could have taken a leaf out of the Roman Emperors' book and made Elizabeth joint (though still subordinate, obviously) queen with her. Then again, I'm not sure whether such a procedure would have been accepted by the nation as a whole, or whether Mary could actually be induced to try such an idea. (It would probably be quite difficult, given that Mary's mother had been humiliatingly cast aside in favour of Elizabeth's. Then again, Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had both ended up being screwed over by Henry, so maybe the sisters could bond over that? )

Or alternatively alternatively, we could rejig the history of England somewhat so that Elizabeth would be legitimate in Catholic eyes as well -- say, the Pope had managed to escape the sack of Rome in 1527, and hence wasn't a prisoner of the Emperor and more amenable to granting Henry his annulment. Later the King tried to annul his marriage to Anne too, the Pope told him that two annulments was too much, and the split happened over that instead, a few years later than IOTL. Or that Catherine died after the Reformation had got going but before Henry married Anne (assuming that the Henrician Reformation would have built up enough momentum to keep going even if the need for an annulment was removed). Or even that Catherine gives Henry a second girl, *Elizabeth, who ends up having much the same personality as OTL Elizabeth did. My main purpose in making this thread was to explore what the consequences might be if England's reversion to Catholicism was permanent; how exactly this comes about is of secondary importance.

The reason the Pope didn't take action against Elizabeth until 1570 was Philip II. He kept the Pope from making any declaration against her, in hopes that she would be an ally against France and/or marry a Habsburg. Once it became obvious that the Queen would do neither, Philip removed his protection, allowing the Pope to do as he wanted.

And as to making Elizabeth junior Queen, no. Crowning an heir while the monarch was alive did happen a few times in France, England (the Young King) and Hungary, but it hadn't been done in centuries by this point. And I can't see Mary doing that.

I think the best way for the Church to accept Elizabeth, assuming she keeps England Catholic, would to post date legitimacy for Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn. After Catherine of Aragon's death in January 1536, Henry was single in the eyes of the Church. So I suppose the Pope could create legal fiction that Henry and Anne married after Catherine's death, and granting legitimacy to any children born before the marriage. Its a stretch but I can see the Church pulling something like that out of their asses, to keep a friendly Catholic Sovereign in England.

 

[Velasco]

IIRC canon law allowed for the legitimacy of the issue of illegitimate/uncanonical unions if at least one of the parents had entered into it in good faith: if Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn had legitimately considered his union with Catherine of Aragon to be null and void, then Elizabeth could be legitimate in Catholic eyes.

 

[mrmandias]

I agree that Elizabeth I isn't going to concede her illegitimacy or restore plundered Church properties, but is there any inherent reason the Papacy couldn't decide to be flexible on these? After all, Mary hadn't restored everything and had gotten by with that.

Now, maybe there is some specific political reason why the Papacy couldn't be flexible, just like there was in preventing the Papacy from going along with Henry VIII's project for getting a male heir, but I get you can find some plausible way for the Papacy to agree to grant the necessary dispensations, etc.

 

[sum sine regno]

England doesn't have to be papist to remain catholic. England was still Catholic under Henry VIII, so it is perfectly manageable. In fact going papist is the less realistic choice, I am pretty sure that England reverting to Henrichian Catholicism is quite realistic.

 

[David T]

One thing that is often forgotten: The Roman Catholic Church in England was gravely weakened by *two* deaths, not just one. Eamon Duffy has argued that "had Pole been still alive and in office as Archbishop when Elizabeth succeeded, he would indeed have presented his protestant cousin with a formidable obstacle to any reversal of the catholic restoration." http://books.google.com/books?id=AtCz-CrPvJkC&pg=RA3-PT43 As it was, though, there really was no reason for Elizabeth to go against her own inclinations and those of her advisers who wanted to break the connection with Rome again.

 

[katchen]

Or what about Eastern Orthodoxy once she has established diplomatic relations with Ivan IV's Russia after 1554? The relationship with Russia was quite a valuable commercial relationship (one of England's most lucrative) and the Orthodox Patriarchate was the alternative source of Apostolic succession and therefore Christian legitimacy. Protestantism was both very new and because of it's emphasis on individual freedom of conscience, very destabilizing. In the mid 16th Century, it was by no means certain that Protestantism would be viable in the long term.
Henricist "Catholicism without the Pope" on the other hand, was actually angling toward Eastern Orthdoxy even if Henry VIII did not fully realize it. Eastern Orthodoxy gave the King (or Tsar or Empress) the power to appoint Metropolitans, who served in the position of Archbishops, and I believe even Patriarchs. And it's theology for doing so goes all the way back to the Nicene Creed and the Council of Chalcedon.
And it is something that Elizabeth could introduce somewhat gradually. She could ask Ivan to send her some Russian Orthodox priests and monks who would learn English and once having learned English, start to share their faith with English Lords and Magnates over a period of five years or so. Elizabeth could see if this was going to fly with the upper and middle classes before allowing a mission to the "commonherd". I think that it would work. Though it would result in Spain raising an Armada against England sooner rather than later, as Philip would soon realize that England was choosing another way that would put it completely and permanently beyond the Roman Catholic pale.
Elizabeth's dynastic options would be ---different as an Eastern Orthodox Queen or Empress. Catholic or Protestant matches would be closed to her, and if she wanted England to remain Orthodox upon her death, she would HAVE to marry, as risky as a marriage would be, preferably to a Russian boyar with a son from a previous marriage. An excellent candidate wouldprobably be Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, after his first wife Elena Mikhailovna Repnina dies (IOTL he would become Tsar Vasily IV, the last Tsar of the Rurikid line). Beyond this point, a great many different TLs can branch out depending on when Elizabeth marries (and there are other possibilities).

 

[Just a Rube]

Or what about Eastern Orthodoxy once she has established diplomatic relations with Ivan IV's Russia after 1554? The relationship with Russia was quite a valuable commercial relationship (one of England's most lucrative) and the Orthodox Patriarchate was the alternative source of Apostolic succession and therefore Christian legitimacy. Protestantism was both very new and because of it's emphasis on individual freedom of conscience, very destabilizing. In the mid 16th Century, it was by no means certain that Protestantism would be viable in the long term.
Henricist "Catholicism without the Pope" on the other hand, was actually angling toward Eastern Orthdoxy even if Henry VIII did not fully realize it. Eastern Orthodoxy gave the King (or Tsar or Empress) the power to appoint Metropolitans, who served in the position of Archbishops, and I believe even Patriarchs. And it's theology for doing so goes all the way back to the Nicene Creed and the Council of Chalcedon.
And it is something that Elizabeth could introduce somewhat gradually. She could ask Ivan to send her some Russian Orthodox priests and monks who would learn English and once having learned English, start to share their faith with English Lords and Magnates over a period of five years or so. Elizabeth could see if this was going to fly with the upper and middle classes before allowing a mission to the "commonherd". I think that it would work. Though it would result in Spain raising an Armada against England sooner rather than later, as Philip would soon realize that England was choosing another way that would put it completely and permanently beyond the Roman Catholic pale.
Elizabeth's dynastic options would be ---different as an Eastern Orthodox Queen or Empress. Catholic or Protestant matches would be closed to her, and if she wanted England to remain Orthodox upon her death, she would HAVE to marry, as risky as a marriage would be, preferably to a Russian boyar with a son from a previous marriage. An excellent candidate wouldprobably be Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, after his first wife Elena Mikhailovna Repnina dies (IOTL he would become Tsar Vasily IV, the last Tsar of the Rurikid line). Beyond this point, a great many different TLs can branch out depending on when Elizabeth marries (and there are other possibilities).

Contacts with Russia were limited (there's a reason one of the founders of the Muscovy Company froze to death trapped in sea ice), whereas by Elizabeth's coronation, Protestantism is established not just in Germany and Switzerland, but Scandinavia, and seemed to be a serious threat in France, Scotland and the Low Countries, among other places. That's much better in terms of potential alliance fodder than Muscovy, which would be unable to ever feasibly provide military assistance.

Besides, Protestantism had a preexisting base of support. There were plenty of Protestants and Protestant sympathizers running around. That's critical for a religious conversion. On the other hand, Eastern Orthodoxy would have to be imported, with a whole new set of priests and liturgy created. It would be strictly artificial, and imposed from above.