WI: No Edward VI?
- Thread starter Fire and shadow
- Start date
Would there even be burnings? Not only would the Reformation be less entrenched, it would be much more moderate. Henry VIII's reforms weren't particularly dramatic beyond the dissolution of the monasteries. Most of the major reforms came as a result of Edward VI's more radical regency council. The ATL Marian Restoration has much less work to do and her chief ally, Reginald Pole, would have six years more support from Rome before his rival Paul IV is elected pope. (Assuming that papal elections go the same way in ATL. But hell, if Pole can show any sort of real progress in England early on then he may even get the two votes he needed to win the papacy in 1549!)
Well if she dies like IOTL she'd have half a decade longer. She's unlikely to have that many burnings, though? Edward VI's radical Protestantism wouldn't exist, after all, and all she'd need really is to build monasteries again.
Likely no burnings due to aforementioned reasons, but potentially, also due to the fact that I tend to think that the reason Mary stepped it up because she thought her failure to have a child was divine displeasure for not eradicating heresy. Marriage in 1547 means she potentially has a better shot at motherhood (which will be good for her and (probably) better for England). She might also find Karl V more willing in 1547 than he was by the time she proposed OTL
Actually, Mary is probably unlikely to do that. Mostly because she'd need to take the monastic land back from the nobles who bought it, which would be a shortcut to raising dissatisfaction with her. Especially if there's "alternative" candidates like her half-sister and legal loopholes like how Jane Seymour's daughter is "legitimate" and Mary accepted the oath.
TBH, suppressing corrupt monasteries was something Isabel la Catolica also did. As did the duke of Bavaria and I think Emperor Ferdinand I, both of whom were traditional Catholics. Also, the Counter-Reformation is still trying to figure out - Trent is still in its infancy - which way is up with regards to Protestantism, so that would likely also play a role
Nobody is going to take Elizabeth seriously in a world with Mary (popular Catholic heiress) and Jane's daughter (legitimate according to everybody)
I wasn't talking about Liz when I said "half-sister", was talking about Jane's daughter
I think even without a child, things are more "Catholic friendly". H8, doesn't favor the Seymour's and by extension Protestantism at the end of his reign as much. The very young and impressional Jane Tudor, Jane and Katherine Grey grow up in more Catholic friendly environments and by 1558 Elizabeth is the outlier, seen as more of a bastard than otl and more likely to be set aside. There is no rough wooing, and Mary Stuart grows up a Scotswoman rather than French, even if she marries the French king she and her mother do better against the Calvanists.
So in 1558, even if Mary dies childless, four out five heirs, 5 out of 6 if Jane Tudor lives longer than Edward the 6th are Catholic and Elizabeth, the 6th, is easily declared a bastard.
I think Elizabeth herself could be raised Catholic ITTL if enough effort is invested
From what I understand, 12-13 seems to be a bit of a threshold of cultural indoctrination based on historical examples, for example children captured by other cultures (particularly if they are treated well/adopted).
I have no doubt Elizabeth would conform, and survive. But I doubt she would really be Catholic. She's also enough of a political animal to know those who support a Protestant restoration are her most likely followers. So my thought is, no.
you have numerous issues - Henry with no male heir is a very different beast than Henry with one surviving and undoubtedly legitimate male heir.
Legally the second succession act conferred the succession to the King's issue by Jane Seymour.
Mary and Elizabeth remained illegitimate and incapable of inheriting by the legal views of the period.
In a situation where Henry remains without legitimate male issue - he has technically no need to force another succession act through - meaning his daughter by Jane is heiress presumptive and remains so.
There is a pressing case for him to avoid in those circumstances restoring his elder daughter's to the succession and I think it unlikely he would do so - he might even leave them less well off than he did in OTL.
Therefore at his death his youngest and only legitimate child succeeds - supported by her Seymour relations and the bulk of the pro-Protestant council including the Archbishop.
Mary might well at this point make a move garnering support from Catholic members of the council and wider gentry, though it is debatable if she would succeed.
Catholics welcomed Mary in 1553 because they had just had six years of increasing Protestant reform that would have offended Henry VIII himself. In 1547 no-one is going to know if the child Queen will be such a harsh reformer led by Cranmer and others down an increasingly aggressive reformist road.
Legally the second succession act conferred the succession to the King's issue by Jane Seymour.
Mary and Elizabeth remained illegitimate and incapable of inheriting by the legal views of the period.
In a situation where Henry remains without legitimate male issue - he has technically no need to force another succession act through - meaning his daughter by Jane is heiress presumptive and remains so.
There is a pressing case for him to avoid in those circumstances restoring his elder daughter's to the succession and I think it unlikely he would do so - he might even leave them less well off than he did in OTL.
Therefore at his death his youngest and only legitimate child succeeds - supported by her Seymour relations and the bulk of the pro-Protestant council including the Archbishop.
Mary might well at this point make a move garnering support from Catholic members of the council and wider gentry, though it is debatable if she would succeed.
Catholics welcomed Mary in 1553 because they had just had six years of increasing Protestant reform that would have offended Henry VIII himself. In 1547 no-one is going to know if the child Queen will be such a harsh reformer led by Cranmer and others down an increasingly aggressive reformist road.
She can't be. Only in Protestant eyes is se legitimate.
At most she could only be a "Henrician", ie sticking to RC doctrine but without the Pope.