WI: No English Reformation? England remains Catholic?

What if Henry VIII secured a heir and never formed the Church of England and remained Catholic? Will there still be an English Civil War between Royalists and Parliamentarians, and a United Kingdom?
 
Without the dissolution of the monasteries, the Crown would be considerably weaker, either having to scale back expensive ventures (especially the army and the navy) or having to rely even more heavily on taxation and confiscatory fines for trumped-up offenses than IOTL.

There was also a not-insignificant groundswell of support for the OTL English Reformation. It wasn't Henry VIII dragging his country kicking and screaming into Protestantism, but very nearly the opposite. Henry just wanted political control of the church in England, not a theological separation, but once he opened the door to Protestantism, the English Reformation went much further than he'd intended it to.

Also bear in mind that most of England neighbors, major trading partners, and logical strategic allies go Protestant (IOTL or ITTL): Scotland, the Dutch Republic, Sweden, Denmark, and most of the northwestern German states. They'll be a big influence and source of support for an underground English Protestant movement.

If the Crown stays Catholic, I'd expect an analogue to the Puritan movement steadily gaining strength over the course of the 16th century, combined with a series of escalating conflicts between the King and Parliament over money. Commons won't have the strength in TTL 16th century that it had in OTL 17th century, but that's balanced out by the increased hostility of Lords due to increased Star Chamber shakedowns of individual noble families for money. I think a civil war of some form is likely during TTL 16th century, if not necessarily by a Commons-lead Puritan Republic, then at least lead by an alternate royal claimant (a son, in-law, or cousin of King Henry or his heir? A Stuart attempt to conquer England with the support of English rebels? Or perhaps a more distant claimant, like Buckingham or Huntingdon?) who banks on support of protestants, the emerging merchant class, and disgruntled nobles.
 
If England doesn't go Protestant, Scotland probably doesn't either - England was a major supporter of Scots reformers during the 1530s and 40s and gave them a safe-haven during bouts of persecution. Also it's worth noting that there was significant resistance to the Reformation in some sections of society.
 
Anyone has any idea how would in this case English foreign policy be any different? Having them and France both Catholic would not matter in their relations much and they would wage wars without a doubt. Any closer relations with Spain, maybe more wars with Netherlands ?
 
Anyone has any idea how would in this case English foreign policy be any different? Having them and France both Catholic would not matter in their relations much and they would wage wars without a doubt. Any closer relations with Spain, maybe more wars with Netherlands ?
A catholic England would likely evolve like France in religious matters, with a "Brittanian" church as the "Gallican" one.

Spain was too much powerful and invasive to make good relations with it, if it wouldn't make as wars than OTL (mainly because no terrestrial boundaries) maybe that England would side with France against Spain and HRE.

I wouldn't be that surprised if catholic kings would help a protestant Netherlands, first it was the main debouche of english trade trough Europe, but weakening HRE and Spain would be a bonus point "à la Richelieu".

Protestants, without a doubt, would have holdouts in the island but probably severly persecuted.

Eventually, Irish-English hostilities could be hugely lowered.
 
Without the dissolution of the monasteries, the Crown would be considerably weaker, either having to scale back expensive ventures (especially the army and the navy) or having to rely even more heavily on taxation and confiscatory fines for trumped-up offenses than IOTL.

Weren't there Catholic countries that nonetheless abolished monasteries and confiscated Church property?
 
Weren't there Catholic countries that nonetheless abolished monasteries and confiscated Church property?

Austria under HRE Joseph II was one big instance of this.

Partly this was to do with the Enlightenment, and partly because he wanted more control/centralisation of power.
 
The Civil War wasn't inevitable, and the fact that England and Scotland had the same king had a lot to do with how it started. The fact that the king in question was Charles I was significant in itself.

Charles was totally frustrated with parliament, and had reacted not calling one for years. He was able to get away with it by not getting too ambitious in what he tried to do, and using customs revenue as his source of funds. But there was a long-standing rule that taxes had to be authorized by parliament, and when Charles finally needed funds, the new parliament was, not surprisingly, in a pretty ugly mood.

Since Charles would not be king of England in this timeline, and most other kings wouldn't have done without parliament, a major factor disappears. Charles would still be king of Scotland. Whether he would have tried the same tactic there I don't know, but at worst it confines the Civil War to the north.

Also, the reason that Charles finally got around to recalling parliament was that he needed an army. He needed one because he had tried to impose the English Prayer Book in Scotland. The Scots refused it and chased his representatives out. Charles wanted to reimpose his authority and prayer book, but couldn't do it unless he recalled parliament and got a grant of funds. This whole scenario disappears given the factual premise of this timeline -- there wouldn't be an English prayer book since England stays Catholic, and, even if there had been one available, Charles wouldn't have had a reason to impose it in Scotland.

So could there have been a Civil War? Yes, but you have to start from scratch to get a cause, and the entire timeline will be new.
 
Top