That's right what if Henry VIII never excisted, the man who had plans for a global Britain and builder of the invincible RN and in his time revoulutionized ship warfare... Never excisted..... How would Britain turn out if Henry was never born... Could we see a roman catholic Britain, no RN what happens to British History if Henry VIII is never born....
Wif Henry VIII was never born
- Thread starter Gustavus Adolphus
- Start date
We need a little more information here, Gus. Is it because Henry VII decides to go hawking and was too tired and so had nothing to do with his wife the day young Prince Henry was conceived or is it because Henry VII and Elizabeth of York never get together? Did young Henry die as a baby?
We would have had him anyway if Henry VII and Elizabeth of York are on the scene. If Prince Arthur dies before King Henry VII as in our timeline, the king's eldest daughter becomes Queen Margaret. She had already married James IV of Scotland in 1503, so when she dies, their son, who became James V or Scotland, also becomes James I causing the Union of the crowns far earlier than OTL. There is no Battle of Flodden, either. No Henry VIII really muddies the waters. Someone should do a timeline. Maybe someone already has.
UMm....Elizabeth dies during childbirth of Arthur......
Now that really makes it interesting. This excludes the Stuarts from the English succession...no Princess Margaret to marry James IV. Who would the widowed Henry VII marry?
Yeah, but he wasn't one of Henry's wives that died because of Henry.
Yes...certainly no Anglican church, although I wonder if England wasn't ripe for some kind of reformation...perhaps they would have gone Lutheran. "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" and all that.
The root causes of the English Reformation weren't limited to Henry VIII, actually. It was also partly from England, despite its power, being a minnow among the cardinals that was one of the causes.
Eventually, any English monarch with sufficient beef against the Pope would break with Rome.
Oh, and this raises another question: Does Arthur survive the death of his mother?
Eventually, any English monarch with sufficient beef against the Pope would break with Rome.
Oh, and this raises another question: Does Arthur survive the death of his mother?
Yes, and there was the matter of those fat, juicy monasteries just waiting to be plundered.
Indeed - you could say the biggest effect of the Reformation was the nationalization of churches in states where it was abetted, to the point where the monarchs assumed that church property was state property, and thus, available to them.
I have to agree that England is likely to break with Rome even without Henry VIII, but England going Lutheran or Calvinist would produce all kinds of interesting butterflies. For starters, an England that is more closely tied to the other religious factions is likely to get dragged into more continental religious conflicts, which could result in huge changes. English aid to the Lutherans in the Holy Roman Empire might give them enough strength to take the Imperial Crown, or a Calvinist England could send enough aid to the Huguenots to enable them to secure France.
I actually think that a Calvinist England could support a Henry IV analogue to the point where he doesn't do the "Paris is worth a mass" thing.
Although come to think of it, it's a supreme irony that my TL's Henry, Duke of York spearheads the effort of stemming the Reformation in England (though I'm not sure about Scotland).
There are several situations that can happen if Henry VIII is never born :
1°) If Arthur Tudor survives, then he would rule. However, this does not necesserarily need Henry VIII to never been born since Arthur was older than Henry VIII.
2°) If Arthur Tudor dies as happened OTL (meaning before Henry VII), the crown passes to Margaret Tudor, wife of James IV of Scotland. We thus have an earlier United Kingdom.
3°) If Henry VIII is not born because his mother died in childbirth while giving birth to Arthur (as proposed by Gustavus Adolphus) and Arthur dies like OTL, then we have a major succession crisis after Henry VII's death, unless the King remarried and had other children. If not, Arthur would have been Henry VII's only child and thus Henry VII's successor would be far from clear : this might restart the War of the Roses, although I'm not sure if the Lancastrians have any valuable candidate left for the throne...
Anyway, Henry VIII not ruling would have interesting butterflies.
1°) If Arthur Tudor survives, then he would rule. However, this does not necesserarily need Henry VIII to never been born since Arthur was older than Henry VIII.
2°) If Arthur Tudor dies as happened OTL (meaning before Henry VII), the crown passes to Margaret Tudor, wife of James IV of Scotland. We thus have an earlier United Kingdom.
3°) If Henry VIII is not born because his mother died in childbirth while giving birth to Arthur (as proposed by Gustavus Adolphus) and Arthur dies like OTL, then we have a major succession crisis after Henry VII's death, unless the King remarried and had other children. If not, Arthur would have been Henry VII's only child and thus Henry VII's successor would be far from clear : this might restart the War of the Roses, although I'm not sure if the Lancastrians have any valuable candidate left for the throne...
Anyway, Henry VIII not ruling would have interesting butterflies.
Alright to make things interesting Arthur dies as well and Henry VII becomes grief stricken and does not remarry... What happens?
Then the Wars of the Roses start again? The Yorkists are now in a better position, perhaps; even with the loss of a woman who at different points was a daughter, a sister, a niece, and a wife of the king.