Woul a Catholic Britain be less politically divided?

This professor should probably have looked at the history of Catholic nations before coming to this conclusion.
 
I would have to say I am sceptical. Most of the differences are in this country because of economic factors...did religious affiliation follow economic imperatives well yes but I do not think the religious differences are the causal factor rather they are the result of differing drives in the different regions of the British Isles.

I agree that Declinism is a false narrative but I am not sure I find Tombs's narrative any more convincing

If you look at our economic trading partners it was always the US and Europe, it was never really African and South America. So it wasn’t an enormous loss.

He forgets Asia as a trading partner which is why we were big in India and he also seems to forget that South America was more in the way of trading partners with a weak hand than Empire.

Further but there are plenty of Britons who have voted both Labour and Conservative in their lives, further still the modern Conservative party expanded into what it was by absorbing the Whigs from the Liberals though it may have since lurched to the right. So I am not convinced by this separate culture thing.
 
Is there a democratic country that isn't "politically divided"? There are always going to be some regions that are more left- or right-leaning than others, due to their differing interests. That's just how democracies develop.
 
I don't get this. The North was more Catholic, the South , especially London, more Protestant. This continued through Cromwell. The North was also always much poorer than the South.

The political difference that turned the North left happened during the Industrial Revolution with the growth of the manufacturing centres.
 
Why would being catholic, make Britain less politically divided.

Will catholicism, stop the poor brits from agreeing with socialism?
 
I don't see how.

And how are you defining politcially divided?

The Civil War was due to Charles I's excesses and tyranny. Even though he, his father and their immediate ancestors would have been Protestant, this still would have happened.

And with the Industrial Revolution, you'd have still had Luddites, and then abolitionists once the Industrial Revolution got underway. And in the 19th century with the Poor Laws, 20th century with suffragettes, etc.
 
These suggestions crop up all the time - that a Catholic England would be some sort of united utopia.

It ignores whether the Catholic church survives naturally (Henry VIII not breaking with Rome - granted an annulment by Rome or Catherine of Aragon gives birth to a surviving male heir for example) or whether it is restored (Henry VIII changes direction and restores relations with Rome, or Edward VI is given a Catholic education, or Mary has issue or Elizabeth is raised Catholic and has issue) by encouragement or by violence.
Both those changes ignore what is happening elsewhere in Europe - how influenced England would be by a Protestant Netherlands (a major trading partner), or a Protestant Scotland for example (a Catholic England is not necessarily going to help the Stuarts against a bottom up reformation anymore than the Protestant Elizabeth was willing to support Protestant rebels against a Catholic Monarch in OTL).

A future Catholic monarch could marry a devout Lutheran or Calvinist (if real politics dictate such a union) just as Charles I married a devout Catholic in OTL - that would unsettle and disturb people - a woman who might influence her children against the established religion of the realm.

Nor does it take into account whether a future Catholic monarch is going to offer some kind of edict of tolerance to allow Protestant citizens freedom of worship which might lead to a groundswell of change or result in its revocation forcing mass emmigration damaging the economy etc.

The Civil War which led to the establishment in the Glorious Revolution and a limited Parliamentary Monarchy - was not purely based on religious grounds - it was equally about an increasing dissatisfaction with a monarchy that was trying to rule on a very narrow band of support.

Whilst the monarch's position within the church of England caused additional problems removing that one aspect does not necessarily prevent a future monarch in a Catholic England facing revolution or rebellion.
Like the Church of England the Catholic church supported monarchy in many cases Absolute Monarchy across Europe and was not at the forefront of defending the common people against an authoritarian and remote government.

The divisions within England are not just based on areas where the Catholic church survived longer and it is hard to argue that a population would have been more united under a Catholic establishment any more than an Anglican one.
After all both churches would on the whole be made up of establishment figures, people from similar backgrounds and who would support the status quo rather than support political and social reform - Some Anglican bishops were quite prepared to argue against outlawing slavery, women's votes, civil marriage and the married women's property act in the 19th Century (I doubt Catholic bishops would have been any different).

The north did not remain completely Catholic for centuries, its separation has more to do with its distance from London in a country that was becoming increasingly centralised, areas distant from the centre of power are often great breeding grounds for dissent and that is why the North like Wales and the South West became fertile recruiting grounds for Protestant dissenters such as the Methodists and Quakers, just like grinding poverty in newly industrialised cities across England caused dissatisfaction and a disconnect from political elites.

The so called political divide doesn't really stand up - large swathes of rural England continue to vote Conservative in both the North and South, just as large parts of London vote Labour as their city-living compatriots in the north do. In most post-war elections many voters have directly switched from Labour to Tory and vice versa.

Catholic oppression in England was as much the result of outside actions by Catholics as it was the result of a Protestant government determined to eradicate it.

In almost every country in Europe where the Catholic church survived as the dominant religion it did its utmost to maintain the status quo, to crush opposition and to prevent or delay social and political change and reform.
 
Surely the outcome of continued Catholic influence results in Eire or Spain - not known for their lack of political differences

Complete tosh really.
 
No. As society developed, there was always going to be political divsion. Religion had bugger all to do with it compared with the economy. Money drives the world, the more you have the more powerful you are.
 
Top