Anyone else who is interested in history thinks that if Henry the VIII had not?

Question

succeeded his father Henry the VII the course of Britsh history would have been entirely different and we would still be a Catholic country?

Now there's a thought!

The era of Mouldwarp.

Henry's right to succeed was always in doubt anyway and he made sure in his lifetime that those who dared to question this right were dealt with accordingly.......Margaret Duchess of Salisbury was one who suffered under his tyranny. He may have been to instigater of Britain becoming a protestant country but those who followed the papist religion whilst he latterly reign suffered oppression and death as a consequence.

Henry Tudor did more harm to separate the South from the North of England than any other Monarch or defender of the faith including Oliver Cromwell and he was responsible for confiscating many of the big houses and lands that were owned by Yorkshire folk. He just used his split from Rome as an excuse for his pillage of own country men.

Answer 1

Separation from Rome was inevitable for an Anglo-Saxon nation who's institutions and attitudes owe very little to Catholicism, but were founded on a tradition of Independence from , and resistance to,`foreign` interference. Echoes of this attitude can be seen today when the description "Roman" Catholic` is used. This term does not appear on any Catholic church or notice board that I have ever seen,and the term is rarely used by those of that faith. Whether or not Henry kept or rejected the `foreign`religion, some movement would eventually have supplanted it. A Cromwell, Luther, Wesley,Tom Paine, or another, would have railed against the wealth, power, and institutionalised affluence of the `foreign`practice and set us on a course of a more suitable, secular, Saxon, society.

Answer 2

The Tudors were Welsh. The legacy of the Tudors is a united kingdom that still exists today. The Scots may be closer than ever to voting for a break up of the Union but to answer the question, British history would definitely have been different. The influence of Catholicism around the world has diminished and if Britain was still a Catholic country, it would not make the slightest bit of difference. Britain today is full of millions of people apathetic towards religion...just like every Catholic country!

Answer 3

More likely we would have gone the way of Germany, with a lot of people splitting off into doctrine-based (rather than divorce based!) protestant sects which would eventually become legitimized and accepted by the state while a sizeable proportion of the population continued to profess catholicism. In a sense this happened anyway, if you think of all the nonconformist groups that sprung up in England and Scotland in the 17th thru 19th centuries (quakers, methodists, calvinists etc) and if you think of the CofE as being basically the Roman Catholics shorn of the pope. Interesting question, but I think we'd probably be much the same, as the tendency in Britain was always for the state to overpower the church, as was the case in Holland.

Answer 4

If Henry hadn't left the Catholic church, the whole of western history could be very different. The Irish were badly treated by the English, partly because of being Catholic. There was a lot of resentment towards "Papists". Perhaps there would have been less strife in Ireland and during the Potato Famine the Brits might have been more sympathetic. Could be that fewer Irish would have died of starvation and more Irish would have stayed home instead of leaving for the US, Australia and England.

American history might have been different, too. Early American settlement was mostly a Protestant thing. There might have been less contention with the French if both countries had belonged to the same church. I'm sure the structure of settlements in America would have been different. The Protestant faiths didn't require that settlements have a church. In Appalachia, rural communities relied on "circuit riding preachers" who would come through every so often, preach and marry people. With the Catholic requirement that people attend mass on a regular basis, and if they didn't they were in mortal sin, would call for a different way of settling. They'd have needed communities built around a church.

Interesting question you've come up with!

Answer 5

It is an interesting idea. No one expected Henry to rule after his dad they all though it would be his brother Arthur and that's why Arthur was married to Catherine of Aragon first to secure good relations with Spain. Henry the 7th himself seized control over the throne and was an unexpected King he was a minor exiled earl who seized the crown by defeating and killing Richard the 3rd at Bosworth field. Henry the 8th great great grandfather was a fugitive Welsh Brewer who was wanted for murder who seduced The French widow of Henry the the fifth. To secure his right to the crown he married Elizabeth of York who was the daughter of Edward the fourth. What if that battle had never happened or if the two princes that Henry the seventh captured had escaped? History would of been so different from what it is today. Did you watch that programme where they traced the royal line if one event didi not happen and it lead to a man in Australia being King very entertaining.

Answer 6

I think this question is interesting but there are too many ifs to make an answer easy. If Elizabeth l had not died childless, the Catholic Stuarts would not have taken the Throne. On the other hand. had Richard lll not lost the Battle of Bosworth Catholic monarchs would have continued to reign. How long for is a matter of supposition.

Answer 7

Realistically, we are now a country that is not ruled by either Catholism or Protestantism and so would our country being Catholic in the 1500s really have made a difference?

However, perhaps the fact that the major religion in the 1500s was changed so easily (relatively), paved the way for non-believers?

Sorry to have answered a question with two others. Just adding my thoughts.

Answer 8

i think of Henry VIII is rather interesting. i do no longer understand that I actual have a known spouse, yet Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr have been the only relatively valuable better halves (Jane died earlier Henry would desire to lose interest of her and gave him the son he'd constantly needed, and Catherine Parr outlived the King). in case you like his tale, there's an remarkable documentary spoke of as "The Six better halves of Henry VIII."

Answer 9

Yes if his brother Arthur had lived or if Catherine of Argon's sons had lived English history would be very different.
It would have being very different to the monastery's and convents they wouldn't have closed and of course there would have being no Elizabeth I. I think a civil war would have broken out sooner as I am sure some people would have become Lutheran and there would be religious war, maybe like in France. Of course Henry would be shocked to see what happened to England he saw him self as a Catholic even when he broke from Rome.

Answer 10

Who else are you suggesting should have succeeded Henry VII?

Anyway, to answer your question, no I don't because people tend to get bored with the status quo (thank goodness) and reach out for new and different ways of doing things. Otherwise we would not have much in the way of expansion over the course of history. What we do with what is discovered, rediscovered, created, and modified is, in the long run, the most important part of history. And yes, history does repeat itself. Apparently we did not learn well the first time. LOL.