Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ60!supernews.com!remarQ.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!arxana.demon.co.uk!Sophia From: Sophia Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:54:19 +0000 Organization: The Hanseatic League Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: arxana.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: arxana.demon.co.uk:193.237.43.175 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 947555709 nnrp-12:8118 NO-IDENT arxana.demon.co.uk:193.237.43.175 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183384 Here's a what-if that I've been thinking about for a while, but haven't been quite sure how to write. One of the most important side effects of the English Reformation was that it bankrolled the monarchy effectively for two generations: the huge landed wealth (in addition to the cash, gold and jewels and valuable raw materials) which the Crown acquired by despoiling the Church in the period 1536-1550 (ish) provided the Tudor Kings with a massive float which enabled them, to some extent, to fund their government without recourse to getting Parliament to raise taxes. Parliament held the purse strings, even then, but if you don't need the money you can tell them to fuck off - as Elizabeth I - did in a way that her successor Charles I could not. Most of the money came from the Dissolution of the Monasteries. The abbeys and priories of England collectively owned great wealth and controlled a substantial fraction of the GDP. The monasteries varied, many were major corporations, whose heads sat in the Upper House of Parliament and were great temporal lords, many more lived in poverty and obscurity. In 1535, having broken from Rome over his divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII, as head of the new Church of England, instituted an inspection (Visitation) of all the monasteries of England. On the strength of the findings of his commissioners (who knew very well what they were expected to find) in 1536 he abolished the lesser monasteries (those worth less than £200 per year) and confiscated their assets on grounds of immorality. This action gained him substantial revenues, and he needed money - being at war with Emperor Charles V (whose niece he had dishonoured) and Francis I of France - but only a tiny fraction of the total monastic wealth. The great abbeys and their cash remained untouched, for the moment, and Henry actually founded several new abbeys in 1536-37. The turning point was this. In 1536 there was a very serious uprising called the Pilgrimage of Grace, which aimed to oppose Henry's religious and social policies and restore the suppressed monasteries. Government forces crushed the revolt but it had two important consequences: Henry found the abbeys a centre of opposition to him (which he could not brook) and also a way legal way of abolishing them without having to go through the legislature. He attainted those abbots who had been involved in the revolt (and many who were not) of treason, allowing him to seize their goods on conviction, which, by a twisting of legal principle he extended to include their abbeys. Thenceforth, the subsequent threat of attainder for treason (Henry had made it treason to say anything bad about his religious reforms, or fail to report anyone else who did so), and concomitant threat of being hung, drawn and quartered, induced the abbots of the remaining monasteries to surrender to the Crown over the next three years. However, it was a close run thing: Henry's vision of the church seems to have been basically Catholic but with him as boss rather than Pope Clement VII: also, as mentioned, he was founding new abbeys while dissolving others. It could be that if there was no Pilgrimage of Grace he wouldn't have destroyed the greater monasteries, alternatively, if it had been stronger, and he won less easily, he would not have dared to destroy the great abbeys, many of which were in the North, where the revolt occurred. Some Consequences If there's no dissolution of the greater monasteries there's a number of possible results. The monarchy doesn't have the huge stack of cash it needs to pay for the wars of the mid-16th century, which means that its effectively bankrupt by the reign of Elizabeth. Lizy can't afford to be as autocratic as she wants and will have to pay more attention to the wishes of the legislature. The issues which caused the English Civil War are going to come up a lot sooner, however, memory of the Wars of the Roses is much closer, which may mean that the crown receives much more support than in OTL. Does the Crown win? In that case America gets colonised earlier and in more force. Much of the Tudor nobility and gentry (still with us today) made their fortunes in the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Without these guys the character of English society (particularly without the personal investment of the elite in Protestantism) is going to be radically different. Seeing as many of these new rich provided the leadership of the Parliamentary faction in our civil war, that's going to be radically different too, if it happens... More liberal penal system. The Dissolution threw a lot of people on the streets, both through direct effects and the new landlords taking a far more ruthless attitude to their rights and property (which is to some extent dissolved the mediaeval social contract). The Tudors initiated an increasingly harsh policy against these unemployed, who they called 'sturdy beggars', the resulting crime wave, as people were thrown off the land was met by increasing penalties, by 1650 England had around 200 capital crimes. Also lost was the dole/flophouse and social security payments that many abbeys provided in their areas. Possibility: A much more Anglo-Catholic (Catholic without the Pope) feel to society until the late 16th, but a second, puritan reformation similar to that in Scotland. The puritans, already powerful in the commons in the late 16th OTL, face Elizabeth I who is the greatest politician of her age, cunning, intelligent and determined to uphold her mediaeval monarchy. She's broke though, however the balance of landed and financial power is in favour of the traditional nobles and the church (including the abbots in the House of Lords). I'm visualising England having wars of religion in the late 16th, probably on a similar pattern to the French). Let's set those butterflies flapping.... A couple of decades of chaos 1580-1600, stable autocracy in the 17th then French style revolution at the beginning of the 18th? Can anyone do liberal democracy before 1750? -- Sophia Faith in Fabulousness www.arxana.demon.co.uk/ Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!diablo.theplanet.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!doc.ic.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: Anthony Mayer Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:44:19 +0000 Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK. Message-ID: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: wey.doc.ic.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: lux.doc.ic.ac.uk 947598260 8059 146.169.4.178 (11 Jan 2000 13:44:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@doc.ic.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2000 13:44:20 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183464 Sophia wrote: > > Here's a what-if that I've been thinking about for a > while, but haven't been quite sure how to write. Its a top WI. Would love to read the timeline. > However, it was a close run thing: Henry's vision of > the church seems to have been basically Catholic > but with him as boss rather than Pope Clement VII Indeed. The English reformation as happened hardly deserved the name. A true reformation would have some very intersting consequences. > Some Consequences > issues which caused the English Civil War ... > English society ... > More liberal penal system. [snip] Interesting! > Possibility: [snip] I'm visualising > England having wars of religion in the late 16th, > probably on a similar pattern to the French). Let's > set those butterflies flapping.... Yes. English wars of religion will be tied up with the political Civil War issues (as OTL), but these will happen in the sixteenth century, along the French lines as you suggest. If we end up with a victorious crown, then theres French style Anglo-Catholic autocracy then absolutism. Which then begs the question 'How will England behave in Europe in the seventeenth century?' If the puritans win, then perhaps an early union with Scotland? Especially with the Stuart monarchy holding both crowns. A much more puritan England will also behave differently. Alliance with the Palatinate would be much stronger than the marriage of OTL. A very different thirty years war is on the cards. Of course, with a PoD this early the thirty years war may be very different or not happen at all, but there will be some fun English involvement in European politics. > A couple of decades of chaos 1580-1600, stable > autocracy in the 17th then French style revolution > at the beginning of the 18th? Can anyone do liberal > democracy before 1750? The 17th century may very well see some good stuff, which might completely throw out an 18th century timeline on OTL pattern. I wouldn't want to think that far ahead. But events in England and France being so similar compared to OTL may lead to a parallel and interconnected political evolution. What a wonderful PoD. Please continue! Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!diablo.theplanet.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peernews!peer.news.bb.u-net.net!u-net!newsr2.u-net.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if From: richard@tga.u-net.com (Richard Gadsden) Reply-To: richard@tga.u-net.com Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Approved: Not by me! X-Matt-Giwer: Nazi Scumbag Message-Id: References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.119.190.173 X-Complaints-To: news@u-net.net X-Trace: newsr2.u-net.net 947634014 194.119.190.173 (Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:40:14 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:40:14 GMT Organization: (Posted via) U-NET Internet Ltd. Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183608 In article <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk>, aem3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Anthony Mayer) wrote: > Sophia wrote: > > > > Here's a what-if that I've been thinking about for a > > while, but haven't been quite sure how to write. > > Its a top WI. Would love to read the timeline. Help write it then! Please. This newsgroup is a collaborative venture, not a matter of people writing TLs an others commenting on them. -- Richard Gadsden "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire (attr.) Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!news.cmc.net!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!arxana.demon.co.uk!Sophia From: Sophia Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:07:45 +0000 Organization: The Hanseatic League Message-ID: References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: arxana.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: arxana.demon.co.uk:193.237.43.175 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 947635745 nnrp-09:21906 NO-IDENT arxana.demon.co.uk:193.237.43.175 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183620 <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Anthony Mayer writes >Sophia wrote: >> >> Here's a what-if that I've been thinking about for a >> while, but haven't been quite sure how to write. > >Its a top WI. Would love to read the timeline. Thankyou very much. I've only really worked out the time line into the early 1570s and it's not really ready to post yet, but I'm hoping that erudite readers here will help me by picking holes in the basic ideas and allow me to tighten it up. Potentially this is a very influential change I'm proposing though. > >> However, it was a close run thing: Henry's vision of >> the church seems to have been basically Catholic >> but with him as boss rather than Pope Clement VII > >Indeed. The English reformation as happened hardly deserved the name. A >true reformation would have some very intersting consequences. Henry's reformation was basically a change of ownership accompanied by a lot of looting and vandalism (read: liquidation of redundant branches of the organisation). However, England very nearly got a through-going Protestant reformation: during the reign of Edward VI (1547-53), Henry's sickly and unpleasant son, the radical Protestants were in the driving seat. Had he survived a few more years they might have got more of their religious changes through. The Church of England might have been to a Scandinavian Lutheran church, with a bit of added Calvinism and Royal interference. > > >Interesting! > >> Possibility: [snip] I'm visualising >> England having wars of religion in the late 16th, >> probably on a similar pattern to the French). Let's >> set those butterflies flapping.... > >Yes. English wars of religion will be tied up with the political Civil >War issues (as OTL), but these will happen in the sixteenth century, >along the French lines as you suggest. I had the French model in mind, but the Scottish experience is also relevant. Basically what I thought would happen might be this. Henry VIII leaves a much more strongly Anglo-Catholic, conservative church and governing class. During the reign of his son the radical Protestants don't really get a look in. Cranmer is probably still archbishop of Canterbury, but he has less ability to push through a Protestant agenda. When Queen Mary gets power and the C of E slips back into the Roman fold even easier than it did in our time. During all this period persecution of heretics is continuing (as it did in our time) but the definition of heresy is much wider. At the same time Protestant beliefs are growing in the nation and especially among the gentry and the upper middle class. Tensions are roused by persecution and the lack of the safety valve which the C of E provided. By the time Elizabeth gets to the throne people are determined to change things. Elizabeth's religious policies are the same as her ATL father's - Catholicism without the Pope (close to what she seems to have practised in OTL). But when the government is forced to go to parliament for money, parliament decides to exact a few concessions. The question is, how much and how quickly and bloodily are the battle lines drawn? What if there is a John Knox type Protestant fanatic leading the fight against the queen... and that's as far as I've got. >If we end up with a victorious >crown, then theres French style Anglo-Catholic autocracy then >absolutism. Which then begs the question 'How will England behave in >Europe in the seventeenth century?' Anyone's guess, especially if it's the English Republic allied with the Dutch Republic (possibly helped by France) vs Spain and the Emperor. The XXX Years War begins 30 years earlier. Something akin to Cromwell's New Model Army may even be involved >If the puritans win, then perhaps an >early union with Scotland? James, who had _views_ about the Divine Right of Kings, is going to be very chary of accepting the English throne if it's from a bunch of rebellious subjects who have dared confront their queen. He may even be inspired to put down his own more extreme Protestants in Scotland before they get any ideas. Unless they get the ideas anyway, overthrow the monarchy and perhaps form the United Commonwealth in union with England. Perhaps Prince Henry of Scotland could be Stadtholder or maybe one of the Cecils as Lord Protector. > >> A couple of decades of chaos 1580-1600, stable >> autocracy in the 17th then French style revolution >> at the beginning of the 18th? Can anyone do liberal >> democracy before 1750? > >The 17th century may very well see some good stuff, which might >completely throw out an 18th century timeline on OTL pattern. Almost certainly. -- Sophia Faith in Fabulousness www.arxana.demon.co.uk/ Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!doc.ic.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: Anthony Mayer Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:55:07 +0000 Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK. Message-ID: <387C6B9B.DFA9296F@doc.ic.ac.uk> References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: wey.doc.ic.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: lux.doc.ic.ac.uk 947678108 17971 146.169.4.178 (12 Jan 2000 11:55:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@doc.ic.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jan 2000 11:55:08 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183717 Sophia wrote: [snippage] > for money, parliament decides to exact a few concessions. The question > is, how much and how quickly and bloodily are the battle lines drawn? > What if there is a John Knox type Protestant fanatic leading the fight > against the queen... and that's as far as I've got. OK, its just an idea, and not necessarily a good one, but how about a defenestration of Westminster? I think Lizzy would manage to contain the civil war situation she faces when calling parliament. From my readings of OTL civil war Charles I managed to do just about everything wrong every stage of the way. Lizzy might have had a hard time, but could probably compromise and give parliament some concessions that didn't hurt too much. But the fundamental tensions are still going to be present; the Presbyterians et al are atill clamouring for a proper reformation. I agree with Stephen's analysis of the Scottish situation. The Stuarts are likely to be Catholic, if seperated from Rome. So its Lizzy's death that causes the trouble. You've got High Church in Scotland and England, but a very strong middle class and estates that are vehemently Calvinist (or whatever flavour you're after). Faced with a Catholic or High Church King, with memories of Bloody Mary still fresh, and unsettled issues from the parlimentary revolt you've got a recipe for a real rebellion. Parliament rejects James, throws some deputies from a window (Jewel Tower perhaps?) and offers the crown to an appropriate Calvinist player. Perhaps even the Elector Palatine? Cue anglo-scots wars, perhaps with France or Spain backing Scotland, and a serious English presence in Germany ready for when things kick off there under Ferdinand. > James, who had _views_ about the Divine Right of Kings, is going to be > very chary of accepting the English throne if it's from a bunch of rebellious > subjects who have dared confront their queen. I think this is the sticky point for my idea. Oh well. Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: tryinghard@my-deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:36:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Message-ID: <85il40$g3p$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> <387C6B9B.DFA9296F@doc.ic.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.151.12.15 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 12 19:36:34 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (WinNT; U) via NetCache version NetApp Release 3.2.1: Thu May 21 16:33:01 PDT 1998 X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 198.151.12.15 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtryinghard Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183771 In article <387C6B9B.DFA9296F@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Anthony Mayer wrote: > Sophia wrote: > > [snippage] > > > for money, parliament decides to exact a few concessions. The question > > is, how much and how quickly and bloodily are the battle lines drawn? > > What if there is a John Knox type Protestant fanatic leading the fight > > against the queen... and that's as far as I've got. > > OK, its just an idea, and not necessarily a good one, but how about a > defenestration of Westminster? > > I think Lizzy would manage to contain the civil war situation she faces > when calling parliament. From my readings of OTL civil war Charles I > managed to do just about everything wrong every stage of the way. Lizzy > might have had a hard time, but could probably compromise and give > parliament some concessions that didn't hurt too much. I presume financial crisis breaks out in 1570's or 1580's connected to subsidies to Dutch. Given that the anglo-catholic high nobility is much stronger and militarily more skilled than in OTL, (due both to civil war happening earlier, before "crisis of the nobility" had progressed so far, and due to ATL changes), given that Liz is much better leader than Charles, given that parliament is not as far along in building up institutional strength and legitimacy as in OTL civil war, I think Liz wins hands down. Or else parliament caves in before civil war breaks out and gives Liz whatever taxes she wants. In first case parliament passes from the scene, in second case its powers gradually diminish as crown is strengthened. Either situation is tempting to James, who establishes an Anglo-Catholic Stuart dynasty much along lines of Bourbon France, until the great revolution (when cockney's storm the tower of London, on July 14, 1759 :) On the other hand, when a 1570's - 1580's civil war comes at a time when liz is vulnerable to ROMAN CATHOLIC opposition, probably more so than in OTL (which is why dissolving the monasteries was not necessarily a bad move from Tudor POV.) So things could get quite out of hand. tryinghard Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news5.cableinet.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!news3.cableinet.net!not-for-mail From: q.man@cableinet.co.uk (Quiet Man) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Message-ID: <387cddca.793844@news.cableinet.co.uk> References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:17:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.117.153.48 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cableinet.net X-Trace: news3.cableinet.net 947708010 194.117.153.48 (Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:13:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:13:30 GMT Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet) Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183782 On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:07:45 +0000, Sophia wrote: ><387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Anthony Mayer > writes >>Sophia wrote: >>> >>> Here's a what-if that I've been thinking about for a >>> while, but haven't been quite sure how to write. >> >>Its a top WI. Would love to read the timeline. > >Thankyou very much. I've only really worked out the time line into the >early 1570s and it's not really ready to post yet, but I'm hoping that erudite >readers here will help me by picking holes in the basic ideas and allow me >to tighten it up. Potentially this is a very influential change I'm proposing >though. >> >>> However, it was a close run thing: Henry's vision of >>> the church seems to have been basically Catholic >>> but with him as boss rather than Pope Clement VII >> >>Indeed. The English reformation as happened hardly deserved the name. A >>true reformation would have some very intersting consequences. > >Henry's reformation was basically a change of ownership accompanied by >a lot of looting and vandalism (read: liquidation of redundant branches of >the organisation). However, England very nearly got a through-going >Protestant reformation: during the reign of Edward VI (1547-53), Henry's >sickly and unpleasant son, the radical Protestants were in the driving seat. >Had he survived a few more years they might have got more of their >religious changes through. The Church of England might have been to a >Scandinavian Lutheran church, with a bit of added Calvinism and Royal >interference. >> >> >>Interesting! >> >>> Possibility: [snip] I'm visualising >>> England having wars of religion in the late 16th, >>> probably on a similar pattern to the French). Let's >>> set those butterflies flapping.... >> >>Yes. English wars of religion will be tied up with the political Civil >>War issues (as OTL), but these will happen in the sixteenth century, >>along the French lines as you suggest. > >I had the French model in mind, but the Scottish experience is also >relevant. Basically what I thought would happen might be this. Henry VIII >leaves a much more strongly Anglo-Catholic, conservative church and >governing class. During the reign of his son the radical Protestants don't >really get a look in. Cranmer is probably still archbishop of Canterbury, but >he has less ability to push through a Protestant agenda. When Queen Mary >gets power and the C of E slips back into the Roman fold even easier >than it did in our time. During all this period persecution of heretics is >continuing (as it did in our time) but the definition of heresy is much >wider. At the same time Protestant beliefs are growing in the nation and >especially among the gentry and the upper middle class. Tensions are >roused by persecution and the lack of the safety valve which the C of E >provided. By the time Elizabeth gets to the throne people are determined >to change things. Elizabeth's religious policies are the same as her ATL >father's - Catholicism without the Pope (close to what she seems to have >practised in OTL). But when the government is forced to go to parliament >for money, parliament decides to exact a few concessions. The question >is, how much and how quickly and bloodily are the battle lines drawn? >What if there is a John Knox type Protestant fanatic leading the fight >against the queen... and that's as far as I've got. > >>If we end up with a victorious >>crown, then theres French style Anglo-Catholic autocracy then >>absolutism. Which then begs the question 'How will England behave in >>Europe in the seventeenth century?' > >Anyone's guess, especially if it's the English Republic allied with the Dutch >Republic (possibly helped by France) vs Spain and the Emperor. The XXX >Years War begins 30 years earlier. Something akin to Cromwell's New >Model Army may even be involved > >>If the puritans win, then perhaps an >>early union with Scotland? > >James, who had _views_ about the Divine Right of Kings, is going to be >very chary of accepting the English throne if it's from a bunch of rebellious >subjects who have dared confront their queen. He may even be inspired >to put down his own more extreme Protestants in Scotland before they get >any ideas. Unless they get the ideas anyway, overthrow the monarchy >and perhaps form the United Commonwealth in union with England. >Perhaps Prince Henry of Scotland could be Stadtholder or maybe one of >the Cecils as Lord Protector. > >> > > >>> A couple of decades of chaos 1580-1600, stable >>> autocracy in the 17th then French style revolution >>> at the beginning of the 18th? Can anyone do liberal >>> democracy before 1750? >> >>The 17th century may very well see some good stuff, which might >>completely throw out an 18th century timeline on OTL pattern. > >Almost certainly. > >-- >Sophia > >Faith in Fabulousness >www.arxana.demon.co.uk/ Assuming Elzabeth has the strength to hold off an internal revolt she could return to the method in OTL where she descends in court strength to live off her enemies lands by staying as a guest (Bleeding them dry). With funds so short an increase in crown supported piracy against Spanish new world shipping would be called for. Possibly even a greater involvement in new world colonies to support the ships of war. She may also have at her disposal a well trained fanatical army somewhat similar to the new model army. This poses some interesting possibilities on English foreign policy. Mary had given away Calais as a wedding present to the Catholic King of Spain. What more of an incentive to reunite the nation than to reclaim this area from Catholic hands. Though up against a well trained Spanish army (The best in Europe at that time as I recall) consolidating or holding any gains would be hard. Though possibly worth it if only to get the fanatics out of the country. Quiet man. Message-ID: <387C7853.34CF@ActOnline.com.au> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:49:23 +1100 From: Nich Hills Reply-To: nhills@ActOnline.com.au Organization: Home user X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: genie.canberra.net.au!unknown@dialup307.canberra.net.au X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.canberra.net.au X-Trace: 12 Jan 2000 20:56:35 -0800, news.canberra.net.au Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.highway1.com.au!news.canberra.net.au Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183726 Sophia wrote: > However, it was a close run thing: Henry's vision of > the church seems to have been basically Catholic > but with him as boss rather than Pope Clement VII: > also, as mentioned, he was founding new abbeys > while dissolving others. It could be that if there was > no Pilgrimage of Grace he wouldn't have destroyed > the greater monasteries, alternatively, if it had been > stronger, and he won less easily, he would not > have dared to destroy the great abbeys, many of > which were in the North, where the revolt occurred. If there in no Pilgrimage of Grace, Henry's position as Head of the Church of England has been broadly accepted. The C of E continues as per OTL but Henry has to find more ingenious ways of raising revenue. Perhaps Morton's Fork II? A stronger Pilgrimage of Grace is interesting. If Henry doesn't achieve the greater revenue he desires, and he has been faced down by the great abbeys, mightn't it be worthwhile to seek a reconcilliation with the Pope? After all, if headship of the C of E doesn't bring in revenue, and leaves you as the only ex-communicant in the war with Charles V and Francis I, what is the office worth? A pennitant Henry VIII raises the possibility of a Catholic Edward VI and a Catholic Elizabeth I. And a Catholic Elizabeth I leads England down a very interesting time line. > Possibility: A much more Anglo-Catholic (Catholic > without the Pope) feel to society until the late 16th, > but a second, puritan reformation similar to that in > Scotland. The puritans, already powerful in the > commons in the late 16th OTL, face Elizabeth I > who is the greatest politician of her age, cunning, > intelligent and determined to uphold her mediaeval > monarchy. How strong will the Puritans of this ATL be, if there has been unbroken Catholicism as the state religion save for the aberation of a few years of para-Catholicism under Henry? > She's broke though, however the > balance of landed and financial power is in favour > of the traditional nobles and the church (including > the abbots in the House of Lords). Looting the assets of the abbey is only a one-off revenue raising measure. It is comparable to the 20th century practicea of Privitisation (selling off the family silver) and Confiscational Nationalisation (pinching someone else's family silver). Henry and Elizabeth are forced, in this TL, to put the finances of the nation on a sound footing sooner than in OTL. > I'm visualising > England having wars of religion in the late 16th, > probably on a similar pattern to the French). I guess they could have, after all, the neighbours did. So who correspond to the Huguenots and the Presbyterians? The Puritans? How do they become powerful with a total lack of state sponsorship. Do they become powerful because of a lack of state sponsorship? Would one good St Bartholemew's Day Massacre end the political power of the Puritans, or would they be more resiliant than that? Does Elizabethan England still go to war with Phillip II's Spain? Can Elizabeth use it to unite the country? Does a common enemy do more that merely paper over the antagonisms between Catholic and Protestant? Will a Protestant James VI be an acceptable monarch for a Catholic England, or will he suffer the fate of ATL's James II/VII? Cheers, Nich -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Nich Hills Email: nhills@ActOnline.com.au ----------------------------------------------------------- Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!news1.bewellnet.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hub.org!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!robin.server.COLT.NET!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail From: "Stephen Copinger" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:27:06 -0000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Message-ID: <387bb2d4$1$157@news.zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-a226.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 947630804 157 194.247.44.226 Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183578 Sophia wrote in message ... > >Possibility: A much more Anglo-Catholic (Catholic >without the Pope) feel to society until the late 16th, >but a second, puritan reformation similar to that in >Scotland. The puritans, already powerful in the >commons in the late 16th OTL, face Elizabeth I >who is the greatest politician of her age, cunning, >intelligent and determined to uphold her mediaeval >monarchy. Just while you mention the Scots, this change in England could have major impacts on the Scottish Reformation, which (IMO) was more of a political than religious matter. With an Anglo-Catholic England, it's quite possible more of the Scottish protestants would also be High Church thus less inclined to support Knox and more in favour of leaving the established church as it was. There could be less pressure on Mary to ahve James raised protestant and even if he were, again this could be more High Church. The knock on effect if the Puritans seize power in England in late C16th is a reversal of OTL with Calvanists running England with "Scotto-Catholics" (or even Roman Catholics) running Scotland. Could lead to some interesting C17th politics. Especially if England doesn't have so much centralised wealth. Beannachd leibh Stephen Path: rQdQ!rQ66!remarQ73!remarQ.com!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!diablo.theplanet.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peer.news.th.u-net.net!u-net!newsr2.u-net.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if From: richard@tga.u-net.com (Richard Gadsden) Reply-To: richard@tga.u-net.com Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Approved: Not by me! X-Matt-Giwer: Nazi Scumbag Message-ID: References: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.119.190.173 X-Complaints-To: news@u-net.net X-Trace: newsr2.u-net.net 947634013 194.119.190.173 (Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:40:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:40:13 GMT Organization: (Posted via) U-NET Internet Ltd. Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183611 In article , Sophia@arxana.demon.co.uk (Sophia) wrote: [Excellent explanation of the dissolution of the monasteries] > Some Consequences > > If there's no dissolution of the greater monasteries > there's a number of possible results. > > The monarchy doesn't have the huge stack of cash > it needs to pay for the wars of the mid-16th > century, which means that its effectively bankrupt > by the reign of Elizabeth. Lizy can't afford to be as > autocratic as she wants and will have to pay more > attention to the wishes of the legislature. The > issues which caused the English Civil War are > going to come up a lot sooner, however, memory > of the Wars of the Roses is much closer, which > may mean that the crown receives much more > support than in OTL. Does the Crown win? In that > case America gets colonised earlier and in more > force. Mmm. Remember the involvement of the Puritans and the rising proto-bourgeoisie in the Civil War. Also Parliament's attitude was much affected by the Elizabeth era where it had developed the traditions of being in charge of the purse-strings. Not sure it would happen much quicker, though it might be 1620 or 1630 rather than 1640. > Much of the Tudor nobility and gentry (still with us > today) made their fortunes in the Dissolution of the > Monasteries. Without these guys the character of > English society (particularly without the personal > investment of the elite in Protestantism) is going to > be radically different. Seeing as many of these new > rich provided the leadership of the Parliamentary > faction in our civil war, that's going to be radically > different too, if it happens... Umph! That rather changes things too. An Anglo-Catholic, more Royal (because Henry VIII upset the Plantagenet system less) England may never develop the Parliamentary traditions of the Tudor era; which means that Parliament may get completely dissolved like the Estates-General in France. [snippage] > Possibility: A much more Anglo-Catholic (Catholic > without the Pope) feel to society until the late 16th, > but a second, puritan reformation similar to that in > Scotland. The puritans, already powerful in the > commons in the late 16th OTL, face Elizabeth I > who is the greatest politician of her age, cunning, > intelligent and determined to uphold her mediaeval > monarchy. She's broke though, however the > balance of landed and financial power is in favour > of the traditional nobles and the church (including > the abbots in the House of Lords). I'm visualising > England having wars of religion in the late 16th, > probably on a similar pattern to the French). Let's > set those butterflies flapping.... Heading off in a different direction from me War of religion would be very messy. Puritanism may not happen without the dissolution; or might be much more closely associated with Scotland. How presbyterian was James VI - can we make him presbyterian enough to be a puritan hero? An anti-Catholic presbyterian Stuart family would be interesting. > A couple of decades of chaos 1580-1600, stable > autocracy in the 17th then French style revolution > at the beginning of the 18th? Can anyone do liberal > democracy before 1750? Move the chaos down a decade, I think. Then we get a presbyterian Stuart autocracy. Why the revolution so early? France's /ancien/ /regime/ lasted two centuries before it ran out of cash. I expect that the Stuarts will avoid Parliament rather than overthrowing it (usual reactionary problem) and there will be problems inventing new taxes, though there will be plenty made up in the early C17. Hmmm. Interesting. -- Richard Gadsden "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire (attr.) Path: rQdQ!rQ66!remarQ73!remarQ.com!supernews.com!news.infoave.net!news.infoave.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail From: "Stephen Copinger" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:56:52 -0000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Message-ID: <387bc5f8$0$158@news.zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-a068.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 947635704 158 194.247.44.68 Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183621 Richard Gadsden wrote in message ... >Heading off in a different direction from me War of religion would be >very messy. Puritanism may not happen without the dissolution; or might >be much more closely associated with Scotland. How presbyterian was >James VI - can we make him presbyterian enough to be a puritan hero? > Unlikely. James was raised protestant solely for political reasons - remember Mary was Catholic. OTL the Scottish nobility can be considered as a range from High to Low Church (remembering the RC was still established). An English Reformation giving a more High Church outcome would IMO pull that Scottish range higher. (It might even kill off Knox's Reformation altogether.) James wasn't raised terribly presbyterian OTL, so I suspect in ATL he ends up being nominally protestant. Add in puritans causing problems for Elizabeth in England, and I can see the Scottish Establishment giving Knox short shift. Beannachd leibh Stephen Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!news.cmc.net!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.crhc.uiuc.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ux11.cso.uiuc.edu!shimmin Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if From: "Robert G. Shimmin" X-Sender: shimmin@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) In-Reply-To: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> Message-ID: References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:22:40 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.174.5.105 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uiuc.edu X-Trace: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu 947643760 128.174.5.105 (Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:22:40 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:22:40 CST Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183642 An interesting side-note to this: When the Church properties submitted to taxation by the throne, they did so with the understanding that the state would take over a responsibility that up to that point had been the Church's: caring for orphans, widows, sick paupers, etc. This marks the birth of the welfare state in England. How would living in a society where caring for the poor was a religious rather than political concern have changed the works of the social and economic philosophers of the 1700's. Robert Shimmin Path: rQdQ!remarQ70!remarQ.com!supernews.com!news.cmc.net!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.au.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!holland From: holland@cleaner1.obs.aau.dk (Stephen Holland) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Subject: Re: A different Reformation (no Dissolution of the Monasteries) Date: 12 Jan 2000 09:22:53 GMT Organization: University of Aarhus, Department of Computer Science (DAIMI) Message-ID: References: <387B33B3.92948E18@doc.ic.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: cleaner1.obs.aau.dk X-Trace: xinwen.daimi.au.dk 947668933 11835955 255.255.255.255 (12 Jan 2000 09:22:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@daimi.au.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jan 2000 09:22:13 GMT In-reply-to: "Robert G. Shimmin"'s message of Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:22:40 -0600 Xref: rQdQ soc.history.what-if:183709 In article "Robert G. Shimmin" writes: > When the Church properties submitted to taxation by the throne, they >did so with the understanding that the state would take over a >responsibility that up to that point had been the Church's: caring for >orphans, widows, sick paupers, etc. > This marks the birth of the welfare state in England. > How would living in a society where caring for the poor was a >religious rather than political concern have changed the works of the >social and economic philosophers of the 1700's. The Church-based welfare system never worked very well. People were often required to go to the parish of their birth to get aid only to be told, on arrival, that they had to go to the parish where they lived. Giving up the requirement to look after the poor didn't cost the Church very much compared to the taxation that the Church usually had to pay. If welfare had remained in the hands of the Church I suspect that some of the philosophers of the 1700s would have argued that caring for the poor was a state responsibility rather than a religious one, and cited the inefficiencies of the Church as evidence for this. -- ===================================================================== http://www.ifa.au.dk/~holland/index.html Hypochondriacs get sick too. =====================================================================