No one can say exactly what all would have been happened had that been the case. However, I have a hard time imagining how such a scenario would have prevented a significant Protestant movement in England. It’s entirely possible that some of those five hypothetical sons would have become Protestant. Much of Protestantism in England had little to nothing to do with Henry VIII, who thoroughly despised Protestant theology.
He was a staunch supporter of the papacy until…he wasn’t.
That’s a good point, yes. It was the intertwined issues of politics and power, and who held what, in what realms, wrapped around doctrine, that was causing the problem, historically. Running back around 250+ years (and one could go further), there was a series of Royal and Parliamentary actions, occasionally met by Church responses, that arose from that struggle. Henry’s issue began as a similar, but much more personal struggle. He was the perfect storm, that brought it to a head.
Since you have already shown patience in answering my questions, let me ask for a bit more.
Such an hypothetical Englishman could also conclude that the political aspects that drove Henry to take the Church in England private were (as noted) intertwined with doctrine which also justified the separation as much as the political factors did, but that Henry had not objected to. That is, Henry might have been more right, in the eyes of his successors, than he knew, than he asserted. Certainly, having made the break, Henry began dabbling in doctrinal issues, not to any great extent, but a precursor to what happened under Edward’s reign. Which was linked to what was happening on the Continent.Since you have already shown patience in answering my questions, let me ask for a bit more.
If the causes of separation between England and Rome were not doctrinal at first, might that give pause to those who are separated now when they consider that those doctrinal differences were an afterthought to an argument that had already overheated for other reasons?
And while those initial reasons for estrangement cooled in the ensuing centuries, shouldn’t the continuation of those doctrinal disputes likewise be called into question?
In other words, in his more reflective moments, might a hale and hearty Englishman consider that the only reason he is not a papist today is because some forefather bought into a load of bad theology simply because he was prejudiced against Rome at the time that theology was being peddled?
That may have been an agenda driven mostly by the evil prime minister whose name escapes me at the moment.
Hi Randy: You most likely are correct. I had not thought of that. I am not that up with English history of that time period as maybe I should be. It was something that I remembered from reading some of the history of the times.
That would be Thomas Cromwell. Who, though he was many, many things during Henry’s period, was not Prime Minister (or its equivalent in the day, Lord Chancellor). But his office of Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly involved in the idea of the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry, in the late 1530s. Wiki has a good article on the subject, including the history of such a thing, over the 200 years previous.
Very difficult this – which bodies do you count? If you add in those executed after rebellions like the Lincolnshire Rising you may well be into the thousands. Life was tough in those days. Whether he was more into executions than other monarchs of his time is questionable, however. But he certainly was not reluctant to use the axe.
Rebellion doesn’t count, in my ledger. Hank was rather restrained in the executing business, generally. Particularly considering the time on the Throne.
This is very true. Intertwined is one of my favorite words. A concept that comes into informed discussions of, say, the Inquisitions.Bit of a wimp, I’ve always thought.