What would England have been like in the following centuries if the Pope had granted Henry VII his divorce or if his wife had granted him a male heir? If England had remained Catholic what major changes would History see?
Well, I suppose there wouldn't have been all that fighting between Anglicans and Catholics now, would it?
This also changes North Americans, because it's not Puritans migrating, but Catholics - UNLESS Britain pulls a Netherlands/Geneva and goes Protestant during the Reformation.
Shelly and Blake murder the pope
>>862858
WASC does not sound as good, they will need another labell.
>>862858
Catholic
>>862858
not sure... but England lost most of its medieval heritage as Henry liquidated the monasteries, destroying priceless gold and silver objects melted down into money as well as destroying tons of books.
>>862942
not to mention all the architectural heritage lost
>>862942
>>862949
>not sure... but England lost most of its medieval heritage as Henry liquidated the monasteries, destroying priceless gold and silver objects melted down into money as well as destroying tons of books.
>not to mention all the architectural heritage lost
Why you guys are dissing on one of the greatest archiviements of the anglicans/protestants?
>>862858
Ireland would be in the UK...Scotland may not be though.
>>862963
>destroying historical artifacts
>good and worthy of praise
>>862942
They church owned one third of all the land in England and they often lived isolated from the local populace. Most monasteries were far from full having as few as two dozen monks in situ so most of the land lay fallow and unused.
Henry VIII wasn't a protestant, not in the sense of Martin Luther or the Swiss, Zwingli and would have been happy to have continued doing business with Rome but he needed lots of money and some of his taxes, the Ship Tax and Scot tax were proving unpopular. The church didn't pay taxes to the crown so Henry got around this little problem by dissolving them, declaring himself head of the church and selling the lands to his barons and pocketing the money.
>>865251
Of course, I'm very familiar with the ins and outs of the period. It's not very clear that Henry's seizure of the the monasteries was as calculated as you imply, though. It arose from Henry's perpetual lack of a male heir. Had the Catholic Church confirmed his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the seizure of the monasteries may never well have happened. But it wasn't to be because Catherine was the niece (or aunt? lol dun remember) of Charles V, the big guy of Europe.
To answer your main point though, the fact that the monasteries were corrupt doesn't take away from the fact that England lost a majority of its medieval heritage in the 1530s, which is emotionally painful to think about. While I sympathize with the protestant cause, priceless relics, artworks, tapestries, books, and imposing architectural structures such as monasteries and churches were lost. And the monasteries were not all that bad; they provided significant poor relief the loss of which caused much suffering in the 1530s.
>>865349
To add, the state church system of poor relief and parish schools established during Henry's reign would be practically toothless for decades to come. The church did provide essential services in a time before state centralization.
Henry VIII is one of the most magnificent and horrible villains to ever exist.
>>865349
My knowledge of European history is not good, but I can't think of one Catholic country where the poor were better off than in Britain.
Spain, with its Inquisition? France, which remained near feudal until the Revolution?
>>865564
I agree with you, the poor in Britain were better off than most on the continent (though we have to remember that the standard of living was much lower back then). One of what historians call the "achievements" of the Tudor periods was the fact that England never experienced famine despite a steadily growing demographic pressures of the 16th century. In the following centuries, English became some of the best farmers in Europe. However, we can't necessarily attribute this to the liquidation of the monasteries...
>>865595
Let me also add that France experienced some severe famines by the end of the sixteenth century
>>865604
ayyy, and I have to take exception with this statement:
>Spain, with its Inquisition? France, which remained near feudal until the Revolution?
France had extremely variable conditions from region to region. Some areas like Normandy or the Ile de France were on par with the most developed areas of Europe at the time. Some areas like Brittany or Provence (?) were relatively backwards. Can't say anything about conditions in Spain, except the fact that the inquisition only affected a tiny minority of people, namely Jews, Moriscos (muslims) and conversos (crypto-jews), not Spanish peasants
>>865564
>naming the memeinquisition
>>865564
France was feudal until the Bourbons reformed it into an absolute monarchy somehow
>>865564
>Spain, with its Inquisition?
>France, which remained near feudal until the Revolution?
Get out.
>>862858
A backwater Catholic shithole with no importance, like all the other backwater Catholic shitholes.
>>865970
How did Protestantism make England relevant?
>>865975
No central authority, really, to come down on Scientific Revolution. Church of England was much less unified then the Catholic Church.
>muh inquisition meme
>muh Catholic Church against science
>"backwater catholic shithole with no importance"
Reminder to report and ignore Protestant propaganda.
>>866271
The problem of pretending that science and religion do not conflict lies entirely with the religious.
Not remotely concerned that religion wants to revise itself so that it can feel comfortable with science. If the pope wants to admit that Galileo was right 359 years too late, who am I to spoil their new-found sense of reason.
The point is that religion has nothing to offer science. Nothing at all.
>>866988
The church never said he was wrong, just that he couldn't teach his theory as fact because he couldn't do jack shit to prove it, and it went against the common belief
>>867366
Those conditioned to defend theology grow more tiresome daily. The is nothing to support the waste of time spent trying to validate irrational beliefs.
Religions are, in the main, still reluctant to accept the conclusions of science, and they will continue to fight the facts whilst they rely upon their dogmatic holy books as 'the truth'.
>>867377
Shut up dipshit, I don't give two shits about religion, but this gay as fucking meme of "if it weren't for catholics we'd be living on mars" has to fuck off, and you should too if you're not even gonna bother to educate yourself on the subject before piping up and spouting some shit misinformation
>>867386
That's what I like to see, reasoned arguments.
>>867401
>>867410
You misrepresent the facts to minimise the Roman church's opposition to any scientific development which threatened the Church's dogma.
>>867440
Are you talking about the catholic Ken Ham who run the creation museum?
>>867448
During the Council of Trent, faith was defined as a form of certainty, as a closed system wherein lay answers to everything. All the enquirer now had to do was look up his or her question in a catechism and there it was.
The First Vatican Council of 1870 confirmed this view of faith as about revealed certainties.
There can be no room in that system for a science that works by way of doubt, inquiry and experimentation
>>867455
You've to blame luther and other sola scriptura memers for that, you're barking at the wrong tree.
