Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Have website members any views on what changes might have followed on from this?
Indeed! Richard was the defeated Yorkist.The House of Lancaster did win the Wars of the Roses (Henry Tudor was from that side).
All three of them very interesting ones. If Harold had won in Sussex then all English land would not have passed to the ownership of William and allodial holdings would have remained instead of most hand being handed out to William's followers (the reward they expected), the Norman-style feudal structure would not have been imposed with the near-enslavement of much of the Anglo-Saxon population, there would have been no Harrying of the North, the English language would be very different indeed — and presumably the great Norman building spate of castles and cathedrals would not have happened, but rather a slower and somewhat different architectural development. Might we, a thousand years later, have ended up looking very much more like a Scandinavian society? But who can even begin to say what other things might subsequently have happened very differently if William had been thrown back into the sea on that autumn day in 1066?Interesting flights of fancy / parallel universe scenarios in imagining just how things might have panned out differently had key points in English history been changed.
For example, if Harold II hadn't had to have speed marched up North to battle the Vikings at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire in 1066 almost immediately before facing William of Normandy in Sussex.
If the Black Death hadn't devastated England (and much of the rest of Western Europe) in the mid 14th century and the years following.
If Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite march from Scotland into England in 1745 had been more determined and they'd not turned back at Derby.
...to give three examples.
....which Henry VIII sought to flog off for a bit of ready cash....Yes. The Normans might have been gits, but they left behind some decent buildings.
....which Henry VIII sought to flog off for a bit of ready cash....
On a more serious note, would The Plantation of Ulster ever needed to have taken place?
Although Henry Tudor's defeat would have meant no Henry VIII, that wouldn't necessarily have meant England remaining Catholic.Would England have remained in the Catholic fold - how would relations with Spain and France have differed afterwards. Would Catholic England have seen the need to colonise America without various bickering protestant sects, etc
Without the Tudor dynasty, the history of the world may have been dramatically different.
Although Henry Tudor's defeat would have meant no Henry VIII, that wouldn't necessarily have meant England remaining Catholic.
Henry VIII may have set up the Church of England to legitimise his marital status, but there had already been moves towards a reformation. Theologians like Wycliffe had proposed reforms in the 14th century, and later Tyndale had links with Lutheran reformers in northern Europe. Both promoted the availability of bibles in English as a way of reducing the power of the clergy, and pressure for these translations would still have been there under a different monarchy.
So personally I think it's likely that England would still have become a Protestant nation even without Henry, albeit probably on a different timescale.
I'm busy researching my family tree - the vast majority of which shows Scottish planters to the Ulster Colony (albeit for my particular branch we returned to the homeland).
No Plantation = no me! So hurrah for James VI & I.
Although Henry Tudor's defeat would have meant no Henry VIII, that wouldn't necessarily have meant England remaining Catholic.
Henry VIII may have set up the Church of England to legitimise his marital status, but there had already been moves towards a reformation. Theologians like Wycliffe had proposed reforms in the 14th century, and later Tyndale had links with Lutheran reformers in northern Europe. Both promoted the availability of bibles in English as a way of reducing the power of the clergy, and pressure for these translations would still have been there under a different monarchy.
So personally I think it's likely that England would still have become a Protestant nation even without Henry, albeit probably on a different timescale.
Yes, those are good points. Would something else have prompted the split from Rome !
I wonder how many other monarchs in Europe decided to set up their own church, with them at its head, in order to facilitate a personal whim?Although Henry Tudor's defeat would have meant no Henry VIII, that wouldn't necessarily have meant England remaining Catholic.
Henry VIII may have set up the Church of England to legitimise his marital status, but there had already been moves towards a reformation. Theologians like Wycliffe had proposed reforms in the 14th century, and later Tyndale had links with Lutheran reformers in northern Europe. Both promoted the availability of bibles in English as a way of reducing the power of the clergy, and pressure for these translations would still have been there under a different monarchy.
So personally I think it's likely that England would still have become a Protestant nation even without Henry, albeit probably on a different timescale.
Would that mean that England would still have those still functioning gems of architecture that were built by different religious orders rather than the ruins of the majority of them?If Richard III had won at Bosworth, it would have meant no Henry VIII, which may not have lead to the dissolution of the monasteries.
Yes, I did wonder this, however With the exception of knowing that both Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots were related via Henry Tudor, I don't know enough about how else the two monarchies were related.If Richard III had won at Bosworth, it would have meant no Henry VIII, which may not have lead to the dissolution of the monasteries.
Also, after Elizabeth I died, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, which arguably led to the Act of Union in 1707 between England and Scotland.
Had the Plantagenet line of succession continued, would we have had the union of the crowns at some other point in the future, and would England and Scotland have remained separate countries to this day?
Yes, I did wonder this, however With the exception of knowing that both Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots were related via Henry Tudor, I don't know enough about how else the two monarchies were related.
I think it is possible that the crowns of England and Scotland may have become united by marriage, rather than Elizabeth I dying without an heir.
Henry VIII wanted to have his son Edward married to Mary Queen of Scots, and tried to use force ("the rough wooing") to bring this about.
Royal marriages were often arranged for political gain up until quite recently.
If Richard III had won at Bosworth, it would have meant no Henry VIII, which may not have lead to the dissolution of the monasteries.
The dissolution of the monasteries was a disaster architecturally (although the ruins can be beautiful in themselves), but was probably necessary. The 16th century church was arguably corrupt, and certainly more interested in preserving its own power and wealth than anything else. Once reformist pressure built, with help from the Lutherans, there would have been a movement to, ahem, "take back control" from Rome and to anglicise both the church and its teachings.Would that mean that England would still have those still functioning gems of architecture that were built by different religious orders rather than the ruins of the majority of them?
Were the monies from the sale of those buildings needed by Henry VIII to help to finance a war effort in those days? The power of the monarch these days is not what it was in that period. Just imagine the public outcry there would be if Westminster Abbey and York Minster suddenly appeared as "being on sale by auction".The dissolution of the monasteries was a disaster architecturally (although the ruins can be beautiful in themselves), but was probably necessary. The 16th century church was arguably corrupt, and certainly more interested in preserving its own power and wealth than anything else. Once reformist pressure built, with help from the Lutherans, there would have been a movement to, ahem, "take back control" from Rome and to anglicise both the church and its teachings.
Whether Henry put the wealth that he took from the monasteries to any better use than had the monks, is another question.
In a meaningful way, the Divine Right of Kings was nullified after the Glorious Revolution, which effectively enshrined constitutional monarchy.Were the monies from the sale of those buildings needed by Henry VIII to help to finance a war effort in those days? The power of the monarch these days is not what it was in that period. Just imagine the public outcry there would be if Westminster Abbey and York Minster suddenly appeared as "being on sale by auction".
Can someone with knowledge say when "The Divine Right of Kings" ceased to have any meaning?
Had the great abbeys survived, we would by now be worrying how we could pay for their upkeep.
Were the monies from the sale of those buildings needed by Henry VIII to help to finance a war effort in those days? The power of the monarch these days is not what it was in that period. Just imagine the public outcry there would be if Westminster Abbey and York Minster suddenly appeared as "being on sale by auction".