What changes to Britain might have followed if the other side had won the Battle of the Roses?

[Senex]

In a meaningful way, the Divine Right of Kings was nullified after the Glorious Revolution, which effectively enshrined constitutional monarchy.

But all that constitutional monarchy seems to mean is that the royal powers now lie with the prime minister instead of with the sovereign—they're certainly not with the assembly of the elected members of parliament. And it seems that where the sovereign is asked to do something by the prime minister, she must do it, even if that results in authorising an unconstitutional action. Did the Divine Right of Kings simply pass from kings to prime ministers? (And, of course, the Glorious <from whose perspective?> Revolution didn't touch the social order, land holdings, distribution of wealth etc — the feudal order was allowed to carry happily on in England, with a good deal of it still in place today.)

Look what happened the the great Christian cathedral of Constantinople. The Muslims turned it into a Great Mosque and it has always been cared for since then, but of course, unlike in Britain. theocracy in Muslim countries still attaches great religious adherence over secular matters.

Some places, like Seville Cathedral, did move the other way too. Hagia Sophia was certainly well looked after, eventually becoming a museum. It's the current Turkish régime that's turning it back into a functioning mosque. Most interestngly of all, perhaps, is that for some centuries of its history the Parthenon was a Christian church and cathedral.

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.

If we hadn't had the very curious Reformation of Henry or if Edward VI had lived significantly longer, I wonder what sort of Peotestantism we might have ended up with. Would it have been the Lutheran strand or the Calvinist strand? Or if Mary had lived longer, might Eamon Duffy have proved right in his contention that there was a real underlying life to English Catholicism so that if given the chance it might have re-established itself stgrongly enough to survive as the mass religion? Unfortuntely you can't assume too much on the basis of a single "What if ..?" because of all the other choices to be made later. In much more recent times, what if the shot fired in Sarajevo had missed and Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Dare I mention....Would there ever have been The Battle of the Boyne....or The Loyal Orange Institution?

 

[REVUpminster]

The driving force of Protest-ants was the translation of the bible into English and German which meant the nobles and the few peasants that could read could check what the priest was telling them was in the Bible. It's the driving force of Evangelism today. Check what the priest is telling you. Always worry about a church without bibles in the pews. There are a lot of them.

Mary Queen of Scots was ousted by the Scottish Lords, who were protestant, and her son James brought up a protestant. Henry VIII never embraced Protestantism. The Pope had gave Henry the title "Defender of the Faith". It was Anne Boleyn and Edward with Archbishop Cranmer that promoted the separation of the Church of England from Rome. Mary executed Cranmer and Elizabeth followed a middle way.

The whole of Northern Europe became protestant reflected in their national flags to this day. Germany and the Netherlands 50/50.

If there had been no Henry, then the puritans and the civil war would have happened earlier.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

The burning question I'd like answered is - would Geoffrey Boycott have existed? And, if not, would that have been a good or bad thing? Discuss.

This is the most important question of the lot .... to which I can't give an answer!

 

[Butts]

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.

Also if Edward I of England had not died in 1307 and it was him not his allegedly useless effete Son Edward II leading the English Army at Bannockburn, would Robert the Bruce have triumphed and become King of Scotland ?

More likely an English victory would have resulted in another of Edwards stooges on the Scottish Throne.

 

[DarloRich]

Lets not forget the legend is that Richard III (the evil, nephew murdering, hunchback) came within a swords length of Killing Henry Tudor before being driven off so it isn't as far fetched as one might suggest.

The interesting question about Bosworth is what would have happened if Northumberland and Stanley had come the the aid of the King? Northumberland is alleged to have ignored orders and not attacked and Stanley chose Tudor towards the end of the battle having stood about with his chaps waiting to see which way things were going!

Also if Edward I of England had not died in 1307 and it was him not his allegedly useless effete Son Edward II leading the English Army at Bannockburn, would Robert the Bruce have triumphed and become King of Scotland ?

Edward I was a mufti time course and distance winner when it came to dealing with uppity Scots. I doubt Edward I would have been so stupid as to camp where his son did, not post any kind of sentry or try to fight where he couldn't deploy his main asset: his cavalry!

 

[Railcar]

There has been an assumption in this thread that the last 'battle of the roses' was Bosworth (1485). However, the last battle in which a Tudor (Lancastrian) army met a Yorkist army of any strength was Stoke Field, in 1487.

If the Yorkists had won, Lambert Simnel would have been crowned as 'King Edward VI', though it seems likely that the Earl of Lincoln (John de la Pole), assisted by Francis Lovell, would have disposed of Simnel (be saying he had been tricked, for example) and claimed the throne.

​

 

[DarloRich]

Lambert Simnel would have been crowned as 'King Edward VI',

For those that don't know: Simnel was a young boy alleged to be the Earl of Warwick ( one of the princes in the tower allegedly offed by Trick Dicky III) and thus in the line of succession. He wasn't. He was just a young boy used as a puppet by Yorkists to further their own aims. Once the Tudors finished off the Earl of Lincoln Simnel was given a pardon and employed in the royal household.

Lincoln took the boy to Dublin ( irc) and had him crowned Edward VI.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the other side had won would the Skipton - Colne reopening campaign be the Colne - Skipton reopening campaign?

 

[eMeS]

I never was good at history, and am now completely confused...

 

[Calthrop]

I never was good at history, and am now completely confused...

Like Dr. Spooner, you feel like hissing the mystery lectures?

 

[edwin_m]

Would Todmorden have been definitively in Yorkshire rather than being a divided city up until, apparently, 1888?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would that famous Scottish bundle of fun and jolliness, John Knox, ever have reached the position that he held?

Would Todmorden have been definitively in Yorkshire rather than being a divided city up until, apparently, 1888?

The mention of Todmorden as a birth place beggars the question whether the fast bowler, Peter Lever, would have played for Yorkshire rather than for Lancashire.

 

[DarloRich]

I never was good at history, and am now completely confused...

Like Dr. Spooner, you feel like hissing the mystery lectures?

I am very good at history so happy to help. Fire away!

 

[DerekC]

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?

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.

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".

Can someone with knowledge say when "The Divine Right of Kings" ceased to have any meaning?

Although monasteries and abbeys were important as architecture, they were also great depositories for knowledge in written form, and I don't doubt that, had they survived, we would know a lot more about our "Dark Age" and early mediaeval history than we do now. There are many stories of bonfires of books and documents and many of the collections which did survive the dissolution were dispersed and lost in private hands. You can rebuild a church. You can't recreate a burned document.

 

[Calthrop]

Although monasteries and abbeys were important as architecture, they were also great depositories for knowledge in written form, and I don't doubt that, had they survived, we would know a lot more about our "Dark Age" and early mediaeval history than we do now. There are many stories of bonfires of books and documents and many of the collections which did survive the dissolution were dispersed and lost in private hands. You can rebuild a church. You can't recreate a burned document.

Yes -- accounts of people using priceless manuscripts to patch up holes in their hovels, to employ as drum-skins, etc. -- I find that aspect of the business, heartbreaking.

 

[Senex]

Yes indeed — and onslaught on knowledge unparalleled since the Viking raids and unmatched since. We have to be thankful to those few people who, for whatever reason, saw value in the contents of those monastic libraries and tried to collect what they could. But that just gives us a feeling for the incredible amount that we've lost — look at the Parker Collection at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, for example, to get a sense of what must have been there. But is there a sense in which we've never really valued the written heritage as greatly as the "thing" heritage? While we hear all the time about the evils of the Elgin Marbles or the Benin Bronzes being in the wrong place, how much do we ever hear about so much of the British literary manuscript heritage ending up in archives and libraries in the USA through the same power of money that brought the Elgin Marbles to London?