The Big Question: What would have happened if Henry VIII had obtained his divorce?
Why are we asking this now?
Because the Vatican has just announced that it will market 200 facsimile copies of the elaborately decorated parchment from 1530, which bore an appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of the marriage of Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon.
The document is key, historians said, to understanding the formation of the English national character. It marks, said Professor David Starkey in Rome yesterday, the most important event in English history. "This is the moment at which England ceases to be a normal European Catholic country and goes off on this strange path," he said, "that leads it to the Atlantic, to the New World, to Protestantism, to Euro-scepticism."
Why did Henry want a divorce in the first place?
It wasn't a divorce, it was an annulment. To cement an alliance with Europe's most powerful country, Spain, Henry's father, Henry VII, had arranged a marriage between Henry's elder brother Arthur and the daughter of the Spanish monarchs, Queen Isabella of Castile and King Ferdinand of Aragon. When Arthur died she was married off to Henry.
But by the end of the 1520s, Henry's wife, Catherine of Aragon, was in her forties and he was desperate for a son to secure the Tudor dynasty.
Henry applied to the Pope for an annulment of the marriage, on the grounds that it was not lawful in those days for someone to marry his brother's widow. Technically that was correct. And royal annulments had happened before: Louis XII of France had been granted one in 1499. But, by then, Catherine's nephew had become the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and he did not want to see his aunt humiliated. So the Pope dilly-dallied.
What happened?
Henry fell in love with Anne Boleyn and by 1533 she was pregnant. He married her in secret. Meanwhile he had pushed through Parliament a series of Acts cutting back papal power and influence in England. Several months after the wedding he got the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer to unilaterally declare his first marriage invalid. Anne Boleyn was crowned queen a week later. A year later the Pope declared that Henry's second marriage was invalid.
Henry declared that the Pope no longer had authority in England and in 1534, Parliament passed an act that stated that Henry VIII was now the Head of "The Church of England". The Pope responded by excommunicating Henry. The king passed the Act of Supremacy. Those who would not swear allegiance to him as head of the Church were executed for treason. Then followed the Dissolution of the Monasteries, under which all the lands and possessions of Britain's religious orders were purloined by the king and his apparatchiks.
Wouldn't the reformation have happened anyway?
That was the myth peddled by the English establishment for centuries. The propaganda was that a corrupt and decaying Catholicism was replaced by a more morally pure and progressive Protestantism. But historians now challenge that view. They are led by Cambridge University's Eamon Duffy whose scholarly masterpiece, The Stripping of the Altars, was a meticulous study of the accounts, wills, primers, memoirs, rood screens, stained glass, joke-books and graffiti of the period.
What did this book show?
It showed beyond doubt that medieval Catholicism was in fact flourishing and much loved by the ordinary English people for whom it offered social and spiritual sustenance. Luther's Protestant reformation had taken no root.
"Very few people were remotely interested in ideas from Germany," said David Starkey. But "because Protestantism won and because history is written by the winners, the Protestant account of the Reformation triumphed". The Reformation in England was imposed from the top.
How was the Reformation imposed?
By a fierce centralist onslaught by the King and a small group of brutal, greedy, self-serving henchmen out for loot. Protestantism was imposed – through coercion, spying and disenfranchisement – by a cadre of political opportunists during just three decades of Henry's and then his daughter Elizabeth's reign.
Public resistance to Elizabeth's dismantling of the Catholic parish system persisted until the 1570s. And some Catholic customs and loyalties lingered until the beginning of the 17th century. However, by then, as Professor Duffy put it, England's Catholic inheritance became for the English people "a distant world, impossible for them to look back on as their own".
Wouldn't Protestantism have flourished anyway?
Probably not. Henry had persecuted English Protestants until the row over the annulment. But once his estrangement from Rome was clear, Protestants flooded into England. There was a big influx from France after the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572 when a large group of wealthy and prominent Huguenots were slaughtered in Catholic Paris. There was also a steady wave of Protestant from the Low Countries after Spain began to assert its rule there. So Protestantism was a foreign import.
How did the move towards Protestantism manifest itself?
In 1536 Henry gave permission for an English translation of the Bible to be published in England, which was a very non-Catholic act for Rome was still hiding behind its Latin. Henry continued to regard himself to be a Catholic but by doing this he began to move the Church in the direction of Protestantism. From that point onward, the Church of England claimed itself to be both Catholic and Reformed (as distinct from just Protestant) a character which many proclaim to be its continuing compromising genius to this day. It was to be 100 years before the Protestants really showed their strength – by cutting off the head of the king in the Civil War.
Were it not for the annulment, as John Stuart Mill put it in his essay On Liberty, this country would almost certainly have followed the example of the majority of the Continent. "In Spain, Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire," Mill wrote, "Protestantism was rooted out; and mostly likely would have been so in England, had Queen Mary [Henry VIII's first daughter] lived, or Queen Elizabeth died."
How would things have been different if England had remained Catholic?
"My offices might be in Rome and I might be writing in Latin," quipped Paul Handley, the editor of the Church Times, the leading Anglican newspaper, yesterday. "And what would have happened to the bolshy individualistic Englishman on which we base all our historical mythology?"
It would have been a unique Catholicism though, not fervent like the Mediterranean kind, but not separatist like the Catholism of France which is the product of a guillotine-crazed Revolution and a secularising Enlightenment. We might just be irreligious Catholics instead of irreligious Protestants. But the world may have lost something rather special.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
Steelmaker Corus To Cut 2,000. JobsSteelmaker. Corus is axing more than 2,000 jobs at plants in the north of England.
A Sky source said jobs would go from factories in Scunthorpe and Rotherham, with Rotherham expected to lose 1,000 positions. AND "Chase survived in part because hundreds of people prayed to Father Emil Kapaun to intercede on his behalf. It was absolutely a miracle." ? Paula Kear, Chase's mother
People in Colwich like to touch Chase Kear's arm or his shoulder with their fingers. Or they hug him. "Miracle Man," they say. "Let me touch the miracle." With anybody else in Colwich, this would be just talk. But it's not just talk to the Vatican.
Prompted in part by what the Kear family has said publicly, and partly by a preliminary investigation begun by the Catholic Diocese of Wichita, a Vatican investigator named Andrea Ambrosi will arrive from Italy in Wichita on Friday.
He will investigate on behalf of the church in Rome whether 20-year-old Chase Kear's survival qualifies as a miracle; whether he survived a severe head injury last year in part because his family and hundreds of friends successfully prayed thousands of prayers to the soul of Father Emil Kapaun, a U.S. Army chaplain from Pilsen, Kan., who died a hero in the Korean War.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Harry Potter writer JK Rowling remains on the billionaires' list with her $1bn (£725m) fortune unchanged from last year
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson and Sir Philip Green both saw their fortunes slashed, it is suggested.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates regains his position as the world's richest man, with a personal fortune of $40bn (£29bn) - despite losing $18bn during the year
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is the only person in the top 20 to see his wealth increase. His net worth went up by $4.5bn (£3.3bn)
Security forces in Moscow have broken up a gay march amid violent scenes.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
A monkey has urinated on Zambian President Rupiah Banda as he spoke to journalists outside his State House offices.
Who says we have no Darwin who says we have no freedon of speech, who says Henry VIII had obtained his divorce?
ALL ARE TALKS NOTHING MORE just gossips like >> When South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford cheated on his wife, he also betrayed his top political adviser.
First lady Jenny Sanford told the world in a statement Wednesday that she had sent her husband packing nearly 15 years after she launched his political career.
Mark Sanford apologized to her and their four sons at a tearful press conference where he admitted a yearlong affair with a friend in Argentina whom he had visited on a secret trip. WHO SAYS "I will give this monkey for lunch to Mr Sata," he joked, referring to opposition leader Michael Sata, who Mr Banda defeated in last year's elections."Perhaps these are blessings," he said continuing his address amid laughter from the audience of journalists and diplomats.Who says It?s unlikely that a brief fall in currency and interest rates would cause an exodus
GEE I SAY PHEW PHEW AND PHEW..
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
We could have experienced another Galileo episode thereby delaying the development of the world by hundreds/thousands of years.
I thought carrying on wars, torture and cruelty was what Christianity (and indeed religion) was all about. From Roman times through the Inquisition, the colonisation of the New World, Oliver Cromwell, George W Bush and Abu Ghraib etc. etc.
If the marriage had been annulled, I think England would still have had a civil war, or a revolution, sooner or later. Maybe we'd be a republic like France. Quite possibly the Union with Scotland would never have happened and we wouldn't all be unhappily ruled by a Scottish PM.
Reform would have happaned within the church, with or without the politically charged reformation (in a feudalistic society the religion of the people was determined by the religion of the rulers). There is absolutely no proof to the claims that the special English character would not have shaped a unique Catholic Church of England, just as the Spanish, french, Italian, Polish or German Catholic Churcheas are unique and express their respective national characters.
History is not always written by the winners. Thucydides wrote the "Peloponnesian War" about the war between the Spartan League and the Athenian League, and Xenophon completed it. Athens was defeated - both Thucydides and Xenophon were Athenians.
A major part of the Bible is the history of the Jews - who were defeated finally by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D. and even had the name of their land Judea changed to "Palestina" by Hadrian in order to forever eradicate all memory of Judea and the Jews. ("Palestine" then became synonymous with "land of the Jews" or "the Holy Land," and "Palestinian" became synonymous with "Jew," which is why the Zionists wanted the "Palestine Mandate.") The Jews were not the winners!
The histories of many countries that have been defeated are written by historians from those countries; e.g., French history after the Franco-Prussian war, German history during the twentieth century, etc.
But there again with the advent of the printing press and the improvement in literacy people could pick up a cheap bible and read it and decide for themselves whether the Vatican has it right or not.
Funnily enough the only new places of worship I see being built where I live aren't Roman Catholic but Mosques and churches where the Gospel is preached not doctrine.
Hey Ho this isn't history though, and we have allowed ourselves to be pushed into the last and dying stages of democracy with the EU and even it is trying to bribe the Church with a seat at the top table, more fat Bishops. When the elite have their boot back on our necks where it surely should be after a short respite, we won't even have a free church to fall back on for succour.
There is one comment about the RC Church suppressing science but Copernicus and Galileo were both catholics who merely proposed the earth revolves around the sun. They were not questioning any other catholic orthodoxy. Scientific method developed in both catholic and protestant Europe and Charles II took a keen interest and founded the Royal Society despite having catholic sympathies and converting on his deathbed. Scientific theory is currently disputed by both protestant fundamentalists and some catholics, as well as other faiths. I don't think its right to assume Catholicism equates to backwardness and protestantism to progress (except in matters of contraception). Its surely time that the continuing and renewed catholic tradition in Britain was accepted and celebrated (imagine no Greene no Waugh, no Polish delis) and some vestiges of protestant narrowness questioned (like the treatment of the Romanians in Belfast by Unionist protestant young men. But as LondontoLeeds points out Catholicism is slow to adapt to the modern freedom of women. I don't like protestant triumphalism (especially in Ulster when they march through catholic areas) but I'm still on the whole glad that ElizabethI turned PhillipII down. If only ElizabethII had turned Phillip down as well :)
Lest we forget.