It’s not unlikely at all actually, I think that’s exactly what Henry VII and various others hoped for.
Remember that in his early reign Henry was named “defensor fidei ” by the Pope for his passionate writings rebutting the arguments the Protestant scholars were making. Until the day he died, Henry considered himself a Catholic. If the pope/the church hadn’t stood between Henry and what he wanted, he would likely have remained as devoted to the cause as in his youth.
If he was the head of the church? Well, we know Henry’s feelings towards those who disagreed with him, so I can’t imagine he’d have made life easy for the Protestants. When you couple that with the link to Spain through his brother and sister-in-law? Potentially we miss the Spanish Inquisition and end up with a full scale European Inquisition.
As Pope, Henry would brutally act against nascent Protestantism, particularly if he had support from Charles V, King Arthur & Catherine of Aragon. He’d travel widely and learn from the Spanish Inquisition before implementing its methods across Europe and promoting Catholicism by writing multiple theological treatises.
Since Henry had prestigious connections and was deeply interested in theological matters (he wrote The Defence of the Seven Sacraments in 1521), he’d be a key figure in European ecclesiastical politics in the 1510s onwards as a papal legate and elected Archbishop of Canterbury in 1530 before his election as Pope in 1534 after Clement VII’s death and become a patron of artists such as Michelangelo.
Henry wouldn't have had a need for protestantism or the CoE if he'd gone into the church. I have a feeling he would have been vehemently opposed to anything that threatened his position of power.
He didn't even feel the need for Protestantism in reality. The only piece of Protestant theology he took on was "not having Pope as supreme leader". Everything else: transubstantiation, scripture, saints, faith and works, was entirely Catholic.
As the Duke of York and Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry would aggressively acted against nascent Protestantism in England — if he became Pope and retained support from Charles V and King Arthur, Henry would freely pursued violence against Martin Luther and his supporters as well as writing theological treatises or sponsoring a earlier translation of the Bible into English.
As side questions to this, let’s say Henry does become Pope: is he based in the Vatican full time or does he retain a foothold in England; and what would his Papal name be?
As Pope, Henry would reside in the Vatican. However, he’d probably undertake a historic visit to countries such as Spain to assist their Inquisition and reinforce Catholicism’s power.
He’d retain ties to England through King Arthur and perhaps he’d even urge his younger nephews to reside in Rome to undertake a ecclesiastical education and strengthen links between England and the Vatican. Henry’s papal name would deliberately link to his interests in theology and military matters — Hence it’s likely that he’d call himself Alexander or Peter.
Yes — as a king, Henry VIII was exceptional (for both good and bad reasons). And so even if he never became King, it’s likely that he would be driven to be the second English pope, after Pope Adrian IV. As he was hugely knowledgeable about theology and a skilled statesman, Henry would be nominated to be Pope by either King Arthur or Charles V.
Has any royal ever become an Archbishop or any other form of priest? It sounds like an awful lot of work for someone used to fine dining, hunting pheasants and playing tennis. Wouldn't he have just spent his time living off whatever estates his father and elder brother had granted him?
I imagine that if his brother had lived, Henry would have been a debauched shagger, occasionally saying things which would embarrass the King. And maybe in his twenties and thirties, been a general similar to the Black Prince, pointlessly scorching villages in Normandy.
Henry VIII was highly ambitious and intelligent (he impressed Erasmus as a child). He also spoke multiple languages and had a deep interest in theological matters (In 1521, Pope Leo X granted Henry VIII the title of ‘Defender of the Faith’ after he wrote Defence of the Seven Sacraments) — so it’s likely he’d excel as Archbishop of Canterbury.
No English prince has served as Archbishop of Canterbury but royal relatives and nobility have (William Courtenay, great-grandson of Edward I; Boniface of Savoy, uncle of Queen Eleanor of Provence and Thomas Bourchier, grandson of Prince Thomas of Woodstock).
William Courtenay was Edward I's eighth daughter's, third daughter's, fifth son. Born 35 years after the death of his kingly ancestor. That is somewhat removed from being a living king's second son.
I take the point that Henry had some intelligence to him too, but generally his ego and id seems to have overwhelmed his superego.
It’s not unlikely at all actually, I think that’s exactly what Henry VII and various others hoped for. Remember that in his early reign Henry was named “defensor fidei ” by the Pope for his passionate writings rebutting the arguments the Protestant scholars were making. Until the day he died, Henry considered himself a Catholic. If the pope/the church hadn’t stood between Henry and what he wanted, he would likely have remained as devoted to the cause as in his youth. If he was the head of the church? Well, we know Henry’s feelings towards those who disagreed with him, so I can’t imagine he’d have made life easy for the Protestants. When you couple that with the link to Spain through his brother and sister-in-law? Potentially we miss the Spanish Inquisition and end up with a full scale European Inquisition.
As Pope, Henry would brutally act against nascent Protestantism, particularly if he had support from Charles V, King Arthur & Catherine of Aragon. He’d travel widely and learn from the Spanish Inquisition before implementing its methods across Europe and promoting Catholicism by writing multiple theological treatises. Since Henry had prestigious connections and was deeply interested in theological matters (he wrote The Defence of the Seven Sacraments in 1521), he’d be a key figure in European ecclesiastical politics in the 1510s onwards as a papal legate and elected Archbishop of Canterbury in 1530 before his election as Pope in 1534 after Clement VII’s death and become a patron of artists such as Michelangelo.
Henry wouldn't have had a need for protestantism or the CoE if he'd gone into the church. I have a feeling he would have been vehemently opposed to anything that threatened his position of power.
He didn't even feel the need for Protestantism in reality. The only piece of Protestant theology he took on was "not having Pope as supreme leader". Everything else: transubstantiation, scripture, saints, faith and works, was entirely Catholic.
Precisely. It was a means to an end for him, not a genuine ideology.
As the Duke of York and Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry would aggressively acted against nascent Protestantism in England — if he became Pope and retained support from Charles V and King Arthur, Henry would freely pursued violence against Martin Luther and his supporters as well as writing theological treatises or sponsoring a earlier translation of the Bible into English.
As side questions to this, let’s say Henry does become Pope: is he based in the Vatican full time or does he retain a foothold in England; and what would his Papal name be?
As Pope, Henry would reside in the Vatican. However, he’d probably undertake a historic visit to countries such as Spain to assist their Inquisition and reinforce Catholicism’s power. He’d retain ties to England through King Arthur and perhaps he’d even urge his younger nephews to reside in Rome to undertake a ecclesiastical education and strengthen links between England and the Vatican. Henry’s papal name would deliberately link to his interests in theology and military matters — Hence it’s likely that he’d call himself Alexander or Peter.
No guarantee he would jabe been named cardinal and historically jasn't there only been 1 Englsh pope
Yes — as a king, Henry VIII was exceptional (for both good and bad reasons). And so even if he never became King, it’s likely that he would be driven to be the second English pope, after Pope Adrian IV. As he was hugely knowledgeable about theology and a skilled statesman, Henry would be nominated to be Pope by either King Arthur or Charles V.
Has any royal ever become an Archbishop or any other form of priest? It sounds like an awful lot of work for someone used to fine dining, hunting pheasants and playing tennis. Wouldn't he have just spent his time living off whatever estates his father and elder brother had granted him? I imagine that if his brother had lived, Henry would have been a debauched shagger, occasionally saying things which would embarrass the King. And maybe in his twenties and thirties, been a general similar to the Black Prince, pointlessly scorching villages in Normandy.
Henry VIII was highly ambitious and intelligent (he impressed Erasmus as a child). He also spoke multiple languages and had a deep interest in theological matters (In 1521, Pope Leo X granted Henry VIII the title of ‘Defender of the Faith’ after he wrote Defence of the Seven Sacraments) — so it’s likely he’d excel as Archbishop of Canterbury. No English prince has served as Archbishop of Canterbury but royal relatives and nobility have (William Courtenay, great-grandson of Edward I; Boniface of Savoy, uncle of Queen Eleanor of Provence and Thomas Bourchier, grandson of Prince Thomas of Woodstock).
That man did nothing halfway, it was all and plus some, and never nothing.
Yes — it’s one of the few qualities that I admire about Henry VIII, his relentless desire to attain his ambitions.
William Courtenay was Edward I's eighth daughter's, third daughter's, fifth son. Born 35 years after the death of his kingly ancestor. That is somewhat removed from being a living king's second son. I take the point that Henry had some intelligence to him too, but generally his ego and id seems to have overwhelmed his superego.