What would a united British Church look like?

[Sardar]

Say by OTL Acts of Union in the early 18th century the Churches of England, Ireland and Scotland become unified. This was a long term goal of the Stuarts which was never fulfilled, unlike the political unification of Scotland and England which did occur.

What would this new Church look like? Would it just be Anglican-adjacent, but with a more centralized structure? Would there be some sort of governing "Synod of London" which dictates unified policy instead of Parliament?

And of course in Ireland, where the Protestant population has largely been divided between Presbyterians from Scotland and Anglicans from England, what happens there? How does this affect many of the colonial churches which are part of OTL's Anglican Communion? Does the Anglican Communion even exist ITTL?

 

[Thoresby]

The devil is in the details. A unified church forced through by a more powerful (what PoD has enabled this) James I would look very different from one created by say Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester reigning as Henry IX when he has succeeded Charles II in 1685 after Charles had muzzled Parliament during the Exclusion Crisis only for James, Duke of York to die conveniently. Never mind a unified Presbyterian Church delivered by Charles I who has won the Second Civil War with the help of the Scottish Engagers only to die suddenly before he can betray them and screw everything up.

You could have a High Anglican Laudian Church, you could have a Low Anglican quasi Presbyterian Church, you could have full blown Presbyterianism, the political and religious situation is so unstable there is a PoD for every option, though almost all of them involve convenient deaths because while the Stuarts wanted religious unity they never really had the capability to deliver it.

 

[Sardar]

The devil is in the details. A unified church forced through by a more powerful (what PoD has enabled this) James I would look very different from one created by say Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester reigning as Henry IX when he has succeeded Charles II in 1685 after Charles had muzzled Parliament during the Exclusion Crisis only for James, Duke of York to die conveniently. Never mind a unified Presbyterian Church delivered by Charles I who has won the Second Civil War with the help of the Scottish Engagers only to die suddenly before he can betray them and screw everything up.

You could have a High Anglican Laudian Church, you could have a Low Anglican quasi Presbyterian Church, you could have full blown Presbyterianism, the political and religious situation is so unstable there is a PoD for every option, though almost all of them involve convenient deaths because while the Stuarts wanted religious unity they never really had the capability to deliver it.

What might be the latest POD one could achieve a unified Church?

 

[Thoresby]

What might be the latest POD one could achieve a unified Church?

1688 and the Glorious Revolution. With the abolition of the Episcopacy in Scotland and the sidelining of the Tories the gap was too wide and the Whigs had no interest in religious uniformity. The nature of the Act of Union, which specifically safeguarded the separateness of the Church of Scotland ensured it was totally, totally dead.

 

[Sardar]

1688 and the Glorious Revolution. With the abolition of the Episcopacy in Scotland and the sidelining of the Tories the gap was too wide and the Whigs had no interest in religious uniformity. The nature of the Act of Union, which specifically safeguarded the separateness of the Church of Scotland ensured it was totally, totally dead.

Would it need to be no Glorious Revolution at all? Or would the manner of it need to be different?

 

[Janprimus]

(....)

You could have a High Anglican Laudian Church, you could have a Low Anglican quasi Presbyterian Church, you could have full blown Presbyterianism, the political and religious situation is so unstable there is a PoD for every option, though almost all of them involve convenient deaths because while the Stuarts wanted religious unity they never really had the capability to deliver it.

I prefer the first (but I'm a Roman Catholic), I think the middle option given the differences between England and Scotland seems to be the most obvious outcome.

 

[Sardar]

I prefer the first (but I'm a Roman Catholic), I think the middle option given the differences between England and Scotland seems to be the most obvious outcome.

Honestly it just seems to me that the Anglican Church never really fulfilled its potential (sorry if I offend any Anglicans, I don't mean too). A unified episcopal Church centralized like the Scandinavian Churches but with a much wider reach and the political and economic of all of Great Britain behind it is fascinating to me.

 

[Thoresby]

Would it need to be no Glorious Revolution at all? Or would the manner of it need to be different?

Yes. The post-Tudor British Monarchy was probably at it's absolute peak of power and influence in 1685 on the death of King Charles II, he had utilised the extremism of the Whigs over the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis to dissolve Parliament and rule without it in a Personal Rule that was actually working, unlike his father's version. That King James II turned caused the Glorious Revolution in 3 years says a lot about how unbelievably incompetent he was. So if you want a post Civil War unification this is your chance. Charles II and James II however are Catholics and not interested, thus Henry of Gloucester, who was a genuine Anglican, needs to outlive his older brothers. Once James II has been overthrown the windows closed unless you somehow have English Tory Anglicans do the overthrowing with no Whig assistance which is very, very tricky.
A pre-1639 PoD is easier as the longer you maintain the separation the harder it is to overcome.

 

[VVD0D95]

Yes. The post-Tudor British Monarchy was probably at it's absolute peak of power and influence in 1685 on the death of King Charles II, he had utilised the extremism of the Whigs over the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis to dissolve Parliament and rule without it in a Personal Rule that was actually working, unlike his father's version. That King James II turned caused the Glorious Revolution in 3 years says a lot about how unbelievably incompetent he was. So if you want a post Civil War unification this is your chance. Charles II and James II however are Catholics and not interested, thus Henry of Gloucester, who was a genuine Anglican, needs to outlive his older brothers. Once James II has been overthrown the windows closed unless you somehow have English Tory Anglicans do the overthrowing with no Whig assistance which is very, very tricky.
A pre-1639 PoD is easier as the longer you maintain the separation the harder it is to overcome.

It’s debatable whether Charles II was a catholic. Before he dies the man remained an openly committed Anglican, and also did a lot to ensure the Scottish episcopal church triumphed over the Presbyterians and Cameronians.

 

[Nuraghe]

Honestly it just seems to me that the Anglican Church never really fulfilled its potential (sorry if I offend any Anglicans, I don't mean too). A unified episcopal Church centralized like the Scandinavian Churches but with a much wider reach and the political and economic of all of Great Britain behind it is fascinating to me.

the basic problem is another, namely that the difference between England and Scotland originates from before the Union, when Elizabeth supported John Knox and his allies to weaken Mary Stuart, without thinking that the two states could unify in the future, therefore they had a hierarchical and centralized church in the south, while in the north one with strong Calvinist influences and very decentralized. Furthermore, from London this development was viewed with suspicion, given that in the same period, the elite was grappling with the problems created by the Puritans, there he would have liked at least James VI to have managed to strengthen the bishop's party in Scotland ( because it was actually the one that most helped a monarch in governing a kingdom with greater control over it ) before ascending the English throne, then we also have the large number of dissidents to deal with ( Catholics excluded ), personally if I had been a Stuart king of the time, if the project of a single hierarchically united church managed from London had not succeeded, I would have focused on the creation of a third way to be able to reunite dissidents with the main church, this third option would have been similar to Lutheranism ( so I can also integrate the refugees who came from the continent, who also Otl had a fair influence on the development of the English church ), so in practice yes it has a high church with papist-like tendencies, a low church very close to Calvinism and finally an intermediate path that takes inspiration from Luther ( something that Otl have partly tried, but without too much success )


perhaps it would have been easier if during the reign of Henry VIII, the southern part of Scotland had been annexed to England, then religious reform was subsequently imposed, then weakened royal control in Edinburgh but without advocating drastic changes in belief, a once the two kingdoms unify it will be easy to integrate the doctrinal changes into an already established ecclesiastical hierarchy, of course there will be more papists than Otl, but at least you avoid the Presbyterians or other dissidents potentially dangerous for the state ( puritans or Covenants )

 

[Thoresby]

It’s debatable whether Charles II was a catholic. Before he dies the man remained an openly committed Anglican, and also did a lot to ensure the Scottish episcopal church triumphed over the Presbyterians and Cameronians.

He formally "came out" on his deathbed but he had almost certainly been a secret Catholic for at least a decade by that point based on his communications with Louis XIV and others. It's just unlike his brother he had an IQ over 90 and understood the practical consequences of openly revealing himself. His support for the Scottish Episcopalians can also be explained by the simple logic that they generally supported him unlike the Presbyterians they hadn't started the Civil War.

 

[VVD0D95]

He formally "came out" on his deathbed but he had almost certainly been a secret Catholic for at least a decade by that point based on his communications with Louis XIV and others. It's just unlike his brother he had an IQ over 90 and understood the practical consequences of openly revealing himself. His support for the Scottish Episcopalians can also be explained by the simple logic that they generally supported him unlike the Presbyterians they hadn't started the Civil War.

Fair though how much of that correspondence was Charles being genuine given he was very good at dissimulation and keeping his true thoughts to himself?

 

[Thoresby]

Fair though how much of that correspondence was Charles being genuine given he was very good at dissimulation and keeping his true thoughts to himself?

Well from 1670 he was lying to someone about his genuine religious beliefs and considering the choice he made on his deathbed I think it's pretty clear who. Now you could argue that his secret Catholicism started out as a lie and became the truth somewhere along the way but it's unknowable.

 

[Sardar]

I think Henry of Gloucester surviving would be the most interesting. So what would the Church of a Henry IX look like? What would be the effects of a united Church on Britain? On Ireland?

Might Britain be more religious in the long run?

 

[Nuraghe]

I think Henry of Gloucester surviving would be the most interesting. So what would the Church of a Henry IX look like? What would be the effects of a united Church on Britain? On Ireland?

Might Britain be more religious in the long run?

for Ireland and the highlands it would be good in the long term, since they will not be associated with the Jacobite cause, therefore they will avoid part of the persecutions of Otl, for the rest it would only be a greater development of ecclesiastical matters under Charles II

 

[Aichi72]

Could a longer living Charles II or a more competent James II go about unifying the churches as effectively a placeholder until reunification with Rome? I'm thinking somthing like one of them unifies them in order to move them more easily into a high church direction until this Church of Britain is effectively just Catholicism without the Pope, and then it reunites with Rome as a sui iuris church. Not sure how plausible this is though, and it would definitley have to be a multigenerational effort.

 

[Nuraghe]

Could a longer living Charles II or a more competent James II go about unifying the churches as effectively a placeholder until reunification with Rome? I'm thinking somthing like one of them unifies them in order to move them more easily into a high church direction until this Church of Britain is effectively just Catholicism without the Pope, and then it reunites with Rome as a sui iuris church. Not sure how plausible this is though, and it would definitley have to be a multigenerational effort.

it is difficult for such a scenario to happen, the Anglican church Otl was a middle ground which did not suit many, but almost everyone agreed that worse than it was popery, this omnipresent and always lurking entity to destroy England, any king who even remotely tries to take such a step to patch things up with Rome will have to contend with the extreme xenophobia and mass hysteria of the people, which in comparison Otl papist plot of 1680, papal aggression of 1850 , the Gunpowder Plot combined would be nothing

although it must be said that Otl the Stuart royals at least tried to seek an under-the-table agreement with Rome while remaining faithful Protestants ( see the informal embassies under James I and the two Charles )

 

[Thoresby]

Could a longer living Charles II or a more competent James II go about unifying the churches as effectively a placeholder until reunification with Rome? I'm thinking somthing like one of them unifies them in order to move them more easily into a high church direction until this Church of Britain is effectively just Catholicism without the Pope, and then it reunites with Rome as a sui iuris church. Not sure how plausible this is though, and it would definitley have to be a multigenerational effort.

James II certainly couldn't, as an open Catholic his ability to make changes with regards to any of the Protestant Churches in his Kingdom is extremely limited without generating massive backlash, precisely because opponents of any change can paint it as stepping stone to Rome.
Charles II is also unlikely without such a personality transplant that he's no longer Charles II.
If your want to do this you need a monarch who has the political astuteness of Charles II and such a genuine desire for religious unity that they are willing to spend the massive political capital that this would take on this rather than something else.

 

[Sardar]

So how might a united British Church with a POD of 1688? Say William III enforces Episcopacy in Scotland?

 

[Nuraghe]

So how might a united British Church with a POD of 1688? Say William III enforces Episcopacy in Scotland?

it's already late for that, plus William as a Calvinist was more in tune with the Scottish Presbyterians and the Low Church ( which has a lot of Calvinist influence ), because the Episcopalians and High Church were usually pro-Jacobite