short little update on the relations between Stuart and the papacy, but perhaps in this case I should England and Rome to be correct, anyway returning to the topic, perhaps some of you may have already heard me say this ( Kellan I'm watching you 😉 ), but did you know that the English sovereigns technically held the Jus Excluisivae ?, first of all what is this privilege : simple, it is nothing more than the official name of the veto power that the main European monarchs exercised on papal elections ( which technically England had officially obtained during the Council of Constance of Otl ( even if for example Edward III already said he owned it as "King of France" ) but which he then "lost" with the Protestant Reformation, perhaps it is more correct to say that it fell into disuse ( given that the only one to use it was Henry V in Constance ), given that the only other sovereign who could use it, first of all didn't even know he had it and secondly preferred to build his own church ( I don't think I need to explain who I'm referring to 😜 )
what would you change in the popes of the past
- Thread starter Nuraghe
- Start date
short little update on the relations between Stuart and the papacy, but perhaps in this case I should England and Rome to be correct, anyway returning to the topic, perhaps some of you may have already heard me say this ( Kellan I'm watching you 😉 ), but did you know that the English sovereigns technically held the Jus Excluisivae ?, first of all what is this privilege : simple, it is nothing more than the official name of the veto power that the main European monarchs exercised on papal elections ( which technically England had officially obtained during the Council of Constance of Otl ( even if for example Edward III already said he owned it as "King of France" ) but which he then "lost" with the Protestant Reformation, perhaps it is more correct to say that it fell into disuse ( given that the only one to use it was Henry V in Constance ), given that the only other sovereign who could use it, first of all didn't even know he had it and secondly preferred to build his own church ( I don't think I need to explain who I'm referring to 😜 )
Regarding the Avignon Papacy, would it have been avoided if they elected Cardinal Walter Winterburn of England as Pope (apparently he was going to take the name Adrian like the prior English Pope, hence Pope Adrian VI)? According to what I can find, Winterburn was deemed a neutral candidate (so would not have infuriated the French who did not want another Pope Boniface VIII). He was also elderly and suffered a sudden illness that forced him to abandon his asperations toward the Papacy.
According to what I can find, the conclave of 1304-05 that elected Clement the Papacy to Avignon had 10 anti-French and 6 pro-French cardinals. If Winterburn is elected Pope and dies a few months later, then this might mean the new conclave has only 15 cardinals participating. Might this mean Cardinal Matteo Rosso Orsini (who also attempted to become Pope several times) of the anti-French party can get the majority of the vote necessary to become Pope, and thus the Papacy does not go to France? Or alternatively have Rosso Orsini be elected Pope after Boniface VIII dies, have him still appoint Winterburn/a similar neutral candidate as cardinal, have Winterburn be elected, and then have another conclave where the anti-French faction has the 2/3 majority so can easily elect one of their own? In the latter scenario, the candidate might be cardinal Jacopo Caetani Stefaneschi who IOTL lived until 1343.
Does this mean the Avignon Papacy never occurs? The Papal States had a lot of issues during this time such as Colonna family controlling entire segments of Rome from which the Pope was barred from. Would another pope deemed hostile to the French crown's interests just incite another attack on the Pope like with Boniface VIII and we're right back to the sequence of events that led to the Avignon Papacy?
According to what I can find, the conclave of 1304-05 that elected Clement the Papacy to Avignon had 10 anti-French and 6 pro-French cardinals. If Winterburn is elected Pope and dies a few months later, then this might mean the new conclave has only 15 cardinals participating. Might this mean Cardinal Matteo Rosso Orsini (who also attempted to become Pope several times) of the anti-French party can get the majority of the vote necessary to become Pope, and thus the Papacy does not go to France? Or alternatively have Rosso Orsini be elected Pope after Boniface VIII dies, have him still appoint Winterburn/a similar neutral candidate as cardinal, have Winterburn be elected, and then have another conclave where the anti-French faction has the 2/3 majority so can easily elect one of their own? In the latter scenario, the candidate might be cardinal Jacopo Caetani Stefaneschi who IOTL lived until 1343.
Does this mean the Avignon Papacy never occurs? The Papal States had a lot of issues during this time such as Colonna family controlling entire segments of Rome from which the Pope was barred from. Would another pope deemed hostile to the French crown's interests just incite another attack on the Pope like with Boniface VIII and we're right back to the sequence of events that led to the Avignon Papacy?
technically you are right to state that Walter Winterbourne would be considered a neutral candidate ( 1 ) among the conflicting factions in the curia ( as was Clement V, originally from Bordeaux, Plantagenet territory, but who was also well regarded by the king of France and the majority of the cardinals Italians ) by now the problem with Philip IV has become very serious, so it is still probable that a pontiff decides to spend time in France to mend relations, but all this would likely be temporary, especially if a solution to the issue of the internal conflict is found between the Colonna family and an important part of the papal government ( who have the support of the Orsini, who rightly believe that their historic adversaries have become too powerful ), the other real problem is understanding how to rebalance the representation among the cardinals, given that papal policies since 1268 have extremely favored the Angios and subsequently also France ( except under Boniface VIII ) so a solution must be found to the rapid growth of influence French among the cardinals who, as the century progresses, finds himself with a solid majority of cardinals from beyond the Alps and pro-French cardinals , but honestly I don't see many places where it would be available to find suitable candidates with a respectable curriculum ( but above all it is necessary that these cardinals can also bring strong external support to the Papacy, in case relations with the Capetians heat up again, perhaps if Albert I of Habsburg manages to consolidate his hold in the HRE, then things may have a different evolution compared to Otl, certainly England would also be there but at the time it had the right to a maximum of 1 / 2 cardinals, therefore still too few to change the internal balance of the college of cardinals ( which at the time was made up of around 20 curiates )
1 ) technically Benedict XI had already appointed an English cardinal, in this case William Macclesfield, appointed cardinal presbyter of S. Sabina in december of 1303, but who according to many historians was already dead when the news of his elevation reached England in the first months of 1304, in his place Benedict was elevated Walter Winterbourne in 1304, until 1298 he was a provincial father of the Dominican order, and later personal confessor to Edward I, perhaps it would have been more useful if he had held more important positions in that period ( 1295 - 1303 ), so as to be able to be raised to the purple under the government of Boniface, so as to give him a better chance of being elected pontiff
Last edited:
maybe they could set a minimum number of cardinals from various regions, like # from France, # from Aragon, # from England, # from Scotland, maybe even # from Ireland, # Castile, # Germany # Arles, # Bohemia, # from Poland # from Hungary, # Italy, # Naples, # the East(Greeks etc), kinda like the divisions of the knights hospitaller into Langues, but without the numerous different French langues, stacking the deck in favor of France.
well technically a similar thing was actually established during the Council of Trent ( with France and Spain having the right to 7 cardinals, HRE to 5, while England to a maximum of 3 cardinals, with finally Burgundy, PLC, Hungary, Scotland and Portugal with 1/2 representatives ) but by now the Reformation had taken deep root in half of Europe, making this move by the Papacy almost completely useless, this, in addition to causing a frightening genetic bottleneck in the main Catholic families ( Habsburg first and foremost ), also caused a fracture in the curia which for almost a century was entirely divided between the French and Habsburg factions perpetually fighting each other ( it was only with the arrival of Christina of Sweden in 1650, that a third pole of power began to form in the college of cardinals, but then with the Bourbons who ended up inheriting Spain, the situation arose again, just think that the conclave of 1769, on 46 participants, 27 were placed under the right of veto by the Bourbons )
@isabella @Kellan Sullivan
Last edited:
So you would say that it's more likely that there is an Avignon Papacy-esque period, but not necessarily the Avignon Papacy itself, where the Pope's departure from the environs of Rome is temporary rather than nigh-permanent?
Perhaps more cardinals from the domains the English king held in France? The Hundred Years War would majorly shake things up. The Emperor protecting the Pope against the French king is an interesting one too...although probably it soon becomes the French king protecting the Pope against the Emperor. Which could still bring us right back to the Avignon Papacy.
technically, the Papacy, starting from the 13th century, usually in crisis situations, temporarily abandoned Rome and moved elsewhere ( see the various pontifical palaces built in this period in Viterbo and Anagni or the convening of councils outside the papal territories, such as Lyon ) until things calmed down, so it would not be big news that the Pope was for some periods outside the Urbe, technically if some form of central authority is reconstructed in HRE ( which Rome itself might want to support as long as it comes to terms with it ), the Papacy could use it to its advantage to balance French interference ( and vice versa ) considering that in the long run Naples will also tire of Parisian control in its internal matters, so Rome would find itself able to juggle and act as referee for multiple warring powers ( basically the papacy's preferred role ) without the risk of ending up under total control of a single power / family as in Otl
as regards the question of the cardinals coming from the French possessions of the Plantagenets, it would be complicated to do, because as already mentioned the curia was made up of only 20/25 cardinals ( and in this college there must have been representatives of the Roman nobility, the exponents of Naples, Venice, Milan and other important Italian entities, the cardinals of the great European kingdoms and usually a relative of the pontiff currently in office ) it is only around 1340/50s that it was decreed that the college was composed of a fixed number of cardinals ( but this idea was already widely developed in the previous decades ) only in the 16th century will we see an expansion of the representatives in the curia ( going from 20 / 30 to around 50 cardinals, a number which was then modified again by Sixtus V, which led to a theoretical maximum of 75 cardinals )
I would like to put my very personal reflection on the rather bizarre relationship ( and at times truly bordering on the absurd and with important truly "unfortunate" moments ) between Rome and England, then we all know how the events that led to the break between the two parts ( and this is not what I would like to talk about now ), is how state propaganda pushed to change the English perception towards Catholicism, drawing on the pre-existing feeling of common xenophobia of the time to portray Catholicism as " alien to the English spirit " and extremely dangerous for the security of England ( which was greatly strengthened by the invincible Armada and by the numerous wars against the papist powers and internal dissidents ( Irish ) but both before and after the break with Rome, there were many attempts on both sides to try to find a balance (in particular to expand the English faction of cardinals present in the curia, which would allow London to have a real "voice" in Rome and to be on a par with France, Spain and HRE in influencing papal politics ( including the conclave, thanks to the Jus Excluisivae, i.e. the right of veto ) obviously something of this kind would radically change the English perception of the Papacy, both because it seriously affects Protestant propaganda according to which the Catholic Church is an exclusively Italian affair ( which is no longer true, because with a strong foreign component in the curia, the chances of finding oneself with a non-Italian pontiff increase disproportionately compared to the OTL, and let's remember that Reginald Pole was still "pontiff for a few minutes" due to an error always calculated in the OTL ), if this is combined with London's ability to actively influence Roman politics it makes everything even more relevant ( because I hardly see an English king insulting and attacking an organization in which he also has important interests, and which allows you to play on multiple levels from a diplomatic point of view, I mean who would be crazy enough to spit where they eat ? ), to conclude Rome still maintained an important axis towards London in OTL even after the Reformation, suffice it to say that most of its foreign efforts were in that direction ( and this should make it clear how important England really was in the papal imagination, given that such a huge amount of resources was not even remotely thought of in Rome being used for example towards Denmark, Sweden or anything else, only France and the Counter-Reformation in the Habsburg Austrian territories required more attention ), finally it should be remembered that a greater real control over its Catholic hierarchy makes the so-called foreign protection ( France and Spain ) over British Catholics useless, nullifying the influence that these actors exercised on them, also weakening the possibilities of considering the papists as a foreign fifth column, finally if the England remaining papist also means greater possibilities for the younger children of the nobility to have important careers, and create links at an international level, it is not convenient for anyone to break this mechanism
to conclude this papyrus, if we analyze the relations that England had with the Holy See, and compare them with other Catholic powers, we can safely say that London was the most unfortunate 🤣, because it was the one with the greatest number of missed opportunities both as an increase in his influence in the curia and with possible pontiffs fading away at the last minute ( see poor Reginald who was literally defrauded, both the slightly exaggerated ones of Wolsey, who still gets 7 votes or the same Walter Winterburn ) or just think of the death of the only English pontiff for absurd reasons, he choked on a soup (just when he was about to convene another consistory, where in theory he should have elevated new foreign cardinals together with some local ones ), but also the sudden death / due to stupidity of sovereigns in excellent relations with the Papacy, heavily influenced the improvement of the English position in Rome, a clear example is Richard I, who in the plans of Innocent III, should have personally led the 4th crusade ( but before this there had been discussion of a meeting between the two at Rome...., Edward Longshanks also falls into this category ), the failure to create new cardinals in the curia for unclear reasons ( see the Billy Warham affair and other similar cases : among whom are Thomas Langley, Robert Hallam, Thomas Arundel and finally Henry Chichele ), the hostility of sovereigns towards some supported candidates by the Pope ( like Thomas Beckett or Cardinal Beaufort ), the failure to use the veto in the conclave after Henry V, not to mention the strange idea of Edward III ( never realized ) to take Avignon, in order to obtain benefits as liberator of the church, the English failure to block the process of ecclesiastical independence of Scotland from York ( supported in the curia by France ) and finally with the War of the Roses which ruined London's opportunities to exploit the weakness of post-schism Rome to gain advantages in the 'help her re-establish her authority over the English clergy, which then led to the Tudor dynasty and their succession crisis and the subsequent reign of the Stuarts
Last edited:
A favorite WI of mine (Cusano is overlooked in favor of J.Bruno who plagiarized A LOT of Cusano ideas but can be sold to Enlightment crowd as a martyr or some BS; I'm a big fan of Cusano).
Though it may end up a "Christian Ulugh Beg" situation (a great scientist whose greatness is diminished by having to do a monarch stuff).
I LOVE the idea of Cusanus/Cusano become Pope too (though instead of Pius II, not after him)
I fully agree with your comment, especially given that Pius II was literally favoring the path of Nicholas with the aim of making him pontiff after his death ( the two were great friends from their university days in Padua )
Though "Christian Ulugh Beg" situation is still a risk, a Cardinal has more time to be occupied with science and no need to meddle in Italian politics (to which he would be a stranger with all issues this entails).
well totally foreign to Italian politics, I wouldn't say since he would have been in papal service for about 40 years ( with important jobs in Constantinople and HRE ) but at least he wouldn't have family ties with any regional power which would be a good thing because he would be seen as a fairly good figure neutral and the papal balancing policy could continue
sorry if I almost recycle a series of my old comments published in various threads, but which I consider useful to use to start a discussion ( also I don't really want to rewrite everything from scratch ) mainly it aims to analyze the possible policies of Reginald Pole's pontificate, but above all it serves to start a discussion on what Leone X and Clemente VII did wrong in foreign policy in Otl ( Luther first and foremost ) this comment due to extreme length will be divided into 2/3 parts
Let's analyze Reginald's chances at the conclave of 1549 - 50 ( which to begin with was the second longest conclave of the 16th century ( with 61 ballots in total ) and also the one attended by the greatest number of cardinals up to that point, with fifty-one out of fifty-four present ) the participating cardinals were immediately divided between three factions : that linked to Henry II of France, that to Charles V of Habsburg and finally that supported Alessandro Farnese ( the cardinal nephew of Pope Paolo III ), the political questions and conditions that surrounded him were many, and varied from how the Council of Trent could have restarted ( hypothesis supported by Charles V and opposed by Henry II ), the fate of the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza ( claimed both by Charles V and by Farnese ) and the reorganization of the Schmalkaldic League, with all the context around it, well mentioned, let's look at the conclave itself in detail, Reginald immediately seemed to be the great favourite, given that the absence of the French cardinals made his election very likely, particularly during the voting with accessus of 5 December, he was very close to the quorum ( he only lacked two votes ) only the intervention of Carafa ( the most eminent member of the Congregation of the Holy Office, alias Roman inquisition ) prevented this from happening, the latter publicly announced that the Cardinal Pole was suspected of heresy and therefore ineligible for the papal throne. Voting continued with the arrival of the French cardinals a week later but the favored candidates, Pole and Carafa, continued to face each other in a stalemate
certainly the successful election of Reginald as pontiff in 1549 would change a lot within the church, even if he was actually part of the most reformist or Erasmian faction of the curia ( the so-called Spirituali ( 1 ) although the group welcomed attention to some of the Lutheran ideas but without wanting to detach themselves from Rome, and they pressed for a radical reform of the Church, more based on the theological level ( on a few fundamentalia fidei ) and on the practical level, on a devaluation of external rites and works ( which would certainly have created very strong clashes with the most conservative and orthodox faction of the curia, which was the majority of it ) is also demonstrated by the failed attempts of Cardinal Morone to mediate with the heretics, I see it difficult for a greater success of this, with the election of Reginald as pontiff, if the new pope manages to avoid a potential and very dangerous schism within his own curia ( especially if Carafa, his old friend who over time became his political opponent, is leading it ), it is likely that the pontiff will succeed to attract a small group of ex-Lutherans but I hardly see him implementing all the proposed reforms that go in the direction of favoring this small minority, it is more likely that he will pursue a more moderate policy towards them compared to that carried out by Otl Paolo IV, in attempt to bring them back into the fold
However, a truly important fact that Reginald could obtain only with his election alone would be to strengthen the Catholic / Imperial party, partly delegitimizing the Protestant propaganda which based part of its ideology on fighting a church that had become corrupt and completely Italian, losing sight of the ecumenical aspect, i.e. its being international, which is no longer possible to affirm if there is an Englishman on the Petrine throne, furthermore being a creature of both Paolo III and Charles V, Reginald will obviously side with the Habsburgs thus avoiding the war born by Otl Paolo IV's will against them during the last Italian war of 1551 - 59 ( which ended with the occupation of the Papal State by 10 thousand Spanish troops ) allowing those troops to go to Germany
to understand why I believe that the traditionalist faction can represent a dangerous internal opposition to the curia, if not managed in the best possible way, to better understand this, let's take as an example a period not so distant in time, in particular we look at Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere and his relationship with Alessandro VI, which I believe is completely similar to that between Reginaldo and Carafa ( with the necessary differences obviously ) if we consider that Giuliano ( later Giulio II ) managed to make life difficult for Rodrigo, exploiting France, it is not so difficult imagine Carafa ( tremendously anti-Spanish ) allying himself with Henry II ( Otl did it ), one can well understand what it means for a pontiff not to have control of a part of the curia, let alone if it seems to have the smell of heresy... the risk is not more than just being deposed...., it must be remembered that this fringe could always count on French / Ottoman support ( even if indirect, without forgetting that some imperial princes could also be interested, especially if this distracts Charles from confronting them ) and the right connections between the Roman nobility ( perhaps managing also to antagonize the people towards the new pope, which is very important for the pontiff's authority ) then it is entirely possible, certainly the imperial support is an important ally of Reginald, but such a threat cannot be underestimated, and therefore, considering Pole's intelligence it is likely that he will seek a compromise with the larger faction of the curia ( i.e. the traditionalists ) following the example of Paolo III to continue the Catholic response to the Reformation ( which, ironically, had as its basis the proposals approved in the V Lateran Council of 1513 ( initiated by Giulio II but concluded under Leone X ) but which were implemented with over 30 years of delay, this is because a good part of the curia underestimated the importance of the movement inspired by Luther, considering it a regional affair, therefore believing that it was not of primary importance to update the pontiff on developments in Germany )
End of part 1
1 ) in particular he was part of the most important circle, that of Naples led by Juan de Valdés ( and composed of characters of the caliber of Cardinal Giovanni Morone, the apostolic prothonotary Pietro Carnesecchi, the gentlewomen Vittoria Colonna and Giulia Gonzaga and also Michelangelo Buonarroti )
Last edited:
Part 2
if we consider the numerous revolts or conspiracies ( successful or not ) engineered in Rome, and for the most part conceived without much foreign support in the initial stages ( for a great power it was always better to intervene only when one was almost certain of success ) furthermore many remember the horrible sack of 1527 ( in which 1/3 of the Romans died in an atrocious manner, out of 50 thousand inhabitants, and the subsequent occupation of the city which lasted 8 months ), carried out mostly by the so-called Lanzi ( of Protestant faith ) so it is normal that just such an idea makes the blood of many in the city boil, as well unleash on the curia's / peoples xenophobic sentiment towards the non-Italian pontiff ( just see what it was said of Hadrian VI Otl when he arrived in Rome, out of politeness they simply called him a barbarian, this even in his presence )
Reginald's election as Pope will cause another series of important changes compared to Otl, both from a religious point of view, in particular those most affected by this will obviously be the Council of Trent ( which Reginald will experience in all the ways of keeping open, ( which thus did not suffer the fate of Otl where it was stopped in 1548, then temporarily resumed in 1551/52 and blocked again until 1562 ), even in the event of conflict, trying to continue Paolo III's policy of mediation between the Habsburgs and the Valois, and perhaps also sees the participation in the early stages of a small group of French clerics, who may be more numerous when the conflicts between the two powers are finally resolved ( for the moment ) the Holy Office and the index of prohibited books ( with the latter hardly being established, while the first it will be standardized and possibly not used to attack political opponents ( again Paolo IV ) another thing that will be influenced will be the official recognition and subsequent support for the Society of Jesus ( which Cardinal Pole also supported Otl and given that like them he was a strong promoter of catechism ), something that certainly will not we will see they will be the 4 new cardinals created by Otl Giulio III ( all more or less his relatives, rather it is probable that their hat will go to other high profile candidates both at a local and above all international level, and we will also see the 19 cardinals created OTL under Paolo IV change ) just as I hardly see Reginald implementing very rigid policies on the Jewish community, unlike Otl Paolo IV , finally immediately upon his election he will have to supervise the preparations for the 10th jubilee, which will have to partially restore the state's finances ( already significantly improved compared to OTL without the military campaigns of Paolo IV, or the enormous waste of the Otl pontiffs who succeeded Alessandro Farnese / Paolo III ), from a military point of view it is more likely that in addition to supporting the imperial party both in Italy and in Germany, he would try to find a compromise between the opposing factions, perhaps by unofficially supporting Ferdinand's plan to include the Calvinists in the negotiations of the Peace of Augsburg , with the aim of weakening and dividing the Protestant front, is at the same time to strengthen the imperial party ( and consequently the position of the church in the HRE ), even more possible if Charles emerges victorious from the second clash against them ( highly possible, without having to worry about the numerous distractions caused by a series of popes who were not long-lived or even openly hostile to him ), finally it will be to understand how he will relate to his native land, because the relationship with the regency of Edward VI is unlikely to be good ( who may already be hostile to him, given his active role in supporting the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1538 ) , in fact it will most likely be ferociously hostile, but taking into account that Otl England was hit by a sweating epidemic in 1551, everything can change at any moment, especially if Mary manages to stay under the radar for the moment, and does not create possible openings that the regency can use against her, furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that his new position will attract numerous Englishmen to Rome, in search of new career opportunities and fortune, thus possibly causing the formation of a new administrative class of the Catholic Church in England, which in turn can also influence the Council of Trent, because it would represent a further element that certifies its value as the legitimate ( truly ) ecumenical assembly of the church, going to further discredit the Protestant propaganda on the matter, if we avoid Carafa's pontificate, it also means that the eternal city does not suffer another demographic decline compared to Otl, given that with his accession to the papal throne and his policies he had led to the expulsion of a 1/4 of the city's population, since it was accused of being openly pro-Spanish ( this is even more evident if we note that from 1485 to 1700, an important part of the population resident in Rome was of Spanish origin, almost a third of the total population in the 17th century, becoming the minority most represented after the Italians themselves, even if they were the ones who integrated most quickly into the Roman social fabric, under the subsequent Bourbons, this representation did not even reach half of the original one ), so it is very likely that we will see a Rome with a population slightly growing and more multicultural than Otl, also given the presence of a strong English component
( although it must be said that the Romans involuntarily managed to maintain a tradition of the old Empire, that is, easily assimilate different nationalities together )
a further possible development of Pole as pontiff, that is to support the formation of the so-called Uniate Churches well in advance, especially if we consider that during his pontificate he will have many opportunities for dialogue and search for compromise ( both with the Lutheran party, with a few but good results, but it could be very successful with the eastern confessions present in the PLC and in the Habsburg possessions ) perhaps we will see a first formation of the Union of Brest ( 1596 Otl ) with the maintenance of the Byzantine rite in the majority of cases, another front particular will be the one with the Chaldean populations who also Otl saw the formation of their church of the same name in 1553 ( which could merge into the main communion of the eastern rite without distinctions of any kind ) without excluding a possible sortie into the Morea and Epirus ( Otl the Habsburgs with Venice, they wanted to exploit the revolts there, to create a common protectorate with an anti-Ottoman function ) which I see the pontiff supporting, because I believe that if in the West ( intended as territories where the Reformation is taking hold ) it will have to be fiscal and at most of intransigence towards Catholic orthodoxy, the East may be more open to dialogue as long as the Florence agreements of 1439 are respected ( which could undergo small modifications to accommodate other confessions ), this above all because the rigidity of Otl's Tridentine dogma does not it is still completely stable definitively, therefore it allows him a certain laxity compared to his successors
Last edited:
I am by no means an expert in papal politics in any era, but an interesting POD for a TL could be King John and Pope Innocent III hammering out an agreement in 1200 over the Archbishop of Canterbury investiture. This could somewhat alter the balance of power in Western Europe: if the papacy is better disposed towards the English crown in the early 1200s it could potentially defang both the English Barons and Philip Augustus.
as a starting idea it's not bad, after all Innocent was on excellent relations with England ( just think that he had originally conceived and organized the reviled 4th crusade together with Richard the Lionheart, who would have been the commander of the expedition ) furthermore until 1205, even relations with John were all in all discreet, the situation worsened due to a controversy over the investiture as archbishop of Canterbury ( and therefore also of cardinal ) between the candidate chosen by the local canonists ( and immediately recognized by the Pope, i.e. the viceprior Reginald ) and the one favored by John ( John de Gray ), which led to a profound dispute on the degree of real legitimacy in interfering and invalidating an election already widely validated at an international level ( it was a local re-edition of the investiture fight between HRE and the Papacy ) furthermore this was also linked to a political clash in the background, given that John supported his nephew HRE Otto IV in the fight against Frederick II ( protege and godson of Innocent ) and subsequently also Philip Augustus of France, so it is a truly delicate
Part of the problem is that John, Innocent and Philip were all powerful, prideful and stubborn men. John in particular could NOT be moved on matters of policy. His intransigence was a big factor in the Barons' revolt (that and his unfortunate habit of belittling his vassals). If he and Innocent could have agreed on investiture then maybe they could have negotiated on other issues too. Moving Innocent away from the French camp somewhat and freeing up John's time and resources to deal with Philip's threats to Angevin possessions on the Continent.
the problem was not Innocent and being " pro-French " ( he wasn't, as I already said, he was an strong admirer of Richard, so much so that he wanted him to lead a crusade again and to meet him personally in Rome if possible ) the real crux of the matter was that John supported the ambitions of Otto IV in the Empire ( who after his coronation, had immediately attacked the ecclesiastical possessions in Italy and also aimed to annex the crown of Sicily ) this led Innocent to have to intervene in defense of the rights of Frederick II, but if in Italy he managed quite easily to get the better of Otto, in Germany, things became complicated, it is in this context that we have Philip Augustus who proposes to intervene in favor of the future Stupor Mundi and the Pope
furthermore I would like to point out that the event which actually gave new impetus to the political aspirations of the barons, who were in open opposition to John's ideas, was the disastrous result of the Battle of Bouvines, where the combined army of Otto IV and John was completely annihilated ( and with its main exponents captured by the French )
Last edited: