What would an Anglican Church reunited with Rome look like in the 18th Century?

Assuming that James II manages to stay in power (get rid of William of Orange and that's it) and is succeeded by James III and Charles III, could the Anglican Church end up reuniting with Rome in the 18th century? (Let's assume so, after all that's what this Forum is about)
What would this unified church look like? Would it be similar to the Galician Church or the Eastern Churches? What Anglican dogmas would have remained? what local liturgical practices and customs would endure? Could Anglicans have seats in the college of cardinals or even become popes? ow is Scotland and Ireland?
 
The majority of England would not like that at all. If it did succeed, I expect large numbers of Englishmen disavowing the reunification in favor of far more Calvinist movements, treating the Stuart monarchs as apostate Papists.
 
The majority of England would not like that at all. If it did succeed, I expect large numbers of Englishmen disavowing the reunification in favor of far more Calvinist movements, treating the Stuart monarchs as apostate Papists.
Yes, but we're talking about over a century of stuart jacobite and catholic rule (I'm assuming Bonnie Prince Charles lived a few more years and had children), the initial reaction would be like you say, one more time or another these "anti-reunification" " would have to accept it gladly or flee to the colonies
 
The majority of England would not like that at all. If it did succeed, I expect large numbers of Englishmen disavowing the reunification in favor of far more Calvinist movements, treating the Stuart monarchs as apostate Papists.
After a while these "Calvinists" would have realized that England is not going to go back to being Protestant any time soon and would flee to the colonies, where the Stuarts couldn't do anything.
 
After a while these "Calvinists" would have realized that England is not going to go back to being Protestant any time soon and would flee to the colonies, where the Stuarts couldn't do anything.
The problem is that the majority of Englishmen and in particular Parliament are really, really not in favor of this at all in the slightest, hence why they invited William in to begin with! And they have already demonstrated that they had the whip hand in this relationship and the Stuarts are serving at their pleasure, not by right (however much James II didn't like it). If William of Orange is not around they will simply find someone else who serves them better, especially if James carries out such a hare-brained and horrifically unpopular project (even most staunch Anglicans will resist--the Oxford movement was 150+ years in the future at this point).

The most that James and his progeny could realistically do at this point was to establish that Catholicism would be tolerated by law, rather than being suppressed, and pushing off leading the Anglican Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury so that they could be Catholic. But even that would be a tough lift and you can be Parliament will be watching them very, very carefully and would be even more keen to remind the Stuarts that they serve at their pleasure, not by right.
 
The problem is that the majority of Englishmen and in particular Parliament are really, really not in favor of this at all in the slightest, hence why they invited William in to begin with! And they have already demonstrated that they had the whip hand in this relationship and the Stuarts are serving at their pleasure, not by right (however much James II didn't like it). If William of Orange is not around they will simply find someone else who serves them better, especially if James carries out such a hare-brained and horrifically unpopular project (even most staunch Anglicans will resist--the Oxford movement was 150+ years in the future at this point).

The most that James and his progeny could realistically do at this point was to establish that Catholicism would be tolerated by law, rather than being suppressed, and pushing off leading the Anglican Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury so that they could be Catholic. But even that would be a tough lift and you can be Parliament will be watching them very, very carefully and would be even more keen to remind the Stuarts that they serve at their pleasure, not by right.
But what if the Glorious Revolution ends up failing in the worst possible way?
Let's say William of Orange and his fleet end up sinking in a storm in the North Sea and James II confronts the Parliamentarians as traitors to the crown, they've invited a foreign monarch to invade after all, Princess Anne and George of Oldenburg flee to Denmark while James II takes advantage of the situation to put order in the house and put parliament in its "proper place", he can have help from Louis XIV and use Ireland at his pleasure with promises of total religious tolerance for Catholics and even self-government for Ireland ( although I'm not sure about the latter)
James II manages to enforce his laws of religious tolerance while parliament loses considerable power, so during the Oxford Movement it is encouraged (secretly) during the reign of James III (with a possible regency of Mary of Modena between 1701 and 1708, I don't remember which was the majority in England in the 1700s), after that, in the beginning of the reign of Charles III (circa 1766) and that the idea of a reunification with Rome becomes popular (Even better if you can get Henry Benedict Stuart to become pope in 1775)
 
If William's dead (couldn't have happened to someone more deserving IMO), then whoever the opposition is, they're up shit creek without a paddle. James will not be as lenient as he was first time around. Some will try to make stands and fight, but ultimately, while many rallied to William OTL that's FAR from certain here where it seems you're going for a ECW 2.0. Heads will roll (I vote for Devonshire to be the sacrificial lamb), any opposition will be discredited for at least five years (if not longer). James will not have absolute rule, but the stench from this will be enough to give the king the whip hand over parliament.

Unlike what @Workable Goblin says, Parliament only cemented its whip hand with the Glorious Revolution. Not before. Sure, there were things the king didn't have control of and needed to call parliament for, but it was nothing like as cucked the crown became with the Bill of Rights.

Before anyone points out that there's always Anne, she was a decidedly late convert to William's cause (as in only days before her dad fled). Fact is, if James stays on the throne, keeps England out of the 9YW (unlike William, he had no reason to get involved) and doesn't lean too pro-French (again, he only threw his lot in with the French once William invaded with Habsburg backig), he should be able to ride out the storm. In fact, one of the big reasons W3 was even able to get the English to side with him was he played on the large number of Huguenots (who had only been welcomed into England at James' insistence) fleeing Louis XIV's dragonnades to panic the English into thinking James would do the same. So, provided James remains even-handed in matters like religion - no dragonnades or forced conversions - I don't see why he'd be deposed. In fact, assuming England thrives (while the rest of Europe is tearing itself apart in the 9YW), James might even remembered better than as "Jimmy the Beshitten".

@VVD0D95
 
What would this unified church look like? Would it be similar to the Galician Church or the Eastern Churches?
Probably like the Gallican Church, I should think -- English Catholicism during the recusancy period already tended in that direction anyway, and James or whoever would probably be able to exact quite a few concessions re: day-to-day running of the Church in return for bringing England back into the Catholic fold.
What Anglican dogmas would have remained?
TBH most specifically Anglican dogmas were explicitly formulated in opposition to the Catholic Church, so I can't see them surviving any reunion. The English Church would remain distinct, but its distinctiveness would lie elsewhere, chiefly in its liturgical customs.
what local liturgical practices and customs would endure?
Services would probably continue in English, although no doubt with changes to make them more Catholic. Maybe something like OTL's English Missal. Secular clergy would probably be able to continue saying Morning Prayer and Evensong, instead of the seven prayers in the Daily Office that Roman clergy have to.
Could Anglicans have seats in the college of cardinals or even become popes?
Sure.
The majority of England would not like that at all. If it did succeed, I expect large numbers of Englishmen disavowing the reunification in favor of far more Calvinist movements, treating the Stuart monarchs as apostate Papists.
To be fair, it's not as if England hadn't had its religion forcibly changed beforehand. Though to make James' task easier, it might do to have a POD before his reign -- a bigger recusant population, for example, particularly among the gentry.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
If William's dead (couldn't have happened to someone more deserving IMO), then whoever the opposition is, they're up shit creek without a paddle. James will not be as lenient as he was first time around. Some will try to make stands and fight, but ultimately, while many rallied to William OTL that's FAR from certain here where it seems you're going for a ECW 2.0. Heads will roll (I vote for Devonshire to be the sacrificial lamb), any opposition will be discredited for at least five years (if not longer). James will not have absolute rule, but the stench from this will be enough to give the king the whip hand over parliament.

Unlike what @Workable Goblin says, Parliament only cemented its whip hand with the Glorious Revolution. Not before. Sure, there were things the king didn't have control of and needed to call parliament for, but it was nothing like as cucked the crown became with the Bill of Rights.

Before anyone points out that there's always Anne, she was a decidedly late convert to William's cause (as in only days before her dad fled). Fact is, if James stays on the throne, keeps England out of the 9YW (unlike William, he had no reason to get involved) and doesn't lean too pro-French (again, he only threw his lot in with the French once William invaded with Habsburg backig), he should be able to ride out the storm. In fact, one of the big reasons W3 was even able to get the English to side with him was he played on the large number of Huguenots (who had only been welcomed into England at James' insistence) fleeing Louis XIV's dragonnades to panic the English into thinking James would do the same. So, provided James remains even-handed in matters like religion - no dragonnades or forced conversions - I don't see why he'd be deposed. In fact, assuming England thrives (while the rest of Europe is tearing itself apart in the 9YW), James might even remembered better than as "Jimmy the Beshitten".

@VVD0D95
Agreed also assuming James is going to forcibly convert anyone is a complete misreading of him as a person. He abd his son wanted to lead by example abd inspire people to convert to Catholicism. He won’t unlike what op says tru and force a reunification with rome. He may have been many things but a completely fool he was not
 
He won’t unlike what op says tru and force a reunification with rome.
Sorry, did you read my posts? At no point did I say that James II would force England to convert to Catholicism in a forced way, I said briefly that James II would get rid of the glorious revolution and the idiots of parliament so that the idea of returning to Catholicism would increase during the reign of James III, and finally, sometime towards the end of the reign of James III and the beginning of the reign of Charles III, a reunification with Rome took place.
It wouldn't be in 1689, it would be between 1750 and 1790
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Sorry, did you read my posts? At no point did I say that James II would force England to convert to Catholicism in a forced way, I said briefly that James II would get rid of the glorious revolution and the idiots of parliament so that the idea of returning to Catholicism would increase during the reign of James III, and finally, sometime towards the end of the reign of James III and the beginning of the reign of Charles III, a reunification with Rome took place.
It wouldn't be in 1689, it would be between 1750 and 1790
I see. 1. James won’t be removing parliament, he’ll likely make it his but he won’t remove it.

2. how do people start deciding to return to rome?
 
I see. 1. James won’t be removing parliament, he’ll likely make it his but he won’t remove it.
I said he would get rid of the IDIOTS OF PARLIAMENT, aka the opposition, like @Kellan Sullivan said, James II will use the fact that MPs have "invited" a foreign monarch to invade and will cause some heads to roll, replacing the opposing MPs with sycophants.
2. how do people start deciding to return to rome?
Step 1- With Parliament under his thumb James II could easily pass religious toleration, ONLY for Catholics he so wanted, this would be frowned upon by the general population but over time England will get used to toleration
Step 2- A a new generation of people who grew up in a religiously tolerant nation will think that Catholics aren't so "bad" after all
Step 3- During the Reign of James III, the King encourages conversions to Catholicism, governing by example as you said at the same time that, being himself the head of the Anglican Church, James III does, through the appointment of pro- papists, with the Anglican Church slowly coming closer to the tenets of Catholicism
Step 4- The king encourages dissidents to seek a new life in the colonies, something most radicals would do
Step 5 - With all this, after the 1750's there will be many Catholic converts and friendly Anglicans to consider returning to Rome
 
Last edited:
Step 1- With Parliament under his thumb James II could easily pass religious toleration, ONLY for Catholics he so wanted, this would be frowned upon by the general population but over time England will get used to toleration
Step 2- A a new generation of people who grew up in a religiously tolerant nation will think that Catholics aren't so "bad" after all
Step 3- During the Reign of James III, the King encourages conversions to Catholicism, governing by example as you said at the same time that, being himself the head of the Anglican Church, James III does, through the appointment of pro- papists, with the Anglican Church slowly coming closer to the tenets of Catholicism
Step 4- The king encourages dissidents to seek a new life in the colonies, something most radicals would do
Step 5 - With all this, after the 1750's there will be many Catholic converts and friendly Anglicans to consider returning to Rome
The 1750s might be a bit optimistic, but I could see this process working over time.

Does this world still have a *French Revolution? IOTL that did a lot to reduce English anti-Catholicism, by giving them a common enemy; if something similar happens ITTL, that could give a big boost to the reunification programme, particularly if the English Bench of Bishops is full of High Churchmen already.
 
The 1750s might be a bit optimistic, but I could see this process working over time.
Maybe in the 1780s instead
Does this world still have a *French Revolution? IOTL that did a lot to reduce English anti-Catholicism, by giving them a common enemy; if something similar happens ITTL, that could give a big boost to the reunification programme, particularly if the English Bench of Bishops is full of High Churchmen already.
Probably yes, although a PoD on the death of William of Orange in the North Sea could see Louis XIV win the Nine Years' War
In case there is no revolution how would reunification work?
 
But what if the Glorious Revolution ends up failing in the worst possible way?
Let's say William of Orange and his fleet end up sinking in a storm in the North Sea and James II confronts the Parliamentarians as traitors to the crown, they've invited a foreign monarch to invade after all, Princess Anne and George of Oldenburg flee to Denmark while James II takes advantage of the situation to put order in the house and put parliament in its "proper place", he can have help from Louis XIV and use Ireland at his pleasure with promises of total religious tolerance for Catholics and even self-government for Ireland ( although I'm not sure about the latter)
James II manages to enforce his laws of religious tolerance while parliament loses considerable power, so during the Oxford Movement it is encouraged (secretly) during the reign of James III (with a possible regency of Mary of Modena between 1701 and 1708, I don't remember which was the majority in England in the 1700s), after that, in the beginning of the reign of Charles III (circa 1766) and that the idea of a reunification with Rome becomes popular (Even better if you can get Henry Benedict Stuart to become pope in 1775)


Step 1- With Parliament under his thumb James II could easily pass religious toleration, ONLY for Catholics he so wanted, this would be frowned upon by the general population but over time England will get used to toleration
Thing is, most of the *military* was overwhelming anti-Catholic (this is one of the main reasons why James fled, when he realized this) - and we all know what happens if someone pisses off their military, especially when you are asking James to be more openly pro-Catholic than IOTL.

Let's say William of Orange and his fleet end up sinking in a storm in the North Sea
Do we even know how the weather was IOTL during that period? I checked and found out that it was not that bad, actually the worst happened *before* the invasion and did delay it - and by the time William made his final attempt in early November the weather was in his favour - by preventing the English navy from intercepting him. Changing the weather definitely belongs to the realm of ASB.

See, you can only come up with the "William's fleet sunk in the storm" because even you are aware that the Stuarts English military was too much of a joke to fight against a foreign adversary (the English Navy was outnumbered 2-to-1 by the Dutch, and was undersupplied and undermanned - this definitely says volume about James' competency as a King).
 
Last edited:
Unlike what @Workable Goblin says, Parliament only cemented its whip hand with the Glorious Revolution. Not before. Sure, there were things the king didn't have control of and needed to call parliament for, but it was nothing like as cucked the crown became with the Bill of Rights.
I mean, beheading the king and then his son only being able to take it back because Parliament's invited him to (and that with a list of conditions that amounts to "and you'll overlook everything we did") sounds pretty darned cucked to me. Sure, maybe the Parliamentarians won't win the second go round but if you're James II and know that your father was totally destroyed defying Parliament do you want to stand up against them and invite their full fury? Probably not.

In fact, one of the big reasons W3 was even able to get the English to side with him was he played on the large number of Huguenots (who had only been welcomed into England at James' insistence) fleeing Louis XIV's dragonnades to panic the English into thinking James would do the same. So, provided James remains even-handed in matters like religion - no dragonnades or forced conversions - I don't see why he'd be deposed.
Sure, but that's against what the OP was asking for. My comments were about a James who tried something as insane as trying to end state Protestantism in England--IOTL, he only tried to establish Catholic tolerance, for very good reason, and even that was too much for the establishment to entirely bear.
 
@NedStark a ship doesn't need a storm to sink. Both the Titanic and the Andrea Doria sank on clear nights with experienced captains at the helm IIRC. We don't need a storm or an iceberg, we just need for the ship Will's on to sink because of striking a shoal, catching fire because the ship's cook didn't douse the kitchen fire properly, hit by a lucky shot from an English gun, etc.

As for the Dutch army and navy that outnumbered the English? You really think they'll still land because "we might as well" when their commander is dead? Most of the troops that Bill had with him were paid for by the Habsburgs and the pope (among others) for WILLIAM'S invasion, not the invasion of Keppel, Bentinck, Schomberg etc. Which means that they aren't getting paid now their paymaster is in the drink. The Dutch Estates will reassert power in Holland and they'll not wanna pay for this either.

I honestly don't get why you have such a hate for the Stuarts that immediately anything they try automatically ends up as OTL regardless, not just in this thread. I'm sorry if I'm reading it wrong, but my impression of you is that to you any Stuart, regardless of first name, is a bad king.

@Workable Goblin FWIG James' main problem wasn't that he wanted to rule without parliament, but rather that parliament wanted him to allow them to run the show (like Charles II had). The Catholicism was just a convenient face for it, since James was actually pretty popular (the navy was pro-James to its core), it only started to crumble badly when there was a foreign army on British soil and he wasn't engaging with it. That was when people started abandoning him like rats on a sinking ship. And by then, it was too late.
 
Top