The Rippling of History, Real and Imagined
In the study of History, I have always been skeptical of all-encompassing theories which seek to explain everything. In this realm, I believe there is one theory, above all others, which seeks to explain so very much while actually explaining hardly anything at all. This of course is economic and/or class struggle determinism. Mind you, I do believe that people will follow their own self-interest, in economics as well as other areas. But this is just the outplaying of human nature rather than any overriding economic determinism. I saw the theory trotted-out recently in an online argument, and it is dreary stuff indeed. At my stage of life, I simply do not have time for it.
In 1840, Thomas Carlyle proposed that “the history of the world was but the biography of great men,” in which History is propelled in certain directions by the individual actions of great men and women. I’m sure this is considered an old-fashioned notion, and dismissed by those who advocate Determinism of one sort or another. But, I would have to say that the theory has held up remarkably well, certainly better than most.
I would propose a corollary theory: that of the Little Man of History. The hinges of History can turn on the slightest of things; not always the deeds of the great, but sometimes deeds denied the great, and often on those who never rise to that categorization. It causes me to reflect on how all life–past, present, future–is one, our actions rippling into eternity. We live in an ordered cosmos, and we act in hopes of certain outcomes, but what transpires often is just a measure of how little control we truly have. This is not to suggest that our existence is random, but rather a recognition of what used to be called Fate. There is something to that, but perhaps best understood within the context of Faith.
These are some of the thoughts I had while standing at the tomb of Prince Arthur in Worcester Cathedral. It is a lovely memorial located in a chancel chapel. The faces of the carvings within the shrine were defaced by the iconoclasts of the English Reformation, but the overall effect is not terribly marred. Arthur was, of course, the oldest son and heir of Henry VII. In a spectacular match, he was married to Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. He died a few months into their marriage, at the age of fifteen. Henry VII was heartbroken, but was also loath to have to return Catherine’s dowry. So, she was married to the younger brother, who in time became Henry VIII. How much subsequent history was determined at the sickbed of this teenage boy! What would have been different had he lived to have a family with Catherine? Well, simply everything.
There would have been no Henry VIII, who would have remained the original “Spare.” There would have been no English Reformation, or at least not as imposed by Henry. There would have been no need for a Church of England, nor for that matter, a Church of Scotland. Troublemakers like Thomas Cranmer or Thomas Cromwell would have remained unknown to History. There would have been no Dissolution of the Monasteries, and the subsequent upheaval to the rhythm of rural English life. 90% of English art would not have been destroyed in an iconoclastic orgasm of ideological fervor, and English churches and shrines would have remained awash in color, rather than the stone or whitewashed sepulchers of today. There would have been no new aristocracy to steal the land of the peasants, and there would have been no Enclosures Act. Scotland would have remained independent, and thus no Union, and no Stuart kings of England. There was no New England because there were no Puritans—no “City on a Hill,” no Protestant work ethic. There would have been no English Civil War, and thus no opportunities for scoundrels like Oliver Cromwell to commit regicide and the Irish atrocities. There would have been no transplantation of Scots to Ireland, thus no Ulster Plantation, and thus no Northern Ireland. There would have been no need for any so-called “Glorious Revolution.” Easing into modernity, there would have been no Act of Union and no Great Britain. The empire would have been English rather than British. The Industrial Revolution would have been muted, not being able to feed upon rural dispossession and poverty, and would consequently been less convulsive to English society.
Who knows, maybe things would have been worse. But it is hard to imagine them so, and certainly it would not have been as bloody. Over a few days, I enjoyed imagining an alternative history given the parameters above—no Church of England, and no Puritans in America. A few highlights, below:
The 1500s
King Arthur and Queen Catherine establish a lasting alliance with Spain and Portugal, united in opposition to France. Secure at home and buoyed by the support of their Iberian kinsmen, England embarks on colonization in North America by the 1540s, established settlements along the St. Edward River (our St. Lawrence), the Hudson River and around Chesapeake Bay. These three river systems form the basis for the three colonies: New Cumbria, New Lancashire, and New Yorkshire, collectively known as the Western Shires. Other than a few islands in the Caribbean, France never establishs a presence in the New World. In time the English Empire became known as the Kingdom of the Three Crowns: England and Wales, Ireland, and the Western Shires.
Relationships with native Indians proceed on similar lines as Spanish colonialism; the adoption of Catholicism being the ticket into the broader culture. The English prove even more willing than the Spanish to form families with the native Indians, creating an American creole society within a few generations. (Examples in our history of such outliers as Thomas Morton’s Marymount on Massachusetts Bay, and the near-mythical existence of Melilot in the Appalachians would have been seen as normative.)
The Protestant Reformation affects England no more than it does Portugal, Spain and the Italian states. There is no broad dissatisfaction with Catholicism as practiced in England. England is united, so it did not have the political rivalries of central Europe which feed the fires of the Reformation there. Despite efforts of the religious revolutionaries, Protestantism finds no fertile ground on the British Isles. Pietism eventually establishes a small presence in East Anglia, but never extends north of the Humber or west of the fens. Their requests to establish colonies in North America are denied.
Arthur dies relatively young, but not before fathering seven surviving children; five daughters and two sons. One of the daughters becomes an Abbess, and the other four marry their Spanish and Portuguese cousins, including Philip II. The sons, John and Geoffrey, were young when King Arthur died. Price Henry crosses the English Channel from Calais in a bid to assume the Regency. With memories of Richard III still fresh in the memories of many, the nobles of the North rally around Queen Catherine and they stop Henry’s march on London. Henry is forced to take orders and enter a monastery in Ireland, where he dies childless.
The regency of Good Queen Catherine is considered the beginning of England’s golden era. Geoffrey, the younger son, marries Mary, Queen of Scots, beginning the close association between the English and Scottish nations, though they never merge. The older son, John II, marries a Portuguese cousin and produces a number of children. The reigns of Arthur II and Arthur III complete the 16th century.
The 1600s
The 17th century sees the expansion of the English empire. Close to home, the relationship with Ireland is gradually normalized. A younger son of the king always maintains his residence at the Dublin palace, as representative of the Crown. But more importantly, the Irish attain representation in Parliament on the same basis as the English. Late in the century, this privilege is extended to the Western Shires. English explorers establish additional colonies, all in the southern hemisphere: Argentina, the African Cape, Ceylon and the south of Australia.
Slavery is introduced into North America by 1570. It is slow to expand, and its legal standing remains questionable. There is no local legislative assembly to address the issue, so it continues to be left in limbo. Slaves are generally kept for a set number of years, and in the reign of King Arthur III, it was decreed that children of slaves were to be free upon reaching age 30. In time, African slaves enter into the larger creole community of the Western Shires. Urged on by its Irish members, Parliament takes action to restrict slavery by the 1670s, leading to its absolute abolition in the 18th-century.
In the Treaty of Antwerp (1696), various colonial claims of the European powers are resolved. The presence of England in Argentina is recognized by both Spain and Portugal. England agrees to Portugal’s presence in the Indian subcontinent, while their own position in Ceylon is recognized. The Dutch give up any claims in the Cape in exchange for the northern half of Australia. In North America, Spain and England proactively resolve future controversy by establishing the Mississippi River as the western boundary of the Western Shires. In a corollary to the treaty in 1798, Spain and Russia established that Russian settlement of the Pacific Coast of North American would extend no further than 100 miles south of San Francisco Bay, thereby ending any remaining territorial questions about the North American continent.
The 1700s
A dispute concerning mercantile restrictions imposed by London festers to the point of conflict between England and the Western Shires by the middle of the 1700s. The colonial spokesman is Theodoric Tudor, natural son of Prince Edwin and a creole woman, herself the descendant of an earlier Prince in Residence. Over two centuries, a native aristocracy had arisen in the Western Shires, the offspring of English princes and nobles with the local creole population. Tudor presents the concerns of the Shires in the form of a Remonstrance. Parliament ignores the plea and reiterates their existing policy. So later, delegates assemble in the capital of New Yorkshire and vote to declare their autonomy within the English empire, establishing the United Shires of America. Later, at the Cathedral, the Bishop of the Western Shires crowns Theodoric as king of the loose confederation. England refuses recognition, at first, but also failed to respond militarily. In time, the autonomy of the USA is accepted, within the larger English empire. This provides a template for the aspirations of other New World colonies. The USA, through its Parliament and the House of Theodoric assumes a leading role among the American nations, but purposely chooses to avoid trying to project power outside of the Western Hemisphere.
So, my fantasy ends here. England, without the burden of a dead faith, and America without any Puritanical meddling and hectoring, or money-mad acquisitiveness. It is a nice dream, but only that.