same thing only not excommunicated

We would have had to wait for Martin Luther but I feel many Anglicans agreed with him in their opposition to Roman authority way out in the British Isles. Anne Boleyn & Kathryn Howard would not have been the only ones to have lost their heads.

I think the reformation was going to happen in England with or without Henry VIII. Until his dying day, Henry called himself a Catholic and would not allow Protestantism to be tolerated. His beef with the Pope was that he was not allowed to get his own way in the matter of dissolving his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The real reason this dissolution was not permitted was not for religious reasons (the kings of many European countries regularly repudiated childless wives by using clauses such as consanguinuity- too closely related- or prior pledges). The only problem for Henry was that, at the time he wanted the divorce/anulment, the Papacy was surrounded literally by the troops of Catherine's nephew, the King of Spain. Henry just threw a royal tantrum to try and move things along...nothing different from the tantrums thrown by many an English (and indeed European) monarch before him. Excommunication was not uncommon for British kings...most of them ran foul of the Papacy at least once in their careers. But, the Pope could not move because of the political situation. So England stayed out. Now, had Henry waited a few years, Catherine, with the pressure on her to sign the anulment, may very well have died anyway (she was not in good health) which means that Henry would have been free to remarry. Had he not have married Anne Boleyn, that would have been no real difference for England, since Henry's 3rd wife, Jane Seymour, married him AFTER the death of Catherine, thus assuring him of a legitimate heir, Edward VI. Had Edward survived (it was only a freak illness that took him out- he was not the weakling people portray him as) England would have almost certainly become Protestant under him. His advisors were all closet Protestants under Henry, and at least two of the remaining wives (Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr) were Protestant.

Great question. I genuinely think religion would be more hard line than it is, however I am an atheist so not best placed for comment.

POSSIBLY a Pious Catholic but ?WHONOES?

I don't get it , sorry , if you are talking about the Bible in English, Wycliff and William Tyndale had already translated it.. William Tyndale was burned at stake for more or less defying the pope!!!! and he had been a catholic, just would not stand for the popes laws , would rather follow GOD'S... so, that is exactly what he did...my Bible tells me , catholic religion could quite possibly be the anti-christ cause it sur isn't CHRISTIANITY...

Henry VIII's break from the Roman church was not a theological one, as many incorrectly suppose. In fact, his defection was self-serving. The Roman church was corrupt, this is true, but as the most powerful entity in medieval Europe, this is not surprising. To quote John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton, the historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." This quote could be used to quite accurately describe Henry Tudor, as well. King Henry VIII had in fact, requested that the Pope permit him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused. King Henry responded by marrying his mistress anyway, (later having two of his many wives executed), and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Rome’s religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church. This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its “Pope”. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English… the first legal English Bible… just for spite. Even if Henry at this time had not broken with Rome, the seeds of Reformation were already being laid in England as well as Continental Europe. They defection of England merely expidited the process. But reform was inevitable. It is worth pointing out, however, that the Catholic Church is not to be considered the enemy. At it's highest level, there were a great deal of problems, but I dare you show me one omnipotent entity throughout history that did not have a degree of corruption. There is none.

85% of William Tyndale's English Bible is what Henry's scholars used too.seeing that it was VERY AGREEABLE with his translators, they could not have done a better translation themselves. But the world owes a lot more to the Waldeneses for keeping it PURE and out of Catholic hands.

We'd be over run by catholics as there would be no protestants

There would be far more english peolpe as there would have been less genocides in england, or at least less violence

Probably very different. For starters, the USA might not exist and history may have been very different. Some believe that a Catholic England would have been brought into the orbit of the Spanish Empire and that it would not have united with Scotland to form Great Britain. It has been argued that in such circumstances, NNorth America would have been mostly Spanish speaking and eventually ended up divided up into several states like modern South America. English would have remained minor language and there may well have been no British Empire or United States. It is likely, that the vast majority of Europeans and Americans would have been Catholics and that there would be far fewer Protestants. Many speculate that there would have been no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution and that the World would still be ruled by Absolute monarchs. Some further speculate that there would be no modern ethnic nations and that Germany and Italy would never have been united. Africa and much of Asia might still be part of European Colonial Empires. If even some of this is true, then we are a lot better off due to Henry VIII.

Its like the butterfly effect. You really cant say what would happen! However, i think the split with the Roman Catholic Church would have found a way to happen anyway. I think it was already in the works. There was already writings and other documentation that didnt support Catholicism out at that time. But, its interesting to think about how it would have shaped the USA.

19th century historian Jacob Burckhardt characterised the reformation as a naked power grab by the secular princes of northern Europe. According to Burckhardt, the princes supported men like Luther not out of religious conviction, but, cynically, to provide moral cover for their theft of Church property. Henry VIII's confiscation of Britain's monasteries after his break with Rome certainly seems to bolster Burckhardt's position. This is not to defend the Catholic church in all things. Luther was right in his argument with Tetzel. Was he right in all the theological innovations he subsequently made? I don't know anymore. How would the world be different had Henry not broken with Rome? I recall reading an article a few years ago in which it was reported that archeologists had discovered residue indicating the production of high-grade steel at one of the monasteries Henry VIII shut down. Perhaps Henry delayed the Industrial Revolution. The USA might not exist, though North America certainly would have been colonised by Europeans, including the English. The North American Indian tribes, though still more suceptible to European disease than their Mexican and South American couterparts, would have been better off if the Euopeans they faced still accepted Rome as a moral authority, since that authority argued against the worst depredations of the conquistadors. (see Las Casas) This difference is seen in the fact that today, Columbus Day is to Mexican Indians a day of religious celebration, while for U.S. Indians it is a day of protests. Anyway, it's all speculation. Henry VIII broke with Rome for self-serving reasons and paved the way for the modern nation-state. He is considered a hero. Men like Thomas More stuck to principle and lost their heads. It was always thus.