By 1531 Henry was desperate for a solution and turned to his closest advisors, The Inner Ring of the Court. Thomas Cromwell had recently joined this group and was quick to show his ingenuity as well as his political might. He suggested to the King that should the Pope continue to refuse to annul the marriage, Henry should break the ties with Rome and run the English Church himself. Giving him the power to grant the divorce himself, without much of an opposition. He had taken the idea from the German Princes who had become supreme leaders of the churches in their own states. The introduction of various Statutes was the beginning of the break, The Act in Restraint of Appeals was the first; it abolished appeals to Rome for matrimonial and testimonial cases, which dramatically reduces Papal influence in England. We then see that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer was now able to grant an annulment of the marriage himself and declared the marriage to Henry’s lover Anne Boleyn legitimate. This was quickly followed by her coronation and was reinforced by legislation, in the form of the Succession and Treason Acts of 1534.
One historian’s opinion on the question of the divorce’s significance is such, “The only way to get what he wanted (…Divorce) was to take over the Popes powers within his own Kingdom…This he did and the Reformation took place” – (Randall). Here Randall is suggesting that it was Henry’s desire for divorce, which bought about the Reformation, it is easy to agree with this statement. Henry VIII was only the second Tudor monarch, securing the succession in his eyes was paramount for maintaining the status quo in England. Guy agrees with Randall “his suit for divorce threw down the gauntlet to papal authority”. I feel that although perhaps Henry’s original desire for divorce did not include the break from Rome, as the situation escalated, and as he got more desperate, he was willing to go to more extreme measures in order to ensure his succession. Nevertheless historian J.J. Scarisbrick would disagree “The beginnings of the Reformation in England was owed more to anticlericalism than to Anne Boleyn”.
The state of the Church prior to the reformation had been described as a corrupt institution, with more focus on wealth and power, than on religion and morality. Overall dissatisfaction was widespread amongst the people and many resented the fact that the Church, already an affluent organisation proceeded to charge its followers (the majority of which were peasants with barely enough money to survive) vast amounts of money to guarantee them a place in heaven. Anti-clericalism was recognised at all levels of Churches hierarchy. Characters at the top, Wolsey for example, were disliked for their immense riches as well as being guilty of pluralism. Consequently this reflected badly on Henry, as it was he, not the Pope who was responsible for the appointing the Bishops and Archbishops. Not only those in the upper echelons were seen as exploiting the people even monks and parish priests were up for scrutiny.
Many ordinary people were discontented by the fact that they had to give quite a substantial percent of their income to the church; this was further intensified by the fact that many priests were considered ill-educated, and many monks were not obeying their vows; chastity for example. It is therefore fairly simple to see why such a clear-cut number of historians support Christopher Hill’s argument that, “It was dissatisfaction with the pre-Reformation church in England facilitated the break with Rome”. However, we see that when it reached the extent that Henry began the dissolution of the monasteries and nunneries there was some resistance amongst the people, many even attempting to reinstate nuns back into their nunneries. Guy suggests, “there was already some organic Reformation from below”, nevertheless by the actions of many people and the large discontent over the implementation of the Reformation i.e. opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries, the extent of which certainly does not seem enough to bring about the Reformation and based upon more recent work from Guy “the King was not a Lutheran” this secular based “Reformation from below” apparently did not have support from the King himself, it seems therefore that Guys argument is somewhat flawed, though I am not going to dismiss his argument entirely as personally I feel that the state of the Pre-Reformation Church was a contributory factor to the Reformation. So if religious discontent was not the main cause and the “Reformation would have happened when it did even had the divorce not been an issue” – (Randall), then there must be another justification for the Reformation.
A more recent school on thought on the matter of the origins of the Reformation argues that Henry saw the potential of a break with Rome to massively increase his revenue by confiscating the huge areas of Church land and ultimately extend his control over his subjects further by converting the Church Courts which have been said to have been “closer to the common man than any royal court” into Royal Courts. The Act of Supremacy was the first step towards this. The Act of First Fruit and Tenths and the Act of Annates both secured Henry with funds previously going to Rome; at a time when the Crown was almost always short of funds and Henry personally always struggling for money, it could be argued that he saw this as the only way to preserve his solvency. The commencement of the dissolution of the monasteries provided Henry with the vast fortunes possessed by the Church, the selling of the lands to the increasing number of nobles and gentry at low prices secured him not only huge sums money but also many loyal supporters. Henry’s initial aims to only close the smaller monasteries soon escalated, and based on the shear number of ruthlessly efficient visitations many of the larger ones were soon subjected to the same fate, “Henry intended to steal half the apples, and then found the rest virtually fell into his lap” Randall.
Each of these views carries some weight and it is easy to see why Historians support either one or the other. The subject of the origins of the break with Rome and the Reformation are clouded by a number of things, firstly we are unsure of the actual level of nationwide discontent with the Church as there is much contradictory evidence between sources of Protestant and Catholic origin, which is in fact expected. Many see the divorce as the key to beginning of the Reformation, nevertheless many would argue that it was merely “the occasion rather than the cause” – (Pollard). With regards to the argument that it was Henry’s greed, well there is some justification for this but many would dispute the fact that it was his intention from the beginning.
I believe that to give any justification to the origins of the Reformation we need to consider all of the above as well as Henry’s motives and how they changed over time. Everything appears to stem back to the divorce, had the divorce not been an issue arguably Henry would not have begun to think of a break with Rome, but more likely would have only “postponed the rupture” – (Pollard). Even though we know that Henry was no Protestant I feel that it would have been increasingly difficult for him to preserve England within the Roman Catholic Communion, when he was under such intense pressure from Teutonic states to break away.
One argument is that Reformation was in fact just “a crisis which blew up out of nothing” (Harper-Bill), this is supported by the argument that “He did not begin implementation of a preconceived plan, if he had had a plan, he would have pushed it through much faster” – (Haigh). I do not think it is therefore fair to say that Henry facilitated the break with Rome in order to secure himself funds nor to in fact initiate doctrinal change. I feel that I must therefore also look at G.R. Elton’s view of why a break with Rome was considered, based on the argument that he did not have a clear plan in which he was implementing, from which he was influenced by those close to him. The manipulative nature of Thomas Cranmer is evidently somewhat a cause of the Reformation. He argued that Henry should be head of all the institutions within his realm and used the validation that “God had always intended the rulers he placed in power to have such all-embracing authority and that it was only the usurpations of the Popes which had interfered with this divinely ordained system of government”. I am sure that Henry at first would have been hesitant to succumb to such suggestions, but with the coupled intensity of influence from Christopher St. German, a leading theorist, it was only a matter of time before Henry’s “enormous ego” would crave for such power.
Nevertheless it is only when we observe the emergence of Cromwell as a key figure in the role of initiating the divorce do we see the break with Rome. He argued that it was the only way to secure Henry’s desire for divorce and reclaim his power of all the institutions in his land. It has been said that Cromwell “sugared the pill and tickled his (Henry) throat”. Furthermore even after the break with Rome had been finalised legally by the Act in Restraint of Annates in 1532 we still see Henry attempting to achieve some agreement with Rome. Once again we see Cromwell’s influence playing a major role in decision making, he argued that the only way to secure the divorce (i.e. allow for a valid annulment of Henry’s marriage to Catherine) was to ensure that Cannon Law had no part in the courts, which effectively would no longer allow any right for the Papacy to act as the final court of appeal. It had reached the point where Henry was almost merely a figurehead for these Cromwellian policies dictating massive change with huge implications; his ability to secure the divorce had earned himself much respect and admiration and went almost undisputed. In March 1533 we see the passing of the Act of Restraint of Appeals was introduced, securing exactly what Cromwell had been campaigning for strictly Royal run courts.
I feel that it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer to the question, it seems that all of the above issues seem to carry with them certain claims of justification that cannot be overlooked. One could argue that it was his want for more money and power, perhaps based on some jealous view of Wolsey’s wealth, or a deep-rooted psychological fixation with the want for more power and control over his subjects which drove him to look for this imperialistic authority, however if this were the case why did Henry move so slowly to initiate policy making? Nevertheless I feel that it does carry enough weight as an argument to be accountable as at least a contributory factor, which although perhaps was not in his mind at the start of the campaign to secure the divorce with Catherine of Aragon appeared as advantageous outcome to the ways and means by which he would achieve it.
Similarly with the arguments that anti-clericalism was the main cause of the Reformation it is easy to see how it could have brought about the change, nevertheless there are apparent short-falls in the argument that must be accounted for. Evidence suggests that there was much discontent with the Church; nevertheless we also see some resistance to the actual actions of change to it, and actually there were very few Protestants in England at this time. From this I feel that once again it can only be labelled, as merely a factor in the grand scheme of things, as the discontent noted was not widespread enough to warrant any major changes to the Church and certainly not a break with Rome.
With respect to the roles played by those around Henry at this time of indecision and complication, I feel that the process of the Reformation was speeded up by their exploiting of Henry. Had these people not been in the positions they were so fortunate to have I feel that policy would have been dictated differently and perhaps an ultimate break with Rome would not have occurred at this point in time.
The divorce in my opinion was what led to the break with Rome, which effectively caused the Reformation. Obviously though it was only the short-term catalyst of events but in a time when long-term discontents and new ideas, it seems like it would have been difficult for Henry to have held on to Roman Catholicism for much longer. Ultimately then was Henry’s matrimonial problems and his desire for divorce coupled with long-term discontent with the state of the pre-reformation church, his greed and want for greater power and control of his subjects, as well as the strong influence of those around him.
In conclusion then I feel that I support Pollard’s view that in fact that the divorce was “the occasion rather than the cause” and that had it not occurred would merely have only “postponed the rupture”, nevertheless without the other three contributory factors, anti-clericalism, greed and influence of advisors then the Reformation may not have began during Henry’s reign at all.