Source C on the other hand describes the enforcement of the reformation to be subtle and over a long period of time. It appears as though over the years it has slowly grown until it finally reached the status of a reformation. It explains that adjustments were made slowly and progressively as to not cause an up roar or major disturbance. This can be said true as the break with Rome lasted over such a long period and involved the activities of Henry gradually stretching the Pope’s patience beginning with simple proposals yet building up to his separation with the English Church, his name being erased from the service books and all memory of him as head of the church being removed. The public “ate their reformation” as it was disguised in pleasant sweet wrappers. Through propaganda the piecemeal reformation was not seen as significant un till the enforcement was solid and there was no questions left to be made. This differs with the views o B in that B describes the reformation to be majorly rested upon “This day”. Hasty actions which led to the finalized reformation, the final break with Rome, unlike C where support was first gained and power was enforced, like a slow trickling tap it will eventually fill up the bath although it will go unheard and unnoticed.
On a level the two sources are similar in that they still both reflect some resilience, and retaliation to the radical changes being enforced. Source B “God, if it be his pleasure, have mercy on their souls” suggests that there were people who were taking note of Henrys actions and acquiring an opposing view although their statuses did not allow them to disagree with the King publically. C, “the Conservative people of England would find a wholesale Reformation distasteful” also suggests that if the public would have been more conscious of Henrys full intentions, the laid back manner of the majority of the public would have been much less common. Both the sources seem to propose that the enforcement of the Reformation was purposeful, it was not only Henrys desire for a divorce, and the break with Rome was in Henrys full intentions.
I think that although the two sources agree about the reaction to the reformation and the progressive build up of more radical, noticeable movements, they differ on how they deliver the enforcement of the reformation, B depicting it on quick ferocious accounts whereas C reflecting it more as a slow creeping hold over the public.
B)
I think that overall Henry and Cromwell were very successful in containing the opposition to the beak with Rome, there was very little opposition that actually raised itself and any major threats were dealt with effectively to conclude in Henry with the aid of Cromwell succeeding with the break with Rome.
Source A agrees on the terms that Henry and Cromwell successfully obtained opposition. “I trust that the blessed King” shows the awareness of Henrys actions against the Catholic Pope however the source still supports Henrys “malice against the bishop of Rome” ad still describes the belief left in the King. This source implies opposition was successfully obtained as the source still shows full support towards Henry. The use of “bishop of Rome” instead of Pope also highlights the fact that this source sides with Henry and his path towards the break with Rome and the willingness of the source (and writer) to follow his lead.
Source C also shows support towards the statement in question B. “The meal was more manageable” suggests that any opposition did not arise due to Henry and Cromwell’s cleverly schemed tactics of feeding implications towards the break with Rome in “tiny morsels” so that no opposition took notice as there did not appear to be any radical or extreme movements being made which was also likely to of been disguised even more so by the aid of propaganda so highly favoured by Henry and Cromwell. This too diverted the public’s attention away from the slowly growing reformation onto less offensive topics.
