Henry VIII practice essay 7
Assess the effectiveness of Henry VIII’s government in dealing with opposition to the religious
changes from 1529-1547
The overall effectiveness of Henry VIII’s government in dealing with opposition to the
religious changes from 1529-1547 can be measured by the unquestionable royal supremacy which
existed at the time of the king’s death and the lack of credible threats to reverse the changes.
Despite this, the reversion towards Catholic doctrine in the 1540s suggests that the conservatives
did have some success, a view further supported by the execution of ‘the architect of the
Reformation’, Sir Thomas Cromwell.
Among the commons, the effectiveness of Henry VIII’s government in dealing with the
opposition to religious changes is not in dispute. On the surface, the Pilgrimage of Grace appears as
a considerable threat to the royal supremacy; some 40,000 people revolted against the dissolution
of the monasteries in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Westmorland and Cumberland. The size and
geographical scale of the rebellion did shock Henry, and for a while the dissolution process was
halted. However, the revolt was limited to the northern counties and thus never threatened the king
directly. The leanings of these areas to more traditional forms of worship were completely ignored
by the government, who moved forward with the dissolution policies once the revolt was crushed. In
fact, Cromwell increased the rate at which the monasteries were dissolved, issuing the Act for the
Dissolution of the Larger Monasteries immediately after the rebellion as a sign that opposition would
never succeed under his premiership. The piecemeal process adopted by Cromwell not only with
regards to dissolving the monasteries but throughout the Reformation was extremely effective,
ensuring that opposition would not mount with each change and reach an extent where it would
genuinely threaten the government. Cromwell had great success in dealing with opposition because
he methodically planned how the religious changes would take place; he crucially went about
securing the submission of Convocation before the gentry and the commons could have their say. As
a result of legislation such as the Submission of the Clergy, both the higher and lower orders had no
choice but to follow the lead of the Church in accepting Henry’s supremacy to direct religious
change. This meant that throughout the Reformation, the government had the law on their side,
which enabled anyone who opposed them to be labelled as criminals. Given the nature of
punishments in this early modern era of the state, this was a strong deterrence for even the most
staunch opponents, and so opposition was largely pre-empted and defeated before it could manifest
properly by the government.
Cromwell’s use of Parliament was another crucial reason why opposition to the religious
changes could be dealt with so effectively. The use of Parliament went hand in hand with forcing the
clergy to swear the Oath of Supremacy to the king, as Cromwell managed to get the Treason Act
passed through Parliament. The apparent support of Parliament for the law (by approving it) gave
the religious changes made by Henry’s government the stamp of legitimacy and democracy, which
subsequently meant that those who opposed the Reformation could be deemed enemies of the
people’s will. The Treason Act proved consequential in dealing with the two most important
dissidents to the religious changes – Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher. Fisher was the only
bishop in Convocation who opposed the anti-Catholic legislation passed in the 1530s, suggesting that
opposition to the Reformation was indeed a minimal threat and not serious. In any case, the
Assess the effectiveness of Henry VIII’s government in dealing with opposition to the religious
changes from 1529-1547
The overall effectiveness of Henry VIII’s government in dealing with opposition to the
religious changes from 1529-1547 can be measured by the unquestionable royal supremacy which
existed at the time of the king’s death and the lack of credible threats to reverse the changes.
Despite this, the reversion towards Catholic doctrine in the 1540s suggests that the conservatives
did have some success, a view further supported by the execution of ‘the architect of the
Reformation’, Sir Thomas Cromwell.
Among the commons, the effectiveness of Henry VIII’s government in dealing with the
opposition to religious changes is not in dispute. On the surface, the Pilgrimage of Grace appears as
a considerable threat to the royal supremacy; some 40,000 people revolted against the dissolution
of the monasteries in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Westmorland and Cumberland. The size and
geographical scale of the rebellion did shock Henry, and for a while the dissolution process was
halted. However, the revolt was limited to the northern counties and thus never threatened the king
directly. The leanings of these areas to more traditional forms of worship were completely ignored
by the government, who moved forward with the dissolution policies once the revolt was crushed. In
fact, Cromwell increased the rate at which the monasteries were dissolved, issuing the Act for the
Dissolution of the Larger Monasteries immediately after the rebellion as a sign that opposition would
never succeed under his premiership. The piecemeal process adopted by Cromwell not only with
regards to dissolving the monasteries but throughout the Reformation was extremely effective,
ensuring that opposition would not mount with each change and reach an extent where it would
genuinely threaten the government. Cromwell had great success in dealing with opposition because
he methodically planned how the religious changes would take place; he crucially went about
securing the submission of Convocation before the gentry and the commons could have their say. As
a result of legislation such as the Submission of the Clergy, both the higher and lower orders had no
choice but to follow the lead of the Church in accepting Henry’s supremacy to direct religious
change. This meant that throughout the Reformation, the government had the law on their side,
which enabled anyone who opposed them to be labelled as criminals. Given the nature of
punishments in this early modern era of the state, this was a strong deterrence for even the most
staunch opponents, and so opposition was largely pre-empted and defeated before it could manifest
properly by the government.
Cromwell’s use of Parliament was another crucial reason why opposition to the religious
changes could be dealt with so effectively. The use of Parliament went hand in hand with forcing the
clergy to swear the Oath of Supremacy to the king, as Cromwell managed to get the Treason Act
passed through Parliament. The apparent support of Parliament for the law (by approving it) gave
the religious changes made by Henry’s government the stamp of legitimacy and democracy, which
subsequently meant that those who opposed the Reformation could be deemed enemies of the
people’s will. The Treason Act proved consequential in dealing with the two most important
dissidents to the religious changes – Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher. Fisher was the only
bishop in Convocation who opposed the anti-Catholic legislation passed in the 1530s, suggesting that
opposition to the Reformation was indeed a minimal threat and not serious. In any case, the
