How Serious Was Opposition to Henry Viii's Religious Changes?

2034 Words9 Pages
How serious was opposition to Henry VIII’s religious changes? Opposition to the religious reforms by Henry VIII was never serious, the opposition did have some potential to cause damage but the danger was never severe enough for worry because of the omnipotent “Most Christian King”. Opposition was only as serious as the support it had, which is why The Pilgrimage of Grace of 1526 was the most dangerous form of opposition. Henry ensured that disapproval from his kingdom would never threaten to undermine the longevity of the Tudor dynasty by using Cromwells key weapon: The Treason Act of 1525. This allowed Henry to eradicate any opposition that had potential to threaten Henry. The religious changes came to a halt in 1539, where Henry sends out a strong deterrent message by executing the architect of the religious changes, Cromwell. One of the groups who contributed disapproval was the clergy. This opposition had worrying potential to become serious because of the reputation of those who delivered it, for example More, who’s resistance was actually passive, did not actively deny the King’s title or offer any strong opposition to the regime, his trial was rigged and perjured evidence and the ruthlessness of his death meant that others refrained from open opposition to the King. In comparison, Fisher’s opposition was more vocal, he publicly condemned Henry getting an annulment from Catherine of Aragon, he was much more active in his opposition, delivering sermons and publishing books, an example of which being Sermon Against the Pernicious Doctrine of Martin Luther (1521). In April 1524, Fisher refused to take the oath on the act of succession, which was significant because it meant that they were choosing their Roman Catholic beliefs over Henry, which was treasonous. Historian Weir said, on fisher’s death, “there was widespread outrage at the buckering of such a
Open Document