HISTORY ASSESSMENT
How important was anti-clericalism as a motive for the break with Rome?
(25 marks)
The Break with Rome of 1534 was a highly significant event during the reign of
Henry VIII due to its unprecedented nature and the extent of its impact. However, it
is much debated what the fundamental motive behind it was. Whilst anti-clericalism
played an important role, divorce and Henry’s desperation for a male heir was the
most important motive because without this want, Henry would not have come into
such an extreme conflict with the Pope and the Break with Rome would not have
happened.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that anti-clericalism was still significant. Anti-
clericalism is the principle of opposing religious authority, particularly in social or
political matters. For Henry VIII, the power of the Pope over religion in England, and
particularly the King’s marriage, was at the centre of Henry’s struggle to get a
divorce, hence anti-clericalism played a role in the Break with Rome. Furthermore,
there was popular opposition against the Catholic Church across much of England at
the time due to its corrupt nature. Ordinary people were often exploited by the
Church out of fear of going to hell. People would have to make donations through the
principle of indulgences and tithes in return for the forgiveness of sins. The people
also became aware of the shortcomings of the clergy as the issues simony and
pluralism, which allowed Churchman could earn significant amounts of money
without fulfilling their duties to their community, were revealed. The issue of the
Catholic Church was largely personified by Wolsey, who was referred to as the ‘alter
rex’ with extravagant pomp, two illegitimate children and who openly lived with his
mistress until 1519. These grievances were only exacerbated when the spread of
Protestantism presented an alternative way of worship. Martin Luther presented
contradictions of key Catholic principles in his 95 theses of 1517 which, by the
1520s, spread to England where their teachings, through Lollards and the acts of
William Tyndale, became well known. In terms of the Break with Rome, popular
opposition to the Catholic church was significant because the removal of Catholicism
could be seen as a patriotic act by Henry in favour of his people. For history G. R.
Elton (1921-1994) anti-clericalism was of great importance as it created an
atmosphere in parts of England that made reception of Protestantism, and therefore
the Break with Rome, possible. In conclusion, the social and political power of the
Pope combined with the spread of Protestantism fuelled anti-clericalism amongst the
English people and the King and therefore anti-clericalism was a motive behind the
Break with Rome.
Despite this, the argument that anti-clericalism is the most important motive is
largely unconvincing because there is substantial evidence that Henry was a devoted
Catholic. This is firstly demonstrated by the number of attempts made to try and get
a divorce without breaking from the Catholic church. This reluctance is exhibited
through the significant amount of time Henry and Wolsey spent trying to persuade
the papacy to grant the King a divorce. Wolsey tried to secure a divorce via
scriptural arguments, diplomatic manoeuvres and legal efforts before accepting
defeat. The multitude of attempts clearly demonstrates a reluctance to Break with
Rome showing the anti-clericalism could not have been the most important motive
behind the event. Furthermore, during the reformation and the establishment of The
Church of England, Henry’s devotion to Catholicism was demonstrated in his
reluctance to institute significant, protestant doctrinal reforms. For example, the
Bishop’s Book 1537 rediscovered the previously lost four Catholic sacraments of
marriage, ordination, confirmation and extreme unction and Henry made a
correction to ensure that good works were equally as necessary as faith in regards to
, salvation. The burning of reformist John Lambert at the Stake in 1538 and the
passing of the Act of Six Article 1539, which enshrined Catholic beliefs, serve to
cement evidence that Henry was at the very least a reluctant reformist, if not a
strong Catholic believer. If these beliefs were still present after the Break with Rome,
they were definitely present before it and therefore anti-clericalism cannot be seen
to be the most significant motive in the Break with Rome.
Henry’s desire for wealth and power can also be seen as a motive behind the Break
with Rome. The Catholic Church in England held incomprehensible wealth through
monastic land, lavish churches and cathedrals, as well as expensive possessions.
Henry was known as an eccentric King who loved to live an expensive lifestyle,
hence obtaining control over the Church and its wealth would have been extremely
enticing and therefore can be considered a motive behind the Break with Rome. For
Henry, gaining the Church’s wealth would have been beneficial as it could be used to
fund his ambitious foreign policy aims. Henry VIII was determined to be seen as a
glorious, warrior King like that of King Arthur and this resulted in costly wars, such as
those in France in 1512-14 and 1522, which had drained the royal coffers. The
benefit of hindsight allows us to see that this was a clear motive as by May 1543,
Henry rushed to sell monastic land, which would provide him with £800,000, to fund
wars with Scotland and then France. We can therefore see that Church wealth
enabled Henry to pursue his foreign policy aim of military glory hence wealth was a
motive behind the Break with Rome. Secondly, the Pope and the Catholic Church had
an enormous amount of power over Henry and England which caused great tension.
In the eyes of historian A. F. Pollard (1869-1948), Henry was desperate for control
and power but his inability to get a divorce had awakened him to his subservience to
the Pope hence the Break with Rome was inevitable. Selling monastic land to nobles
would have also given Henry significant power. Overall, the desire for wealth and
power were significant motives behind the Break with Rome, nonetheless, these
motives were not important enough to act in isolation. This is largely because the
risk of breaking with Rome was much larger than the benefits of gaining more wealth
and power, a view shared by historians Haigh and Elton. The threat of
excommunication that came with removing Papal authority and Catholicism
endangered Henry greatly as it removed all oaths of loyalty to him made by his
subjects. It would also isolate him internationally and rebellions could result in his
removal as King. When you combine these threats with the level of power and
wealth that Henry VIII already had as King of England, it does not seem realistic that
the desire for the wealth and power possessed by the Church could have been
extreme enough for Henry to Break with Rome. Therefore, whilst the desire for
wealth and power was certainly a factor, it was not the most important motive
behind the Break with Rome.
The most important motive behind the Break with Rome was Henry VIII’s desire for a
divorce and a male heir. Henry was concerned about potential unrest in regard to
the continuation of the Tudor dynasty. Electing Mary as heir could be risky as she
was a woman and choosing his illegitimate son could also have caused upheaval and
potentially even a civil war with the War of the Roses still fresh in the minds of the
people. The lack of a legitimate, male heir was consequently a huge problem and it
was clear to Henry that Catherine of Aragon was no longer going to give him a son,
hence divorce and re-marriage appeared the only option. The lengths Wolsey and
Henry went to try and get a divorce without breaking from the Catholic Church
demonstrates not only a lack of anti-clericalism, but also the importance of divorce
for Henry. Firstly, Wolsey tried to secure a divorce through scriptural arguments. He
argued that the validity of Henry and Catherine’s marriage relied on Catherine’s
word that her marriage to Arthur in 1509 had not been consummated. If this was
untrue, which they argued was the case, Henry had been misled and therefore could
get an annulment. Wolsey based this argument on Leviticus 20:16 which said ‘if a
