Quite so, but I would add that its not all down to Henry. The simple fact is that there was a lot of popular support for his actions amongst the English population as a whole. Even an absolutist king would not have been able to make the break with Rome without that. Ordinary people resented the economic and political power of the Catholic Church. Intellectuals derided its corruption. The reformation was in full swing and theologians were beginning to really look at what they were saying. It was a time of great flux.
It was indeed a time of ‘great flux’, mostly in the laws of property.
The Protestant schism in England led almost immediately to the theft of immense amounts of land by the nobles and the King. It was one of the greatest transferals of wealth in history. All the great estates of England began at that time.
The schism was led by greed. Greed for power and for somebody else’s wealth.
Read The Stripping of the Altars, Eamon Duffy's splendid book. The Reformation in England was imposed top-down on a largely unwilling populace, which reacted with great unhappiness to the destruction of their churches, monasteries and religious foundations. The bourgeoisie of London supported it, but it got away from them. Revolutions so often do.
Surely you realize that Elizabeth I's Poor Law was a stop-gap attempt to fill the vacuum left when all the charitable works of the Church were destroyed? Henry took the money and abandoned all the poor, sick and disabled that the Church had cared for.