But if you hold that to be true, the monasteries were not immune to the same processes. The monastic system was in decline by even before Henry VIII'x reign. The numbers of monasteries had stopped increasing long before. Membership of monasteries was falling fast. As a way of doing things, monasteries were yesterdays news. You might argue thats a sad thing, and even a bad thing, and I would agree with you. But it was happening. Sure the dissolution was sudden, but is that because Henry VIII was a greedy nasty person, or because it had to happen that way because the institution was so hidebound and rigid that it would NOT change. Truth be told, it was probably a bit of both. As I have argued before, even an absolutist monarch must have had a considerable amount of public suppport to pull something as drastic as the break with Rome off. And as evidence for that - Yes people were upset by the dissolution, but they weren't so upset they were prepared to challenge it violently, which they certainly would have done a hundred, even fifty years previously.
‘as evidence for that - Yes people were upset by the dissolution, but they weren’t so upset they were prepared to challenge it violently’
For your edification: the ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’
Wiki—The reforms, which closed down monasteries that were the only support of the impoverished,[18] alienated most of the population outside of London and helped provoke the great northern rising of 1536–1537, known as the Pilgrimage of Grace.[19] It was the only real threat to Henry’s security on the throne in all his reign. Some 30,000 rebels in nine groups were led by the charismatic Robert Aske, together with most of the northern nobility. Aske went to London to negotiate terms; once there he was arrested, charged with treason and executed. About 200 rebels were executed and the disturbances ended.