In the end the "defender of the faith" didn't really change that much:
Meanwhile, Henry, though taking advantage of the spirit of religious innovation now rife among the people whenever it suited his purpose, remained still attached to the sacramental system in which he had been brought up. In 1539 the Statute of the Six Articles enforced, under the severest penalties, such doctrines as transubstantiation, Communion under one kind, auricular confession, and the celibacy of the clergy. Under this act offenders were sent to the stake for their Protestantism just as ruthlessly as the aged Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was attainted by Parliament and eventually beheaded, simply because Henry was irritated by the denunciations of her son Cardinal Pole. Neither was the king less cruel towards those who were nearest to him. Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, his second and fifth wives, perished on the scaffold, but their whilom lord only paraded his indifference regarding the fate to which he had condemned them. On 30 July, 1540, of six victims who were dragged to Smithfield, three were Reformers burnt for heretical doctrine, and the other three Catholics, hanged and quartered for denying the king's supremacy. Of all the numerous miserable beings whom Henry sent to execution, Cromwell, perhaps, is the only one who fully deserved his fate. Looking at the last fifteen years of Henry's life, it is hard to find one single feature which does not evoke repulsion, and the attempts made by some writers to whitewash his misdeeds only give proof of the extraordinary prejudice with which they approach the subject. Henry's cruelties continued to the last, and so likewise did his inconsistencies. One of the last measures of confiscation of his reign was an act of suppression of chantries, but Henry by his last will and testament established what were practically chantries to have Masses said for his own soul.
Where is the citation for that paragraph?
Or is it your own work you posted?
You wrote:
“Henry VIII was no reformer. All of his moves were taken for personal/political reasons and not religious ones.”
That doesn’t make him any less of a “Reformer”. I think all of the “Reformers” often acted out of personal gain rather than religious conviction or simply confused the two as one in the same.
Also, your quote didn’t do anything to overturn what I posted. You are off by four years. It doesn’t matter how Henry VIII started out. It matters where Henry ended up. If Henry started to Protestantize the ritual books (and he did) and did all the other things I mentioned (and he did) then he was a “Reformer”.
The fact that he disagreed with the other “Reformers” is also meaningless. They ALL disagreed with each other. It’s sectarianism based on subjective feelings and interpretations of the Bible. Of course they disagreed with each other.