Henry might have been a beastly man, but he didn't create the Church of England on his own. He didn't just give an order to his Catholic bishops, and then they immediately threw up their hands and said "What ever you say Henry." Reform movements had been winding through Catholic England for several centuries starting with John Wycliffe in the 14th century who translated the Bible into English. By the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation was in full swing on the continent of Europe. Many Catholic priests in England fell under the sway of Protestant ideas. These priests wanted reforms in liturgy and independence from Rome. When Rome refused the annulment of Henry's marriage, English Catholic priests came to his aid. All the king had to do was break with Rome and these reformists priests would grant him his annulment. After all, they told Henry, the Old Testament forbids that a man should marry his brother's wife.
Such is history, but on another matter, I do wonder when the Italian state is going to give the Papal States back to Pope.
It's hard to tell what might have happened if Henry had had a son by Catherine of Aragon who had survived. If there had been a line of Tudor kings after Henry who were loyal to Rome, Protestantism would have still come into England from the Continent and from Scotland. The question is how much of the population would have gone over to it--10% ... 20% ... more? They might have ended up with a situation like in France, with 90% of the population Catholic and 10% Protestant, but England and France are very different countries so it isn't safe to argue from analogies.
Well, to dig deeper still, however, those “reform” movements have very political origins. Papal acceptance of the Magna Carta hinged on England having a unique condition of fealty to Rome which the British government deeply detested, and sought to get out from under. One British king even offered his kingdom to become a vassal state to Islam, but a wise Sultan of Morrocco deemed any land which tolerated such a wicked ruler would be a liability. Wycliffe operated with a Parlaimentary “commission” of sorts to undermine the papal domination. With Jan Hus (who studied Wycliffe) came the radical realization that one could claim Christianity apart from from either the Western or Eastern system of patriarchs.
Nonetheless, Henry’s “reforms” were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest. Quite the contrary, he executed the Archbishop of Canterbury, dissolved 825 monasteries, siezed the monastic and church properties, executed as treasonists several hundred priests, and provided for only those who would accept his schism (in the form of a continuation of their ministries, a pension, or a one-time cash payout for those who chose laicization over apostate ministry). Entire communities of priests were replaced, in many cases, by a single rector, vicar or curate.
Keep in mind, the population of England was only about 4 million, so it could be served quite well by only a few thousand pastors, a small faction of the number of priests form the 825 monasteries and thousands of rectories.