“Then the politics changed. The government, of which the Church was part...”
That’s a complete falsehood. That is proved to be a falsehood by the Act of Supremacy in 1534. If the Church was part of the state then no such Act would have been necessary. Learn some history before you post about it.
It is actually pretty accurate.
Henry took over the Church, and as head of both church and state, did what he wanted with church property.
The Act of Supremacy didn’t give him power as head of the church, it rather recognized that he was already head of the church.
The conflating of church and state before 1584 is shown by Henry’s application for dispensations.
Your problem is, that Henry’s established church and state with state at the top. You perhaps preferred established church and state with church at the top.
As an American, I prefer no established church, but the past is a different country. They do things differently there.
““Then the politics changed. The government, of which the Church was part...”
That’s a complete falsehood. That is proved to be a falsehood by the Act of Supremacy in 1534. If the Church was part of the state then no such Act would have been necessary. Learn some history before you post about it.”
>> You are absolutely right in your response. The Church was not a part of the government in England, cf. Thomas a Becket and the Constitutions of Clarendon. Indeed some argue that the healthy tension between Church and royal authority in England directly led to the Magna Carta and the idea that individuals have rights in law against the sovereign.