There’s this misconception that the COE was not an accomplishment because he didn’t establish it for 100% selfless reasons, and also he was basically still pretty Catholic.
For starters… the definition of achievement is not “Something that was accomplished for 100% selfless reasons ”.
I think part of this misconception comes from the idea that anyone could have done this so it’s nbd.
And like, sure, on the face of it yeah, any monarch could have said “I am reversing 1000 years of established religion with a new thing, I am supreme head of the church, boo-fuckin’-yah.”
But the idea that any monarch could have done this and continue to keep their throne for the rest of their life…for 15 years? The idea that any monarch could’ve done this and overall kept the loyalty of their subjects (they didn’t even protest when he raised taxes for an invasion of France, years later, he was lauded for winning Calais) afterwards? The idea that, beyond declaring it, this sort of thing just happens, the idea that he could’ve done this if he hadn’t garnered the necessary support… the idea that he could’ve done this AND maintained/kept his supremacy if he was a widely unpopular king when he declared himself to be this, the idea that he could’ve done this with zero effort, solely relying on advisers to do everything for him while he just like…ONLY hunted and drank and played cards (for 20 years straight, under Wolsey and years later under Cromwell, according to some) is …….
Obviously just a very weak attempt/argument to discredit him. And it’s very transparently always presented by those that say he’s ‘overrated’, even though you can totally hate him while also acknowledging his importance in history.
Site Title 