Talk:English Reformation

Section on religion before Reformation

It seemed to me that the article jumped into the events of Henry's reign without providing any context for the reader. I sought to fix this with this edit in which I added a section on late medieval religion. It summarized Catholic beliefs and practices in England, introducing early on concepts such as sacraments, the church's hierarchy and issues such as indulgences and purgatory. @Rjensen: reverted on the grounds that it was not needed and that it was "all theology and does not discuss role of saints, Mary, Latin & other key issues of Reformation." Ok, I can agree that the section could have discussed all that other stuff, but why is it it a bad thing to discuss theology in an article that is to a great extent about theology? Ltwin (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

the background theology section is not needed--medieval theology has its own articles that explain the issues much better than a couple too-short paragraphs can do. This article is for readers interested in the Reformation, but it does not focus on the medieval practices that were central to the Reformers. The role of the pope, how & who appoints bishops, of saints & Mary, good works vs faith, Bible reading & English issue (very few people could read a Latin bible). etc etc Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree that a background theology section is not needed, but I agree that the section deleted was not helpful, as it did not explain what was unacceptable to the reformers. Most of the first 4 paragraphs in the 'Theological radicalism' section would be better as a background section. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so unsympathetic - the role of the pope is sort-of covered, & while many of the issues Rjensen mentions were useful for propaganda purposes, ultimately the reformers were driven by harder theological issues. I don't think the first 4 paragraphs in the 'Theological radicalism' section would be better - that describes the early reformists (fairly few in number), whereas what is I think needed here is some summary of the character of the Catholicism of the day. It would be good to have a short agreed section here. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the information on Lollardy could be included in this section since it is background to the actual Reformation and illustrates earlier critiques of Catholicism. @Dudley Miles:, I was trying to create a section that described what was eventually being changed and the 7 sacraments, transusbstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the beliefs connected to purgatory were all things that the Reformation changed. We could make it more explicit that these beliefs came under attack during the Reformation. And we could of course cover the topics Rjensen mentioned. Ltwin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Ltwin, you should have used British spelling. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Oversight on my part. Ltwin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I would emphasize divisive issues: salvation by grace vs good works, theology of Purgatory, the issue of $$ for indulgences & prayers for the dead, the role of pope as beholden to non-English powers, lack of Bible reading and esp prayers to saints and to Mary as key grievances that animated the grass roots. Lollardy fits in there Rjensen (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about England here, not Germany. The grass roots weren't much agitated; this was very much a top-down thing. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

--the hatreds of the Reformation years lasted well into the 19th century in terms of anti-Catholicism. In 16th century Iconoclasm was quite popular and energized people who did not necessarily debate theological niceties. see Margaret Aston, England's Iconoclasts: Volume I: Laws Against Images (1988) Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The "hatreds" essentially emerged after the Reformation. As in Germany, the evidence suggests iconoclasm was unpopular with more people than liked it, depending on the degree, but Calvinists liked it, and it was mandated from above, as the book no doubt shows. The most drastic English iconoclasm took place a century later, in the Civil War and under the Commonwealth. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism was a political mainstay and indeed got worse and worse in 17th and 18th centuries until the stunning crisis in Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. In his seminal study Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" and the Elect Nation (1963), William Haller asserted that anti-Catholicism was a "functional tool" in Elizabethan state formation. Anne McLaren agrees with Haller, (in American Historical Review June 2002, pp 739-767) & shows how Elizabeth used it to delegitimize Mary Q of Scots among the public. Lots of Catholic plots were stressed in 16th century-- some of them real. Add in iconoclasm & I see lots of evidence of popular Reformation activity--it started out at top and leaders made great efforts to spread it down. Rjensen (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so all after the English Reformation, which was essentially complete by 1559, as per the article & normal usage of the term. Using "popular" and "the public" is tricky, as a large part of the Reformation was a successful effort to subdue and marginalize those who did not accept it, many of whom lived in the sticks anyway. And the turning-point for anti-Catholicism was the French Revolution, when the Establishment found a new bogey-man, and refugee or martyred French priests etc became objects of general sympathy with remarkable rapidity. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an old thread, but in case some-one is reviewing it, I am not sure that the comment "We're talking about England here, not Germany. The grass roots weren't much agitated; this was very much a top-down thing" tells the whole story.

In Henrican times there were at least three rebellions which ended in bloodshed: in the case of the Prayer Book Rebellion, several percent of the adult male Cornish population were killed (including 900 with slit throats without trial or warning after capture): thousands of men. (Miles Coverdale was there, as a supporter and chaplain to the Henrican troops, interestingly.) The imposition was top-down, but the resistance was grassroots.

This, plus the various public burnings or worse of Protestants and Catholics no matter how high ranking sent a strong and chilling message to the population: it was not English reserve, but simple terror that kept the population compliant: that seems to be later Anglican spin that passed into the history books. Mary's reign was welcomed at first, until she proved herself yet another bloody Tudor. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Notes/References/Further reading

All these end sections have been in a mess for years. "Further reading" was wrongly placed first after the notes/citations section, & the proper distinctions between sources used and those not have not been observed. There are now notes like "84 MacCulloch, p. 384ff", when there are 4 works by Diarmaid MacCulloch in "Further reading" but none in the oddly-named sections where other works like Haigh are gathered. In this case it seems likely from the page numbers that his "Cramner" is meant. There are similar problems with "Duffy" refs, and others. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Johnbod. Also, there are several footnotes that simply make unsupported statements, like #22, "After prolonged debate in the House of Commons...", and #26, " Cranmer, in a letter, describes it as a divorce...", without actually citing a reliable source. I will try to improve citations if I own the work mentioned. Ltwin (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Another problematic reference I just noticed is currently at number 81: "Aston 1993; Loach 1999, p. 187; Hearn 1995, pp. 75–76". Ltwin (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Elizabethan Settlement section

According to Wikipedia:Summary style, we should be summarizing topics that have their own articles. In the case of the Elizabethan Settlement, we have Elizabethan Religious Settlement which is now a fully developed article that was just promoted to Good Article status. If there are no objections, I will work to summarize this section based on that article. This will help reduce the size of this article and could improve overall quality since the current section has some issues. Ltwin (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CE

Removed ref=harv from References, redundant now, auto edded, cite scanned, no reference found for cite 283 (Bremer 2009). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Appears to be Bremer, Francis J. (2009). Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974087-1.. Edit: nevermind, already fixed. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm surprised that a book on Puritanism is a slim volume, it should be a weighty tome. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Well, it is advertised as a very short introduction... :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

• ...the Church of England broke away from the authority of the papals in the Holy See.

This seems a strange way of referring to the pope. I'd change it, but it might have a special meaning I'm not aware of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! Just say "the papacy" or something. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorted - this idiot. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

But the sentence is wrong. Breaking from the papacy is the poster child for Henry's divorce, but it wasn't just the Pope (e.g. More and Fisher) and the English Reformation moved in a Calvinist direction after Henry's death. So I have altered the lead to first mention doctrines and practices. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The sentence is still wrong.

The English Reformation didn't begin "when the Church of England broke away first from the authority of the pope": the English reformation began with Erasmus and Tyndale. Henry VIII's personal dispute with the pope about canon law and the right of appeal wasn't even a "break" with the authority of the Pope, just a dispute about the limits of that authority, and was not at all a break between "the church" and the pope.

The English Church "broke away" from the authority of the pope when it was put under papal interdiction ("the nuclear option"), but the interdict wasn't the beginning of the English Reformation, and the rejection of the interdict wasn't even "the beginning" of anything.

~2026-38544-36 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Westminster-Abbey.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Article review

Since it has been a while since this article has been reviewed, I have taken a look at this article and noticed the following:

• There are lots of "citation needed" tags, some of which have been present since 2020.
• The article, at over 12,000 words, is quite large. Can any text be spun out into daughter articles to make it more concise?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Y I have moved one large section to new article Edwardian Reformation and put in summary. (I did not remove bibliography items that are not now cited, if any exist.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Well done, @Rick Jelliffe. One would hope for similar work on the section on the Marian Restoration, too. OJH (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Y I have moved the Marian Restoration material into a new article as requested. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Y} I have also moved out the Henrican Reformation material, so that Henry, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth are all treated the same way. I think it makes a better introductory article, which has been prone to having a swamp of details Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Rick Jelliffe: There are other citation needed tags in this article: would you be willing to address these? Z1720 (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

English Reformation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Uncited text, including entire pargaraphs. With over 10,000 words, some of the text should be considered for spinning out into other articles. Z1720 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Anglican Schism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anglican Schism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Anglican Schism until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Political rather than theological"?

This phrase (in the lead) concerns me a bit, because the King's Great Matter was neither political nor theological at heart, even though it involved both. Several first-class RS such as Henry's biographer David Starkey state that it must be put down to (his words) "lust". For example, Prof EW Ives wrote "Henry’s actions brought no spiritual benefits to the country; they were driven by lust and greed." It is, I think, not a fair summary of the academic sources to leave out this angle.

(Now the Edwardian Reformation was entirely different, of course.)

Since Katherine had already borne one child (Elizabeth) there can be no idea that the "political" motivation that he wanted a divorce in order to secure a male heir makes much sense: Ketherine could have produce a male next, after all: and there was no guarantee that Anne would produce more males than Katherine (and indeed, she did produce a girl.)

I note that Martin Luther's comment "Junker Heintz (Squire Harry) will be God and does whatever he lusts" (source is given as Henry VIII (Yale English Monarchs) Jack Scarisbrick 1937 p677) presumably is translating German Lust which is not specifically sexual as I understand it, but also shows the contemporary feeling that the divorce was Henry unable to control himself.

So I wonder what the best way to improve the article and lead in this regard is? Perhaps not using "political" as some kind of bizarre euphemism would be a start. Or maybe the thing is to draw out the (Early) Henrican Reformation as having different causes than then the Later Henrican/Edwardian/Elizabethan Reformations: I.e. explicitly saying there was a series of different changes, each with different causes, natures and personalities? I know that some Anglicans feel the idea of simplifying the English Reformation to just Henry's itches and britches is offensive, as God was working, so some tact is needed; but that the Divorce was due to Henry's obsessional love has academic credibility and should not be downplayed, I think. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with much of your broad point, much of this (para 2 especially) is nonsense. Catherine of Aragon's only surviving child was Mary, not Elizabeth, and (from our bio) "Mary was born on 18 February 1516 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, England. She was the only child of King Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, to survive infancy. Before Mary, her mother had three miscarriages and stillbirths and one short-lived son, Henry, Duke of Cornwall". After Mary, I think nothing. By the time he fell in love with Anne Boleyn, 1525 I think, it was clear Catherine would not have more children (see the sources on this at the bio). He very much wanted the divorce to get a male heir. Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(Doh, the substitution of Elizabeth for Mary was completely not what was in my mind: typo.) Yes, Catherine was ~40 by the time that Henry met Anne, and she had seemingly had an early menopause at 35, so my comment on what she could still reasonably produce was completely wrong.

But this does not mean that the narrative that Henry's marriage to Anne was all about getting an heir therefore necessarily holds water. David Starkey is a notable proponent of the idea that the issue was lust and willfullness more than "politics", and I don't think his view should be just sniffed at. (There were other avenues available to get a male heir, surely. Henry could have had a child out of wedlock and adopted him, for example. Or arranged some other succession. Both the Pope and Luther suggested bigamy as better than divorce or annulment given the dignity of Catherine. Or he could have nominated Mary or later Elizabeth...) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Henry did have a recognised son, Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, who at the crucial time looked very promising. But although he for a time lined up as a possible heir to the throne, it doesn't seem this was ever taken very seriously. It would very probably have led to all sorts of rival claims, with Plantagenet heirs creeping out... Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Further: the article gives introduction to the religious status quo, but it does not position things politically. I have added a link to Thomas Becket, but I think the article would be improved by positioning the Tudors in the move towards absolutism (European history). And it would be worth noting that the humanists (Erasmus, More) taught the line that the monarch ruled with the consent of the people: the move to absolutism was not only anti-ecclessiastical but anti-democratic (in the loosest sense)? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact neither Henry nor his children ever seriously moved to tamper with the powers of parliament, such as they were. A very different picture to various continental realms. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)