# From the Vatican's perspective which ecclesiastical laws did Henry VIII break? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 31, 2017, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399 "2017-03-31T04:18:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399/21 "2017-04-01T02:37:23Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > And Henry had such a son - Henry FitzRoy - with his mistress Elizabeth Blount. Henry could have legitimized the child, which would have made the boy the heir and, eventually, Henry IX. However, there was already opposition to Henry VIII’s rule thanks to Henry VII’s acquisition of the position by conquest. That opposition combined with FitzRoy’s illegitimate birth would have made his hold on the monarchy tenuous at best. Thus, Henry VIII desperately needed a biological son whose legitimacy was legally and religiously unquestionable. He probably would have legitimized Henry FitzRoy in the last resort, if he had been unable to have a male heir otherwise, and he had already made Fitzroy Duke of Richmond, Lord High Admiral, Warden of the Scottish Marches, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with some talk about giving him the title King of Ireland. There was also a proposal floated during the annulment crisis that, in exchange for Henry dropping the request for the annulment, the pope would give Fitzroy dispensation to marry the Princess Mary. Also, in 1536, there was a bill in Parliament that would have specifically given the king the right to name his successor and heir, legitimate or not. We’ll never know, though, because he died of tuberculosis at 17. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2017, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399/22 "2017-04-01T09:01:18Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Did the confiscation of Church property not break ecclesiastical laws? … My understanding is that this process was well underway when the whole divorce/annulment issue came up … and what Lutheranism thought of Rich Clergy/Poor Peasants … Unless it was ordered by the head of the church… The monestry system was disfunctional in England, and the church heirarchy already agreed that the property needed to be confiscated. And over the previous 200 years, the pope had colluded with the English crown to confiscate the English propery of French orders (which supported the French anti-pope). So the confiscation of church property wasn’t the issue. The issue was, who was making the legislative and executive decisions? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2017, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399/23 "2017-04-01T09:07:34Z")
Henry VIII’s main problem was the fact there were no men in the family. His younger brother was dead in childhood and he had no Uncles or basically anyone who might inherit the throne (at the time whether women could inherit was unclear, although they could pass the throne through their lines).If say Edmund Tudor had lived, then Henry probably would not have been as concerned about the whole matter. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2017, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399/24 "2017-04-01T10:43:46Z")
On the day, Aug 31 in 1535, the talk was about the death of the Bishop of Rochester See [Henry VIII: August 1535, 26-31 | British History Online](http://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol9/pp57-81) in 1538, the desecration of the shrine to Beckett was the talk. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399/25 "2017-04-01T21:37:28Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > The monestry system was disfunctional in England, and the church heirarchy already agreed that the property needed to be confiscated. TO clarify, monastic orders in England had acquired a lot of property, much of which went untaxed to the point of seriously harming state revenue. This happened on such a level that the Church itself considered many of the orders highly questionable - that is, they were outright tax dodges by people who weren’t keeping the monastic rules and basically lived however they wanted. Henry the 8th’s chastisement of such orders wasn’t especially controversial. What _was_ controversial was the multiple later waves of confiscation and disbandment, which hit multiple legitimate orders (who just happened to be not-terribly pleased with Henry’s split from Rome). After taking all the move-able wealth, Henry then built up a new cadre of supporters by handing out the land, and allowing us to eventually have BBC shows like Downton Abbey. (Henry liked dramas and was very forward-thinking.) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399/26 "2017-04-03T01:32:46Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I’m just curious; I assume this statute has been repealed? (Not the royal supremacy; just the grounds for treason). > [@Derleth](#): > > Yes, it was repealed as part of the _Treason Act 1547_, which mostly rolled the clock back to the _Treason Act 1351_, which is still in force in modified form. The 1547 Act did repeal teh 15334 Act, but it re-enacted parts of it, including the bit making it treason to deny royal supremacy over the church. That was repealed in 1553 under Mary. Then in 1570 legislation passed under Elizabeth made it treason to attempt to defend the jurisdiction of the Pope over the English church, which in practice was pretty much the same thing as denying the royal supremacy, except that it was aimed at Catholic deniers, and wouldn’t catch dissenting Protestants. (It was only treason if you were convicted 3 times; the first conviction was a misdemeanour, the second a felony.) The 1570 Act was repealed in 1863. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-vaticans-perspective-which-ecclesiastical-laws-did-henry-viii-break/783399.md?page=1)