I’d actually say the opposite. The modern notion of the sovereign state is based on what Henry (or in reality his counselors) as well as the other protestants reformers looking for a “prince” defined as such.
The Commonwealth is a pretty nifty club of nations. The club decides which nations can join (usually but not necessarily nations that had or have some sort of connection with what was the British Empire), which nations will get booted out, and what things the club will promote. The club creates its own symbols, such as its flag and its symbolic leader, who chats with the members and says things in public once in a while on behalf of the club, but does not hold any actual authority.
The club could decide to have you as its symbolic leader, but alas, due to the club happening to always have had a certain type of person for it’s symbolic leader, it went with tradition, so being formed mostly of nations that had or have some sort of connection with what was the British Empire, they picked Charles who in due course will be the British monarch.
Well after India and then Pakistan became Republics, the precedent became that dominion status meant “the time it takes to write a new constitution”
Also of interest: Succession to the Crown Act 2013 - Wikipedia
Before (if) you check out the link, do you know that four of our fifty states are commonwealths? Can you name them? I only knew one, the one I was born and raised in.
Yes I can name them right off.
But I quibble with the wording of your question.
Those states aren’t commonwealths. They are states. The just use the word “commonwealth” in their formal names instead of “state.”
Puerto Rico is also a U.S. commonwealth, which means something quite different than it does for Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia (yes, I knew the four by heart!) and the international organization which the Queen currently heads.
That act and others (including the one that excluded Edward VIII and his descendants from the succession) put restrictions on the succession, but did not define the basic rules for succession. The fact that the oldest child (in the absence of a male child, at the time) should be the heir is not defined in any law, it is simply the tradition of common law. That basic common law tradition is no different to the situation in the medieval era.
Let’s not quibble or bicker or brabble or niggle or pettifog or squabble or even nitpic! 
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 altered the laws of succession to the British throne in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement.
The act meant the eldest child regardless of sex would precede his or her siblings. It also ended the historical disqualification of a person who married a Roman Catholic from the line of succession, and removed the requirement of those outside the first six persons in line to the throne to seek the Sovereign’s approval to marry. It was brought into force on 26 March 2015, at the same time as the other Commonwealth realms implemented the Perth Agreement in their own laws.
Note that Roman Catholics are still disqualified from the succession.
From the Perth Agreement:
Families with differing religious beliefs are often conflicted once children are born. What if the monarch decides that, for the sake of the family he or she is going to convert to Roman Catholicism? Would that monarch have to abdicate the throne? If not, can they fire a king or queen? What’s the process?
Well, by all past precedent, not to mention the relevant governing law, yes, they would have to abdicate, since they would no longer be a communicant member of the Cof E, and could not act as temporal head of the Church of England. In the unlikely event of the monarch simply saying “Shan’t” to the formal advice of the Prime Minister to that effect (and it would have to be with the concurrence of other parties in Parliament, and the governments of the other realms with the monarch as head of state), then we’re in uncharted territory, but it’s hard to believe Parliament wouldn’t ultimately enforce the law.
Unless of course the great and good in the Church of England and Parliament were to decide that actually it didn’t matter that much after all, and that either the CofE either didn’t need a temporal head formally in communion with it, or there should be complete disestablishment. Even then, the Act of Settlement would need a further revision, or complete replacement.
I saw some early episodes of the Netflix series The Crown, focused on the early days in the reign of the current monarch. One episode was about the coronation and the guy from the BBC was given specific instructions that certain bits couldn’t be filmed, because that was the part where the new queen was being anointed by God. They take the connection between the monarch and God quite seriously, and I really doubt that they’re going to just allow a monarch not to be a practicing member of the Church of England.
I’m not sure who “they” are in that last sentence, but I am pretty certain that a fictionalised presentation of events 65 years ago is a poor guide to possible future events, or even present attitudes.
Screens were erected during the anointing part of QEII’s Coronation, but yeah, Charles doesn’t seem as High Church as his mother. I seem to remember he would like to be Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith
Having lived in both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, I’ve noticed that both have a bunch of “Townships”, while other states that I know of don’t. Is this connected with being a Commonwealth?
No. Illinois also has townships. In Illinois a township is an optional subdivision of a county. 84 of 102 counties are subdivided into townships.
Townships were established way back when it might take 3 days to ride to the county seat on horseback. Horseback riding hasn’t become any faster, but now people have faster alternatives to get to and from the county seat. The idea was to provide local services to people far from the county seat.
Today they still maintain some services to justify their continued existence, like plowing roads in unincorporated areas and providing some social services. But they continue to exist mainly to give political party officials a job and let them earn credits towards a pension.
No. The title “commonwealth” doesn’t dictate anything about the form of government in any way. (This goes for the four states and the two territories.)
Most states not in the south or west are divided into towns or townships, while the other “commonwealths” of Virginia and Kentucky are not.
No. There are other states that have townships too.
There is absolutely zero significance, import, or consequence of those four states’ use of “commonwealth” in their names, except that people will correct you if you say “state.”
Ohio, which is not a commonwealth, also has townships.
See post 44.