... when a combination of his desire for a male heir to secure his dynasty and his carnal appetite for Anne Boleyn made it imperative that he end his marriage to Queen Catherine, the Reformation began almost by accident.
There is a kind of English arrogance here which assumes that what happened in England and issued in the Church of England was the Reformation, and nothing significant happened anywhere else in Europe.
Without the Reformation there would have been no civil war and no establishment of the constitutional monarchy. Who is to say that that what happened in France in 1789, or across Europe in 1848, or in Russia in 1917 would not eventually have happened here?
Can one suggest a parallel between the oath of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of the French Revolution and that of Act of Supremacy - in that both required a consent to the clergy being subject to the state?
What I would find interesting to see is an evaluation of, for example, the extent to which the life and culture of France is irreligious compared to the extent to which the life and culture of England is irreligious. Another interesting comparator would be to Protestant regions in, say Germany or northern Holland. I have a completely unproven thesis that the Reformation that issued in the Protestant churches of the European mainland was still an essentially religious phenomenon and has led to a culture that even today is strongly religious. The Reformation as it happened in England, however, being prompted and guided more by matters of state, has a decidedly secularising shape to it, and it has issued in a culture that is much more secular (the established nature of the Church of England notwithstanding).