← Back to Library

How did the english reformation happen?

Mark Koyama dismantles the popular notion that the English Reformation was merely a royal divorce, revealing instead a calculated political economy where land ownership dictated religious survival. This is not a story of theological awakening, but of elites securing their assets against a return to Rome, a dynamic that reshaped the British constitution for centuries.

The Economics of Faith

Koyama argues that the standard narrative—Henry VIII's marital woes driving history—is a convenient fiction that obscures the brutal material incentives at play. "England, which at the beginning of the sixteenth century seems to have been one of the most Catholic countries in Europe, became, by the seventeenth century, the most virulently anti-Catholic," he writes, citing historian Patrick Collinson to underscore the sheer scale of the shift. The author suggests that this transformation was not driven by a sudden surge in Protestant piety, but by the systematic dismantling of the monasteries. "The Dissolution of the Monasteries undertaken by Thomas Cromwell between 1536-1540 created a group of prominent and wealthy individuals who had a vested interest in keeping that property and hence in the success of the Protestant Reformation in England." This framing is powerful because it treats religion not as a spiritual force alone, but as a property regime. The land didn't just change hands; it created a new class of stakeholders whose survival depended on the failure of Catholic restoration.

How did the english reformation happen?

Critics might note that this economic determinism risks oversimplifying the genuine theological fervor of the era, yet the evidence of property anxiety is hard to ignore. Koyama points out that the scale of the wealth was the true catalyst: "Once the Dissolution took place, the land, however, did not stay in royal hands for long. Through the Court of Augmentations it was rapidly sold off to courtiers and aspiring elites." The author emphasizes that buyers were not divided by faith but by greed; "traditional Catholics and evangelicals alike did not want to miss out." This creates a chilling picture of a society where religious allegiance was secondary to the security of one's title deed.

The Reformation was not just a change of prayer books; it was a massive, irreversible transfer of wealth that made the return of Catholicism a financial impossibility for the ruling class.

The Credible Commitment Problem

The piece's most compelling analysis centers on the reign of Mary I, often dismissed as a brief, bloody interlude. Koyama reframes her failure not as a lack of will, but as a structural impossibility. "Mary was 37 when she became Queen; had she lived as long as her younger sister her reign would have lasted until 1586, plausibly long-enough for Catholicism to have fully restored." Yet, the restoration failed because the Pope could not guarantee the safety of the stolen church lands. Koyama quotes Rex Pogson to illustrate the dilemma: "He could not re-endow many monasteries without the confiscated monastic lands." The author argues that the English elite, despite many being personally Catholic or indifferent, refused to return the land because they feared the precedent it would set.

This section highlights a fascinating paradox in early modern politics: the monarchy's power was limited by the very property rights it had helped to create. "Parliament distinguished between movable goods (which they allowed could be returned to reendow the Church) and immobile goods such as land; for the latter they required a guarantee that their property rights would not be impinged upon." The author notes that even the Pope's concessions were insufficient because of the inherent instability of papal authority. "This seemingly trivial episode, had lasting consequences, however: it made salient the possibility that a promise made by one Pope might be reneged upon by subsequent Pope." This insight connects the religious crisis to a broader debate on the security of property rights, suggesting that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the culmination of a 150-year struggle to make property rights immune to religious reversal.

Data and Persistence

Koyama moves beyond narrative to econometrics, using a new dataset of Members of Parliament to prove that land ownership predicted political behavior. "MPs whose biographies mention monastic lands were about 2.7 times more likely to be supporters of Protestantism." This statistical link provides a rigorous backbone to the historical argument, showing that the correlation between land and anti-Catholic sentiment was not anecdotal. The author explains that this dynamic persisted well beyond the Tudor period, influencing the political crises of the late 17th century. "The possible insecurity of former monastic property remained a concern in the long run, which seems to have been reactivated whenever there was the prospect of a Catholic revival."

However, the argument leans heavily on the assumption that economic self-interest was the primary driver of political alignment, potentially downplaying the role of genuine ideological shifts or the influence of international politics. Koyama acknowledges the debate among economic historians regarding property rights, noting that while some argue rights were always secure, "English elites clearly were very concerned about the security of their property." This concern, he argues, was the engine of history.

Bottom Line

Koyama's strongest contribution is reframing the English Reformation as a property rights crisis rather than a theological one, offering a materialist explanation for a centuries-long religious shift. The argument's greatest vulnerability lies in its potential to reduce complex human motivations to mere asset protection, yet the data linking land ownership to parliamentary voting patterns is difficult to dismiss. Readers should watch for the second part of this series, which promises to trace how these economic incentives shaped the Exclusion Crisis and the eventual constitutional settlement of 1688.

Sources

How did the english reformation happen?

by Mark Koyama · · Read full article

This is a huge question with a seemingly simple answer: Henry VIII and his need for a divorce. Everyone knows this. Tudor history is a mainstay of school curricula in Britain and of popular TV costume dramas. Indeed, the advantage for writers and producers of setting a drama in the 16th century is that the backstory and many of the main characters are so well known.

It may be surprising, therefore, to realize that the causes and the consequences of the English Reformation are a matter of fierce historical debate among specialists. Was traditional Christianity moribund by the early 16th century? Or vibrant and popular? We know that people were willing to die (and kill) for religion but equally if religion was so central to the identity of early modern Englishmen and women, why were so many willing to change their faith according to who was in power? How rapid or gradual was the process of Reformation? How long did the Reformation take? Was it ever “completed”?

One way to make sense of this tangle of questions is to revisit a very basic question: What was the political economy of the English Reformation? This is what I try to do in a new paper with Desiree Desierto and Marcus Shera.

As this quote from Patrick Collinson (the historian, not the tech entrepreneur) indicates, the Reformation was a truly transformative event.

“England, which at the beginning of the sixteenth century seems to have been one of the most Catholic countries in Europe, became, by the seventeenth century, the most virulently anti-Catholic, and the almost dominant ideology of anti-Catholicism fueled the civil wars that engulfed all parts of the British Isles in mid-century and later provoked the Bloodless Revolution, from which what passes for a British constitution derives” (Collinson, 2004, p 10).

We think that focusing on the Dissolution of the Monasteries provides crucial insights into the political economy of this transformation.

This will be the first of a two posts describing the gist of our argument.

Part (1) below will examine how the allocation of land following the Dissolution created a vested interest opposed to Mary’s policies of restoring Catholicism in the 1550s. Part (2) will demonstrate that the political economy interests created by the Dissolution remained important into the late 17th century and will focus on the Exclusion Crisis of the late 1670s.

How did the Dissolution Affect Religious Policy?....