Talk:Acts of Supremacy

Correction requested

The kind could be merciless or he could forfeit his crown

should be

The king could be merciless or he could forfeit his crown

Ronbarak (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

A typo of 'kind' instead of 'king' is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I deleted a reference to the Episcopalian church, a U.S. offshoot of the Church of England, as confusingly anachronistic.I though a link to the text might be useful. Wetman 03:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State in the UK? Since when? JackyR 13:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An improvement. But how relevant are the US's (centuries later) actions to the article "Act of Supremacy"? Feels to me like the relevance is the other way round. I suggest:

1. pull the info out of this article completely
2. make sure it is represented at some appropriate art. on US
3. if US article is makes strong ref to Act of Supremacy, then add link to it as "See also" on this article.

Sound OK? JackyR 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal approach to Wiki-editing is to be a modifier and not a bold deleter of questionable material. But I can understand that this section actually is not very relevant to the Act of Supremacy and might appear better in Freedom of Religion or Separation of Church and State, should anyone be able to find a place for it there. Dabbler 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those articles. Neither seems to rely at all on "Act of Supremacy", so I have simply replaced the specific US ref with links to these articles, which are themselves broad and well-linked. JackyR 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, jolly good. That's a nice way to handle it. :-) JackyR 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was your pointing out of the oddity in the first place that led to our collaboration. Thanks to you too! Dabbler 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Act of Supremacy 1559

Do we really need two articles about the 1559 Act? Might be better to move the Act of Supremacy 1559 article over here, so everything is in one place, unless there is a good reason not to. Richard75 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fall-out from this Act

Does anyone have a reliable number for the executions that took place as a result of this Act? Since refusal to swear to it was considered treason, it was a capital crime. Grandma Roses (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) The executions are certainly not the only "fall out" from this act. For one thing it forced the clergy to obey the civil laws of the state, as before they did not have to. I don't think it is proper to point out the executions as that would lead people to believe that leaving the church to be above civil law was the right thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic 2nd paragraph of 1559 Act section

The second paragraph of the Second Act of Supremacy 1559 section deserves attention, in particular its first two sentences:

The consolidation of church and state under Royal Supremacy, as established by the Tudors, instigated political and religious strife in the succeeding centuries. This strife, along with similar struggles in Europe, is one reason there is a constitutional separation of church and state in many jurisdictions now.[citation needed]

I'm not an Anglican nor have an agenda regarding the church, but even to me these two sentences seem egregiously in violation of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:NOR. Not only that, but aside from these two unsupported claims about the long-term repercussions of these acts, the article does not at all deal with any history aside from the period of time immediately leading up to and immediately following the passage of these acts.

And factually, it is a vast oversimplification of the history of secularization of the state in Europe, purposefully ignoring the role that Catholicism played in those states that remained loyal to the Catholic church in the wake of the Protestant reformation (lending a pretense for the nascent French republic's antipathy towards Catholicism, for instance).

I suggest deletion of this paragraph as contributing nothing to the article. If I see no objections to this in the next couple days, I'll do it myself.--Scyldscefing (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acts of Supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612090708/http://members.shaw.ca:80/reformation/1534treasons.htm to http://members.shaw.ca/reformation/1534treasons.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)