Sorry for the late reply, I forgot about this thread
Me neither, but Henry's "new religion" is Catholicism with an excuse to ignore the Pope and seize church property. If we were within Orthodoxy, it'd be barely more than a bog standard autocephalus church. It's hardly some kind of theological revolution.
I agree that Henry is basically ignoring the theological aspects personally, but there is no denying that he allowed, even encouraged, Protestantism to become dominant in the English aristocracy. While Henry's plan might have been an autocephalous church, his actions and the result of them were quite conducive to the spread of Protestant theology. In a world where the reformation hadn't been going on just then, Henry is probably a more successful John of England, and his successors reconcile with the church.
That's kind of what Henry did (underlined), although before rather than during their marriage is an interesting twist on "she slept with another man".
He did, but I suppose I was thinking of something more damning, like accusing her of infidelity, which would also throw Mary's paternity into question.
Another ruler might have chosen differently, but a ruler desperate to have sons (and with no male line nephews) converting to Protestantism - which did permit divorce - instead of the annulment hassle Henry picked - seems at least likely enough not to be a freak occurrence.
Dynastic security is worth (giving up) a mass, to misquote Henri IV.
A ruler in another situation - what kind of situation are we looking at? Just for clarity's sake
Another situation, well, I honestly can't think of another situation where Henry's authoritarian style reformation would have worked half as well as it did. Thanks to Henry VII he had no serious rival dynastic claimants for more pious people (both at home and abroad) to back. He also was geographically isolated from other rulers who might seek to gain from his apostacy. His traditional enemy was busy fighting a long series of wars with the Habsburgs. The backs of his nobility had been largely broken by his father, and as a result England was likely the most absolute monarchy in Europe.
Just to look at say, France for instance, any king who attempted this would have been replaced by a noble with even an ounce of royal blood. If the king held on through this he would have had to deal with Spanish and English (assuming they had not gone Protestant) intervention. Popular uprisings would probably appear periodically throughout his reign. It's not impossible, but it is far more difficult than what Henry had to deal with.
Also, since my comment about stillborn Protestantism got some attention, yes Protestantism could have survived in northern Germany and Scandinavia without Britain going Protestant, but without the English and Dutch we pretty much have Protestantism confined to those areas, given the poor colonial performance of Germany and Scandinavia. Looking at modern population, that leaves us with about 60-80 million Protestants in the world, provided that the alt-thirty years war is a Protestant victory. Also note that the Dutch were aided considerably by the English, and that they in turn were a significant combatant in the TYW, so Protestant victory is made at least nominally less likely by removing English Protestantism. Protestantism without England may not be crushed, but it definitely isn't the religion of Two of the first three superpowers.