Interesting argument, DaveRo. I'm still not entirely convinced, but I don't think you & I or you & Joe are differing that much. One definite quibble - "So the role of the pope has always been political - I'd say it was primarily political." I'd agree that there has always been a significant political element in the papacy; in its elections, in its activities. At times, with rather... irreligious popes at the helm, it might have been 'primarily', but not generally, I think.

And another definite quibble. I accept the argument that 'protestantism' can certainly, with hindsight, be viewed & defined as a political movement. That isn't, though, to say that it was seen that way by the people that followed it. Hal wasn't much of a christian in his behaviour, whatever he thought his denomination was. And, as I've already said, his actions had all to do with political / dynastic reasons. But its over-egging things if you want to suggest that all those that broke with Rome and / or followed his lead thought the same way.

And, minor quibble, because I've never been certain as to whether there really is a distinction... The phrase has always been "Roman Catholic". Which implies it is possible to be catholic without acknowledging the primacy of the Vatican. So yes, I do think it is possible for Hal to have considered himself still catholic whilst giving the pope two fingers!