More was respected, and politically and intellectually influential, and he had once been an ally of Henry as Lord Chancellor. Given his power, More's refusal to agree with Henry's departures from and clashes with the Papacy was a thorn in the king's side. If defiance could be had here, then to what extent could such defiance go?

Exhaustively studied, this is nevertheless complicated because it deals with the inner thoughts of historical figures shrouded in the cloud of bitter high politics. I am sure it is also very open to interpretation. But I imagine that this was just a kind of step too far for the king. If one of the most powerful figures in England could disagree with him, then who else could eventually do the same, and what seeds would that sow for any future challenge to the king's power?

More had resigned just after two years of service as chancellor, and it was clear why he had resigned. The defiance was open. It should also be added that it was not just the divorce, or even wholly the divorce, and remarriage that bothered More, but also jurisdictional policy, "forcing the clergy into submission." See William Rockett, The Case Against Thomas More, 39 Sixteenth Century Journal 1066 (Winter 2008). This article concludes that "More's silence was his leverage" in the case against him, and perhaps it was the silence that bothered Henry most.

Here was one of the most influential and respected members of the king's realm withholding approval, but also refusing outright condemnation, of elements central to the king's legitimacy as a ruler who was aiming to break away from the Papacy. How irritating is that?