What evidence is there that the Roman Catholic Church is a direct descendant of the 12 Apostles, and does the Church of England also go back to the Apostles and the British Christianity left over from Roman Britain or was in an invention of the Tudors? I am trying to find an objective as possible answer, because obviously Catholics and Anglicans have there own take on this.
While not the exact same as your original question, I did address a similar point in response to his question originally asked by u/Metropolis9999 a little over a week ago. You can see my response here. In the interest of full disclosure, I am myself a practicing Anglican, and thus not entirely unbiased on this question.
What I think you have here is really a question of ecclesiology and not exclusively of history. You can choose to have your ecclesiology informed by history if you so choose, but that's up to you. Historians working outside of an explicitly and self-consciously Christian frame of reference do not tend to deal with questions like this because of the terms of the discussion itself. The substance of much of the dispute - does the Church of England have valid apostolic succession and holy orders by the laying on of hands - is not answerable by academic historical methods because historians have no way of verifying whether or not the Holy Spirit conferred teaching authority or the power to dispense sacraments on anybody. It is not for secular historians to answer these questions because there's just no way to know the answer, and if you don't believe in God at all, the entire question is moot. Many Anglicans have historically traced the validity of their holy orders and episcopal offices back to St. Peter through St. Augustine of Canterbury, but whether or not you think the Reformation ruptured that is much more a question of religious creed than academic history. People can go back and forth on Apostolicae Curae vs. Saepius Officio all they want, but that's much more a matter for theologians to deal with.
I've included below a list of sources on this and related topics you may find interesting should you choose to look into them. English Reformation history can get tendentious because for a long time it was the province of Anglican scholars in England who for reasons that don't need explaining, did not take a particularly high view of the late medieval church in England.
Readings
Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Society, and Politics Under the Tudors. This is one of the standard accounts of the English Reformation currently in circulation, Haigh does a pretty good job of trying to stay even-handed throughout.
Peter Marshall, Heretics and Believers: A History of the English Reformation. I have not yet read this one myself, but it is a more recent overview of the period.
Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400 - 1580**.** This account deals more with the effects that the English Reformation had on religious practice than on Reformation history itself, but it's still a must-read to get a sense of what scholars have been saying about this period. Duffy is himself a Roman Catholic, and like all of us not without his own perspectives, but he is a well-regarded scholar who does solid work.
Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. One of the few single-volume overviews of papal history you can find in English. What you'll find is that a lot of church history, especially for the medieval period, is still available only in French or German. Again, Duffy is Roman Catholic, but not especially partisan.
Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy**.** This text focuses specifically on the papal office from the fall of Rome through the middle ages.
Kevin Madigan, Medieval Christianity: A New History. This compact little volume takes you on a journey through the medieval church from the fall of Rome until the later middle ages. If you want a good sense of continuity and change in Christian history for that period, this is a good place to look.
Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages. Similar to Madigan, but more tightly focused on the latter part of the medieval period.
Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church: 300 - 1140. This one is more technical and the writing is a bit denser, but this text deals with the question of what it is we talk about when we talk about tradition and its relationship to church teaching throughout history. Morrison looks at how the authoritative status of tradition with respect to church teaching evolved and adapted through middle of the 12th century.
Please let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything.