I think I have mentioned similarities between Trump and Henry VIII before. They make a decent comparison, particularly in terms of their narcissism and appetites, although Henry was much smarter and surrounded himself with brilliant administrators.
You couldn't imagine Thomas More working for Trump.
The journalist who wrote the piece accepts entirely Robert Bolt's position on More. I remember things a bit differently. His standing on principle was a surprise. Previously he had seemed to support the royal line when working for the king, or been rather cunning about concealing his own stance - particularly in writing Utopia. So he had his job precisely because he was artful and loyal.
It was over Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn that More turned out to be inflexible. Henry was desperate for a male successor and fell for Anne. From a human perspective, I can understand him. For some reason, More held a strict view about divorce and royal power, that is the view of the Catholic church, and wouldn't bend to the King. The pope claimed to have an overarching authority which trumped Henry's. But the king properly held the secular authority of the monarchy of that age, something More otherwise accepted.
This centuries-long struggle between the church and secular authority is the origin of the separation of church and state in the American constitution. The conflict with the papacy led to Henry's decision to begin to divorce England from the Catholic church.
It isn't clear to me that More was the good guy with the correct opinion. He was more like the anti-abortion people, holding a narrow position many reasonably think fails to accommodate their different interests and beliefs.
http://thebulwark.com/what-would-thomas-more-do/
| 