Henry's battle with the RC church was, among other things, about the right to marry who he damned well pleased and divorce same. You might be mistaking Thomas A Beckett with Thomas More; the former was another royal pain to the English crown, but way back in the 12th or 13th century. Henry VIII ruled much later (16th cent. I think).
---------
Well, okay, I had to look it up.
It was Henry II (1154-89) and Thomas Becket. They made a movie of it with O'Toole and Burton. I read the TS Eliot play Murder in the Cathedral also based on the same incident. It was a bad play.
(From the Cambridge Medieval History) The battle was over secular and church legal authority.
Henry appointed Becket as Archibishop of Canterbury, and Becket a former friend of the King, took an independent role. In 1163, a clergyman attached to Canterbury was accused of murder, and Becket had him tried before a church court. On conviction, he would suffer the ecclesiastical punishment of degradation. Henry proposed on conviction, the man should be taken before the secular court to be sentenced with a secular penalty. Becket protested this was double jeapardy for the same offense. Pope Alexander III was in no position to mediate since he was in exile in France. So Henry summoned a council at Clarendon (1164) to have what had been mere secular custom (deference to secular authority for secular crimes of the clergy) put into the Constitutions. Becket as a member of the council at first agreed during the arguements, then refused to affix the required Archibishop's seal. He had changed his position to maintaining legal immunity for the clergy and church under secular laws. So the modifications to the Constitutions were stopped. To force Becket's support, Henry convened another council at Northampton, where he demanded that Becket put up security for royal funds managed by Becket when he had been Chancellor---while the council investigated charges of maladministration. Meanwhile Becket returned the favor, by ordering the ecclesiastics in the Northampton council to refuse to join the judgement against him. (I have to wonder if the only security Becket could offer would have been the church's---giving Henry control of its lands and wealth). For those bishops who joined the judgement against Becket at Northampton, Becket had them ex communicated (London and Salisbury). Then Becket took off for France to put himself beyond reach. Henry immediately exiled the bishops on the council who supported Becket. In turn Henry had his son crowned king in succession by the Archbishop of York, thereby abrogating the cornation rights of Canterbury (1170). So Becket had the Pope suspended the prelates who had taken part in the bogus cornation. Meawhile Henry started filling now vacate posts at Canterbury. So, Becket returned from France to Canterbury, denounced the new appointees, and refused to lift the ex communications when he was murdered---after Henry declared in his court, `Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest.' (1170)
Lucky for Henry crimes against the clergy were handled by the Pope, who interdicted control of Henry's lands in France. Henry sent envoys to clear himself and arrange terms and took off for Ireland to stall for time. Finally Henry returned and went to Avraches to receive absolution and accept punishment. Henry proposed to support Pope Alexander III in the schism, vowed a crusade, surrendered on double jeapardy as a principle and admitted without crown interferrence ecclesiastical appeals from English church courts to go directly to the papal Curia. The validity of the remainder of the Constitutions of Clarendon were left to be worked out between royal and ecclesiastical courts. For penance and public display, Henry donned sack cloth and walked through the streets of Canterbury while he was cerimoniously flogged by monks with branches. He then spent the night in Becket's tomb.
There were more important legal reforms going on than this high profile display between Henry and Becket---and which reflect probably better on the events. Henry II had begun to change the secular court system by appointing circuit riding (US term) judges from within the officials of the Exchequer, to travel through the shires (counties?) to hold court, levy taxes and inspect local administration. Whether these judges were holding preceedings in the counties, in the Exchequer offices, or in the king's presence, they were the king's court. They were empowered to enforce English Common Law as a national system, over whatever had been local customry laws under the sheriff system or what had been roman or cannon law. This new system also instituted the court prerogative to compel evidence on facts by oath, at a preliminary inquest. Henry also instituted a jury drawn from the county and villages who were to name men suspected of murder and robbery. The accused were subsequently `tried' by ordeal by water before the king's justices. The guilty of course confessed or perished. If the ordeal acquitted men of otherwise bad repute, they were officially abjured---an oath declaiming them. Not sure what this means, no credit at the 7-11?, kids made fun of at school? Open season on the wives and daughters? Hard to tell.
Now, for crimes against property. The most common disputes were over land, inheritance, and tenancy. A man put out of his tenement or prevented from succeeding to his inheritance could purchase a royal writ of Novel Disseisin or Mort d'Ancestor. These summoned a sworn jury of neighbors to state the facts before the court. If the verdict went in his favor, he was reinstated. On the other hand, this proceeding did not resolve who owned the tenement by right. That was a question that belonged to feudal court of the lord. These courts of course could be stalled, and resolution could be had by duel. So, Henry on the principle that no one need answer for free tenancy in his lord's court without the kings writ, instituted the royal benefaction of the Grand Assize. When a plaintiff brought his Writ of Right into the lord's court, the defendant could buy a writ placing himself on the Grand Assize. This was a special form of the jury of inquest (drawn from the hundred and village), conducted in the royal court and its verdict was final.
Notice that these writs were purchased, and the royal circuit judges were members of the Exchequers office and were also charged with determining whether or not the barons were paying their taxes, indeed supported the number of knights they claimed, and in the full compliment of horses, armor and squires they were supposed to possess, etc---all highly questionable, I am sure.
In any event, dispite the last nine hundred plus years, all this seems quite contemporary, given Bush II v. Taliban and questions of international justice.
Chuck Grimes