What right did they have to throw Christ's Church out of Britain? Do the rights of the State supersede those of the Church?
Havoc implies that the English Reformation was a popular uprising. If history makes anything clear, it was that it was a revolution from the top. The king and his councilors made the choice and then imposed their will on the people at large. The closest thing to a populare uprsing was the Pilgrimage of Grace, which was squelched because of the people's loyalty to the House of Tudor. They didn't know that the king was behind the dirty work of his ministers.
That is up for each state to decide.
They contested Catholic claim to being "Christ's Church". The Catholics were largely Johnny come latelys. The Culdees had been in Britain since the days of the Keltoi (Celts) and survived well into the 1500s if memory serves. They withstood the teaching of Catholics as did the many in the Scottish moutnains who kept the Celtic Christian fait seperately yet identically. From their point of view, Rome flooded Britain with priests and Bishops; but, as history tells it, the Scotts were 400 years behind Europe technologically but well ahead of it for church corruption by the 1600s - owing to Catholicism.
By the time of the reformation, the reformers were reinforcing the culdees. This is why the reform in england was from the crown down and in Scotland was from the people up. The people believed with the Culdees. Ultimately Rome was evicted. Wishart's prophecy of the death of the Cardinal that had him burnt at the stake might as well have been a prophecy against the Roman church itself. His prophecy was fulfilled and the men that killed the cardinal lived in his home for 2 years. Later, when the people of Britain throw Roman Catholicism out, their churches were confiscated, purified and lived in by Christ's church instead.. that's their history.
As for what right, probably the same right as was possessed by the monarch that threw the celtic pagans out. The right invested in heads of state by God. Scripturally, it is God who seats and unseats leaders, not Rome. That would be the teaching of Knox and all before him back to the Culdees because that is what the scripture says. Rome didn't respect that in their eyes anymore than they respected the biblical pronouncement to leave and dust your feet when rejected. A group that doesn't respect what it claims are it's own tenets won't respect anything. They knew that too.
The issues aren't complex and the British histories are pretty clear on the matters. I have some 40 hours of historical background that I've listened to several times.
The people wanted rid of Roman 'blasphemy' and the crown relented to save it's own neck from the crowds on the one hand and to stop roman meddling in the affairs of British politics on the other.
I've tried to answer from my understanding and in brief; but, it is not a subject that is dealt easily with in brief because so much transpired. The british histories and the histories recorded by the churches of Britain acquit the matters pretty well. But, I imagine you know many of the events colored through the protest of Rome and in light of Rome's bias. You seem to think Rome had some right in Britain. Britain begged to differ. Apparently they were right.