Anglican Apologetics

The previous post is sort of a lead-in to this post.

So, on the subject of apologetics, I would like to know how the Anglican/Episcopalian Church defends its formation and continued existence. My previous understanding was that the Anglican Church was formed when King Henry VIII desired to divorce and remarry. The Roman Catholic Church told him he could not do that, so King Henry declared that a new church would be formed and subject to his authority. According to the Church of England's official website (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/), the split had more to do with a "Tudor nationalist belief that authority over the English Church properly belonged to the English monarchy." The Anglican Domain, a website for the Anglican/Episcopalian Church around the world (www.anglican.org), states that a split between England and Rome had been coming for a long time.

"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before." (emphasis added)

Contrary to the assertion of the Anglican Domain, the split was not like the split from the Orthodox church for one basic but extremely important reason: The Church of England declared that it was and is subject to the authority of the King and/or Queen, while the Orthodox Churches declared that they were subject to the authority of bishops of the Church. The Orthodox Church may have rejected the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, but they did so on the basis that, in their opinion, the Bishop of Rome was equal to, not greater than, the other major bishops of the time, e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople. The Church of England, on the other hand, declared that the supreme authority over it did not rest with a bishop, a priest, or anyone with holy orders of any sort, but a layman who just happened to rule a political entity.

So here is my question: What is the basis for believing that the authority of the Church of England properly rests with the King or Queen? What is the theological basis for believing that the leaders of the Church of England can and must be appointed by the government?

Please be aware that I do not write this as some sort of attack on the Anglican Church. I sincerely seek the answers to these questions. It is not enough to explain to other churches why the Catholic Church is the true Church. The only way that unification of all churches will ever succeed is if we first understand why all other Christian denominations believe in the authority of their churches.