Malcolm Yarnell begins with Wyclif and ends with Elizabeth i. It is unsatisfactory that he uses ‘royal priesthood’, a biblical and orthodox notion, and ‘the priesthood of all believers’, a post-Reformation Protestant slogan with individualistic connotations, interchangeably. He also, confusingly, applies ‘royal priesthood’ to the monarch's unique sacral role. Yarnell deals in reassurances, except when it comes to the monarch. He rejects the thesis that ‘royal priesthood’ reflects an upsurge of anticlericalism or individualism. Luther deployed royal priesthood to replace the medieval estates with a doctrine of vocation to office. Ordination was appointment by the community to public ministry. Orders were not sacramental; no indelible character was imparted. But Luther did not allow individuals to take it upon themselves to preside at the altar. Cranmer was suspicious of outward ceremonies and fearful of their abuse. His sacramental principle was weak. He defended the clergy against Cromwell's secularising ambitions by appealing not to sacramental ordination or indelible character, but to vocation: clergy were complementary to magistrates. Cranmer rejected propitiatory sacrifice, but affirmed spiritual sacrifices of thanksgiving, charity, etc. Yarnell is mistaken in saying that for Cranmer these spiritual sacrifices were unconnected to the eucharist (pp. 235–8); the connection is explicit. Fisher and More raised the spectre of lay presidency at the mass, laity sharing their ignorance in sermons and gossipy women hearing confessions. Henry viii was not interested in maintaining the rights of the clerical estate, but in engrossing its powers in himself. Yarnell argues that Henry not only absorbed clerical jurisdiction, but also exercised sacerdotal powers. He repeatedly calls Henry the ‘royal priest’, suggesting that this was unprecedented. He goes against Baumer, Elton, Scarisbrick and Haigh, among others, but he does not convince. Sacral kingship runs through Christian history and is seen vividly in the Eastern Roman Emperors. Yarnell himself shows how Richard ii and Henry v anticipated what their Tudor successor claimed. The coronation rite contains strong priestly symbolism, but not because the sovereign is a priest like the clergy. Henry as ‘vicar of God’ claimed the ‘cure of souls’, i.e. pastoral oversight, but not sacramental power. It is a weak argument to say that he did not need to celebrate the sacraments himself because he appointed others to do it for him (p. 136). Henry ‘ordained’ Cranmer only in the sense of appointing him. Yarnell claims that Henry considered himself capable of ‘exercising the sacramental power of orders’ (pp. 145, cf. 165). The language becomes fuzzy at this point and some of Yarnell's key claims are supported by paraphrase rather than quotation. The fact that he can say that Mary Tudor also functioned as a ‘royal priest’ should give him pause. Henry trespassed boldly on clerical territory, but he did not exercise sacramental prerogatives. His sacerdotal pretensions were critically curtailed at that point. This book is a key text in its area, full of information and rich in reference, but some of its conclusions need to be evaluated critically.