Upvote:7
I would've still expected the Church (at least in the 16th century) to view these with contempt, issue an edict against it, or ban it altogether.
The Church of England does not seem to have ever taken the Book of Revelation terribly seriously. The modern-day Church regards it as "difficult to interpret" and doesn't try. It has never embraced biblical inerrancy as doctrine, let alone infallibility or literalism.
The kinds of interpretative frameworks that attempt to find meanings for everything in the Bible, or forecast the end times in detail, are utterly alien to the Church of England. Its historical role has been to provide for the basic religious needs of everyone who comes to it, and that simply isn't compatible with taking positions on legendary creatures that are possibly named after things in the Bible, but have no plausible connection with them.
Another example: the Gog Magog Hills' name is first attested in 1574.