henry viii - was he a f*ckwit?

[frogwoman]

when i was taught about him in school, which was ages ago, we didn't really learn very much.

we learned about how he had six wives, who all met some kind of grizzly death, and a tiny bit about how he dissolved the monasteries.

now, i was having a debate with jc2 on another thread and we were talking about the power and influence of the church on the state during the middle ages, and he mentioned henry viii's struggles with the church.

and that got me thinking - was henry viii as bad as all that, or was he really trying to break away from their influence? and could his actions in repressing the church and being actively hostile to the papacy be seen as asserting his country's independence, from what he saw as something destructive?

and on the other side, were the priests and monks and things really targetted because of henry's divorce, or was it because they were being subversive against the government?

could the power struggles and henry's actions be seen as an early form of cold war?

i don't know overly much about the details of this since i never really learned about it in great depth, but i'm quite interested to see what other people, maybe people who knew more than i did, thought ...

 

[frogwoman]

anyone ...?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Complex question...Here goes

1) There were people of genuine intellect & principle who wanted to break with Rome eg Cranmer (see Satis Copiosa--from memory 1529: intellectual arguments for English identity, independence vs Papal power.

2) There were other impressive people on all sides eg Tyndale & my favourite Thomas More (Utopia 1516 still worth a spin).

3) HVIII himself was very intelligent, but an utter unprincipled shit, who veered one way & another (eg debate over 6 articles) dependent on his own whims. The theological arguments for divorcing Catherine of Aragon were preposterous.

4) Despite some problems therein, Dissolution of the Monasteries not done for principled reasons at all, & the 'inspections' were rigged by Thomas Cromwell in a way Stalin would have appreciated. Pilgrimage of Grace gives a hint of this, as does Kett's rebellion.

5) This is the historical moment in creation of what was later the British state--eg use of orders-in-council much increased.

6) A case could be made for both Henry VII & the fascinating Elixabeth I being people of great calibre, but in my view HVIII was and remains a nasty shit, who many historians are reticent to label so by reasons of deference to his power and longevity.

Not got my book collection to hand (long story) but the works by John Guy & Diarmaid McCulloch worth a look, as too the iconoclastic David Starkey--all these for the wealth of fascinating detail & debate concerning his reign (eg how Catholic was/wasn't the population & how to measure such).

 

[Stigmata]

Nah, Henry was a nob. He didn't like the Pope telling him what to do, so he put himself in charge of the English Church instead. Hardly the actions of an anti-authoritarian.

And while the priests and monks may have disapproved of Henry's annulment, the principle reason he went after them was because of certain Protestant idealogues in his court, particularly Thomas Cromwell. They had an active anti-Catholic agenda and exploited Henry's circumstances and sulky bad temper to implement the changes they wanted.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Nah, Henry was a nob. He didn't like the Pope telling him what to do,

And while the priests and monks may have disapproved of Henry's annulment, the principle reason he went after them was because of certain Protestant idealogues in his court, particularly Thomas Cromwell. They had an active anti-Catholic agenda and exploited Henry's circumstances and sulky bad temper to implement the changes they wanted.

1) He didn'tr mind Pope telling him what to do until couldn't get divorce (hence phrase Defender of the Faith on coinage)

2) Agree about Protestant ideologues--esp Cranmer--but Cromwell was just a hatchet-man (apparatchik is the word).

 

[Stigmata]

1) He didn'tr mind Pope telling him what to do until couldn't get divorce (hence phrase Defender of the Faith on coinage)

Yeah, that's what I meant. It's been a while since I studied this stuff, but it's still embarrassing how much i've forgotten.

It's still fair to say that Henry himself was by no means a Protestant, and had virtually no idealistic or ideological motivation.

 

[phildwyer]

Henry VIII consolidated the new monarchy and the centralized state, thus paving the way for Britain to become a world power a couple of centuries down the line. Unfortunately, he was also obsessed with medieval notions such as conquering France. We do owe him the reformation, as has been said, but he introduced this for personal not principled motives. At a personal level he was very complicated--highly intelligent and hyper-sensitive (his love letters are really sweet) in youth; irascible and incompetant in middle age. Liked his drink and food, needed a crane to get him upstairs by the age of fifty. A mixed bag, all in all.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Yeah, that's what I meant. It's been a while since I studied this stuff, but it's still embarrassing how much i've forgotten.

It's still fair to say that Henry himself was by no means a Protestant, and had virtually no idealistic or ideological motivation.

1) The phrase some applied to him is 'Catholic without the Pope'

2) his ideological motivation was to create (or allow others to) an 'ideology of legitimation' for the nascent British state--hence the crucial word 'empire'.

 

[deeplysceptical]

the original question is was the man stupid and the answer is clearly not.

Remember he had been brought up NOT to know about statecraft because he had an older brother ,Arthur, and was educated inthe ´gentle arts´.Asa younger man he was extremely affable ,accomplished and was highly intelligent.Indeed all the tudors were Highly intelligent- Elizabeth seems totake the prize but they all had nouse.

Henry also saw the threat fromFrance and built just enough fortification to defeat a French armada ,that dwarfed the Spanish, shooting it to bits in the solent in the last years of his reign

so stupid no,defintely not.

 

[Belushi]

Indeed all the tudors were Highly intelligent- Elizabeth seems totake the prize but they all had nouse

Aye, for all their other faults none of the Tudors were stupid. Edward VI may well have proved to be the cleverest of the lot if he hadn't died so young.

 

[Stigmata]

We do owe him the reformation, as has been said, but he introduced this for personal not principled motives.

I disagree. I think later monarchs deserve more credit (or otherwise) for reforming the country. Henry made a few administrative changes and gave the Protestants a licence to misbehave, but he didn't 'reform' the country.

2) his ideological motivation was to create (or allow others to) an 'ideology of legitimation' for the nascent British state--hence the crucial word 'empire'.

I always thought that English nationalism was a side-effect of the break with Rome, not one of the principle goals...?

 

[frogwoman]

Henry VIII consolidated the new monarchy and the centralized state, thus paving the way for Britain to become a world power a couple of centuries down the line. Unfortunately, he was also obsessed with medieval notions such as conquering France.

why did he want to conquer france though, out of interest? there must have been some kind of reasoning behind it

We do owe him the reformation, as has been said, but he introduced this for personal not principled motives.

but as has already been said, henry's advisers also influenced policy and there was an anti-catholic sentiment in the british government even before henry's divorce, maybe they were just waiting for a chance?

 

[slaar]

Edward VI may well have proved to be the cleverest of the lot if he hadn't died so young.

Is there evidence for this? Not having a go, just curious

 

[Belushi]

Is there evidence for this? Not having a go, just curious

His diaries and the accounts of those who knew him.

 

[bcuster]

my two cents on this 18 year old question: yes, he was

Missing Henry VIII portrait spotted on X by eagle-eyed art historian​

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/27/style/henry-viii-portrait-spotted-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

 

[tim]

my two cents on this 18 year old question: yes, he was

Missing Henry VIII portrait spotted on X by eagle-eyed art historian​

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/27/style/henry-viii-portrait-spotted-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

Hiding in plain sight for four centuries. You can't get much more evil genius than that.

 

[krtek a houby]

In answer to the question posed... well, he's royalty, so...

 

[danny la rouge]

In answer to the question posed... well, he's royalty, so...

In fairness, the thread was started by frogwoman when she was about 14…

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Of course he was a fuckwit, but also a duplicitous, narcissistic, murdering bastard of the first water. Like so many of our upper class former and current leaders. Next question!


P.S. Why has it taken so long for a straightforward answer to this question?

 

[AverageJoe]

Have none of you watched the Yeoman at the Tower of London videos?

There are four of them.

 

[A380]

He was a shit.

But as a serendipitous benefit of the way he broke with Rome, England, Wales and Scotland dodged the religious wars that cost literally millions of lives across mainland Europe and Ireland. Hundreds, possibly thousands of both catholics and protestants died under Henry, Mary and Elizabeth. And many more in the Wars of the three Kingdoms. But we had nothing on the scale of France, Modern Germany and Austria (in the widest sense) and the Low Countries.

 

[danny la rouge]

But as a side benefit of the way he broke with Rome England, Wales and Scotland dodged the religious wars

Henry wasn’t king of Scotland.

 

[A380]

Henry wasn’t king of Scotland.

I know, but a catholic England in the 1600s would probably have fucked over Scotland even more than our timeline did.

 

[danny la rouge]

I know, but a catholic England in the 1600s would probably have fucked over Scotland even more than our timeline did.

Gotcha.

 

[petee]

he really let himself go.



(yes i know there's some dispute.)

and indeed he was a shit.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

He had been a spoilt little boy who was indulged and privileged, and was never prepared for his future role as he was the second son. When his older brother died, he had to step up to a job that he was totally unsuited for.

All through his life, he blamed other people for anything that went wrong. He executed all of his closest advisors in turn and then regretted it and blamed other people for it.

His son had the makings of being an even worse tyrant - he died at 15 so the country was spared that.

 

[AverageJoe]

He had been a spoilt little boy who was indulged and privileged, and was never prepared for his future role as he was the second son. When his older brother died, he had to step up to a job that he was totally unsuited for.

All through his life, he blamed other people for anything that went wrong. He executed all of his closest advisors in turn and then regretted it and blamed other people for it.

His son had the makings of being an even worse tyrant - he died at 15 so the country was spared that.

"Prince" Harry parallels?

 

[Pickman's model]

He had been a spoilt little boy who was indulged and privileged, and was never prepared for his future role as he was the second son. When his older brother died, he had to step up to a job that he was totally unsuited for.

All through his life, he blamed other people for anything that went wrong. He executed all of his closest advisors in turn and then regretted it and blamed other people for it.

His son had the makings of being an even worse tyrant - he died at 15 so the country was spared that.

It is a pity the current monarch doesn't take the same attitude to his advisers

 

[Artaxerxes]

"Prince" Harry parallels?

Not really

Rich boy parallels

He was an attractive active playboy guy who dabbled with intellectual life and was seen as a bit of a shiny JFK type initially but after a jousting accident left him with massive head and leg injuries suffered from debilitating migraines and leg ulcers for the rest of his life which really ramped up the level of arsehole he managed to accomplish

 

[AverageJoe]

Not really

Rich boy parallels

He was an attractive active playboy guy who dabbled with intellectual life and was seen as a bit of a shiny JFK type initially but after a jousting accident left him with massive head and leg injuries suffered from debilitating migraines and leg ulcers for the rest of his life which really ramped up the level of arsehole he managed to accomplish

Which one are you talking about?