Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

Henry VIII voted worst monarch in history

«13

Comments

  • Options
    exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    I didn't get to vote on this?
  • Options
    MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #3
    He suffers from too much publicity. We've had far worse.
  • Options
    HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    He didn't do a bad job, all in all. Well til he fell off his horse and went nuts which technically means anything he did wasn't his fault...
  • Options
    MrQuikeMrQuike Posts: 18,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    Absolute tyrant. Gets my vote
  • Options
    tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    Even worse than King John? Or Bloody Mary?
  • Options
    Mike FinlayMike Finlay Posts: 185
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    Not surprised at all. How many wives and other innocent people did he kill? indirectly or otherwise?
  • Options
    MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    Mike Finlay wrote: »
    Not surprised at all. How many wives and other innocent people did he kill? indirectly or otherwise?

    Less than John or Mary. And way less French than Henry V, or Edward 111. Quite tame, by British royal standards.
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #9
    We have had a few bad uns.

    I vote for Richard I
  • Options
    Ben_CaesarBen_Caesar Posts: 307
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    He's the BEST monarch in history actually. Certainly much more interesting than boring old Liz ^_^
  • Options
    CravenHavenCravenHaven Posts: 13,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    It's a Catholic conspiracy I tell you!
  • Options
    MrQuikeMrQuike Posts: 18,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    Here a list of executions under the various Tudor monarchs.

    http://www.thetudorswiki.com/page/EXECUTIONS+under+all+the+Tudors

    There ought to be some estimate of everyone that died as a result of the dissolution when thousands of monks, clerks and supporting staff were thrown out of work.

    Then there was his ill advised and tragically expensive wars with the French that pretty much bankrupted the country resulting in swingeing taxes, and extensive poverty.

    Then there was his appalling abuse of the currency.

    Then there was the dreadful climate of fear while he swung between support for conservatives and reformers.
  • Options
    Fairyprincess0Fairyprincess0 Posts: 30,098
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    I'm surprised it wasn't Richard the third. He's the one that gets the really bad press....

    I suppose splitting the church lead us to a world of shit. So Henry looses points there.

    It's not fair to vote for George the 3rd. He wasnt responsible. At least, not at the end.

    I don't know you can really call any monarch 'bad'.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10
    Forum Member
    #14
    Misogynistic, selfish, egoist, lothario. Other have more blood on their hands but he wasn't great by any means.
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #15
    Fairyprincess0 wrote: »
    I'm surprised it wasn't Richard the third. He's the one that gets the really bad press....

    I suppose splitting the church lead us to a world of shit. So Henry looses points there.

    It's not fair to vote for George the 3rd. He wasnt responsible. At least, not at the end.

    I don't know you can really call any monarch 'bad'.

    Richard III was only king for a couple of years. There can't have been many worse than Henry, although there was a recent series on the plantagenets, and they were rubbish kings. At the time they owned most of France, and managed to lose it all in a hundred years or so. A few of them are buried in France. I forget exactly where, but over towards the Loire area somewhere.
  • Options
    academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #16
    Mike Finlay wrote: »
    Not surprised at all. How many wives and other innocent people did he kill? indirectly or otherwise?

    That was how things were done in all countries and all reigns in that period. A king had to be ruthless. Henry also achieved a great deal.
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    academia wrote: »
    That was how things were done in all countries and all reigns in that period. A king had to be ruthless. Henry also achieved a great deal.

    Maybe I got a bad view from the Tudors on tv, but to me he didn't appear to do much at all, for saying how long he lived. He wasn't able to get any of his kids married successfully. Caused a lot of damage, and a lot of people died in his name.

    It wasn't till Elizabeth became queen that England became important. And we were rather fortunate to defeat the armada, I reckon. There a lot of happenstance and serendipity, I reckon.
  • Options
    Fried KickinFried Kickin Posts: 60,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #18
    LokisMuse wrote: »
    Misogynistic, selfish, egoist, lothario. Other have more blood on their hands but he wasn't great by any means.
    Perfect character traits for a king :)
  • Options
    jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    A "poll of 60 historical writers" :kitty:.
  • Options
    An ThropologistAn Thropologist Posts: 39,854
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #20
    MAW wrote: »
    He suffers from too much publicity. We've had far worse.

    Indeed we have. I am surprised Charles I didn't poll higher. He wasn't at all popular at the time! :)
  • Options
    academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    gemma-the-husky wrote: »
    Maybe I got a bad view from the Tudors on tv, but to me he didn't appear to do much at all, for saying how long he lived. He wasn't able to get any of his kids married successfully. Caused a lot of damage, and a lot of people died in his name.

    It wasn't till Elizabeth became queen that England became important. And we were rather fortunate to defeat the armada, I reckon. There a lot of happenstance and serendipity, I reckon.

    Founder of the Royal Navy
    Scholar, athlete, charmer
    Patron of the Arts
    Builder
    Kept the throne stable after nearly a century of uncertainty
    Founder of the Church of England and the break from Rome
    A major player in Europe

    Not a very nice man, evolved into a tyrant, but in terms of the times he lived in, a successful king. In fact, not being nice was a prerequisite of kingship.
  • Options
    spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #22
    king john maybe . Or did magna carta die in vain?
  • Options
    MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #23
    An Thropologist wrote: »
    Indeed we have. I am surprised Charles I didn't poll higher. He wasn't at all popular at the time! :)

    Can't say I'm looking forward to Charles 111. But i doubt he'll kill more than one wife.
  • Options
    StarpussStarpuss Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    The destruction he did when closing the monasteries was criminal. He destroyed more books and knowledge than the Vikings. For that reason alone (though there are others) he gets my vote as worse king ever
  • Options
    ElyanElyan Posts: 8,781
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #25
    They were bloody and violent times. He was protecting his position and the country.

    Why should an English King kowtow to the bloody French and Spaniards? Stuff them.
  • Options
    broadshoulderbroadshoulder Posts: 18,758
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #26
    gemma-the-husky wrote: »
    M
    It wasn't till Elizabeth became queen that England became important.

    Nope, that happened under King Henry VIII?

    We changed from an inconsiderate backwater to a major player on the European stage?

    I cant believe Richard II wasn't in that poll?
Sign In or Register to comment.