We've had far worse, but because of his infamy, he got voted the worst. For sure he was probably one of the most influential monarchs we've ever had. Or rather it's Anne Boleyn that's really responsible for much of it. The man practically turned the laws of the country upside down to marry her and succeed their daughter to the throne. Not to mention his daughter was one of the greatest monarchs we've ever had.
So I'd say without him, our country may have looked quite different and that in my books makes him a great monarch, even if he was a fan of the scaffold and lead with his ego and penis.
We've had far worse, but because of his infamy, he got voted the worst. For sure he was probably one of the most influential monarchs we've ever had. Or rather it's Anne Boleyn that's really responsible for much of it. The man practically turned the laws of the country upside down to marry her and succeed their daughter to the throne. Not to mention his daughter was one of the greatest monarchs we've ever had.
So I'd say without him, our country may have looked quite different and that in my books makes him a great monarch, even if he was a fan of the scaffold and lead with his ego and penis.
I agree with most of this except the last part of the last sentence. He was driven by a fierce desire for independence and rejected the domination by Rome, the equivalent of shaking off the current overbearing Euro domination of our lives. Why should he have to grovel to the pope for permission to divorce? The pope was acting on his own political imperatives (keeping Spain onside) which weren't in our favour. Sod that, our country, our rules.
He established a truly independent Britain and it was all uphill from there.
He kicked ass.
How silly. There are far better contenders for the title.
My vote goes to Stephen who usurped the throne and then was too weak to retain it and rule and instead spent 18 years of his 19 year reign in civil war. Only to hand the kingdom over to the opposing side in the end anyway. His reign was called the Anarchy fgs, by all standards of kingship he was basically shit.
Oh, you reckon. Well to my knowledge 'her maj' has never had anyone's head chopped off.
If that's really the benchmark you are using to assess Monarchs (and its a rubbish one btw) there were still much bloodier rulers than Henry. William the Conqueror's harrying of the north where he burnt all the crops and created a famine to secure his new Kingdom for example. Or Mary's fanatical burning of protestants in an attempt to re impose Catholicism. That's just for starters.
I agree with most of this except the last part of the last sentence. He was driven by a fierce desire for independence and rejected the domination by Rome, the equivalent of shaking off the current overbearing Euro domination of our lives. Why should he have to grovel to the pope for permission to divorce? The pope was acting on his own political imperatives (keeping Spain onside) which weren't in our favour. Sod that, our country, our rules.
He established a truly independent Britain and it was all uphill from there.
He kicked ass.
:D I never thought of it like that but am loving the analogy. Henry VIII - the first Euro sceptic and the Nigel Farage of his day. Bet he liked a pint and a pie too.
I agree with most of this except the last part of the last sentence. He was driven by a fierce desire for independence and rejected the domination by Rome, the equivalent of shaking off the current overbearing Euro domination of our lives. Why should he have to grovel to the pope for permission to divorce? The pope was acting on his own political imperatives (keeping Spain onside) which weren't in our favour. Sod that, our country, our rules.
He established a truly independent Britain and it was all uphill from there.
He kicked ass.
Whilst I agree with that, once he was done with Anne B, he took Catholicism back on (or at least was more on board with it) once he was with Jane, so I think his lust was at least partly to blame. I wonder how much longer England would have stayed with Rome for had Anne B not been around (aside from Mary, obviously).
Hmm, Henry VIII, although pretty dire as monarchs go, was not as bad as Charles I, in my opinion. Charles I's belief in the divine right of kings, created the conditions for the War of the 3 Kingdoms, which devastated England, Scotland and especially Ireland, and enabled the genocidal tyrant Cromwell to ascend to power. Cromwell, of course, although not a monarch, was worse than any of them.
Whilst I agree with that, once he was done with Anne B, he took Catholicism back on (or at least was more on board with it) once he was with Jane, so I think his lust was at least partly to blame. I wonder how much longer England would have stayed with Rome for had Anne B not been around (aside from Mary, obviously).
He began the process of turning England into a Nation State. He was the best monarch in historical terms and achieved the most. The worst though in terms of marital life.
Hmm, Henry VIII, although pretty dire as monarchs go, was not as bad as Charles I, in my opinion. Charles I's belief in the divine right of kings, created the conditions for the War of the 3 Kingdoms, which devastated England, Scotland and especially Ireland, and enabled the genocidal tyrant Cromwell to ascend to power. Cromwell, of course, although not a monarch, was worse than any of them.
Actually during that period of time Ireland, albeit occupied, had a large degree of autonomy as England was more concerned with the goings on in Scotland.
Whilst I agree with that, once he was done with Anne B, he took Catholicism back on (or at least was more on board with it) once he was with Jane, so I think his lust was at least partly to blame. I wonder how much longer England would have stayed with Rome for had Anne B not been around (aside from Mary, obviously).
The Pope was a thorn in the side of all Eurolean monarchs of the time with his constant politicking,, excommunicating whole armies for fighting for their country, insistence on benefit of clergy overriding national laws. Protestantism and the concept of national sovereignty was on the march. Queen Anne was no doubt a catalyst for the Engiish Reformation but there were many factors which converged to bring it about. Henry had no problem with the tenets of the Catholic faith - he just replaced the pope as its head.. Catholics were outraged by this; Protestant reformers didn't understand it.Henry was a remarkable King.
Actually during that period of time Ireland, albeit occupied, had a large degree of autonomy as England was more concerned with the goings on in Scotland.
Well, no, as there was fighting in Ireland from 1641 until 1653. In 1649, after Charles was executed, Cromwell's forces arrived en masse. The horrendous death total of over 600,000 (41% of the population) over the following 10 years through systematic ethnic cleansing, massacre and famine, makes it evident in my opinion that Cromwell was far worse than any monarch that preceeded or succeeded him. But as this survey was on monarchs, I would say that Charles I was the worst as he brought about the situation that caused the War of the 3 Kingdoms, and thereby enabled a genocidal dictator to seize power.
He began the process of turning England into a Nation State. He was the best monarch in historical terms and achieved the most. The worst though in terms of marital life.
I was just going to say something similar.
The nation state is a fairly recent construct. Nations, as we know them now, started to emerge in the Middle Ages. Before that there were empires, city states, fiefdoms, clan or tribal territories but the idea of a state unified under one commonly acknowledged ruler evolved over a long period of time. I am not sure the formation of England as a nation state can be attributed directly to Henry VIII.
But he was certainly a significant monarch during a long epoch throughout Europe in which that transition to nation state took place. I guess how great he was in that context, depends on what one thinks of the Nation State model. Bearing in mind particularly that many territories were added to these nations by force. At present it is rather looking like we (and by we, I think I probably mean Europeans) are backing away from the model.
If that's really the benchmark you are using to assess Monarchs (and its a rubbish one btw) there were still much bloodier rulers than Henry. William the Conqueror's harrying of the north where he burnt all the crops and created a famine to secure his new Kingdom for example. Or Mary's fanatical burning of protestants in an attempt to re impose Catholicism. That's just for starters.
I know, sorry about that, I was being facetious. History, especially our monarchy is one of the things that really interests me and I quite agree, there were other monarchs just as bad or even worse (but not much, surely, headcount wise). The reason this country became protestant was not through any altruistic reasons on his part, it was because he couldn't get his own way with the pope, when he wanted to ditch his wife and marry Anne Boleyn, so he abandoned Catholicism and burnt all the monasteries. It was different times back then, and ones I wouldn't have wanted to live in.
Whilst I agree with that, once he was done with Anne B, he took Catholicism back on (or at least was more on board with it) once he was with Jane, so I think his lust was at least partly to blame. I wonder how much longer England would have stayed with Rome for had Anne B not been around (aside from Mary, obviously).
He always thought himself a catholic - he put endless protestant preachers to death. But the pope gave him the title 'defender of the faith' because he published articles espousing catholicism
He gets a protestant mantra because of the 'dissolution of the monasteries'. A way to make himself infinitely richer at the expense of the catholic church..
He always thought himself a catholic - he put endless protestant preachers to death. But the pope gave him the title 'defender of the faith' because he published articles espousing catholicism
He gets a protestant mantra because of the 'dissolution of the monasteries'. A way to make himself infinitely richer at the expense of the catholic church..
You are right. My use of 'Catholic' is wrong, it should really have been Catholic in the classic of the sense of alliance with Rome. If you get what I mean.
He always thought himself a catholic - he put endless protestant preachers to death. But the pope gave him the title 'defender of the faith' because he published articles espousing catholicism
He gets a protestant mantra because of the 'dissolution of the monasteries'. A way to make himself infinitely richer at the expense of the catholic church..
He got that title from the Pope long before the Reformation; he did execute protestant preachers; he also executed leading Catholics. Somdtimes he had both executed on the same day on the same scaffold.
Broadly, you had to believe in Catholic doctrine but accept Henry as head of the church instead of the Pope. You had to accept that the Aragon marriage was invalid and that the succession was as he directed.
;
... he did execute protestant preachers; he also executed leading Catholics. Sometimes he had both executed on the same day on the same scaffold. ...
So quite a fair-minded and ecumenical chap then
FTA "Self-indulgent wife murderer and tyrant" sounds pretty much par for the course for a monarch or nation leader any time up until *mumble* century and it's all going to depend on who wrote what, how often, and whether it was before, during or after any blackmail, torture, execution* etc.
I'm glad to see the most worthy 1066 And All That getting a mention.
* as in, 'carefully backdated so they look real' possibly combined with 'faithfully transcribed from conversations' etc, again somewhat dependent on who was in charge t the time...
I know, sorry about that, I was being facetious. History, especially our monarchy is one of the things that really interests me and I quite agree, there were other monarchs just as bad or even worse (but not much, surely, headcount wise). The reason this country became protestant was not through any altruistic reasons on his part, it was because he couldn't get his own way with the pope, when he wanted to ditch his wife and marry Anne Boleyn, so he abandoned Catholicism and burnt all the monasteries. It was different times back then, and ones I wouldn't have wanted to live in.
Fair enough
You are perfectly right though it was all about refusing to accept Rome's assertion of dominance over him. Tbf though it wasn't really a matter of lust or greed but of succession. Henry was only one generation from the dynastic Wars of the Roses; he understood how devastating his failure to produce a legitimate male heir would be. Otherwise I am sure he would have remained married and just have had a string of mistresses as was the accepted norm.
Much as I love history, I too am always grateful to have been born in the late 20th century.
I agree with most of this except the last part of the last sentence. He was driven by a fierce desire for independence and rejected the domination by Rome, the equivalent of shaking off the current overbearing Euro domination of our lives. Why should he have to grovel to the pope for permission to divorce? The pope was acting on his own political imperatives (keeping Spain onside) which weren't in our favour. Sod that, our country, our rules.
He established a truly independent Britain and it was all uphill from there.
He kicked ass.
Nothing of the sort. He was driven by a desire for a male child, which led him to increasingly desperate and despicable measures. Probably easily led by equally crooked advisers. He remained a Catholic at heart, I think. Maybe he was screwed up by VD. That's one theory, isn't it.
Comments
So I'd say without him, our country may have looked quite different and that in my books makes him a great monarch, even if he was a fan of the scaffold and lead with his ego and penis.
Probably nowhere near as many as Henry VII.
And it looks as though it means authors of fiction, not professional historians. And he only got 20% of the votes anyway. Hardly conclusive.
Oh, you reckon. Well to my knowledge 'her maj' has never had anyone's head chopped off.
I agree with most of this except the last part of the last sentence. He was driven by a fierce desire for independence and rejected the domination by Rome, the equivalent of shaking off the current overbearing Euro domination of our lives. Why should he have to grovel to the pope for permission to divorce? The pope was acting on his own political imperatives (keeping Spain onside) which weren't in our favour. Sod that, our country, our rules.
He established a truly independent Britain and it was all uphill from there.
He kicked ass.
My vote goes to Stephen who usurped the throne and then was too weak to retain it and rule and instead spent 18 years of his 19 year reign in civil war. Only to hand the kingdom over to the opposing side in the end anyway. His reign was called the Anarchy fgs, by all standards of kingship he was basically shit.
If that's really the benchmark you are using to assess Monarchs (and its a rubbish one btw) there were still much bloodier rulers than Henry. William the Conqueror's harrying of the north where he burnt all the crops and created a famine to secure his new Kingdom for example. Or Mary's fanatical burning of protestants in an attempt to re impose Catholicism. That's just for starters.
A quick Google puts the figure at between 57.000 and 72.000. a mass murdering despot by anyone's standards.
Whilst I agree with that, once he was done with Anne B, he took Catholicism back on (or at least was more on board with it) once he was with Jane, so I think his lust was at least partly to blame. I wonder how much longer England would have stayed with Rome for had Anne B not been around (aside from Mary, obviously).
He was??? What is the source for this statement?
Actually during that period of time Ireland, albeit occupied, had a large degree of autonomy as England was more concerned with the goings on in Scotland.
Well, no, as there was fighting in Ireland from 1641 until 1653. In 1649, after Charles was executed, Cromwell's forces arrived en masse. The horrendous death total of over 600,000 (41% of the population) over the following 10 years through systematic ethnic cleansing, massacre and famine, makes it evident in my opinion that Cromwell was far worse than any monarch that preceeded or succeeded him. But as this survey was on monarchs, I would say that Charles I was the worst as he brought about the situation that caused the War of the 3 Kingdoms, and thereby enabled a genocidal dictator to seize power.
I was just going to say something similar.
The nation state is a fairly recent construct. Nations, as we know them now, started to emerge in the Middle Ages. Before that there were empires, city states, fiefdoms, clan or tribal territories but the idea of a state unified under one commonly acknowledged ruler evolved over a long period of time. I am not sure the formation of England as a nation state can be attributed directly to Henry VIII.
But he was certainly a significant monarch during a long epoch throughout Europe in which that transition to nation state took place. I guess how great he was in that context, depends on what one thinks of the Nation State model. Bearing in mind particularly that many territories were added to these nations by force. At present it is rather looking like we (and by we, I think I probably mean Europeans) are backing away from the model.
I know, sorry about that, I was being facetious. History, especially our monarchy is one of the things that really interests me and I quite agree, there were other monarchs just as bad or even worse (but not much, surely, headcount wise). The reason this country became protestant was not through any altruistic reasons on his part, it was because he couldn't get his own way with the pope, when he wanted to ditch his wife and marry Anne Boleyn, so he abandoned Catholicism and burnt all the monasteries. It was different times back then, and ones I wouldn't have wanted to live in.
He always thought himself a catholic - he put endless protestant preachers to death. But the pope gave him the title 'defender of the faith' because he published articles espousing catholicism
He gets a protestant mantra because of the 'dissolution of the monasteries'. A way to make himself infinitely richer at the expense of the catholic church..
You are right. My use of 'Catholic' is wrong, it should really have been Catholic in the classic of the sense of alliance with Rome. If you get what I mean.
He got that title from the Pope long before the Reformation; he did execute protestant preachers; he also executed leading Catholics. Somdtimes he had both executed on the same day on the same scaffold.
Broadly, you had to believe in Catholic doctrine but accept Henry as head of the church instead of the Pope. You had to accept that the Aragon marriage was invalid and that the succession was as he directed.
;
'The attainder of faith' where if you had property had to be signed saying 'you recognise Henry as head of the church'
We know most signed it. But some didn't ie Thomas More and got knows how many went to the scaffold...
FTA "Self-indulgent wife murderer and tyrant" sounds pretty much par for the course for a monarch or nation leader any time up until *mumble* century and it's all going to depend on who wrote what, how often, and whether it was before, during or after any blackmail, torture, execution* etc.
I'm glad to see the most worthy 1066 And All That getting a mention.
* as in, 'carefully backdated so they look real' possibly combined with 'faithfully transcribed from conversations' etc, again somewhat dependent on who was in charge t the time...
Fair enough
You are perfectly right though it was all about refusing to accept Rome's assertion of dominance over him. Tbf though it wasn't really a matter of lust or greed but of succession. Henry was only one generation from the dynastic Wars of the Roses; he understood how devastating his failure to produce a legitimate male heir would be. Otherwise I am sure he would have remained married and just have had a string of mistresses as was the accepted norm.
Much as I love history, I too am always grateful to have been born in the late 20th century.
Nothing of the sort. He was driven by a desire for a male child, which led him to increasingly desperate and despicable measures. Probably easily led by equally crooked advisers. He remained a Catholic at heart, I think. Maybe he was screwed up by VD. That's one theory, isn't it.