LadyJaneless said:

1) He sired Queen Elizabeth, but then never considered that she could take the throne, so let's just say he provided Tudor DNA.

2) He wrote “Greensleeves”, a good tune.

Oooh, Credit cannot be given to Henry for “Greensleeves.”  History says this tune was written during Elizabeth's reign.  Around 1580.  One less good point.

Well to add to Henry's good points, he, like Elizabeth I, played musical instruments with the skill of a professional. He created the Church of England–it depends upon your view if you think that's good or not–and he did good work with the British Navy. He was very into the Renaissance and was a contact of the great notable scholars of the day, as he was a scholar himself.

Being Australian, I can't believe I never picked up on the Elizabeth-Julia connection, but now that you mention it…..

Sharon said:

Paudie, You are right.  Henry was all that you say he was.  As far as Kings go, he did his share for England.  For the most part, however the changes he brought about were for his own selfish interests.

Most of us seem to have a problem with the “man” he was and how he used his power of kingship to destroy lives.  Yes, Anne loved him.  Many people loved him.  He seems to have been able to switch his love on and off like a faucet.  I'm sure when Henry loved a person, no matter for how long his love lasted, they felt as though the sun was shining on them.  The fact that his love never lasted, and his need to get rid of those he claimed to once love by killing them, is what is hard to get past.  Something was missing in his character.

He elevated Cromwell to a high government position with the belief he could trust him.  Cromwell pretty much served Henry without getting too involved with many of the factions of the court. And the sun was shining. Cromwell served the King. In the end, Henry listened to all the other factions when they spoke against Cromwell.  Where was Henry's loyalty for the man who had always looked out for his interests?  Henry felt no loyalties for anyone but himself. 

That's just one example of Henry's love.  There are many more, and that leads to the conclusion that he was just an awful human being. 

And not a horrible King.

Personally, I think the man was a sociopath. 

Anne fan,

I meant to reply sooner, but slipped my mind. A common occurence with me. I wanted to say that I liked your post and agree with your points.

Henry, from a modern perspective, is difficult to like or understand. But, he was a God, a renaissance man, a rock star of his day. I suppose, if I were a woman about court, I would fine Henry (Starkey's Virtuous Prince) attractive. There was something about a young Henry that speaks to his good nature as a youth. He was generous, kind to his friends, and was KOA's knight in shining armour when she was alone. I try not to forget the young Henry.

Sadly, as he aged, that young and virtuous prince turned into the worst version of himself. The lion learned his strength and his destroyed anyone who stood in his way. The friends, beloved wives, children were disposable chess pieces.

You are spot on about the Stuarts getting it even more wrong than Henry. I read a theory once that Henrician England directly impacted Charles I reign and fate, and subsequent Civil War. It seems Henry's influence reached far beyond his grave (or his lineage for that matter).

Bella44 said:

Very true about the Stuarts.  What worked for Henry (divinely appointed by God etc) didn't work so well for Charles a hundred years later. One of Henry's good points is that much of everything he did, he did out of the fear of the country descending into civil war, whereas Charles much of the time seemed oblivious to the fact that that was the way England was headed.  Welcomed it, even.

I wonder if Henry got the irony as a headless Charles was laid to rest next to him…. 

Bella44 – that made me laugh. But I have a suspicion that instead Henry would be berating him for not making sure that all the best army commanders of the day were loyal to the crown!

Anne fan said:

DuchessofBrittany,

 

Thank you for the kind words. You're right too about Henry's influence reaching beyond the grave. It's interesting how the Tudors made the divine right of kings work for them whereas it was the Stuarts' undoing. Elizabeth in particular knew when to give way – such as the golden speech which came immediately after she had renounced her prerogative of awarding monopolies after realising how unpopular it was. Henry's approach was a little different – from what I can make out he threw warring factions a victim or two as and when required.

 

But even in his later years Henry does seem to have had the ability to charm when he wanted to. I wonder if that charm was enough to make people think he wouldn't turn on them?

You're most welcome. Your reply was intelligent and insightful. One of the reasons I believe history is so important to learn and teach is that what came before impacts us all, whether we are aware of it or not. The Stuarts inherited Henry's kingdom (as it were), and where he succeded they failed, despite similar religious and cultural ideals. For me, the Stuarts lacked the charisma or intelliegence of the Tudors, and I've never understood some people's fascination with them. But, that's just me.

Henry was a charmer. From the bios I've read about him, he was the Hollywood charisma. People wanted to be seen with him, even if they did not particularly like him as a person. I look to a few of his wives as an example. They were all charmed by him, sucked in my his gifts, affections, yet they all fell prey to a predator. Many people at court befell the same fate: Boleyns, Howards, among others. I guess they believe Henry would treat them differently. The Seymours seemed to have found the formula: give the King a son, and you will reap the benefits of blood lines.

Katherine Parr's survival is one of my favourite moments in Henry's reign. She saved herself by intelligence and charm. She turned the tables on Henry and her enemies. Charm the charmer!

Neil Kemp said:

Yes Duchess, Katherine Parr's intelligence saved her from Henry and her enemies, I'm just sad that she didn't use that same intelligence to work out the type of man Thomas Seymour was, a mistake which was to indirectly lead to her death within 20 months of Henry.

 
Neil, It seems that intelligence goes right out the window when it comes to the head-over-heels type of love which Katherine had for Thomas. 
Anne Fan, you do Henry proud.  A beautifully written post.

Every Stuart who sat on the throne of Scotland believed they were given the throne by God, and they ruled accordingly.  James and Charles were following in their ancestor's footsteps.  However, they lacked the charisma of their own predecessors.   James, from the time he was an infant, was brought up under the austere control of his councillor's who were of a very strict religious sect. Far different than Henry.  James' upbringing was more constrained than even Henry's childhood was.  Charles was also brought up to believe he too held the throne by divine right.  I am of the opinion that the Stuarts held this belief more strongly than Henry did.  That's what got them in trouble.  There were moments where Henry looked like he was willing to compromise.  James and Charles were never willing to compromise.

I think between us we have Henry down as charming, charismatic, determined and dangerous. Even today that's not an unattractive combination (especially without the executioner to call upon).

I've just started re-reading Jane Dunn's book about Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I and find it interesting that Mary was desperate to meet Elizabeth whereas the more Elizabeth heard about Mary's charm the more she didn't want to meet her. Elizabeth is quoted as saying, 'There is something sublime in the words and bearing of the Queen of Scots that constrains even her enemies to speak well of her.'

I don't know about anyone else but I'm really looking forward to Starkey's second volume on Henry. Hopefully it will offer as many insights as his Six Wives did.