What were Henry\'s good points? | Page 5 | Henry VIII | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
What were Henry's good points?
March 14, 2014
8:07 am
Avatar
Shae
London
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
January 22, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I honestly find Edward much more fascinating a figure than Elizabeth, and Mary more endearing. Nothing against Elizabeth; but she’s aleady extremely popular and she can cope without my favour, I’m sure. Mary and Edward, however, have been painfully devoid of much support for 500 years and that seems a real tragedy.

Edward strikes me as a boy who, had he lived longer, would have grown up to be a very capable ruler; he comes across as very meticulous and serious in his diary, and also incredibly intelligent; the fact that he constantly went back to correct old entries, and add new information, leads me to think that he took his role seriously, and actually seemed to thrive in that environment. His illness seems that much sadder to me, for I imagine that he would have been a remarkably strong ruler. He reminds me a lot of his mother; a lot of quiet reserve force.

As for Mary being “mad”, I think her mental instability was a given considering all the abuse she suffered throughout her life, but that she remained so determined, and especially compassionate, despite her mistreatment, leads me to see her as a very strong woman. People have made the claim that Mary has been scorned in history as a result of a modern anti-Catholic bias, and tbh I do think that does play a role in her denigration in history. Certainly people are hung up on her burning Protestants. However Mary was not the ineffectual ruler everyone likes to portray her as, and for every mistake she made, other rulers, who we praise continously, like Elizabeth, have made just as many. Poor Mary, you deserve better.

And I’m just gonna do a Chris Crocker style “leave Henry VIII alone” and mic-drop out of this debate because such rampant and biased and unjustified hatred for a historical figure is only gonna do my head in.

No Other Will But Hers

March 14, 2014
10:15 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

HAd Mary become queen in 1547, I think that she would have been more respected as a monarch as she would have had more time to get married , return England to Rome, etc..

I always feel that she was going to fast simply to try and stop Elizabeth suceeding the throne. I wonder if she could have got the Spanish to agree to Mary of Scotland being her heir rather than Elizabeth???

Good one Anyanka. It one that could well of been possible. If Mary QOS was given the throne of England there would no doubt be ructions, but as Philip married Elizabeth of Valois in 1559, as a peace treaty between France and Spain, in all likelyhood it’s quite possible that Philip might have provided an Army for Mary QOS to make a play for England’s throne and toss Elizabeth off the throne, which Mary always believed was hers anyway. Most of Mary’s (scots) problems were down to that fact with Elizabeth another bag of chips altogether there.

It does seem to me that from the time Mary Tulip took the throne she was constantly making sure that Elizabeth would always be known as the bastard. One of Mary’s first acts was to turn over “the great divorce” as it was called. I never understood why why she did that? Lrd Arse’s act of 1544 didn’t exactly state that both Mary and Elizabeth were legally begotten blah blah, but it did acknowledge, that they were both were recognised as his daughters.
I actually wonder what the situation would have been between them if Elizabeth had converted to Cathosium etc.
I don’t think Mary hated Elizabeth, but I believe she didn’t trust her, and I think it narked Mary that the people loved Elizabeth more than they did her. Poor Mary, in so many ways she was just like her father, they were both their own worst enemy, and whenever anything went wrong it was always someone else’s fault never theirs. I think she believed that one of the reasons she could bear a child was because God was punishing her for not killng enough heretics. She infuriates me, but at the same time she makes me pity her there are so many “if only” questions to do with Mary Tulip and I don’t think we ever really know the answers, only she can tell us why she acted like she did. Clement Freud would have a field day in trying analize her issues.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 2, 2014
2:18 pm
Avatar
Jane84
France
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
June 2, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Shae said

I honestly find Edward much more fascinating a figure than Elizabeth, and Mary more endearing. Nothing against Elizabeth; but she’s aleady extremely popular and she can cope without my favour, I’m sure. Mary and Edward, however, have been painfully devoid of much support for 500 years and that seems a real tragedy.

Edward strikes me as a boy who, had he lived longer, would have grown up to be a very capable ruler; he comes across as very meticulous and serious in his diary, and also incredibly intelligent; the fact that he constantly went back to correct old entries, and add new information, leads me to think that he took his role seriously, and actually seemed to thrive in that environment. His illness seems that much sadder to me, for I imagine that he would have been a remarkably strong ruler. He reminds me a lot of his mother; a lot of quiet reserve force.

As for Mary being “mad”, I think her mental instability was a given considering all the abuse she suffered throughout her life, but that she remained so determined, and especially compassionate, despite her mistreatment, leads me to see her as a very strong woman. People have made the claim that Mary has been scorned in history as a result of a modern anti-Catholic bias, and tbh I do think that does play a role in her denigration in history. Certainly people are hung up on her burning Protestants. However Mary was not the ineffectual ruler everyone likes to portray her as, and for every mistake she made, other rulers, who we praise continously, like Elizabeth, have made just as many. Poor Mary, you deserve better.

And I’m just gonna do a Chris Crocker style “leave Henry VIII alone” and mic-drop out of this debate because such rampant and biased and unjustified hatred for a historical figure is only gonna do my head in.

I am agree with you for Mary. Her life was very miserable. She was always left out. We can undestand why Mary’s and Elizabeth’s life were so sad, and why they had not children. They surely traumatized by the death of Katherine Howard, even if Mary didn’t like her. They lived in violence then, they became violent.

"If any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best."

June 2, 2014
2:19 pm
Avatar
Jane84
France
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
June 2, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

* I agree

"If any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best."

June 2, 2014
4:40 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Shae said
…Certainly people are hung up on her burning Protestants…

remarkable, don’t you think, that people get ‘hung up’ over something so inconsequential as the deliberate burning of human beings?

her father, the great wife-murdering Psychopath, managed some 37 burnings over the space of a decade. Mary managed nearly 300 in just 3 years.

Mary I was a first class, weapons grade nutcase.

June 2, 2014
5:42 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

Shae said
…Certainly people are hung up on her burning Protestants…

remarkable, don’t you think, that people get ‘hung up’ over something so inconsequential as the deliberate burning of human beings?

her father, the great wife-murdering Psychopath, managed some 37 burnings over the space of a decade. Mary managed nearly 300 in just 3 years.

Mary I was a first class, weapons grade nutcase.

Nice one Bob Like it. Actually Mary burned more people in the first year of her reign than the French and Spanish combined did in 5 years. She was certainly very bloodthirsty. In my opinion half if not all of her problems, were down to the fact she refused to except the England of her youth had changed.
I personally think that H8 was a mysogynist or showed mysogynistic traits. He treated each of his wives badly.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 5, 2014
3:00 pm
Avatar
Shae
London
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
January 22, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

Shae said
…Certainly people are hung up on her burning Protestants…

remarkable, don’t you think, that people get ‘hung up’ over something so inconsequential as the deliberate burning of human beings?

her father, the great wife-murdering Psychopath, managed some 37 burnings over the space of a decade. Mary managed nearly 300 in just 3 years.

Mary I was a first class, weapons grade nutcase.

Does it not get boring to see the world in such a black and white way?

No Other Will But Hers

June 5, 2014
3:48 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Shae said
…Does it not get boring to see the world in such a black and white way?

not remotely.

i enjoy enormously trying to stand in others shoes and see what they see in order to understand why they did A instead of B or C – but i still retain enough moral fibre to critcise the actions of those i study. interestingly, the only people at the time who didn’t criticise Mary for her, err… ‘thoroughness’ were other weapons grade psychopaths.

marrying a Spanish Prince – an unpopular move both at court and in the country – was a ‘grey’ decision, there were disadvantages, but there were also solid reasons for doing so. it was a legitimate decision based on a finely balanced judgement of what was in the Country’s, and Mary’s, best interests. undertaking religious genocide against the advice of most of the court, and very much contrary to the habits and customs of the Kingdom, was not a ‘grey’, finely balanced decision, it was desperate, pathetic, morally repugnant, vainglorious attempt to stop a world she didn’t like.

today she’d be in the Taliban, or be the kind of nutjob who walks into a school with an assualt rifle.

June 5, 2014
5:48 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I also feel Bob that the Spanish marriage was also Mary’s way of perhaps reinforcing her Spanish roots. When she surrendered to H8’s will she not only betrayed her mother, and herself, but also betrayed all that her mother wanted for her. In many ways. I think wanted Mary to be just like her own grandmother, (Isabella). Isabella of course had taken on the Moors defeated and drove them out of Spain, thus making Spain Catholic etc. By Mary marrying into Spain she hoped that she could do as her grandmother had done and conquer the protestant infidels and be seen as a hero and saviour to her people. What she failed to understand or perhaps didn’t want to understand, that the people were perfectly happy to worship God as they were, they didn’t need or want the bells and smells that she supported. There is a saying which goes something like “Each and every man woman and child comes to God in their own way.” For Mary that simply wasn’t an option, it was her Catholic way or death, she was her own worse enemy really.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 12, 2014
10:24 pm
Avatar
Shae
London
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
January 22, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

Shae said
…Does it not get boring to see the world in such a black and white way?

not remotely.

i enjoy enormously trying to stand in others shoes and see what they see in order to understand why they did A instead of B or C – but i still retain enough moral fibre to critcise the actions of those i study. interestingly, the only people at the time who didn’t criticise Mary for her, err… ‘thoroughness’ were other weapons grade psychopaths.

marrying a Spanish Prince – an unpopular move both at court and in the country – was a ‘grey’ decision, there were disadvantages, but there were also solid reasons for doing so. it was a legitimate decision based on a finely balanced judgement of what was in the Country’s, and Mary’s, best interests. undertaking religious genocide against the advice of most of the court, and very much contrary to the habits and customs of the Kingdom, was not a ‘grey’, finely balanced decision, it was desperate, pathetic, morally repugnant, vainglorious attempt to stop a world she didn’t like.

today she’d be in the Taliban, or be the kind of nutjob who walks into a school with an assualt rifle.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to give off the impression that I wanted to hear your opinion on Mary.

Also, “psychopaths”? In the words of Inigo Montoya: you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

No Other Will But Hers

June 13, 2014
3:47 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Shae said

Bob the Builder said

Shae said
…Does it not get boring to see the world in such a black and white way?

not remotely.

i enjoy enormously trying to stand in others shoes and see what they see in order to understand why they did A instead of B or C – but i still retain enough moral fibre to critcise the actions of those i study. interestingly, the only people at the time who didn’t criticise Mary for her, err… ‘thoroughness’ were other weapons grade psychopaths.

marrying a Spanish Prince – an unpopular move both at court and in the country – was a ‘grey’ decision, there were disadvantages, but there were also solid reasons for doing so. it was a legitimate decision based on a finely balanced judgement of what was in the Country’s, and Mary’s, best interests. undertaking religious genocide against the advice of most of the court, and very much contrary to the habits and customs of the Kingdom, was not a ‘grey’, finely balanced decision, it was desperate, pathetic, morally repugnant, vainglorious attempt to stop a world she didn’t like.

today she’d be in the Taliban, or be the kind of nutjob who walks into a school with an assualt rifle.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to give off the impression that I wanted to hear your opinion on Mary.

Also, “psychopaths”? In the words of Inigo Montoya: you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Exactly..Mary and her ilk were products of the culture they were part of. Trying to impose 21st century medical diagoses from the perspective of an untrained lay person is totally dismissive of the social norm of the era.

Plus Catholicism of any era has nothing to do with the Taliban. Those men who ruled Afgahnistan using a corruption of Sharia Law grew out of a whole different diamension of religious thought. The Taliban is more about power cloaked in a pseudo-religious format which was trying to remove the western influences from the British to the Soviet Union.

It's always bunnies.

June 13, 2014
2:24 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t know about all of this 21st century medical diagnoses Anyanka, if one wants to apply trauma to a historical figure (very common) then one should be able to apply mental illness. In Mary’s case both are often applied. I used to wonder at Philip’s treatment of her and if that wasn’t the cause of a lot of it but then I have not started reading extensively on Mary, and I wonder if some of that is fictional influence.

I don’t agree Mary was psychotic though. Unless you want to apply the same label to modern politicians who kill millions under the guise of war. It’s the same thing in the end. I think we need to take into account that Mary was ill, and her behaviour got worse and worse towards the end, and Leanda de Lisle also pointed out she was actually frightened of being killed. I thought that was interesting, and indicative of why she didn’t take Pole and Gardiner’s advice to pull back.

Bells and smells Bo Laugh That reminds me of Orthodox church.

June 13, 2014
3:22 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’m not too sure Olga but I believe Philip tried to reason with her about her manical (loosely worded) actions concerning burning everyone who she saw as a threat, as well. I believe Mary did have some form of mental illness, possibly the same sort of Illness as Queen Juana had.
She was extremely paranoid too, but in some ways I can understand that, as it was a trait that H8 had, I believe he had insisted on having a wall built or something outside his door every night to prevent any would be assassin from killing him as he slept. Or at the very least having as many locks and bolts as possible for much the same reason.
Half of Mary’s trouble came from her fear of the unknown so to speak, she was afraid to step outside the little Catholic bubble world she had created for herself. Whenever somebody spoke out about the abuses of the Catholic faith, she saw it as a direct attack on her, and like all people faced with a threatening situation, she chose to fight back. To her the Catholic faith was a safety blanket, and nothing anyone could say or do would change that. Cardinal Pole and Gardiner to a certain degree understood that the world they now lived in was very different to the world they once knew, and knew that the only way to survive in H8’s created world was to adapt. Their faith was still the centre of their world but they also accepted that not everyone felt as they did anymore. I believe that even the Pope turned against Mary in the end.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 13, 2014
6:23 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

All I know is one of Philip’s priests spoke against it Bo. The Spaniards weren’t exactly new to burning people at the stake either. With that said perhaps if Mary had more time people would remember her for something other than the executions. As it happens Isabella of Castille is constantly glorified as a Warrior Queen with little thought to the Muslims and Jews that died during her rule and the tortures and burnings that happened during the years of the Inquisition. Yet everyone glories in her military success, not a murderer or a psycho, but a warrior.

June 13, 2014
11:13 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you Olga. I have to admit the Spanish Inquisition was a particulally bloody affair. There were many Jews who were tortured to convert to Cathosium (I believe these people were called conversos), but many of them still practised the religion of their birth in secret.
I wouldn’t say that Isabella was a psycho as such, but she was arrogant, and self obsessed. I think she believed that she was God’s chosen warrior and as such she could do what she wanted because it was God’s will. In many ways I can see those traits in Mary too she believed that by burning so many people and forcing them to accept the Catholic faith etc, that she too was doing God’s work.
As it was Isabella wasn’t actually meant to be Queen of Castille in the first place, she stole the throne from her niece Joanna (Commonly known as “La Beltrana” in reference to her supposed father) Again Isabella forced the poor girl to submit to her, she actually gave her a choice if memory serves, marry her son (Isabella’s Son) when he came of age and only then if he agreed to marrying her or go into a convent. She chose to go into a convent, however it was also said that Ferdinand desperate to stop his son in law claiming the Castillian throne, after Isabella’s death in 1504 proposed marriage to her, which she refused. Joanna died in 1530 aged 68, she always signed any letters she wrote as “La Reina” right up to the end of her life.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 16, 2014
8:38 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well the Pope did call them his ‘Catholic Monarchs’ insinuating that Ferdinand and Isabella embodied the Catholic faith.

You know I didn’t know that about Isabella I have yet to read about her yet, only her daughters.

December 4, 2014
5:57 pm
Avatar
charlotte98
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
December 4, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I am certainly in the minority here! I have always loved Henry. I started off hating him, like pretty much everyone does, because he chopped off his wives heads, etc. But once I ended up reading all the books I have read on the subject, and reading up about the man himself… I actually really like Henry. I think Henry was a man of his time and can’t really be judged by us, by our standards, because things were very different then.
Henry was a very sentimental man and I think he let his emotions rule him too much of the time. I also think that he did what he thought was right. Even though a lot of times it was the WRONG thing to do, he always thought he was doing the right thing. Does that make sense?
I feel like I must have known Henry in a past life, because as cruel and tyrannical as Henry could be, I have always had a soft spot for him. I love Henry.

December 8, 2014
12:53 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well I suppose you could call one of Lard Arse’s (My name for him Henry among others) good points, is the fact he did reform the church, and showed people that the church wasn’t the be all and end of all of everything. He also gave us the chance to meet and know one of the greatest woman history has ever known. Anne, and of course gave us the great Elizabeth.
But as for soft spots for him, well unless I could bash his head in until it was a soft as a baked apple. I haven’t got any for him.
He was a power hungry despot, who ended up being totally corrupted by the power he created, for himself.
He acheived so very little in his reign, in the terms of glory, I mean Henry V is remembered for his mighty defeat of the French at Agincourt
Henry V11 (Daddy darling) is remembered for his victory at Bosworth, and finally ending the Wars of the Roses once and for all.
Ok, so there was Flodden, which put a stop to Scotland trying to sneek in through the back door and take England. But Lard Arse was in France so it was down to the rag tag army of old campaigners, led by a woman to stop the Scots. So Flodden wasn’t Lard arse’s victory at all. It was a victory England, St George and good Queen Catherine. In anycase Lard Arse only went over to France to show off. He believed that in order to win any battle you just had to show up. He ranted and raved about how brilliant it was that the French ran away (Battle of the Spurs Aka The battle that never was) when they saw him and his army coming and that the French were all cowards and he could take them any day with one hand tied his back. He failed to see the bigger picture. Ferdinand and the Emperor and the King of France (Louis and Francois) all played him like a fiddle, and his pub crawl in France cost him a lot of money and got him nothing. Ferdinand, the Emperor and Louis, however were laughing their socks off at him, as Lard arse had paid their expences while they were at the French court talking treaties and rubber stamping documents.
Lard arse was reckless and foolish, and acted rashly without any thought for the conseqences of his actions. K.O.A did a lot to keep him in check, but once he had rid himself of her there was no one to stop him, and as a result a lot of people suffered because of his temper tantrums. However when push came to shove the only person who was really hurt at the end of the day was himself. He basically ended up bitterly alone, in pain, and died a very lonely miserable death. He may have had a load of people with him when he popped his clogs, but the only feelings in that room, were relief, and the fact they could finally open the windows and get some fresh air in and get rid of the stink.
It very hard to feel compassion for a man who destroyed so many lives, and in doing destroyed his own too.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

December 10, 2014
9:26 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

charlotte98 said

I am certainly in the minority here! I have always loved Henry. I started off hating him, like pretty much everyone does, because he chopped off his wives heads, etc. But once I ended up reading all the books I have read on the subject, and reading up about the man himself… I actually really like Henry. I think Henry was a man of his time and can’t really be judged by us, by our standards, because things were very different then.
Henry was a very sentimental man and I think he let his emotions rule him too much of the time. I also think that he did what he thought was right. Even though a lot of times it was the WRONG thing to do, he always thought he was doing the right thing. Does that make sense?
I feel like I must have known Henry in a past life, because as cruel and tyrannical as Henry could be, I have always had a soft spot for him. I love Henry.

Stick to your guns, Charlotte. Not many here like Henry, but don’t let that stop you from sharing your opinion.

December 19, 2014
9:44 am
Avatar
LittleLear
USA
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1
Member Since:
November 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
100sp_Permalink sp_Print

I think it is a matter of perspective. There is always more that one side to a story, and in the case of the royal court there are several sides. All we can really do is take all the different sides and speculate what really happened and why. Ways of life were much different in that era, seeming to me pretty much barbaric, and they made decisions according to how they did things in those days. Who’s to say that King Henry wasn’t goaded by people from his court into the decisions that he made? From things I have read and watched people were very underhanded in those days and looked out for their own best interests. For example: King Henry VIII was well known for desiring a male heir. What if someone (theoretically) who didn’t like Anne Boleyn or wanted her out of the way for some reason planted a bug in Henry’s ear about her failure to provide that male heir and it made him feel frantic and like he was running out of time to get said heir. And once they had that bug planted they could go on to give him the ideas on how to get rid of her and when she was accused and found guilty that he would have to go through with an execution or would be made to look weak in the eyes of his people and enemies. Everything seemed to be about power and station in their time so there was pretty much no level people wouldn’t stoop to for their own gain. Since we can’t go back and actually see for ourselves what happened in that time and all we can get are personal accounts which are he said she said at best all we can do is merely speculate what really happened and why it happened.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427899

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1713

Posts: 23079

Newest Members:

Lauraerugh, RonnieSaurf, Fanngonntault, Dominatortault, FsbxGlync, LcxGlync

Administrators: Claire: 959