What were Henry\'s good points? | Page 6 | 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?
January 10, 2015
10:15 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
101sp_Permalink sp_Print

charlotte98 said 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.

I think that it was just the opposite. By our standards it is right and romantic to marry for love, but in Henry’s age, and especially for a king, it was stupid and dangerous.

I am beginning to suspect that when Henry wanted a male heir, it was not because he thought it was best and necessary for his country but because he felt that otherwise he was not “a man like other men”.

I recently read a book about Gustav II Adolf called Pohjolan leijona (The lion of the North) by Mirkka Lappalainen. When Gustav Adolf at the age of 17 succeeded his father who had taken the crown from his nephew Sigismund and had many of his nobles executed, Sweden was a poor, loosely organized country in the periphery in the war of the three neighbors, Russia, Poland and Denmark. Even more dangerously, the king of Poland was just his cousin Sigismund who was also a Catholic. The nearest men of Gustav Adolf were afraid because the king, besides being an able commander, loved to endanger his own life in the war and after the younger brother and another cousin (Sigismund’s half-brother who thus had a better claim to the throne than Gustav Adolf) died and there was nobody to succeeded him.

Yet, when Gustav Adolf was killed during the 30-year’s war in 1632 (largely for his over-boldness), his nearest men were naturally sad but quite calm about the future of the realm although the heir was a little girl. The reason was the change that had happened during 20 years: Sweden was well and tightly governed, had won wide new areas and was the master of the Baltic Sea, had become a great power and the champion of the Protestants with best army in Europe. The nobles were able, loyal and cooperative for after his father’s rule of terror, Gustav Adolf had won them over with his trust and charm (in addition of the benefits, of course). In short, the realm was no more dependent on who the king (or queen) was.

Initially, Gustav Adolf had wanted to marry a Swedish girl but his mother wisely prevented this, because the union with one noble family would have resulted problems and even internal battles. His marriage with a princess of Brandenburg was unhappy but he endured it stoically. His was not disappointed (or at least not showed it) when his wife was delivered of a bay girl – the reason being, Lappalainen thinks, that he was a kindly man but also that he had made so many reforms and could think in an unconventional way also about succession.

Compared with Gustav II Adolf, Henry VIII cannot really hold the candle.

January 10, 2015
12:51 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
102sp_Permalink sp_Print

If I have remembered this rightly Hannele. When Edward 4th married Elizabeth Woodville, the marriage was viewed as disgusting. The thought of marrying for love was something that turned peoples stomachs at that time.. So the same thing could be said of Henry and Anne.. Henry did marry Anne for love, but I think Henry ‘s desperation to prove that he was a man by fathering a son did supercede the love he bore for Anne. To be honest Henry’s desperation for a son, was so fierce that love or not it wouldn’t have mattered, just as long as he got what he truly wanted.
Jane has been called Henry’s true love a few times, but he only loved her because she gave him that son. He didn’t love Jane or really any of his wives in the true sence of the word. He mearly loved them as one would love eating stawberries, etc. If A.O.C, K.H or K.P had had sons by him, he would have said the same of them. He loved them because they gave him a son or 2.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

January 10, 2015
3:54 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
103sp_Permalink sp_Print

Boleyn said

If I have remembered this rightly Hannele. When Edward 4th married Elizabeth Woodville, the marriage was viewed as disgusting. The thought of marrying for love was something that turned peoples stomachs at that time..

It was not only a question of marrying for love but also, or even more, of marrying someone who had not an equal status. When Edward IV and Henry VIII married a commoner, their relatives were given titles and possessions simply because they were relatives of the Queen. This was not accepted by those whose birth status had been the same or higher than theirs (today, to have a status only because of birth is not acceptable).

However, it seems that upstarts like Woodvilles were accused from many things like arranging good matches to their family members that other families made with good conscience.

It is noteworthy that Elizabeth Woodville has been accused from many things but never from adultery. How could Henry have so bad luck?

January 10, 2015
9:18 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
104sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hannele said

Boleyn said

If I have remembered this rightly Hannele. When Edward 4th married Elizabeth Woodville, the marriage was viewed as disgusting. The thought of marrying for love was something that turned peoples stomachs at that time..

It was not only a question of marrying for love but also, or even more, of marrying someone who had not an equal status. When Edward IV and Henry VIII married a commoner, their relatives were given titles and possessions simply because they were relatives of the Queen. This was not accepted by those whose birth status had been the same or higher than theirs (today, to have a status only because of birth is not acceptable).

Yup..Edward was looked asquance at since he had thrown away the chance of oyal bride who should being money, alliences and more importantly security to his throne. Having a powerful European backer would have made it harder for Margaeret to gn aid when she joind forced with the dis-illusioned Earl of Warwick.

Certainly even nobles married for love if there was litle inbalance in status, at that time. Unusual but it did still happen and , of coure as you went down the social scale it was far more common to marry for love or even live together without the benefit of clergy

However, it seems that upstarts like Woodvilles were accused from many things like arranging good matches to their family members that other families made with good conscience.

It is noteworthy that Elizabeth Woodville has been accused from many things but never from adultery. How could Henry have so bad luck?

The fct that the Woodville marriages happened to make very strange bed-partners made some people gossip, like the much married and elderly Dowagr duchess of Norfolk to Elizabeth’s 20 yr old brother o her sister marrying the 111 yr old Duke of Buckingham. But the fact that many of her relative married in the higher nobilty was seen as rapatious grabbing of power and influence.

It's always bunnies.

January 11, 2015
9:30 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
105sp_Permalink sp_Print

Anyanka said But the fact that many of her relative married in the higher nobilty was seen as rapatious grabbing of power and influence.

Yes, but everybody did that if they only could.

Earl of Warwick married her elder daughter Isabel to George duke of Clarence and her younger daughter Anne to Edward Prince of Wales, the son of Queen Margaret of Anjou. George and Richard duke of Gloucester (after marrying Anne) shared the fortune of their mother-of law Countess of Warwick forcing her to be “naturally dead”. Edward IV himself married his son Richard Duke of York to Anne Mowbray and although she did as a child, Richard kept both her fortune and the title duke of Norfolk.

So, it was only that there were different rules to upstarts – and to women.

January 20, 2015
2:56 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
106sp_Permalink sp_Print

Henry’s good points? Well, he was handsome at his youth, a good rider, hunter, jouster and dancer, spoke several languages, could play and compose music, and was even an amateur theologian.

But inside? He did not get rid of Katheirine by poisoning her or ordering an “accident”, like contemporaries could have done. And he did not pressure Anne’s father in order to get Anne to his bed (John Matuasiak thinks that he should have done it as, for although adultery is a sin, it would have been politically a lesser evil).

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427592

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1712

Posts: 23076

Newest Members:

DennisDorie, vitushatault, oghmaniusVom, Urocchxae, Puimignog, Emma3456

Administrators: Claire: 959