"Henry VIII - Hero or Villain?" Topic

Henry the VIII of England – hero or villain?

What in the world would qualify him as a hero?

Important figure but not a hero. Started England on the road to Protestantism.

I've no reason to wish ill on the ladies, but it is fun to imagine (in the spirit of Sartre's NO EXIT) Henry in Hell, and specifically locked up in a room with his six wives.

Henry burned Protestants as heretics. (And hanged Roman Catholics as traitors.)

Unless one wants to argue that possibly beneficial and unintended consequences of one's wicked actions makes them retroactively heroic?

I don't think so.

Like most non-fictional characters from history, neither a hero nor a villain.

Proof positive the absolute power corrupts absolutely!

mjc

Most definitely a villain. He killed the best men in his kingdom for the most selfish of reasons, and his suppression of the monasteries destroyed thousands of innocent lives. (And led to rebellion that destroyed more.)

An evil evil man.

He was just a king who did as many kings did… held onto power and created a lot of pain and misery for many, while grabbing as much wealth and power for himself as he could. What is so different about him? Therefore, neither a villain or a hero. Just a king.

An evil evil man.

"Naughty boy Henry! Naughty. Now off to bed without your last turkey drumstick! And, if you cut off another head, you'll get a flogging!"

Ancient and Unteachable, abide--abide the Trumpets!
Once again the Trumpets, for the shuddering ground-swell brings
Clamour over ocean of the harsh, pursuing Trumpets--
Trumpets of the Vanguard that have sworn no truce with Kings!

All we have of freedom, all we use or know--
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw--
Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the Law.

Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the king.

Till our fathers 'stablished,, after bloody years,
How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

So they bought us freedom-not at little cost--
Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost.

Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
Suffer not the old King: for we know the breed.

Give no ear to bondsmen bidding us endure.
Whining "He is weak and far"; crying "Time will cure."

(Time himself is witness, till the battle joins,
Deeper strikes the rottenness in the people's loins.)

Give no heed to bondsmen masking war with peace.
Suffer not the old King here or overseas.

They that beg us barter--wait his yielding mood--
Pledge the years we hold in trust-pawn our brother's blood--

Howso' great their clamour, whatsoe'er their claim,
Suffer not the old King under any name!

Here is naught unproven--here is naught to learn.
It is written what shall fall if the King return.

He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,
Set his guards about us, as in Freedom's name.

He shall take a tribute, toll of all our ware;
He shall change our gold for arms--arms we may not bear.

He shall break his Judges if they cross his word;
He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
Watchers 'neath our window, lest we mock the King --

Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies;
Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.

Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
These shall deal our Justice: sell-deny-delay.

We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse
For the Land we look to--for the Tongue we use.

We shall take our station, dirt beneath his feet,
While his hired captains jeer us in the street.

Cruel in the shadow, crafty in the sun,
Far beyond his borders shall his teachings run.

Sloven, sullen, savage, secret, uncontrolled,
Laying on a new land evil of the old--

Long-forgotten bondage, dwarfing heart and brain--
All our fathers died to loose he shall bind again.

Here is nought at venture, random nor untrue
Swings the wheel full-circle, brims the cup anew.

Here is naught unproven, here is nothing hid:
Step for step and word for word--so the old Kings did!

Step by step, and word by word: who is ruled may read.
Suffer not the old Kings: for we know the breed--

All the right they promise--all the wrong they bring.
Stewards of the Judgment, suffer not this King !

…err right then.

N Hugh Mann

He was just a king who did as many kings did… held onto power and created a lot of pain and misery for many, while grabbing as much wealth and power for himself as he could. What is so different about him?

That's kinda what Sauron did, right?

Like so many prominent figures from history, he was undeniably a Villain…

… except when portrayed by Sid James.

Definite Hero – (accidentally) did the spadework for the Reformation, thus the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, bankrupted the Monarchy and laid the path to the Commonwealth. Freed Britain from superstition and foreign religious domination. Broke the power of the Monasteries and freed the land for better use. What's not to like?

We mustn't judge poor ole Henry through early 21st century glasses. He was acting as many other in his day and age acted. To call him a villain is to indict an entire generation (or more) of European monarchs and princes.

Just sayin'

It's a silly question truth be told.

A man of his time. Totally dedicated to his own self interest. Those he killed were usually set against him in one way or another. He did as a king would do.

He did as a king would do.

Yes, and so we are well rid of them.

We weren't there, we didn't know him, and we only get snippets of why he did things. He was another king, tyrant, and leader who used and abused his power. Not a hero if you look at romantic definitions of heroes. Simply a thug with lots of power – wielded with impunity. Not a hero in my book, but also not a true villain either.

A deeply flawed man, in that he allowed his considerable caprices to trump his formidable talents. Many of his positive contributions are at best obscured and at worst rendered moot by his excesses.

It is unfortunate that his best and most clear-headed policy, a stable line of succession and a strong monarchy, is misconstrued by simpletons who think he was merely a serial bridegroom, or some sort of misogynist in a doublet.

Condottiere – what a load of tripe.

Henry may have made quick buck for himself in selling off the church lands (as did many a pope, by the way) but he freed that land for free enterprise. The fact that, by Elizabeth's time, England was a major trading nation is largely due to Henry's actions. Even Mary didn't entirely return the governance of the English church to Rome – she was a canny Tudor, after all.

He also set the Royal Navy on a sounder footing than any previous monarch with the introduction of proper dockyards and the administration to manage it.

Every monarch in Europe at the time had to cope with the problems of the transition from Medieval society to Renaissance and Henry was no worse at it than others in countries of similar size.

Heros & villains are for kids story books, history has very few of them, it is a lot more complicated than Noddy & Big Ears.

When 'enry of Wails assumed the throne, England was relatively prosperous, thanks to his parsimonious dad, but by his death, the country was almost in a state of impoverishment

The 'Crown' was – that's why he was an accidental hero – the crown had to go to parliament and that broke the absolute monarchy that Elizabeth, James, Charles wanted – no Louis XIV here – no money – hurrah!

Pray tell what superstition went away and what foreign religious domination? If anything, in assuming aspects of Caesaropapism, the old boy ensured that freedom of thought and expression took a retrogression.

Transubstantiation – a priestly class who had a direct intervention with God for the secular masses – idolatry. The iconoclasm that he accidentally helped unleash helped develop questioning rational thought – Newton et al, albeit a long time later. Certainly wouldn't have happened the same way with a Marian settlement for example.

Long term profit from local economies? I think we will have to agree to differ about the benefits of the monastic system to a national economy. (even if it had once been of benefit in mediaeval times, by Henry's reign it was largely decadent, corrupt and inefficient).

Not really a hero (or a villain) of course but his affect on British history was (pretty much accidentally) supremely beneficial.
(Especially as he got rid of that annoying pedant Moore).

Gwydion

Transubstantiation – a priestly class who had a direct intervention with God for the secular masses – idolatry. The iconoclasm that he accidentally helped unleash helped develop questioning rational thought – Newton et al, albeit a long time later. Certainly wouldn't have happened the same way with a Marian settlement for example.

It is always laughable to read this kind of thing. Protestants and Catholics are no more advanced in thinking either than the other. Remember that there were quite a few Catholic thinkers of the time, like Pascal, who were just as brilliant. Remember also that Protestantism gave birth to an opinionated and superstitious fundamentalism that plagues the world to this day. That type of thinking never took root in Catholicism, and its only real exemplar, Cornelius Jansen, is virtually forgotten.

Neither. He was a king of his time.

Transubstantiation – a priestly class who had a direct intervention with God for the secular masses – idolatry. The iconoclasm that he accidentally helped unleash helped develop questioning rational thought – Newton et al, albeit a long time later. Certainly wouldn't have happened the same way with a Marian settlement for example.

Ah yes…

And if I may make so bold as to accuse his Editorship of being a , what was the likely outcome of this discussion supposed to be? This is the kind of thing that can only get Catholics and Protestants mad at each other.

YouTube link

"This is the kind of thing that can only get Catholics and Protestants mad at each other."

…next topic: Was William the Orange a Hero or Villain?

That should get the sectarians going.

Why stop there?

How about "The IRA: Glorious Freedom Fighters or Simply Justified Resisters of Soulless Oppressors?"

He was an evil man who used his power to further his own selfish ends. The excuse that he did as others did in his time is not an excuse. Henry knew right from wrong and chose to abuse his power.

Evil

Henry VII left the country with a full treasury and huge revenue. VIII Spent it all and then confiscated 1/2 of the country net worth and still died broke.

Oh boy!

H8, selfindulgent spoilt brat

WOO, a fecker.

IRA, criminals and scumbags hidding behind fake nationalism as an excuse.

Neither a Protestant nor a Roman Catholic by the way.

Hero, in the long run.

Dasher

Hero, in the long run.

Exactly. Kinda like Hitler (I know, I just lost the argument ) for jump-starting the European and American economies.

YouTube link

Hard to tell from this, though.

Hi

In order to qualify as a villen, you would need to not demonstrate with HINDSIGHT that he did bad things, but that he did bad things just because he was bad.

A sociopath of somesort would be the issue.

In the real world, he didn't know what the unintended consequences of his actions would be. This is why they are called "unintended". Both He and the magnificent Elizabeth had to make decisions that killed people.

Both of them saw the War of the Roses as a horrible event that wrecked much of england and almost resulted in being conquered. Both of them made decisions where there were no pure "good" choices or possible results.

Henry's wives was purely the need to deal with the stupid primogeniture system of inheritance. Keeping faithful to the first wife would have had some unpleasent result for this alone.

And as I am personally fascinated with Elizabeth, the idea of No Liz the first is a greater BAD.

Rocky

Hard to tell from this, though.

Ahh, a "blast from the past" as it were, when women wore white gloves to church on Sundays and rock bands sported "Blagojevich-esque" style haircuts.

Like so many prominent figures from history, he was undeniably a Villain…

… except when portrayed by Sid James.

I can see a remake in the offing starring Ron Jeremy. A special kind of remake. A movie where a king really is a king and 6 wives is not nearly enough. And in this movie, Henry will definitely be a HERO!

"The IRA: Glorious Freedom Fighters or Simply Justified Resisters of Soulless Oppressors?"

Or Marxist gangsters who like to kneecap teenagers?

Anyway, Henry was a Renaissance Prince and did what his contemporaries did. His biggest problem was that he tried to fight wars as if he was King of France or the Holy Roman Emperor, but didn't have anything like the resources.

His reign saw the transition from feudalism to the modern state, even if the nation state was some centuries away.

A man of his time. Totally dedicated to his own self interest.

That describes any man of any time.

A deeply flawed man, in that he allowed his considerable caprices to trump his formidable talents.

Same again. Any man, any time.

Silly thread.

I can see a remake in the offing starring Ron Jeremy. A special kind of remake. A movie where a king really is a king and 6 wives is not nearly enough. And in this movie, Henry will definitely be a HERO!

Yeah…

Ron Jeremy will portray a REAL ruler! (one with 12 inches)

I think even by the standards of the day he was increasingly a tyrant as time went on. The trial of Anne Boylen was a travesty and – as far as contemporary or modern scholars can establish – she was entirely innocent of the charges brought against her.

She was a schemer and a clever woman (the latter virtually a crime in itself in those days) but she was not unfaithful, incestuous or plotting to murder the King – which were the charges brought against her.

Yes he wanted and needed an heir for reasons of state, but that was cold-blooded murder and apparently never troubled his conscience.

He was troubled by the 'crime' of marrying his brother's widow, and felt the lack of a male heir by Catherine of Aragon was a punishment from God.

Agreed his – and Anne Boylen's – daughter was arguably the greatest monarch England has ever had.

Amazing how upset people get when Henry pulls some vicious hooker out of the gutter, lets her sleep with him for a coupla' years, and then chops her when she gets mouthy, but don't get upset over his real crimes, like John Fisher and Thomas Moore.

More than once I have heard or seen historians refer to him as "Englands Stalin". It seems a fair comparison to me.

Hi

I think that falls into the catagory of an "unsupported bald assertion". Most of the rest of us taking a position also suggested WHY, "England's Stain" only sounds clever without advancing the discussion.

Rocky

I see I inadvertently introduced an extra 'O' into Thomas More's name earlier – sorry 'bout that.

My crime as well.

<Amazing how upset people get when Henry pulls some vicious hooker out of the gutter, lets her sleep with him for a coupla' years, and then chops her when she gets mouthy, but don't get upset over his real crimes, like John Fisher and Thomas Moore.>

1 – Mentioning his crime against Anne Boylen, and the 4 other men he had to have executed – and in one case tortured as well – to build his bogus case in no way suggests one approves of his treatment of More or Fisher. That is both an unfounded projection and a logical fallacy. I provided ONE relevant (IMO) example. A full list of his crimes would be beyond both the scope of this forum and my knowledge of his life.

2- Ideally I think'even hookers should have the protection of the law. I do not much approve of cutting off the heads of people on trumped up charges of which they are innocent, even if they are 'hookers' who 'get mouthy'. Fortunately the 'she was only a hooker and she got mouthy to me' defense is not accepted in court these days. In the West anyway.

3 – All the events are too long ago for me to actually get 'upset' about. They are a matter of historical interest. Apparently not the case with you. You seem to have a real good head of hate built up there based upon your very emotive language.

4 – I would be interested to see your sources for asserting she was a hooker. One of her major attractions for Henry was her unavailabilty.

5 – My Mum stifled you too.