Not a great king, but he did father Elizabeth 1st who was a great monarch.
2006-09-13 05:18:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Caro 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
He was a mindless despotic, murderous brute who ruled by terror. A completely self absorbed, selfish and sadistic savage. He invented boiling in oil as a method of execution and whilst he composed Greensleeves he was an example of the depravity that man can sink to if given the opportunity. And he is an ancestor of the present mob.
For the apologist: the great person is the one who doesn't follow the crowd. To say it's OK because that is how things were done is slightly ridiculous when you are the one who decides how things are done. The ends do not justify the means when the means are unspeakable cruelty.
2006-09-13 07:21:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Depends on your perspective, if you are Scottish and Catholic who would probably think that he was a male chvanistic pig, who decided to burn down holyrood because he wanted Mary Q of S to marry Edward. Plus, the break with Rome was pretty bad, never mind the divorce, (no one in their right minds should get married to their dead brother's sister anyway).
If you are coming from an other perspective i.e English and Protestant you will admire the break with Rome, he was a very strong charchter with his own mind - which i find admirable even if the rest of europe had left him because of his break with Rome. He built a stong country and allowed the printing press to take off in England, albeit through a controlled agenda for reformation.
He is a pretty interesting person, who left his mark on the country, (good or for ill). But I don't know if this makes him good or bad.
2006-09-16 03:23:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Henry VIII was neither a good nor a bad king. He was a product of his time and he fulfilled his role to the best of his ability.
Despite common belief, he did not behead all his wives. Most of them outlived him.
However -- whether he beheaded anyone or not (and bear in mind that beheadings, tearing people limb from limb, amputating hands etc. were common practises in those times) Henry did one thing that set him apart from all others.
He made England truly independent. He did it for the wrong reasons, but by divorcing England from the control of the Church, he made it a truly independent nation.
2006-09-13 06:46:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by old lady 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
He was a very bad King - Henry the 8th is the King that invaded Ireland, declared himself king of all Ireland, and reduced all it's people to poverty and servitude - setting off a chain of events that eventually led to the Potato Famine and the death/emigration of more than half of all Ireland.
2006-09-13 05:20:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Alexis 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Many of his decisions make sense for his time, but he was still a bad king. He was involved with the religious wars and put his people through a lot of hard times, instead of supporting them in an already chaotic era.
2006-09-13 05:19:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by alearningsoul 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well I think a lot of these answers are really bad!!
Did you know Henry had a bastard son called Henry Fitzroy Duke of Richmond? He had his own court! He was the son of Henry's Mistress Bessy Blount and he died shortly before Anne Boleyn of natural causes.
Henry was not a great king by any standards! He was so influenced by his courters and their factions who often had their own agendas in mind.
He was a strong king which in the 16th century was vital. The Tudors were pretty new to the throne and their claim to it dubious! Henry killed everyone who was a threat to his son. Who needed another war of the roses?
His wives are fasinating. Catherine of Aragon because of her marriage to Henrys brother and her grit when fighting to remain Queen, Anne Boleyn for being so ambitious,Queens maid to Queen of England, for holding the king at bay for 7 years before he wed her and for her fall and her beheading. For being Elizabeth l mother.
Jane Seymore for doing exactly the same thing but looking sweet whilest doing the evil deed. Butter would not melt! For giving birth to the much wanted legal male heir and dieing a few days later.
Anne of cleves for being so brave and innocent and for surviving all his other Queens. For having the title 'sister of the King' and becoming free and weathy in her own right. She was the only one to survive the end of her marriage to Henry!
For Catherine Howards youth and wild ways for her affairs and her joy. For being beheaded for adutury and teaching Henry he was an 'old fool'
Catherine Parr for having her death warrent signed by Henry but him changing his mind thanks to her cleverness. For teaching Elizabeth l that a woman could run a country in the absence of a king. For marrying Seymore in an undignified haste after Henrys death and dieing in child birth with her new husbands child nine months later.
2006-09-13 08:03:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nicola H 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Hey, he can't have been that stupid, as others have implied! He had six wives, was very wealthy, he could do more or less anything he wanted...call that stoopid?
Anyway, it depends whose perspective you see him from. If not for Henry there would have been no Protestant Anglican Church. Do the Bishops of that body think he was bad? I doubt it.
He was human, and in the public eye.
Today, God help us he'd be on "Help Me, I'm on Celebrity Love Island with a Celebrity Chef and could you please get me out of here before my X-Factor kicks in?"
2006-09-13 05:28:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Michael E 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
sometimes, the strain of a nasty personality is major to regulate major situations. u . s . might want to be not something without King Henry's reversal of the traditional international's theory.
2016-11-26 21:22:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Henry 8 was a great King, for he was one of the most interesting, many royals who never put a foot out of line were very boring
2006-09-13 05:22:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I think he was an arrogant, self-absorbed king who did nothing but harm women. The worst was when he married a 16 yr old (Catherine Howard) at his ripe old age of 48! At least he had the sense to have a daughter who outdid him as a monarch.
2006-09-13 05:20:24
·
answer #11
·
answered by ABBMAMA 4
·
1⤊
1⤋