Henry VIII was a radical King who made radical changes to r world, most notably the break with Rome in 1532. This created a denomination of Christianity that is widely followed today. He needed to remain strong for these changes to be accepted.
Also, Henry VII was handing over his throne to an 18 year old. With HenryVII having a very weak claim to the throne there were still people out there wanting to overthrow his dynasty (in the same way the Tudors became the royal house in England in the first place!) Henry needed to be seen as strong for the Tudor dynasty to survive. The fact that it survived a whole 56 years after his death showed that Henry VIII was seen as a strong King.
2006-09-21 02:25:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by James B 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hi, and if this helps a bit >
King Henry VIII was indeed a strong Monarch, but as with everyone else, not without his faults.
Particularly to do with the Churches at the time, and his strong wish to have a male son to take over the Crown.
That is rather simplistic, but there are many a good book in the liraries that will shed enlightenment, as well as this open network.
If you have a specific question or two, I would endeavour to provide the answer
All the best in your research for now.
Bob
2006-09-20 10:54:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bob the Boat 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Until we had a constitutional monarchy it was always important for the king or queen and the country to appear to be a strong character. They were after all the chief executive of a vast and complex corporation and you don't run a successful organisation unless you are strong character. Just look what tended to happen to many rulers in history who were weak.
I'm afraid Jock F is talking a load of rubbish. In those days kings were dictators, Henry was very intellectual and physically quite strong. He had every right to have the throne because he occupied it and might was right in those days. Yes in our terms he was a thief and a murderer but that was the way things were in the politics of the day.
2006-09-20 10:50:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Maid Angela 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
England had just ended a civil war "The War of the Roses" The Houses of Lancaster and Yorkshire were combined to make the Tudor Rose. To be the first of what was hoped to be a dynasty he had to hold it all together for internal stability also Spain and the continent were expanding Britain looked like a soft touch as welsh terrorists were on the Marches (Borders).
2006-09-23 03:59:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ashley K 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because the Tudor oaf had an ego bigger than his backside but was not as pleasant.
He is one of the least human monarchs England ever had, none of whom were entitled to the throne in the first place.
He was little more than a thug with the intellect of a spoiled child and was more of a dictator than a king.
He wasn't even a strong man, never mind as a king.
Just a petulant child.
I spit on him.
2006-09-20 10:50:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He separated england from the catholic church He grew to become into the final king to rule in an autocracy, each king after him had increasing rigidity from parliament he grew to become into the 1st substantial ruler in ecu historic previous to have an incredible type of alternative halves and stepped forward the legitimacy of divorce interior the eyes of society he grew to become into the 1st king to mainstream gunpowder weapons into the english military he created the Yeomen of the guard (beefeaters) He grew to become into the final King to be born and raised Catholic.
2016-10-15 05:38:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
...because the Tudor dynasty was built on sand. Try reading some books to research the rest of this essay.
2006-09-20 10:47:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by gerbiltamer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who knows (or cares)?
He was a fat, immoral, syphilitic, fornicating, murdering philandering git.
2006-09-20 10:50:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
dictator
2006-09-20 16:40:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by don;t know 3
·
0⤊
0⤋