he was quite succesful in getting rid of wives
2007-03-12 07:40:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by sharon r 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm pretty sure if you ask any red-blooded male which English King they would most like to have been, they were opt for Henry VIII, I know I would have.
However in terms of how successful was he as King, then I'd have to say he wasn't as good as many suggest. Now I'm sure there are thousands of websites that would provide 'factual' information relating to Henry, but you have to ask yourself this.
Henry disassociated England from Rome (whether that was a good thing or not is open to debate, but I bet you those monks and the catholics Mary burned didn't think so) and in doing so he nailed England's colours to the Protestant mast, thereby ensuring pointless wars have been fought ever since
Now these 'religious' conflicts may have been fought anyway over the last 500 years, who knows. But Henry certainly didn't help matters, just because Catherine of Aragon was no good in the sack..
2007-03-12 15:48:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Sir Basil Cheese Wrench III 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
King Henry VIII was England's most successful king in that he single handedly drew England together and made it into a country for the first time. He once described his three million subjects as "My savage English". When the King died, he left an England which was then top dog in Europe. It was however his daughter Elizabeth who really started the serious business of turning England Incorporated into a 'rich' nation. It was she who opened the very first stock exchange and sent her 'buccaneers' out to attack the Spanish fleet and take the prizes.
2007-03-13 03:37:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Henry was a very dangerous, capricious tyrant and provided the perfect example of why this country had to get rid of "absolute" monarchy and if not to continue with a monarch free state, then introduce a constitutional monarchy. Although even constitutional monarchy is perceived as a parasitic form of head of state.
2007-03-13 07:13:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably one of our most successfully kings. He ruled for 39 years which was quite good in those days./ The country was prosperous partly due to his break with Rome and then dissolving the monasteries and selling of their assets. Unfortunately he was so successful that he had plenty of time and money to hold large banquets and entertain many ladies. this lead to a general deterioration in his health. However three of his children sat on the throne including Elizabeth I who was also one of our successful monarchs
2007-03-12 14:56:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Maid Angela 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
He was born to rule. He had the strength of body and character and the natural charisma of a king from childhood. He was able to give England independence from the Catholic church and did not need to make powerful marriages with European princesses for England to have status. However, he also ordered the deaths of any who displeased him, including 2 of his wives, Anne Boleyn on rediculous grounds of adultery with 5 men, and Cardinal Wolsey, who he had previously promoted to highest religious status in England for assisting in his marriage to Anne Boleyn and his service to Henry VII.
2007-03-13 06:37:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Andrea C 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
well, first off, it's Henry VIII or Henry the 8th, not Henry V111. Secondly, um... i don't know
2007-03-12 14:45:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by beardedredhead7 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Biologically, not very succesful at all. None of his legitimate children had offspring, and his Royal House (The Tudors) had been replaced by The Stuarts on Elizabeth I's death in 1603.
2007-03-16 07:47:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jim Mac 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In relation to what?
As an English king, quite successful - ruled for 39 years - the country was prosperous. As a human being, he suffered from poor health, and no heir, which caused him a lot of problems - he knew that England would be thrown into war if there was no clear heir.
Thus three of his children sat on the throne including Elizabeth I who was also one of our successful monarchs. But her success was achieved by Henry who standardised weights and measures, thus starting the scientific boom in England.
He presided over the foundation of the Church of England, a remodelling of the machinery of government and of taxation, a major growth in the importance of Parliament, the incorporation of Wales into the regular system of English local administration, the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland, the arrival in England of Renaissance modes of art and literature, and a major building programme which included colleges, palaces and fortresses.
He also brought to the job an almost manic energy, fuelled by a huge appetite for food and drink. In his youth, he wore out eight horses a day while hunting, and also engaged regularly in dancing, jousting and wrestling. This lifestyle began to go badly wrong from the age of forty-four, when his horse rolled on him in a tournament, crippling one leg and leaving him a chronic invalid. The accident deprived him of his ability to take exercise, while his eating habits did not diminish, so that during his last few years he measured four and half feet round the waist. His appetite for pleasure was matched at times by his interest in business. He was the last monarch for over a century to attend the debates of the House of Lords, and in his last seven years he personally gave 108 interviews to foreign ambassadors. He wanted all state documents drawn up with large margins and spaces between lines so that he could scribble comments. Henry possessed an amazing memory, he was able to recall the names of every servant employed by the royal households and all the grants of land or money which he had ever signed. On the other hand, he did not care to attend the deliberations of his council of advisers, kept postponing major decisions of policy, and hated to read or write long documents. He was a chronic annotator, editor and commentator, loving the detail of government but disliking the main business.
Some claims could be made for him as a cultured monarch. He was quite a good musician, and possessed a library of almost a thousand books, which he certainly read as he scribbled all over them. He had a real understanding of fortification, ballistics and shipping, and could discuss mathematics and astronomy on equal terms with experts. His court was a model of decorum compared with most others in contemporary Europe, those who frequented it being forbidden to brawl, duel or appear in public with their mistresses. His only conventional vices were gluttony, ostentation and gambling: in two years he lost £3,250 on cards and by his death he owned a record 50 palaces.
2007-03-12 15:39:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by DAVID C 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think he would have considered himself extremely successful.
In terms of how he governed England, there were pros and cons. It was good if you were a rich Protestant. Bad if you were anyone else.
Being married to him pretty much sucked. At least it didn't last long. ;)
2007-03-12 14:46:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Saint Bee 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
It didn't do as well at the box office as Henry VII.
2007-03-12 14:42:09
·
answer #11
·
answered by lululaluau 5
·
1⤊
0⤋