To think that Henry VIII was an abusive physco

[Iwanttoslowdown]

And should be taught in school as such.

One of mine is being taught about this tosser in Secondary school history and I was appalled that it was treated with such blasé that he literally was an abuser.

So I had to retell the story not as someone to be revered or remembered well, but that this abuser killed some of his wives including the mother of his daughter Elizabeth I, had serial mistresses, gorged his way through Court like some oversized pimple set to burst and generally Gould not be taught as a good person.

Listening to the latest H&M saga and before that Charles and Diana, not much has changed.

It's also been suggested that Henry and other members of the court, were actually malnourished. There was a huge amount of meat consumed, hardly any vegetables, a small amount of fruit and little else. Some foods were not served, being considered as peasant foods or alternatively bad for the 'humours', which was one of the ways that medicines were prescribed. The patient would be assigned a particular personality and the appropriate treatment given on that basis. Henry was always constipated, I bet that was another reason he was bad tempered.

Because the word ‘paedophile’ has very specific connotations, and the tendency on MN to use it inaccurately in order to whip up some tabloid-style frenzy on a topic is tedious. Hence the sighing.

@Iwanttoslowdown apart from being blasé, what's the problem? Could you post a worksheet or something, because I'm not sure what your problem is. Indeed everybody who is agreeing with the OP : how is Henry VIII taught in British schools these days?

I agree with you about the violence. The Suffragettes cause was righteous but it doesn't excuse some of the attention seeking methods. I understand women eventually got the vote by demonstrating their versatility in WW1 notably by taking on so much of the men's work and doing it darn well!

#MrsDanversGlidesAgain Yes you are right, it only occured to me after I had posted. The war had far more to do with women getting the vote than the suffragettes actions. I'm going to shut up now because my ignorance is starting to show. It's a very, very long time since I've read up on it and I can't recall all of the details.

@KettrickenSmiled
oh, i don’t care what the word is.
still wrong to sleep with a 13 year old when you’re an adult.

@KettrickenSmiled
That's awful but so typical of attitudes in those days. Hope you showed them by becoming 'somebody' yourself.
I also learnt about the UKs involvement in the slave trade at primary school in the 1960s.
Ive really enjoyed reading this thread and its made me want to revisit that period in history (not in real life obviously!)

Religion taught them that women were subservient to men and miscarriage was considered by many to be a sign of sin, it was "gods will" and therefore evidence that they'd done something to piss god off.

It was also believed that women could not become pregnant as a result of rape and that it was essential to enjoy sex to conceive. Who would be a female then?

After 1918, over half the women in the country still didn't have a vote, it was only 10 years later, they achieved parity with men.

Most historians do credit the suffragettes, which started in 1880's, with getting women the vote & raising womens issues, they weren't a single issue campaign and had been involved in getting women into universities, becoming doctors, even dentists & property rights, all long before WW2.

I think its rather arrogant to sit here in the 21stC and dismiss what they did and the acts of extreme bravery they took part in from our relatively privileged position, which they helped win for us all.

Today we see the very brave women of Iran protesting for their rights, its an on going struggle.

Unfortunately written by two misogynists, shame because it could be good.

I’m also curious. He’s only ever been a footnote for me. Died too young to show much agency.

😂😂😂👏

I’m also curious. He’s only ever been a footnote for me. Died too young to show much agency.

I think what was meant maybe @EmpressoftheMundane was that he had the potential to be a very formidable and not particularly pleasant monarch. Despite his young age, he already had quite a strict view on religion, taking a much more hardline Protestant approach (Henry was never a proper convert, I don’t think he cared too much what other people believed behind closed doors as long as they were loyal, vocally supported him and paid their dues - a bit like Elizabeth). Edward could have been a Protestant version of Mary. And he was brought up as a very spoiled golden child, that special only son. The makings of an even greater megalomaniac perhaps. But a lot less ‘fun’. No games and dancing and gambling and drinking whilst the head chopping and burning was going on. His court was a very somber one. Mean and boring!

Quite agree, if it wasn't for Henry our collective history (Scotland and England) might be very different.

Definitely not a character to be revered however you look at it.

YABU because literally the only thing I know about him is that he chopped his wives’ heads off!

To be fair I don’t think I was taught about him at school.

Why are we talking about the suffragettes when the subject is the twit twat of a wanker man.

'The whole sorry mess of Ireland'

But they were ALL terrible people then? Life was terrible, for pretty much everyone. Quite frankly it’s a wonder any of us are here, as people surviving long enough to actually pass on their DNA then was quite an achievement.

I think by today’s standards most people who lived in the Middle Ages would seem like abusive psychos.

I think he was of his time though? Wasn't Edward the first also a complete horror? Are the kids being taught about it, or are they being taught his behaviour was fantastic, there's a difference.

Anyway, your typo in the thread title brought to mind this classic scene, which has cheered me up no end to remember it, so thank you:

Most historians do credit the suffragettes, which started in 1880's, with getting women the vote & raising womens issues, they weren't a single issue campaign and had been involved in getting women into universities, becoming doctors, even dentists & property rights, all long before WW2

There were suffragettes - who did the things like slashing paintings and throwing themselves under horses - ans suffragists, who did the reasonable stuff of lobbying politicians and believed in peaceful campaigning methods. All suffragette activity was suspended during WW1 and Emmeline Pankhurst concentrated on getting women into war work to replace the men fighting. That war work was got women the vote - IIRC Lloyd George admitted as much

IIRC Lloyd George admitted as much

Having read about it. I wasn't there at the time.

Why are you singling Henry VIII out for villification? Many people in powerful positions throughout history have been abominable - it goes with the territory of absolute power and a lack of accountability. I'd be very surprised if any history teacher is presenting Henry as a "good person" to their class.