Henry VIII, eh? What a bastard.

[TunipTheVegemal]

I just feel there should be an ongoing thread on what a vile piece of work Henry VIII was where people can leave their opinions on the complete and utter appallingness of Henry VIII.

Of course, this being Mumsnet someone will probably come along and say IABVU and he was actually very nice.

(What sparked this off, btw, was me discovering that the Pilgrimage of Grace marched past where my house is, having mustered troops a mile away. Now every time I have to go into the garden at night I will imagine rotting corpses swinging from the trees - he had some of the rebels hanged in their own back gardens and some women got into trouble for cutting down their husband's bodies when they were supposed to leave them there to rot as a warning. What a bastard.)

He was a murderous pyschopatch even by the standards of the time.

but you weren't allowed to say so because he was the king so it would be treason....

I re-watched A Man for All Seasons the other day - made me feel unexpectedly sad, even though I knew the ending already! Totally vindictive.

Oh, Thomas More sigh

oooh Henry VIII what a great guy! Love him

History club, I had no idea there was a history club!!

Marking place to see what you all get up to!!

FWIW although a vile murderous bastard he must have had serious mental health issues. Marrying his brothers wife, killing AB, must have been all taken a toll. I think he's fascinating.

There's always one.

Will I get kicked out of history club if I base my entire knowledge of Henry Viii on what I read in wolf hall?

I bloody love the Tudors. Me and DH got all involved in the tv series and I managed to organise about three school trips to the Tower. Gushed about it loads, eventually went with DH and they'd taken all Henry's part if the exhibition away for cleaning. How DH sulked!

And can I please be in the club?

Really evil man. Psychotic.

the Tudors are a fascinating lot indeed...I wonder how historically accurate the tv series was, I loved it, it really brought history to life. Was the Anglican faith actually based on Henry's desire for a blowjob from AB?

Of course you can be in the club. Have a goblet of Malmsey

or a hot posset if you prefer

well reading about the Pilgrimage of Grace, one of the things I came across was that when they talked about 'destroying' an aristocratic family in the 16th c they meant through attainder (so they would lose all their property and titles) whereas the tv series presented this as if Henry had all of them even the kids killed.

The tv series was surprisingly accurate - various little comments in the spanish ambassador's letters (what his name?!) were faithfully portrayed. Shame they merged Henry's 2 sisters into 1 though!

He was definitely guilty of having a god complex. I think he married his brother's ex-wife because he was a young romantic kid at the time and his dad treated her like crap - not sure that was due to bastardliness. His later actions, OTOH....

Always amazes me that the Royal Family had a law that you could not become King or Queen if you marry a Catholic cos the split from Rome only came about cos Henry V111 didn't get his way re divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Or am i being too simplistic?

That's, erm, evocative as an OP!

I love Man for All Seasons, too, so I do not feel happy about Henry.

But a bit of me wants to explore the idea that there he was, training to be a Catholic priest, reading masses of theology and obviously not being particularly bad at it ... and suddenly his brother is dead and he's pushed into the limelight.

I wonder if he really wanted it?

I am not 'excusing' him, obviously, just thinking what sort of person he might have started off as.

Because I do get the impression (maybe wrongly?) that he didn't actually have a terribly high sex drive - or not as high as you'd think from six marriages. I wonder if he couldn't have made a better priest than a king.

(Posset does just make me think of baby sick. Hippocras?)

The TV series writes out the minor matter of the supperating ulcer, doesn't it?

Bleugh.

Mind you, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers ... mmm ....

If Henry VIII and his crimes happened today then we would be shaking out heads at the people who had failed him.

He wasn't supposed to be king, inherited the throne at 18 and had nobody around him prepared to stand up to him. It wasn't until the Boleyn whore that things got nasty (unless I'm overlooking something crucial) and it can be argued that very little of what went on was Henry's doing.

Will I get booted off the thread if I point out that, if you view Henry's actions in the wider context of the recently ended Wars of the Roses and his father's struggle to exercise authority over the country, his need for a true and unquestionable heir is really quite understandable...

Mmm, no, I think we can argue he was pretty nasty before.

I am feeling an unaccustomed rush of protectiveness for poor Anne Boleyn after that description!

Is there any evidence to back up the idea that he actually was psychotic due to syphillis?

Boleyn whore? Wash your mouth out.

Anne Boleyn purposefully broke up a marriage in her quest to be queen. She also played a game that ultimately led to many deaths including that of her own brother. And she is referred to in many history books as a whore so it wasn't just my view!

The need for an heir is fully understandable. The Tudors were widely viewed as usurpers and there had been years of unrest.