Opinion of Henry VIII

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

FF for his times.

Great reforms
Breaking with the Pope
Under his rule a commoner could rise to nobleman just because of his own merits
Supporter of arts and sciences

For me he was a progressive as of 16th century and still lasting positive legacy

[minionofmidas]

Breaking with the Pope

Not a progressive act. He just made himself pope in addition to being king, he didn't abolish the position. Religious Freedom in England (not equal rights, that came later) is a result of the Revolution, a hundred years later.

[Јas]

Shouldn't have concerned himself with matters beyond the Pale. His efforts aided the destruction of Gaelic Ireland.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Breaking with the Pope

Not a progressive act. He just made himself pope in addition to being king, he didn't abolish the position. Religious Freedom in England (not equal rights, that came later) is a result of the Revolution, a hundred years later.

Those were very diffrent times

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He only broke with the Pope so he could get a divorce. Not the most noble reason, especially as all of his marriages were jokes anyway.

HP.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

He only broke with the Pope so he could get a divorce. Not the most noble reason, especially as all of his marriages were jokes anyway.

HP.

Actually, Henry always wanted to curb Rome influence

[big bad fab]

He only broke with the Pope so he could get a divorce. Not the most noble reason, especially as all of his marriages were jokes anyway.

HP.

I second !

[JSojourner]

Henry was the uber-opportunist, writing eloquent tomes in support of Papal authority when he thought it would do him the most good...and penning (or authorizing) some of the most horrifically anti-Catholic screeds when he saw the previous ship had sailed.

HP for the most part. I have nothing against the Reformers.  (Though as with any impassioned movement, they often went too far...even frightening Martin Luther with their extremism at times.) But Henry was no real reformer.

I'm not sure anyone could knock Alfred the Great off the pedestal I keep him on, anyway.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Henry was the uber-opportunist, writing eloquent tomes in support of Papal authority when he thought it would do him the most good...and penning (or authorizing) some of the most horrifically anti-Catholic screeds when he saw the previous ship had sailed.

True, by Henry always wanted to have an authority over the church in England and correctly viewed clergy loyalty to the pope as a threat for his power and well foreign influence

Neverthless, his legacy was positive


Btw, ask Anne Boleyn if she think Henry threated his marriage as a joke

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wrote some appalling music, some of which I had the misfortune to listen to a few months ago when I couldn't get out of bed to turn the radio off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He only broke with the Pope so he could get a divorce. Not the most noble reason, especially as all of his marriages were jokes anyway.

HP.

Actually, Henry always wanted to curb Rome influence

Yes, so he could establish himself as the equivalent to the Pope. So just like someone who overthrows one dictator to make themselves dictator. He was just power-hungry. Plus as much as I despise the office of the Papacy, the method in which the Pope is elected, while dubious, is certainly more fair for the selection of such an office if it's going to even exist (mind you, I consider even the very existence of it offensive) is more logical than simply giving it to some monarch.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Freedom Hater.

By the way, in case anyone's interested, there's a school in my town named after him. Imagine naming a school in Germany after Adolf Hitler, or a school in Russia after Joesph Stalin....

I don't think comparing Henry VIII to Hitler or Stalin make any sense

First of all: In these times every ruler was an authoritarian and, well, have a blood on his hands. This is immature to look by our 21st century viewpoint on 16th century

Second of all: Henry VIII legacy is actually positive

[k-onmmunist]

Freedom Hater.

By the way, in case anyone's interested, there's a school in my town named after him. Imagine naming a school in Germany after Adolf Hitler, or a school in Russia after Joesph Stalin....

How many races did Henry VIII wipe out? None.

Therefore, your analogy is unjustified.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Option 2 (sane)

[Hans-im-Glück]

Freedom Hater.

By the way, in case anyone's interested, there's a school in my town named after him. Imagine naming a school in Germany after Adolf Hitler, or a school in Russia after Joesph Stalin....

I don't think comparing Henry VIII to Hitler or Stalin make any sense

First of all: In these times every ruler was an authoritarian and, well, have a blood on his hands. This is immature to look by our 21st century viewpoint on 16th century

Second of all: Henry VIII legacy is actually positive

Okay, Henry VIII wasn't so bad like Hitler or Stalin and from the viewpoint of this time he is maybe not so bad, but no king of this time anywhere was a FF. They only think about theirself and other people were worthless.

Henry VIII was a massive Freedom Hater

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Given that there is probably nothing wrong with Ireland that isn't some way Henry VIII's fault (except the weather) then it shouldn't be surprising which way he voted.

But to compare him to Stalin and Hitler (Or to compare any medieval or Rennaisance monarch to the autocrats of the age of the dictators) is a false comparsion and completely misunderstands the nature of kingship and monarchy in that period.

EDIT: But this forgets Elizabeth I > Henry VIII.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Given that there is probably nothing wrong with Ireland that isn't some way Henry VIII's fault (except the weather) then it shouldn't be surprising which way he voted.

But to compare him to Stalin and Hitler (Or to compare any medieval or Rennaisance monarch to the autocrats of the age of the dictators) is a false comparsion and completely misunderstands the nature of kingship and monarchy in that period.

EDIT: But this forgets Elizabeth I > Henry VIII.

Yes, but he was too a great ruler

[Хahar 🤔]

Given that there is probably nothing wrong with Ireland that isn't some way Henry VIII's fault (except the weather) then it shouldn't be surprising which way he voted.

But to compare him to Stalin and Hitler (Or to compare any medieval or Rennaisance monarch to the autocrats of the age of the dictators) is a false comparsion and completely misunderstands the nature of kingship and monarchy in that period.

EDIT: But this forgets Elizabeth I > Henry VIII.

Yes, but he was too a great ruler

Not at all. England was not in great shape in the years following his death.

[JohnFKennedy]

Given that there is probably nothing wrong with Ireland that isn't some way Henry VIII's fault (except the weather) then it shouldn't be surprising which way he voted.

But to compare him to Stalin and Hitler (Or to compare any medieval or Rennaisance monarch to the autocrats of the age of the dictators) is a false comparsion and completely misunderstands the nature of kingship and monarchy in that period.

EDIT: But this forgets Elizabeth I > Henry VIII.

Yes, but he was too a great ruler

Not at all. England was not in great shape in the years following his death.

In what way? I'm not saying i think Henry was a particularly good king - in some ways he was quite a weak king, heavily influenced by those around him - but i'm intrigued as to what precisely you're referring to; the so-called 'mid-Tudor crisis' has long been out of fashion among historians of the era (that's not to say there weren't problems, just that the association of them with the regimes is not necessarily apt).

[Lincoln Republican]

A lecherous, murderous tyrant.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A lecherous, murderous tyrant.

You know that we can say so about virtually every ruler of that age?

[k-onmmunist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533

Very 'freedom'.