Henry VIII: Nice guy or psychopath?

[Evil Captor]

I watched a PBS showing of Henry VIII on Monday night. This one to be exact. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382737/) It was very interesting. Apparently, Henry VIII was this very nice but lonely guy who, through no fault of his own, occasionally had to have his wife's head cut off. Well, it happened a lot, actually, and he had a lot of other people's heads cut off as well as killed in other nasty ways. But he absolutely HATED to do it, each and every time, and ESPECIALLY if it was a wife or a close friend and advisor. He'd bellow with rage when he found out what they'd done, then blubber like a baby when they were killed. It was just heart-rending.

Here's the thing though. I kind of figured a guy like Henry VIII who went around having his wives killed was a psychopath. (Not to mention having all those other guys killed. OK, a certain amount of having guys killed was probably part of kingship in those days, but probably not as much as Henry did, and having wives beheaded ... over the line.)

In fact, I didn't buy a single bit of the movie for that very reason. It smelled like a huge whitewash, or somebody's personal obsession. Like the playwright in "The Goodbye Girl" who casts Richard Dreyfuss as Richard III, then makes him play Richard as a simpering, flaming homosexual.

I have problems with Henry VIII as portrayed on Showtimes' The Tudors for the same reason, though not to the same extent. I know it's more dramatic to have Henry wince and look pained when he hears the headsman's axe fall, or hears of it, but I just don't buy it, not for a minute.

But I'm not a history buff, just a guy who thinks people who serially kill their wives are probably psychopaths of some sort. Am I wrong or right about Henry? And even if I am wrong, doesn't it make dramatic sense to address this issue for the sake of modern audiences?

[Ludovic]

Why can't he bo both, like the late Earn Warren?

[Captain Amazing]

I don't think he was either a particularly nice guy or a pyschopath. I think he was a Rennaisance European king of strong and intolerant convictions, who was desperately in need of a male heir to guarantee the continuation of his family line and prevent civil unrest at his death (and he only executed two wives, btw, and both of them got trials first).

[fiddlesticks]

Hmmm...I thought the angry and bellowing monologues from The Tudors were just a dramatic license to show his inner turmoil (or a chance for Mr. Rhys-Meyers to chew the scenery).

By the way, I haven't seen the finale yet...don't anyone tell me if he and Anne Boleyn reconcile! ;)

[KatieCats]

I don't think he was either a particularly nice guy or a pyschopath. I think he was a Rennaisance European king of strong and intolerant convictions, who was desperately in need of a male heir to guarantee the continuation of his family line and prevent civil unrest at his death (and he only executed two wives, btw, and both of them got trials first).

The outcomes of the trials were pretty much predetermined, since Henry wanted to be rid of both Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard.

[astorian]

A nice guy? Obviously not.

But an utter sadistic psychopath? No, not that either.

He was a monarch in an era when "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" was an understatement. The Tudor hold on the throne seemed weak to him- after all, the Tudors managed to take power only because the Houses of York and Lancaster had exhausted each other. He saw threats to his power everywhere, and quite correctly.

His desperate desire for a son looks unreasonable, even crazy today (now we know about the chromosomes that make babies male or female, and we know that neither Catherine of Aragon nor Anne Boleyn was responsible). But if he had no son, there would be no Tudor dynasty, and another set of wars for control of England was entirely possible. He wasn't crazy to want a son, and if that meant jettisoning one wife after another to get one, that was fine by him.

Beyond that, he was frequently cruel, but usually rational. Like any monarch in his position, he wanted to increase and cement his own power. If the Church or the aristocracy stood in his way, he tried to crush them.

Not a good man, just a man playing the power game as best he could. Nice guys don't tend to last long in that game.

[Captain Amazing]

The outcomes of the trials were pretty much predetermined, since Henry wanted to be rid of both Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard.

Yes, but in the case of Boleyn, they had Smeaton's confession (which was obtained unter torture and factually incorrect, but good enough to stand up in court) and guilty plea, and in the case of Howard, she was almost certainly having an affair with Culpepper. And Howard could have saved herself if she had admitted to the precontract with Dereham.

[smiling bandit]

I'm not so sure his conduct, even by the standards of the day, was "rational" at all. He seems to be to be the kind of man who can't accept any loss and continues to double down, because he just can't lose! And of course winds up losing more because of it. And it was simply that he was King that let him get away with it. Perhaps a super-control freak, everything must be his way or no way at all.

[Johnny L.A.]

I'm not so sure his conduct, even by the standards of the day, was "rational" at all. He seems to be to be the kind of man who can't accept any loss and continues to double down, because he just can't lose! And of course winds up losing more because of it. And it was simply that he was King that let him get away with it. Perhaps a super-control freak, everything must be his way or no way at all.
But he had a 25% approval rating.

:p

[Captain Amazing]

I'm not so sure his conduct, even by the standards of the day, was "rational" at all. He seems to be to be the kind of man who can't accept any loss and continues to double down, because he just can't lose! And of course winds up losing more because of it. And it was simply that he was King that let him get away with it. Perhaps a super-control freak, everything must be his way or no way at all.

Which of his actions, particularly, do you consider to be irrational?

[smiling bandit]

Which of his actions, particularly, do you consider to be irrational?

First off, getting rid of his first wife was Not A Good Plan. This pissed off her relatives (the French monarchy). Had he been thinking, he might have tried a quiet affair with a pretty serving girl and announed later that his wife had suddenly given birth. Or just adopted a young nephew, or something. He, of course, decided it was all his wife's fault* and publicly put her aside after declaring himself lord and master of his own religion. Which wound up being a mass murderfest and general botched-up mess in succeeding monarchs and generations.

It's not like it wasn't done by nobles frequently.

*This also implies to me that somewhere around Wife Number Four he should have figured this was not going to work. Sterility was a problem throughout human history, and even with the best medical care today it happens. However, he seems to have been incapable of admitting this, or doing something sensible about it. He wanted to blame his wives.

[BrainGlutton]

"What I say is, kings is kings, and you got to make allowances. Take them all around, they're a pretty ornery lot. It's the way they're raised."

-- Huckleberry Finn

[Orual]

First off, getting rid of his first wife was Not A Good Plan. This pissed off her relatives (the French monarchy).

Spanish monarchy.

This also implies to me that somewhere around Wife Number Four he should have figured this was not going to work. Sterility was a problem throughout human history, and even with the best medical care today it happens. However, he seems to have been incapable of admitting this, or doing something sensible about it. He wanted to blame his wives.

But he wasn't sterile, he had three children: Mary, Elizabeth, and Edward.

[Maastricht]

...Had he been thinking, he might have tried a quiet affair with a pretty serving girl and announed later that his wife had suddenly given birth. Or just adopted a young nephew, or something.That might sound reasonable, but remember that the Nineteen years of anarchy in England's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy) was still a vivid memory at the time. England was plunged into nineteen terrible years of civil war, precisely because there was no solid, legal male heir to the last king. The contenders to the throne were Maud, a daughter, and Stephen, an adopted nephew. Henry knew that if the succession was in doubt, nothing less then a male heir would do. (of course he turned out to be incorrect, when his daughter Elisabeth succeeded him, but who could have guessed that at Henry's time?)

[Maastricht]

But he wasn't sterile, he had three children: Mary, Elizabeth, and Edward.Two daughters and a sickly son who didn't live past age sixteen. From Wiki:
Edward VI, son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, was born in 1537. He ascended the throne at age nine, upon the death of his father. He was betrothed to his cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, but deteriorating English-Scot relations prohibited their marriage. The frail, Protestant boy died of consumption at age sixteen having never married. Making Edward King just shows you how desperate Henry was for an heir.

[Orual]

Two daughters and a sickly son who didn't live past age sixteen.
...

Making Edward King just shows you how desperate Henry was for an heir.

True enough, but clearly the problem wasn't sterility on Henry's part.

He also had a bastard son, Henry FitzRoy (ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_FitzRoy%2C_1st_Duke_of_Richmond_and_Somerset).

[dangermom]

First off, getting rid of his first wife was Not A Good Plan. This pissed off her relatives (the French monarchy). Had he been thinking, he might have tried a quiet affair with a pretty serving girl and announed later that his wife had suddenly given birth. Or just adopted a young nephew, or something. He, of course, decided it was all his wife's fault* and publicly put her aside after declaring himself lord and master of his own religion. Which wound up being a mass murderfest and general botched-up mess in succeeding monarchs and generations.

It's not like it wasn't done by nobles frequently.

*This also implies to me that somewhere around Wife Number Four he should have figured this was not going to work. Sterility was a problem throughout human history, and even with the best medical care today it happens. However, he seems to have been incapable of admitting this, or doing something sensible about it. He wanted to blame his wives.Well, most men did blame their wives back then. Henry had plenty of affairs and produced a son by Anne Boleyn's sister, so he had (by 16th-century standards) good reason to blame them. (Katherine of Aragon gave birth to sons, they just died.) He couldn't have just faked a royal birth--queens gave birth in front of an audience of noblemen precisely in order to make that impossible. Adopting a nephew or cousin was fraught with danger--it invited intrigue by other factions. Henry was in a real bind.

That's not to say that he was a lovely, sensitive guy. Henry was one of the premier kings of his day in his youth, and he was used to having nearly unlimited power over almost everyone around him. He believed--quite normally for a king of his day--that God had put him on the throne and that he had a divine right to whatever he wanted. That sort of life would corrupt anyone, I think. He was a megalomaniac IMO, because he was so spoiled and corrupted, but he wasn't a psychopath.

[Sycorax]

:) bandit: I agree with your first paragraph; I had never considered that scenario, and it seems to me to be best of his options. A "rational" (or good) monarch or leader would consider the consequences of his actions, especially with regards to his country, and its allies, enemies, and potential enemies.

As for your footnote, when it came to sex and bearing children, it was always the woman's problem -- even up till the mid- 20th century and later. Throughout most of our history, men have been in charge; men owned women throughout most of the 19th century; women were for cooking, cleaning, sex, and childbearing; if the childbearing didn't meet with the man's approval, it was her fault. After all, a manly man couldn't possibly be to blame. (Actually, one might even understand why men believed that -- after all, the child came out of the woman; ergo, she must have been the problem.)

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

True enough, but clearly the problem wasn't sterility on Henry's part.

He also had a bastard son, Henry FitzRoy (ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_FitzRoy%2C_1st_Duke_of_Richmond_and_Somerset).He probably had more than one illegitimate child. And Katherine of Aragon conceived several times: besides Mary, they had a little boy who lived for about a month. If that baby had lived, the world would be different.

Henry was capable of kindness to people who didn't cross him. Anne of Cleves cooperated with her divorce and Henry was generous to her.

[accidentalyuppie]

*This also implies to me that somewhere around Wife Number Four he should have figured this was not going to work. Sterility was a problem throughout human history, and even with the best medical care today it happens. However, he seems to have been incapable of admitting this, or doing something sensible about it. He wanted to blame his wives.

Well, he wasn't completely sterile,he just had bad luck when it came to healthy sons......he had at least 3 kids out of wedlock while he was married to his first wife.......one with Elizabeth Blount....and 2 with Mary Bolelyn, Anne's younger sister. And he did have a daughter with Catherine of Aragon ( wife 1). He knocked up Anne B twice but she had a daughter the first time and deformed stillborn son the second time.

He got his son with wife 3 but he was sickly and died young, as did his son with Elizabeth Blount. I think Mary B's son didn't count because she was married to another man at the time.

Except for his daughter by this first wife, it is possible that none of his in-wedlock kiddies were really his. There was great pressure on these girls to get pregnant and Henry was grossly obese and in poor healthy during his last 3 or 4 marriages.

All of this is from memory, fee free to correct.

I don't think he was really a psychopath but he wielded a type of unquestioned absolute power that doesn't exist in this day and age. And the courts and court politics were cutthroat and high stakes. Life was just not as valuable back then...I find the amazing part of the story was the way parents kept throwing their teen-aged daughters (both executed queens were very young when they married the king) at the king despite the risks.

[MLS]

First off, getting rid of his first wife was Not A Good Plan. This pissed off her relatives (the French monarchy). Had he been thinking, he might have tried a quiet affair with a pretty serving girl and announed later that his wife had suddenly given birth. Or just adopted a young nephew, or something. He, of course, decided it was all his wife's fault* and publicly put her aside after declaring himself lord and master of his own religion. Which wound up being a mass murderfest and general botched-up mess in succeeding monarchs and generations.

It's not like it wasn't done by nobles frequently.

*This also implies to me that somewhere around Wife Number Four he should have figured this was not going to work. Sterility was a problem throughout human history, and even with the best medical care today it happens. However, he seems to have been incapable of admitting this, or doing something sensible about it. He wanted to blame his wives.
Trying to pass off an illegitimate son as his wife's would NOT have worked. Royalty had zero privacy. Actual witnesses to the child emerging from the queen's body were required in order to prevent just such a swap.

His first wife was past childbearing age, there would be no more sons from her. He might well have actually thought that the lack of a surviving son (IIRC she had a few miscarriages or stillbirths of male children) was his punishment for marrying his brother's widow.

[Orual]

Except for his daughter by this first wife, it is possible that none of his in-wedlock kiddies were really his. There was great pressure on these girls to get pregnant and Henry was grossly obese and in poor healthy during his last 3 or 4 marriages.

Well, Elizabeth was the product of marriage two, and Edward from marriage three, so both were born prior to the excessive corpulence.

In Elizabeth's case at least, I think there's a definite family resemblance.

[smiling bandit]

Trying to pass off an illegitimate son as his wife's would NOT have worked. Royalty had zero privacy. Actual witnesses to the child emerging from the queen's body were required in order to prevent just such a swap.

His first wife was past childbearing age, there would be no more sons from her. He might well have actually thought that the lack of a surviving son (IIRC she had a few miscarriages or stillbirths of male children) was his punishment for marrying his brother's widow.

I'm not talking about an actual swap. I'm talking about a convenience everyone knows is false but respects anyway, because Henry puts together a ring of supporters for the young prince.

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

I'm not talking about an actual swap. I'm talking about a convenience everyone knows is false but respects anyway, because Henry puts together a ring of supporters for the young prince.That would rather defeat the purpose of a hereditary monarchy, which derives stability from the mechanism of passing the crown to the monarch's oldest son. Any substitute would cast doubt on on the legitimacy of the monarchy and make it vulnerable to attack. Passing the crown to a daughter was also considered dangerous, because she would almost certainly marry a foreign prince who would almost certainly drag England into foreign affairs.

Henry wasn't irrational to feel that he needed a male heir. He tried to sever his marriage peaceably, but Catherine fought him, for good reasons of her own. Only after being thwarted for several years did he grow vicious.

[OttoDaFe]

IANHVIII, but I did research him a fair amount in preparation for playing him in Royal Gambit some years back. I paid particular attention to his life as a boy and young man, on the theory that influences during that period can have a great impact later on.

Briefly (for me), the one impression that stood out above all was that Henry grew up in an atmosphere which seems tailor-made for producing paranoia. Henry VII had overthrown both Richard III* and the Plantagenet dynasty; and while it is true that both the Lancastrian and Yorkist factions were exhausted, there was no lack of conspiracy theories, complete with hot and cold running assassins behind every arras. It didn't help matters any that HVII was apparently a rather dour and suspicious sort, constantly making notes about real or imagined wrongs. Put these things together with the megalomania which seemed to come naturally to princes of the time and a touch of general instability — exacerbated by syphilis later on — and it would be kind of surprising if one didn't end up with a despot.

Overall, I feel that Henry VIII really did have his country's best interests in mind. But his methods were more reminiscent of a crime boss than a statesman.

*A discussion about the accuracy of our image of Richard III (mainly courtesy of Master Shakespeare) would be wildly OT. Suffice it to say that it is my considered opinion that Richard got the shaft in more ways than one.

[chique]

One of the things I don't quite get is that there seemed (seems?) to be a healthy amount of mostly-tolerated extramarital sex throughout royalty/aristocracy. Both Boleyn and Howard were executed ostensibly for screwing around on Hank 8. I can't help but think that he perhaps privately encouraged them to do that in hopes they'd get preggers and he could claim the child as his own. The execution was lacking, however, and when the women were too open with their affairs that the court system (both versions) got involved.

Perhaps none of the heads would have been removed if the castles and palaces had more secret passages.

[KatieCats]

It was considered treason for the queens to have an affair (and for those they had the affairs with). Both Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard could have been burnt at the stake rather than beheaded. For Anne, a French swordsman was brought in and her death was quick.
Commoners were executed in a much more grisly manner---hung until they were almost dead, gutted, and then quartered.

For the psychopath argument, Henry had a rather elderly relative executed. His mother's cousin, Margaret Pole, was executed at the age of 67 for her supposed part in a conspiracy based in Yorkshire. The executor was not very skilled at his job, and just kept hacking at her. Not a quick or pleasant death.

[JThunder]

Henry the VIII? A psychopath he was, he was.

[Evil Captor]

Hmmm...I thought the angry and bellowing monologues from The Tudors were just a dramatic license to show his inner turmoil (or a chance for Mr. Rhys-Meyers to chew the scenery).

By the way, I haven't seen the finale yet...don't anyone tell me if he and Anne Boleyn reconcile! ;)

Check the link in my OP, the bellowing I'm referring to is from that version, not The Tudors. Rhys-Davies plays it much more subtly than the guy from the PBS Henry VIII.

[Evil Captor]

First off, getting rid of his first wife was Not A Good Plan. This pissed off her relatives (the French monarchy). Had he been thinking, he might have tried a quiet affair with a pretty serving girl and announed later that his wife had suddenly given birth. Or just adopted a young nephew, or something.

I was wondering about that myself. Surely there were chambermaids and serving girls and whatnots for Henry to have affairs with and who would have found their lives considerably improved if they kept a royal secret. (Well, that or they'd get killed, but the impression I got from both shows that just about everybody at court was ready and willing to roll the dice big time if they thought it would bring great advantage to themselves or their families.

It's not like it wasn't done by nobles frequently.

It could have been done MUCH more frequently than is generally known. No DNA testing in those days.

[Sampiro]

By the way, I haven't seen the finale yet...don't anyone tell me if he and Anne Boleyn reconcile! ;)

Well, considering that they combine his two sisters into one, call her Margaret, have her marry the King of Portugal instead of the King of Scotland (like his real sister Margaret) or the King of France (like his real sister Mary) and then marry Charles Brandon (which Mary did) and... die childless !?!? ... it's entirely possible he and Anne Boleyne reconcile, or that he goes back to Catharine of Aragon, has twin sons named Charlemagne and Buddy, and finds happiness as a baker and puppet show operator in Leeds.

Dramatic license I can understand, but with his sisters... DAMN! (Well, it's not like their respective granddaughters Mary Queen of Scots and Jane Grey ever did anything worth remembering I suppose.) I was also irked when ROME did away with Augustus's first two marriages and his daughter Julia (thereagain, not like Julia or her descendants Caligula, Agrippina, and Nero ever did anything worth remembering in Roman history).

[NDP]

Henry the VIII? A psychopath he was, he was.

Nah, Henry the VIII wasn't a psychopath. This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible) was a psychopath.

[Evil Captor]

Well, Henry the VIII was fucking these women and presumably their relationship was a personal one, not just an official one. Did he love them? Like them? I can't see a normal person doing so and then killing them. I can see enormous pressures for him to dump a wife who couldn't produce a male heir, but chopping off two of their heads seems extreme. Even if they committed treason, he was king and above the law and could presumably have had them sent to a nunnery somewhere. But he didn't do that. I figure he must have been unable to form real emotional attachments, and hence his wives were ... disposable.

In any event, I find all the blubbering and caterwauling when those he had sentenced to death were killed to be totally unbelievable. Seems to me there was an easy route for him short of that.

Oh, and Ivan the Terrible wasn't a psychopath, he was mentally ill in another way. Psychopaths can often function quite well in society. I think Ivan woulda been locked up or on strong psycho meds in modern society. Henry the VIII might do well as a corporate honcho.

[tirial]

Well, Henry the VIII was fucking these women and presumably their relationship was a personal one, not just an official one. Did he love them? Like them? I can't see a normal person doing so and then killing them. I can see enormous pressures for him to dump a wife who couldn't produce a male heir, but chopping off two of their heads seems extreme. Even if they committed treason, he was king and above the law and could presumably have had them sent to a nunnery somewhere. But he didn't do that. I figure he must have been unable to form real emotional attachments, and hence his wives were ... disposable.Remember the marriages were political and business arrangements - he may have had a personal relationship with them, but they were married to produce an heir, and if they couldn't do that, then he needed to end the marriage and find someone else. He set aside Catherine of Aragon (1), and pensioned her off. He didn't kill Anne of Cleves (4), who went along with her divorce. If Jane Seymour (3) hadn't died, its unlikely he would have married again - he had the son he needed and a wife who he appeared to love. His six wife outlived him.

The problem with Anne was that his divorce from Catherine had theological grounds ("brother's widow") that gave it some legitimacy. A divorce from Anne would not, and would cast doubts on the legitimacy of the issue from a future marriage. He was starting the dissolution of the monastries at the time, so putting Anne in a nunnery left her open to be used as a political pawn by the church. Anne was reputedly unpopular with the people, and had powerful enemies at court (including Thomas Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cromwell,_1st_Earl_of_Essex)). Letting her live after she had an affair (real or rumoured) could be seen as a sign of weakness, and Henry could not afford to show any. Also, he may have felt personally betrayed - he had split England from the church for this woman (costing him his best friend and advisor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More)) and she could not give him a son. There are very sound political reasons not to let her live, and with a number of people at court playing on any feelings of resentment or betrayal he had towards her, any personal attachment is likely to fade quickly. Some sources say he was also tiring of her personally as he regarded her as meddling in politics which were not her concern.

Its not necessarily a sign of a sociopath to stop loving someone, when all you hear is that they have betrayed and used you. Note he gave her a quicker death - beheading instead of burning - than he could have. Given the rumours Anne had poisoned Catherine of Aragon when she died, a public and awful death would probably have strengthened his position more.

I haven't read up on Katherine Howard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Howard) recently, so I'd have to dig out the papers. All in all, he seems to have been more vengeful and utterly ruthless than he was a sociopath. Not necessarily a bad thing in a monarch at that time.

(Dropping a woman who is infertile despite a personal relationship, due to succession requirements, is not a middle-ages issue only - Crown Prince Rainer III of Monaco broke up a long term relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gis%C3%A8le_Pascal) because he needed an heir to the throne.)

[plnnr]

Henry was capable of kindness to people who didn't cross him. Anne of Cleves cooperated with her divorce and Henry was generous to her.

Was she the "Flanders mare?" If so, you're right he was very generous to her. They both took a look at each other and said, "This isn't going to work" and went their separate ways. That seems extremely rational tome.

[PunditLisa]

I think he was a Rennaisance European king of strong and intolerant convictions, who was desperately in need of a male heir to guarantee the continuation of his family line and prevent civil unrest at his death (and he only executed two wives, btw, and both of them got trials first).

Yes, they got a trial but neither were allowed to mount a defense, as was customary with the charge of treason. (And given that the King annulled his marriage to Anne Boelyn prior to her execution, it would have been impossible for her to commit adultery against him.)

Re having a baby switched and passing it off as the Queen's: Catherine was the daughter of the ruling Spanish King & Queen. Her bloodline can be traced back to Edward I. To think that she would have agreed to pass off a bastard child of some chambermaid as her own is utterly ridiculous. Besides, she had no problem getting pregnant with her husband throughout most of their 20+ year marriage; they just didn't survive long.

As far as Henry's mental health, how do you separate ruthlessness from sociopathy in a culture where heads frequently rolled? How do you separate arrogance from narcissism in a culture where people literally wiped the king's ass? How do you separate suspicion from paranoia in a culture where coups were routine?

There is one piece of evidence that lends me to believe that Henry did have some bit of conscience. Henry's last wife, Catherine Parr, was a hair's breadth away from being put to death herself by her politico-religious enemies. An arrest warrant was actually handed down but she was given word ahead of time and managed get to the King before it (and she) was executed. She had the distinct advantage of being able to appeal to the King himself before being hauled off. And that made all the difference. Remember that neither Anne Boleyn nor Katherine Howard ever spoke to or saw the King following her arrest. Had they been able to leverage his real affection for them, or even appeal to his massive ego, they may well have succeeded in saving their respective necks as did Catherine Parr. They weren't given that chance.

[ivylass]

By the way, I haven't seen the finale yet...don't anyone tell me if he and Anne Boleyn reconcile! ;)

There's a scene in the finale that just disturbed me.

Henry, throughout the episode, has been admiring two swans that are swimming in a pond on the palace grounds. He has this wistful look on his face as he watches them drift across the water. After Anne is beheaded, a parade of servants come in, bearing a tray draped in a largish tent. I feared at first they were bringing him Anne's head...but no, it's one of the swans, cooked and dressed and ready for eating. Henry digs in with gusto.
Maybe because I think JRD is so damn pretty, it was a bit shocking to see that bit of Henry's character revealed...that he wasn't admiring the swans for their graceful beauty and maybe reminders of Anne in happier times, but because they looked mighty tasty.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

I think Henry is less psychotic and more and example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

He truly must have thought his feces gave off a pleasing bouquet to have gotten to the point where he could cavalierly murder his ex-lovers the way he did.

[tirial]

I think Henry is less psychotic and more and example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

He truly must have thought his feces gave off a pleasing bouquet to have gotten to the point where he could cavalierly murder his ex-lovers the way he did.
Actually his lovers and mistresses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England#Mistresses) tended to make out quite well. It was two of his wives who got the chop.

[Sampiro]

He set aside Catherine of Aragon (1), and pensioned her off.

Barely though, on the pensioning part. His post divorce treatment of Catherine and Mary was probably the most bastardly thing about him in my opinion. Poor Catherine, who had a roller coaster of a life before Henry ever met Anne Boleyne and who was by all accounts a not particularly exciting but very intelligent and good woman, had to sell pretty much everything she had of value (which wasn't much since Anne had taken her jewels and even her bedclothes and finer gowns [to be recycled] but she had some silver plated cups) just to buy food for herself and her ladies. When items of value ran out she had to live on the gifts of food and firewood from the villagers (the people continued to love her).
She was forbidden to see her daughter (and vice versa) who was the one person on Earth she loved most, and they could only write each other if one of Henry's creatures read the correspondence. There were times before and after her mother's death when Mary honestly didn't know if her father was going to have her arrested or marry her off to some nothing 70 year old sycophant just to humiliate her and her mother. At one point her incestuous marriage to her illegitimate half-brother was actually proposed (though I don't think Henry ever seriously considered it since he married the boy off quite well, though he died soon after).
Anyway, his utter cruelty and humiliation of a wife who had always been loyal, faithful, and a good queen both politically and personally (she was his regent when he was away and did a good job- even was present at the battle where the King of Scots was killed) and letting her die in poverty and separated from her child was enough to make me glad of the impotence and leg ulcers and pain of his later years. Bastid.

[Acsenray]

occasionally had to have his wife's head cut off. Well, it happened a lot, actually

Twice.

and he had a lot of other people's heads cut off as well as killed in other nasty ways.

Between the two of them, his daughters, Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I, pretty much wiped out anyone closely related to them. Elizabeth is considered one of the best British monarchs, but the result was the end of the House of Tudor and the importation of the Stuarts from Scotland. And we all know that that worked out so well.

[smiling bandit]

It could have been done MUCH more frequently than is generally known. No DNA testing in those days.

Even without DNA testing, it was pretty common. Nobles without heirs quite commonly adopted nephews or "somehow" produced a child. So did common folk. They did value fidelity, but also children. Even if Henry couldn't father a healthy child, he had other ways to deal with the problem.

[GythaOgg]

There is one piece of evidence that lends me to believe that Henry did have some bit of conscience. Henry's last wife, Catherine Parr, was a hair's breadth away from being put to death herself by her politico-religious enemies. An arrest warrant was actually handed down but she was given word ahead of time and managed get to the King before it (and she) was executed. She had the distinct advantage of being able to appeal to the King himself before being hauled off. And that made all the difference. Remember that neither Anne Boleyn nor Katherine Howard ever spoke to or saw the King following her arrest. Had they been able to leverage his real affection for them, or even appeal to his massive ego, they may well have succeeded in saving their respective necks as did Catherine Parr. They weren't given that chance.

This was a well-known trait of Henry's - that he could be calmed down and appeased and would forgive people if they could get to him to make a personal appeal. Katherine Parr is not the only example of this - a similar situation happened with Thomas Cranmer. The various political factions in his court were well aware of this and used it to manipulate the situation and him. The executions of both Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard were, in part, also due to 'court politics' as well as to Henry's personal issues with them. There was a point where the Howard family and the Seymour family were involved in some nasty power plays - and it was known that a good way to get control over and favor from Henry was to get him to turn his attention to (or from!) a lady of the 'correct' political/religious persuasion.

[tirial]

His post divorce treatment of Catherine and Mary was probably the most bastardly thing about him in my opinion.
Yes and no. If Catherine had not continued to fight the divorce and refer to herself as "Queen of England" after it she probably would have been treated in the same way as Anne of Cleves. Henry offered her better treatment if she acknowledged Anne Boleyn as Queen, but she refused repeatedly. Her actions risked making any further sons he produced illegitimate, making him less than well disposed towards her.

(However wearing yellow and ordering national celebrations when she died was probably taking it a little too far.)

Mary was another threat to his future sons, a reminder of the marriage, and married to the wrong person she could end up as a puppet of a foreign power and a threat to any sons who inherited the throne. She was only reconciled with her father after he had a surviving if weak son who had been acknowledged the heir. (Mary treated her sister Elizabeth just as badly when she came to the throne.)

Henry wasn't a psychopath, just a person with an overriding goal in mind (holding his country together long term) who was ruthless in pursuing that. Psychopaths are almost incapable of long-term planning or delayed gratification. Henry managed both quite well. Sociopath? A personal appeal to a sociopath is unlikely to get you anywhere, but its recorded as working with Henry. I don't think either really fit, especially given the totally different values of society at the time.

[dangermom]

Even without DNA testing, it was pretty common. Nobles without heirs quite commonly adopted nephews or "somehow" produced a child. So did common folk. They did value fidelity, but also children. Even if Henry couldn't father a healthy child, he had other ways to deal with the problem.
I think it's different when you're talking about the heir to the throne--someone who has to hold various scheming, power-hungry factions in check in order to keep the nation together with the claim of blood and divine right combined with personality. A nobleman adopting a nephew or even faking an heir is one thing, but the king doing it is quite another. Once again--this was an age when queens gave birth in public and their adultery was burning-at-the-stake treason, exactly to prevent any such shenanigans.

Henry didn't handle his situation at all well. But the solutions proposed here are on the unrealistic side.

[Elendil's Heir]

To answer the OP directly, I'd say "Neither." astorian, dangermom and tirial each make some excellent points. Henry VIII was ruthless and cunning when it came to his kingdom, and shamelessly self-indulgent when it came to sex, food and drink. He paid the price for these character traits, in more ways than one.

Couldn't help but think of Homer Simpson as Henry VIII, in bed with his wife du jour, moaning "Must... sire... a dude!"

And at no extra charge, here's a little rhyme my grandma taught me to remember the fates of Henry VIII's wives, in order:

Divorced, beheaded, died;
Divorced, beheaded, survived.

[Guinastasia]

Even without DNA testing, it was pretty common. Nobles without heirs quite commonly adopted nephews or "somehow" produced a child. So did common folk. They did value fidelity, but also children. Even if Henry couldn't father a healthy child, he had other ways to deal with the problem.

Cite that it happened with a king? And yes, nephews and nieces, or cousins, etc* have inherited the throne-if said noble or monarch had no direct heirs. That being said, that has nothing to do with faking a birth.


Henry's nephew, James V of Scotland, had a few bastard sons, but his only heir was a daughter, Mary Queen of Scots.


Henry was pretty shrewd, and I doubt he'd try it. Plus, Catherine would NEVER have agreed to it.

Henry was ruthless-not a psycho. He was pretty much like most monarchs of that age. Ivan the Terrible, it's believed, suffered from mercury poisoning, or perhaps he WAS a sociopath. I seem to recall stories of him torturing animals by throwing them off high balconies as a child.





*That's how James I and VI inherited the English throne. Same with Queen Victoria-her uncle William IV was her predecesor. (I know I butchered THAT spelling)

[Kythereia]

I think it's different when you're talking about the heir to the throne--someone who has to hold various scheming, power-hungry factions in check in order to keep the nation together with the claim of blood and divine right combined with personality.

This is a really good point, and why the whole swap-with-another's-son might not have worked.

If you're claiming a nobleman's son as yours, you're gonna have to pay him off--and pacify his whole faction at court, which is going to lead to even more divisions and rivalries. And if your son gets to the throne, and it gets out that he's just a Seymour (or a Parr, or a Howard, or whatever), no legitimate royal blood in him--then anybody's fair game for the throne.

And if you're taking a commoner's child, you're going to have to pay off those people, and you still run the risk of people finding out the king's baseborn--and beginning the whole round of civil wars again.

On the whole, it's safer to have a legitimate heir with the queen. Henry might, on an off chance, have made Fitzroy his heir--but then you've got the lineage of Bessie Blount versus that of Catherine of Aragon, and people might not have stood for someone who wasn't completely royalty on both sides.

[Evil Captor]

I'll go with not a psychopath then, but perhaps so warped by his situation ... power enough to turn most folks into megalomaniacs and all sorts of grounds for paranoia ... that as far as making the distinction, it's almost a moot point. People were probably well advised to treat him like a psychopath for the sake of their own skins.

The personal appeal aspect is what persuades most. I can't see a psychopath being turned by a personal appeal. They lack the capacity for empathy, hence wouldn't be affected.

That said, the blubbering creature envisioned in the PBS Henry VIII was completely out of the ballpark.

I still have no respect for the guy.

[robby]

That might sound reasonable, but remember that the Nineteen years of anarchy in England's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy) was still a vivid memory at the time. England was plunged into nineteen terrible years of civil war, precisely because there was no solid, legal male heir to the last king.The events of 400 years previous were still a vivid memory? :dubious:

[tirial]

The events of 400 years previous were still a vivid memory? :dubious:
Probably not :D However the War of the Roses (effectively 30 years of civil war for the crown) only ended when Henry's father took the throne in 1485. Henry came to the throne in 1509, so certainly during the early stages of his reign the consequences of not having a strong king and an heir would have been within living memory.

[Rattlehead02]

Probably not :D However the War of the Roses (effectively 30 years of civil war for the crown) only ended when Henry's father took the throne in 1485. Henry came to the throne in 1509, so certainly during the early stages of his reign the consequences of not having a strong king and an heir would have been within living memory.

Pfft, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner weren't even alive back then.

Or is this that "revisionist history" I keep hearing so much about?

[Elendil's Heir]

And how does Danny DeVito figure into all of this? They didn't even mention him during my tour of Hampton Court.

[Muffin]

Yes, but in the case of Boleyn, they had Smeaton's confession (which was obtained unter torture and factually incorrect, but good enough to stand up in court) and guilty plea, and in the case of Howard, she was almost certainly having an affair with Culpepper. And Howard could have saved herself if she had admitted to the precontract with Dereham.

"I die a Queen, but I would rather die the wife of Culpeper." (http://gen.culpepper.com/historical/howard/default.htm)

Just to let you know, we Culpepers still have it, if any ladies out there are looking. ;)

[Kythereia]

Just to let you know, we Culpepers still have it, if any ladies out there are looking. ;)

But if I sleep with you, do I get my head chopped off?

*checks for any Howard ancestry in genes*

[Oy!]

I think a point that is being missed here is that Henry, like his daughter Elizabeth after him, had an enormous capacity for rationalization and self-delusion. There were often situations for which there was no good solution; Henry would choose what way he decided to go, then talk himself into believing that he was not only justified, but forced into the decision by circumstances. Elizabeth frequently did the same thing. The problem for both of them was that they had consciences, and were not ruthless by nature (although I'm sure it got easier over time). They would end up choosing the easiest or least painful (to themselves) resolution, but feel bad about it and therefore blame almost anyone within reach.

Btw, although Anne Boleyn was almost certainly not a virgin when she first had an affair with Henry, she also almost certainly did not have an affair at the end. She was a very sharp cookie, not likely to be carried away by passion, and she knew very well that she was hanging by a thread at that point. Howard, on the other hand, was a silly little girl who never wanted to marry Henry in the first place, and quite possibly was stupid enough to think she could get away with cheating on him.

[Muffin]

But if I sleep with you, do I get my head chopped off?

*checks for any Howard ancestry in genes*

Only if you have a hubby named Henry. If not, then we're good to go.

[betenoir]

Oh pishaw. As has been noted only the two were killed. And not out of any kind of weird bloodlust. They (as far as we know anyway) were cheating on him and death was what you got for cheating on a king. He probably could have put a stop to it but it would have made him look weak. Kings don't like that.

I'm more concerned about what he did to the Catholics.

[Rubystreak]

They (as far as we know anyway) were cheating on him and death was what you got for cheating on a king. He probably could have put a stop to it but it would have made him look weak. Kings don't like that.

Yeah, I think having two of your wives beheaded constitutes a weird bloodlust.

Anne was almost definitely NOT cheating on him. That charge was trumped up because he was through with her. Partially because she didn't give him the son he was sure he'd get from her, but IMO, partially because marriage to her was not what he thought it would be, after all he'd been through to make it happen. In that way, he fulfilled many people's fantasies about their exes. However, actually doing it does make you a bit of a psycho.

Catherine Howard was someone he shouldn't have married in the first place. Her lack of brains and savvy alone would have been enough, but she also had a licentious past that was bound to come out. A totally inappropriate choice, but he was the king, so he got what he wanted anyway, and she had little choice in the matter. Don't forget he was about 300 lbs. by then and had an infection in his leg that probably stank--eww. She was too foolish to realize that she couldn't get away with an affair. The error was hers, but also his in marrying her in the first place. The poor guy she was involved with before she ever met Henry was drawn and quartered, too.

I'm more concerned about what he did to the Catholics.

Yes, that was bad, but many rulers persecute subjects for their religions. Not many execute two wives. That shows a willingness to harm those you're supposed to love. Pretty psychopathic to me.

[Kythereia]

Oh pishaw. As has been noted only the two were killed.

That's just his two wives. How about his dad's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Empson) ministers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Dudley), or his closest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) advisors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cromwell%2C_1st_Earl_of_Essex#Downfall)?

[Oy!]

Look at the records of various monarchs before, after, and in other countries. Institutional paranoia was part of the job.

[Lust4Life]

A nice guy? Obviously not.

But an utter sadistic psychopath? No, not that either.

He was a monarch in an era when "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" was an understatement. The Tudor hold on the throne seemed weak to him- after all, the Tudors managed to take power only because the Houses of York and Lancaster had exhausted each other. He saw threats to his power everywhere, and quite correctly.

His desperate desire for a son looks unreasonable, even crazy today (now we know about the chromosomes that make babies male or female, and we know that neither Catherine of Aragon nor Anne Boleyn was responsible). But if he had no son, there would be no Tudor dynasty, and another set of wars for control of England was entirely possible. He wasn't crazy to want a son, and if that meant jettisoning one wife after another to get one, that was fine by him.

ot a good man, just a man playing the power game as best he could. Nice guys don't tend to last long in that game.



A good summing up,when the English weren't fighting the French,the Scots,The Welsh or the Irish we were fighting each other.

Our population at that time was minute but we still managed to kill twenty five thousand soldiers on both sides in twelve hours at the battle of Towton moor,just one of the battles of the Wars of The Roses,though to be fair there was no prisoner taking.

Henry knew that a disputed heirdom would result in us idiots going on yet another war orgy.

There are some aspects of our national character that we English are not overly proud about.

I also must comment on the allegation that Richard the third was a mincing gay,he was not a very nice person but he was an incredibly brave man and trained warrior,he charged into the main body of enemy in an attempt to kill Henry Tudor personally but lost,tossers dont risk their lives on an all or nothing tactics.
He was a typically stupid Englishman.

[Oy!]

I also must comment on the allegation that Richard the third was a mincing gay,he was not a very nice person but he was an incredibly brave man and trained warrior,he charged into the main body of enemy in an attempt to kill Henry Tudor personally but lost,tossers dont risk their lives on an all or nothing tactics.
He was a typically stupid Englishman.

Sorry, but I can't let this go. On what evidence do you base the "not a very nice person?" Or that he was stupid (which he manifestly was not - overly trusting, yes, stupid no)?

[Captain Amazing]

[HIJACK]
Sorry, but I can't let this go. On what evidence do you base the "not a very nice person?

Well, in order to usurp the throne, he did disinherit his neices and nephews, possibly killed two of them (the Princes in the tower), and definately killed one of his nephews (Richard Grey), his sister in law's brother (Earl Rivers), and two of his brother's most trusted advisors (Lord Hastings and Thomas Vaughn), all of whom were innocent of anything other than standing in Richard's way to become king.

He also didn't like poetry (see what happened to William Collingham) :)

[Oy!]

OK, I don't want to derail the thread, but let's just say that the truth of these accusations is arguable (http://www.richardiii.net/).

[Captain Amazing]

OK, I don't want to derail the thread, but let's just say that the truth of these accusations is arguable (http://www.richardiii.net/).

No it's not. I mean, it's arguable he killed the princes in the Tower (and he quite likely didn't), but it's not arguable that he executed Rivers, Grey, Vaughn, and Hastings, and it's not arguable that he got his brother's kids declared bastards.

It's also not arguable that Collingham got executed for his piece of anti-Ricardian verse

[Oy!]

Not arguable that they were executed. Arguable as to why. At that time, if someone was seriously plotting to kill me or dethrone me, I'd certainly have had them executed and I think most people would. Also arguable as to whether or not he trumped up the bastardy part.

Again, I really don't want to argue this, especially not in this thread. I'm sorry I brought it up.

[Captain Amazing]

Not arguable that they were executed. Arguable as to why. At that time, if someone was seriously plotting to kill me or dethrone me, I'd certainly have had them executed and I think most people would. Also arguable as to whether or not he trumped up the bastardy part.

Again, I really don't want to argue this, especially not in this thread. I'm sorry I brought it up.
Well, if you'd like to open a new thread to discuss it, we can.

[Evil Captor]

I also must comment on the allegation that Richard the third was a mincing gay,he was not a very nice person but he was an incredibly brave man and trained warrior,he charged into the main body of enemy in an attempt to kill Henry Tudor personally but lost,tossers dont risk their lives on an all or nothing tactics.
He was a typically stupid Englishman.

Nobody made any such allegation. I referred to the playwright character in the movie "The Goodbye Girl" making Richard Dreyfuss play Richard III as a mincing gay as an example of a personal obsession leading one to rewrite history. In the movie it was very clear that the playwright was taking Richard III in a whole 'nother direction than anyone else ever did because he personally was gay. I was speculating that someone with a similar obsession about Henry VIII being a nice man had written the PBS version of Henry VIII. (By "PBS version" I mean the version that aired on PBS last week, not that it was produced by PBS. I believe it was English in origin. I linked to the IMDB listing for it in the OP.)

[Tamerlane]

Warning! Hijack extension!


. I mean, it's arguable he killed the princes in the Tower (and he quite likely didn't),

One of his more recent biographers, Charles Ross, thinks it most probable that he did and I tend to agree. Like John and Arthur of Brittany it is unproveable, but he had every reason to do so and precious few reasons not to.

Richard III was far from stupid ( power hungry and duplicitous, but that describes most, if not all English kings and kings period ) and would have likely made a pretty solid ruler.

[Dangerosa]

Warning! Hijack extension!




One of his more recent biographers, Charles Ross, thinks it most probable that he did and I tend to agree. Like John and Arthur of Brittany it is unproveable, but he had every reason to do so and precious few reasons not to.

Richard III was far from stupid ( power hungry and duplicitous, but that describes most, if not all English kings and kings period ) and would have likely made a pretty solid ruler.

Alison Weir also makes a convincing case that - while he didn't personally do it - he most likely arranged to have it done. It certainly wasn't an event he was sorry for.

But like Henry VIII beheading his wives, Mary I beheading Jane Grey, or Elizabeth finally offing Mary, Queen of Scots - Richard was protecting his throne (which he sorta stole from his nephews to start with). People close to the crown were often at risk not for their own actions, but because they could be used as pawns by others - even if they themselves were relatively innocent (Jane Grey was the fourteen year old pawn of her parents).

By most accounts Henry VIII was really in love with his first wife - who was far from barren. But she could not give him a son - several children died in infancy or were stillborn, and was unwilling to go quietly away on a trumped up annulment for Henry to get his son. That made her look like she didn't have Henry's (or England's) best interests at heart. By the time she was exiled, Henry was convinced she was a shrew and had little fondness left for her - but his dismissal of Anne Boylen may have been driven by the realization of how much he was played by her - and guilt at how he treated Catherine. And Catherine Howard likely was engaging in treasonous affairs. Yes, these guys did care that it was THEIR seed that sat on the throne - not the biological son of someone else passed off as their own.

As a young man, Henry was apparently charming but quick to temper. He was a Prince, but a second son, and unsure in his role as King (Catherine was a great help to him - keep in mind that as a second son, he was as much at risk of having his head cut off by his older brother - had he lived - as any of his wives were). As he aged, he apparently lost much of his charm and became much more comfortable being King - which gave him the ability to have his whims met. As he aged, he probably went a little insane from syphilis.

(Anne's subsequent miscarriages point to the possibility of her being Rh negative - only capable in that era of bearing one healthy child).

[Nava]

(Ehr, re the Rh-: only capable of bearing one healthy Rh+ child... if the kidlets had been Rh-, she could have borne a football squad, hooligans and all)


There was a Queen of Castille who was claimed to be the product of an adulterous relationship, approved and even incited by the King (Juana la Beltraneja, the cousin and immediate predecessor of Isabel I) - but what nobody ever doubted was her "maternage." That is the unfakable part, the way royal deliveries of the time turned into something resembling a public show.

[Captain Amazing]

One of his more recent biographers, Charles Ross, thinks it most probable that he did and I tend to agree. Like John and Arthur of Brittany it is unproveable, but he had every reason to do so and precious few reasons not to.

The reason I tend to doubt that he did it was because of a lack of followup. He had reason to kill the kids, but only if everyone knew they were dead. If he had displayed the bodies and said, "Oops, the royal bastards died of cholera! Shame that. I guess all the pro-Edward V people and royal pretenders can go home.", that would have made more senes to me.

This way, if they're dead and nobody knows their dead, he still risks an uprising by loyal Edwardians, plus the anti-Ricardians can still spread the rumor that he killed the kids. So it's a worst of both worlds for him.

And, not apropos of anything, but can I just say I really like Anthony Woodville as a historical figure? Smart guy, Tony.

[Sampiro]

There was a Queen of Castille who was claimed to be the product of an adulterous relationship, approved and even incited by the King (Juana la Beltraneja, the cousin and immediate predecessor of Isabel I) - but what nobody ever doubted was her "maternage." That is the unfakable part, the way royal deliveries of the time turned into something resembling a public show.

The 1194 birth of Frederick II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor) was literally a public show. Because his mother, Constance, was an older mother (in her 40s by some counts) and significantly older than his father, HRE Henry VI, who was in his 20s, there was a lot of speculation that she was faking pregnancy and one of her courtier's children or a bastard of her husband was going to be passed off as her child. She remedied the gossip by giving birth under an open tent near their castle in Ancona (on the Adriatic coast of Italy) so that all of the town could bear witness she was the mother.

[choie]

If I may hijack the historical discussions, which are fascinating, may I recommend that the OP (and anyone who hasn't seen it yet) try to rent the original BBC production of The Six Wives of Henry VIII, starring the inestimable Keith Michell? While the production is old-fashioned by today's standards -- it's far more like a filmed play (similar to I Claudius and the likr) -- the acting is stellar, and the characterization of Henry is waay more believable. Michell runs the gamut from likeable to detestable to sexy to repulsive to brilliant to gullible. Sure, you feel for Henry at times, when some of his advisers are manipulating his weaknesses or when Jane dies, but they don't attempt to make him a sensitive blubberer like Ray Winstone (who I guess is in the version mentioned in the OP?) or worse an emo tubercular as with Jonathan Rhys-Davis.

And of course the follow-up, Elizabeth R with the unmatchable Glenda Jackson, is a must-see as well. I saw these two productions when they first aired, and I was a mere child, and I credit them for turning me into a Tutorphile. Barely understood a word of what was going on, but I was captivated nevertheless. Now that I'm older and know the history, I adore them even more.

[Sampiro]

If I may hijack the historical discussions, which are fascinating, may I recommend that the OP (and anyone who hasn't seen it yet) try to rent the original BBC production of The Six Wives of Henry VIII, starring the inestimable Keith Michell?

That and Elizabeth are both fantastic, and they use the same cast for the overlapping characters which also helps.

I love the Catharine of Aragon episode. She's red haired for once (as in life- in movies they tend to show her as really dark, but she was actually fair), they show them when they were really in love, and then her exile- all beautifully realized.

One of the greatest scenes from the series is "the morning after" scene with Katherine Howard*. Henry's apologies over his 'performance', and her beautiful acceptance of them... and then her later reaction (won't ruin it)- fantastic acting all around. And it's amazing how they made Mitchell believable as an athletic teenager and as a morbidly obese prematurely old man in the age before Eddie Murphy latex special effects, but they did. Final wife Parr is also very good and continues the role (as does her husband Seymour) in ELIZABETH R.

*Katherine was played by Lynne Frederick, who in real life was the much younger rose with thorns of actor Peter Sellers, who didn't have the power to behead but could be a terror nonetheless. He actually died the day he was to sign divorce papers and so she inherited the vast majority of his very large estate (and fought his children and other relatives for years), making me wonder if maybe she learned a lesson from the character she played (i.e. get him before he gets you). She remarried twice (David Frost and Barry Unger respectively) and eventually died of alcoholism; too bad, for judging from HENRY VIII alone she had significant talent.

[choie]

Agreed on all counts, Sampiro. Some beautifully played scenes in the C of A and KH eps. Though actually one of my favorites is Katherine Parr and her relationship with Henry -- although her character is much less kind in Elizabeth R, with her creepy running around with Thomas Seymour and tearing Liz's gown.

Katherine was played by Lynne Frederick, who in real life was the much younger rose with thorns of actor Peter Sellers, who didn't have the power to behead but could be a terror nonetheless.

Wait, are you thinking of the movie? 'Cause in the TV series, I'm pretty sure Katherine Howard was played by Angela Pleasance, daughter of Donald Pleasance. No?

[Sampiro]

Wait, are you thinking of the movie? 'Cause in the TV series, I'm pretty sure Katherine Howard was played by Angela Pleasance, daughter of Donald Pleasance. No?

Hmm. You are right. I was looking at the movie credits- my bad. I've never seen the movie version and just assumed it was a condensing of the miniseries into movie length. Ever seen it and if so, any good?


In any case, the above should be read Angela Pleasance's morning after performance as Catherine Howard was pitch perfect. :)

[Sampiro]

ETA: The confusion for those who don't know (which included me until just now):

The 1970 Miniseries is called The Six Wives of Henry VIII (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0066714/)

The 1972 Movie is called Henry VIII and his Six Wives (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0070170/)

Both feature Keith Michell as Henry VIII and ubiquitous "it was against the law to make a low budget British miniseries without either him or Brian Blessed and preferably both" Bernard Hepton (Thomas Cranmer), but that's about it for overlap. (There's another actress who played the character of Annette in both, though I honestly don't know who that character was.) The six wives were played by six different actresses in the miniseries and movie (a pity, since they were all excellent in the miniseries.

The liberties taken in the miniseries (which is filmed on videotape and on sound stages) are just absolutely nowhere near on par with The Tudors, and it deals a LOT more with actual history including some complex church matters, yet it's more interesting than the Jonathan Rhys Meyers nonsense (though JRM undoubtedly looks better naked). I think the most liberties are probably taken with Anne of Cleves, who was portrayed as more intelligent and acute than she probably was in actuality. She's usually portrayed in histories as a sort of good natured but rather dim bulb; by one account she actually thought she was pregnant even though she'd never had sex with the queen because he had "lain" with her (literally- he slept in the bed with her). However, she's also usually portrayed as a woman who'd have gladly signed an oath stating that the king was Jesus Christ and could turn himself into a titmouse if it meant she didn't have to go back to her brother's court so Henry was quite generous to her and even had a sort of friendship with her in later years.

Another singled out actress: Alison Frazer, a sad faced but attractive red haired actress, played the Princess/Lady (depending on the year) Mary in the miniseries (long clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr7b7eKV0Xw) from the Jane Seymour episode- she enters and is reunited with her father at approximately 2:33). She gave a wonderful understated performance. In ELIZABETH R they did a great job of finding an older actress, Daphne Slater, who's a lot more bitter and crazy seeming but also resembles Alison Frazer and an exceptional job of playing both the pitiable and the damnable side of now Queen Mary (YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCOjrvH3jDY&feature=related) showing a G-O-R-G-E-O-U-S Glenda Jackson as young Elizabeth; her aging to the bald hag in the clown makeup is as impressive as Michell's aging and weight gain.)

Anyway, I'd recommend these a thousand times before THE TUDORS. (I watched the first season on DVD and had no idea to see the second.)

[Lust4Life]

Sorry, but I can't let this go. On what evidence do you base the "not a very nice person?" Or that he was stupid (which he manifestly was not - overly trusting, yes, stupid no)?




Well it does seem pretty certain that he was guilty of ordering the princes murder,as to the stupid Englishman I was to a degree being ironic.
I myself am a stupid Englishman in that we tend not to surrender even when it would be the sensible thing to do just as one example.

[MarcusF]

As lots of people have pointed out Henry was neither nice guy nor psychopath - he was a late medieval/early modern monarch. Being ruthless went with the territory.

In thinking about how he dealt with his wives one thing to remember was - like most people at the time - very pious. He really believed in God and in his role as an anointed monarch. Of course there was rationalisation of political expediency but I can well believe he convinced himself that his lack of a son from Catherine of Aragon was a punishment for marrying his brother's betrothed. And, as King, he would have seen it as a religious duty - as well as a dynastic one - to provide a male heir to the throne. Remember he was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope for his condemnation of Luther.

As I remember it, if it hadn't been for an accident of timing, he could have got his divorce from Catherine with little fuss. An annulment of a barren marriage was by no means unknown. The trouble was Catherine's nephew Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, had Pope Clement VII in his power at the wrong time. A few years earlier and the Pope was siding with the French and would have been only too happy to oblige Henry!

A final though about Henry's mental state in his later years - remember he was pretty ill for the last 10-15 years of his life. He had poor circulation, migraines, and painful leg ulcers which can't have helped his stability.

[NDP]

A final though about Henry's mental state in his later years - remember he was pretty ill for the last 10-15 years of his life. He had poor circulation, migraines, and painful leg ulcers which can't have helped his stability.

On a somewhat related note, it terms of how people usually visualize him, Henry VIII represents an early example of what I call the "Fat Elvis" effect. Henry, like the later "King of Rock n' Roll, was actually quite fit for most of his life. Unfortunately, injuries and illness rendered him sedentary during his last ten or so years and since he didn't cut back on his overconsumption of food and drink, he soon packed on the pounds. As a result, the prevailing historical image many people have of him is of a bloated tyrant--much like how many people think of Elvis as an obese Vegas singer in a white jump suit--when, in fact, this was only true in the years before his death.