Henry VIII is most remembered today as being a prototypical power-mad despot, and I don’t think he’s looked on very favorably. However, he was instrumental in establishing the Church of England, which is still in existence today. For this reason it would seem to me that for all of his faults, he logically would still have to be honored by the adherents of that religion. So is he? Are there portraits of him in Church of England churches or any kind of dedication to him in their services or something?
Other than his many divorces by decree and axmen, seizing Church properties and founding the COE, Henry 8 was not much more barbaric than his continental brethren. He was quite well educated and wrote books on theology and was a gifted athlete in his youth.
I’m aware of that; he was a tremendous patron of culture and art (Hans Holbein in particular, possibly my all-time favorite Renaissance artist.) He wrote a lot of music, including “Pastime with Good Company” which, despite its age, is an amazingly catchy melody. I also admire the fact that he had the nerve to tell the Pope to go screw off, and start his own religion. I don’t think Henry was a completely evil man; I just take it that many people perceive him as a real bastard. So does this get in the way of his contributions to the Church of England being recognized? Do they have statues of him or something, or do they have a holiday commemorating him?
The Church of England does not consider itself to have been founded by Henry VIII, but by Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry VIII set in train a process of reforming the church, initially in matters of government, although under later monarchs the reform process focussed more on matters of doctrine and liturgy.
?? That sounds like a very emotive response, I certainly wouldn’t say that’s how he is remembered in the UK - the Tudor age is generally looked on as one of the high points of our history. Judge not by the standards of our day - he was “KING”, more concept than person. Lots of historical shenanigans are distasteful to us but it doesn’t make the perpetrators inherently evil. Marriages were little more than alliances for any in a position of power and the need to ensure a strong succession was paramount.
No, no portraits. No, no dedication. However the monarch is the head of the Church of England, so at present it’s Queen Elizabeth. During the “Intercession”, before the “Eucharist” (ie bread and wine), the president says the following (or some variant) :
“Bless and guide Elizabeth our Queen; give wisdom to all in authority; and direct this and every nation in the ways of justice and of peace; that men may Love one another, and seek the common good.”
In the previous paragraph s/he says “Strengthen N our bishop …” so again we’re praying more for the concept, the person performing the role rather than the person as themselves.
However this has nothing to do with the Queen’s position as head of the Church of England; it has to do with her role as head of state; hence the complementary references to “all in authority” and directing nations in the ways of justice and peace. Other Christian churches in England pray for the queen in broadly similar terms, while Anglican churches in other countries will pray for the relevant sovereign/head of state in the same way, even though that sovereign is not head of the church.
Thanks for the clarification, actually as I was typing I wondered about the wording in other countries. To be honest I had never thought about which part of the Queen we were praying for at that stage - and I’m not sure I’m happy with fracturing the monarch into different parts but I’d probably start straying outside GQ territory. I hoped Argent Towers would find it interesting that we pray for our Queen by name and your comments clarify why.
As it happens, one of the consequences f the reformation of the English church is that it largely lost interest in saint-making. It is not big on statues in churches, and has no formal canonisation procedures. The great bulk of those who are formally honoured in its liturgies, in the dedication of church buildings, etc, are saints carried over from its pre-reformation past. A few new saints do creep in, mostly saints recognised by other Christian traditions whose sanctity is, over time, accepted by C of E opinion and practice without any formal process. The result is that there isn’t much scope for saintly Anglicans to be explicitly recognised…
If I recall correctly, the only British king ever to have been accorded any kind of honour by the church (other than being prayed for as king while actually reigning) was Charles I, who has or at one time had a couple of churches dedicated to “King Charles the Martyr”. And various pre- and post-reformation kings are honoured by specific Anglican institutions (colleges, etc) as founders or benefactors.
Henry VIII is of course an important figure in the history of the Church of England, but he is not necessarily a particularly respected one. All-in-all, his motives for the various reforming measures he took were at best mixed, and his doctrinal position was fairly decisively repudiated by later generations of Anglicans. Importance, as such, is not something which the church particularly honours. And, even if the church was concerned about importance or influence rather than sanctity, Henry wouldn’t be the standout king. While Henry set the English reformation in train, Elizabeth I probably did much more to give the Church of England the characteristics it has today.
It’s not just that the Church of England lost an interest in saint-making, it also rejected the idea that the commemoration of the dead had any theological purpose.
Now, it is true that there continued to be an acceptance that the commemoration of the dead had a social purpose. Monuments in churches were OK, just so long as it was clear that they were only memorials. Which is why there is the ambiguity about ‘King Charles the Martyr’. Officially they were only remembering him.
The oddity about Henry VIII is that there was never any monument to him, even in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, where he is buried. The plans for an elaborate tomb were abandoned. As monarchs from the pharaohs onwards have discovered, never rely on your successors to build your tomb.
I’m not sure that’s true. Indeed, I rather think that by far the most obvious theme to have emerged from the current anniversary celebrations is precisely that of Henry-as-Tyrant. After all, David Starkey’s recent TV series was Henry VIII: The Mind of a Tyrant, while the title that has been announced for the second of his very-long awaited biography is Henry: Model of a Tyrant (to contrast with Virtuous Prince). Not much ambiguity there. The same theme also lurks behind his big British Library exhibition. Also, with the publication of Suzannah Lipscomb’s 1536, the main debate is probably now more about when Henry became tyrannical. And all this at what one can plausibly call the level of popular history.
I think that most Anglicans would disagree with this statement - Henry VIII didn’t start his own religion. (That phrasing makes me think of L. Ron Hubbard, actually.) The Henrician Reformation focused on authority within the church. His concept was that the Church of England was independent of Rome in matters of authority, but catholic in theology. As other posters have commented, that approach changed with his successors, and Elizabeth I was probably most responsible for the Anglican “middle way” approach
So no, in answer to the question, Henry is not venerated or remembered in any special way - I’ve never seen a picture or statue of him in any C. of E. / Anglican church, and he’s not mentioned in the Calendar, as far as I can recall. Only Charles I is mentioned, and that’s because one of the major points in dispute during the English Civil War was church structure, with Charles being firmly in the episcopalian tradition, which contributed to his death (which isn’t to say he was a particularly holy man, or a good politician, which also contributed to his death).
I would agree with this. After all, the Book of Common Prayer was developed under her, and she worked very hard to make the reformation stick in a way that wasn’t violent and overly contentious.
Most Anglicans I know look up to Elizabeth more than they do Henry. They also acknowledge as martyrs some of the religious leaders who were executed under Mary, such as Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer. In fact, there’s an official church holy day honoring those three.
The Book of Common Prayer was written by Cranmer during the reign of Edward VI. There was a revision under Elizabeth, but it didn’t make many changes to Cranmer’s.
Thanks – I guess I was thinking of the fact that it was “finalized” under her.
I absolutely agree with this.
I’m Episcopalian (the American flavor of Anglicanism, AKA “gilt without the guilt”). Yes, Henry VIII wanted to divorce his first wife and marry again so that he could sire a prince to succeed him, but that wasn’t the only reason for the break with Rome. It was all tied up with the Protestant Reformation, power politics, the very enticing wealth and assets of the Church, etc. As our rector (top clergyman at our church) is fond of saying, “I never met a motive that wasn’t mixed.”
“Other than than, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
When approached to become Henry’s sixth wife, Christina of Milan famously declined by saying, “If I had two heads, one would be at His Majesty’s service.”
Next to Henry 8’s system of mass murders, his unusual peccadilloes, while still deplorable, are small potatoes.
What mass murders?
Nevermind.
He was secretly Jack the Ripper.
Quoth Cat Jones:
Although Henry himself didn’t have much problem with fracturing queens into different parts.
As for Charles being the only king specifically honored by the Anglican Church, does that include kings from before the schism, such as Edward the Confessor (canonized in 1161)?