# Does the Church of England honor Henry VIII in any way? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 10, 2009, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309 "2009-06-10T06:00:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/21 "2009-06-11T01:17:34Z")
All the saints venerated by the pre-reformation English church would have been “carried over”, so to speak, and that includes Edward the Confessor. No doubt there are churches here and there dedicated to him, and he may get a guernsey somewhere in the Calendar. It’s just that, for the reason pointed out by \*_APB_, Anglicans generally don’t pay the same kind of attention to saints as Catholic and Orthodox Christians do. Parish churches are dedicated to saints because they always have been, rather than because there is any need for them to be. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/22 "2009-06-11T01:51:05Z")
Henry didn’t divorce Catherine of Aragon, he annuled it (invalidly in the eyes of the RCC) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/23 "2009-06-11T02:23:21Z")
See, that’s the thing. A purported annulment for which there is no grounds is in substance a divorce. Though, it has to be said, the term “annulment” wasn’t much used at the time. Henry said that he was looking for a divorce, but everyone understood that he was looking for what we would term an annulment. The key issue was not really whether he had good grounds for an annulment, as who had the authority to decide this. That was the issue on which the English church broke from Rome. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Cat\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Jones)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/24 "2009-06-11T05:59:35Z")
> [@APB](#): > > 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. Well … I don’t know … live outside the country for a while and it all goes to pot 😛 I still hear an emotive difference between “evil tyrant” and “evil bastard” tho’ but I would be interested to read the books mentioned. (It is interesting how people’s image changes … I had always thought of Simon de Montford (6th Earl of Leicester) to be one of the good - or at least better - guys but in _A Great and Terrible King_ by Marc Morris he’s painted in somewhat different colours.) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/25 "2009-06-11T07:32:30Z")
> [@Cat\_Jones](#): > > . . . 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. It’s not just a question of judging Henry by the standards of our day. It’s true that in Henry’s day marriage for a king was about power-broking, alliances and securing the succession but these did make all other considerations irrelevant. In his own time, Henry’s marital shenanigans were deeply unpopular with his people, and embarrassing to his court. And, in so far as his objective was to secure a trouble-free and undisputed succession, he failed lamentably. He burned his way through the very sound financial position that he inherited, and on his death left an appalling financial situation, higher taxes and a repeatedly debased coinage. His treatment of the monasteries was popularly perceived as a cross between sacrilege and piracy (motivated in large part by his money worries), and caused a great deal of hardship through the resultant closure of the network of hospitals, almshouses, free schools and colleges which depended on the monasteries. There was an enormous cultural loss in the destruction of the great monastic libraries. All this in turn provoked a substantial popular rebellion which was suppressed with considerable bloodshed. In so far as Henry has been kindly regarded by later generations of English, his reputation largely rests on his break with Rome. This opened the way for the later protestantising reformation of the English church, and was therefore applauded by later generations who saw it as a Good Thing that England was a protestant country. But it was certainly not Henry’s intention to protestantise England, and in Henry’s own time the people of England were not that enthusiastic about Protestantism. So it may that to some extent, it is not Henry’s poor reputation but rather his good one which resulted from later generations judging him by the standards and values of their own time. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/26 "2009-06-11T16:22:13Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > See, that’s the thing. A purported annulment for which there is no grounds is in substance a divorce. > > Though, it has to be said, the term “annulment” wasn’t much used at the time. Henry said that he was looking for a divorce, but everyone understood that he was looking for what we would term an annulment. > > The key issue was not really whether he had good grounds for an annulment, as who had the authority to decide this. That was the issue on which the English church broke from Rome. He was looking to annul his marriage on the affinity grounds saying. An annulment says there was never a marriage, a divorce ends it, Henry was looking for the first one and that’s what he got. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/27 "2009-06-11T17:15:03Z")
The Episcopal Church also, from time to time, adds people to the _Book of Common Prayer_’s feast-calendar list of those worthy of remembrance and praise, even if it’s not technically sainthood, as this article says: [http://media.www.districtchronicles.com/media/storage/paper263/news/2006/02/09/DivineIntervention/Episcopal.Parish.Proposes.Sainthood.For.Thurgood.Marshall-1604872.shtml](http://media.www.districtchronicles.com/media/storage/paper263/news/2006/02/09/DivineIntervention/Episcopal.Parish.Proposes.Sainthood.For.Thurgood.Marshall-1604872.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Cat\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Jones)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/28 "2009-06-11T17:32:04Z")
**UDS** I’m not unaware of the problems during Henry’s kingship - what I was reacting to was **Argent Towers** saying “_many people_ perceive him _as a real bastard_.”. That had never been my impression growing up in the UK, I doubt “many people” are aware of the details in your post - 6 wives & dissolution of the monesteries aside. I have now learned that his potrayal is changing and thus his image in the popular consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/29 "2009-06-11T18:25:03Z")
> [@](#): > > No doubt there are churches here and there dedicated to him, and he may get a guernsey somewhere in the Calendar. It’s just that, for the reason pointed out by \*_APB_, Anglicans generally don’t pay the same kind of attention to saints as Catholic and Orthodox Christians do. Parish churches are dedicated to saints because they always have been, rather than because there is any need for them to be. For that matter, parish churches don’t have to be dedicated to saints in the Catholic church, either. I’ve seen churches named things like “Resurrection”, “Holy Rosary”, “Sacred Heart”, and “Holy Family” ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/30 "2009-06-11T18:51:27Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > What mass murders? Maybe he’s thinking of Henry’s daughter, Mary I; aka Bloody Mary Tudor? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/31 "2009-06-11T19:09:07Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Maybe he’s thinking of Henry’s daughter, Mary I; aka Bloody Mary Tudor? Especially in the latter years of his reign, Henry VIII was notorious for presiding over an enormous number of executions ( many of them political ) - from a low estimate of 50,000 up to 72,000. He actually appears to have far, far, FAR exceeded his daughter’s totals. Mary gets the bad press because some of hers were martyrs - Protestants executed for their faith. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/32 "2009-06-11T19:44:24Z")
I’ve never read that - at least nothing on nearly that scale. Cite, please? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/33 "2009-06-11T20:09:29Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I’ve never read that - at least nothing on nearly that scale. Cite, please? From Holinshead: > [@](#): > > It appeareth by Cardaine (who writeth it upon the report of the Bishop of Lexouia) in the geniture of King Edward the Sixt, how Henry the Eight, executing his laws very severely against such idle persons, I mean great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues, did hang up three score and twelve thousand of them in his time. Cardan’s original quote was: > [@](#): > > …there fell out what the bishop of Lisieux told me at Bescanon, namely in the two years before his [Henry’s] death it was found that seventy two thousand men perished by the hangman after sentence ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/34 "2009-06-12T02:21:47Z")
> [@Cat\_Jones](#): > > **UDS** I’m not unaware of the problems during Henry’s kingship - what I was reacting to was **Argent Towers** saying “_many people_ perceive him _as a real bastard_.”. That had never been my impression growing up in the UK, I doubt “many people” are aware of the details in your post - 6 wives & dissolution of the monesteries aside. I have now learned that his potrayal is changing and thus his image in the popular consciousness. Sure. I’m reacting to your suggestion that the more negative view of Henry is the result of our generations judging him by “the standards of our day”. It was in fact the _positive_ view of Henry which resulted from assessing him according to later standards - specifically, the standard that Protestantism, for which he unwittingly cleared the way, was a Good Thing. Judged by the standards of his _own_ day, any assessment of Henry would have to be more negative than positive. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Cat\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Jones)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/35 "2009-06-12T05:14:10Z")
OK - got it. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/36 "2009-06-12T05:57:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > He was looking to annul his marriage on the affinity grounds saying. An annulment says there was never a marriage, a divorce ends it, Henry was looking for the first one and that’s what he got. Yes, I know. Both Henry’s supporters and Henry’s detractors referred to the ruling he wanted as a “divorce”, but in the terms we use today what he was looking for was an annulment. The thing is, though, when we look at what he actually got, as opposed to what he sought, perceptions differ. To the King’s supporters, what he got was what we would term an annulment. To the King’s Catholic opponents, what he got was - in effect - what we would term a divorce - a decree allowing him to marry Anne Boleyn, even though he had failed to establish grounds for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. For that reason, later generations of Catholic opponents treated Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn, as illegitimate (and therefore not entitled to succed to the throne) - in distinction to Mary, the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, who was of course legitimate in Catholic eyes (but illegitimate in Henry’s eyes), and Edward, the daughter of Jane Seymour, who was legitimate because Catherine of Aragon had died by the time Henry married Jane Seymour. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/37 "2009-06-12T06:07:54Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Especially in the latter years of his reign, Henry VIII was notorious for presiding over an enormous number of executions ( many of them political ) - from a low estimate of 50,000 up to 72,000. He actually appears to have far, far, FAR exceeded his daughter’s totals. Mary gets the bad press because some of hers were martyrs - Protestants executed for their faith. Well, that I can believe. (The one I always felt sorry for was poor Lady Jane Grey. Wasn’t her family behind her grab for the throne?) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/38 "2009-06-12T06:20:38Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > (The one I always felt sorry for was poor Lady Jane Grey. Wasn’t her family behind her grab for the throne?) Her father-in-law, the Duke of Northumberland. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/39 "2009-06-12T07:24:33Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Especially in the latter years of his reign, Henry VIII was notorious for presiding over an enormous number of executions ( many of them political ) - from a low estimate of 50,000 up to 72,000. He actually appears to have far, far, FAR exceeded his daughter’s totals. Mary gets the bad press because some of hers were martyrs - Protestants executed for their faith. Mary gets a particularly bad press. Apart from being rather gentler than her father, total numbers executed under Mary on religious grounds is probably much the same as total numbers executed under Elizabeth on religious grounds. But we never hear of “bloody Elizabeth”. Elizabeth, of course, was a very successful monarch who acheived great things for her country; it is natural that history and popular sentiment will judge her kindly. But it also reflects the fact that Elizabeth’s executions were in support of protestantising the church, which later generations saw as a Good Thing, whereas Mary’s were not. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309/40 "2009-06-12T09:34:53Z")
Hmm. From **Captain Amazing** ’s quote from Holinshed, it looks as though these “mass murders” of Henry VIII’s might include ordinary judicial executions - “petty thieves and rogues” sounds like the ordinary run of criminals to me. Since this was a time when execution was the prescribed penalty for virtually any serious crime - penal transportation and imprisonment at hard labour didn’t really get started until the seventeenth century - I’m inlcined to wonder whether “mass murder” is an appropriate term. Undoubtedly, the total must include many politically-motivated executions (yes, I know all about Sir Thomas More thankyouverymuch), but I suspect Henry VIII has a way to go before he’s up there with Stalin and Pol Pot in the mass-murdering leagues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-church-of-england-honor-henry-viii-in-any-way/499309.md?page=3)