Damn your right, of course. And damn my hazy memory of A Level history… 
OB
Didn’t Genghis Khan father children on something like 1,000 different women? I think I read that some huge percentage of men in central Asia (10 percent, perhaps?) are direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan.
He got married to the widow next door? Who had been married seven times before?
Didn’t she end up walking the Tower, with her 'ead tucked, underneath her arm?
But you’re right that Henry VII didn’t base his claim to the throne on his marriage to Elizabeth. His marriage was an astute political move, to try to solidify his position and reduce the chance for Yorkist opposition, but he based his claim on his bloodline and his right of conquest.
I mentioned Henry VIII’s connexion to Edward IV because of the similarities in their, uhm, sexual appetites. Also, I think some commentators at the time noted that they had similar physiques - Edward IV was a big man.
The codpiece is evident in the OP’s portrait as well.
No that’s not correct. Many of the contemporary comments are contained in foreign ambassadors’ reports back to their home governments. They were in no danger of violence from Henry, nor were they under any obligation to paint a rosy picture of him in their private dispatches. And yet they did so. I think it’s safe to conclude that Henry was a physically impressive speciemen in his youth and early thirties.
No, only one. He was working in public works somewhere in the London suburbs until the demolition of the planet Earth.
Holding something gives a model something to do with his/her hands. Posing for a painting can be a royal (pun intended) bore and gripping something (non obscene) can help keep the hands in a consistent pose. Gloves can be tightly gripped and convey class and refinement. Add to this that fingers can be somewhat challenging to paint - Yeah, yeah the painter of the royal personage should be well up to the challenge. (Who knows the painter may even have been commenting on the king’s second wife’s fondness for constantly wearing gloves?)
As Cunctator noted, Henry in his prime was the hottest prince and monarch of Europe. Tall, muscular, handsome, intelligent, accomplished athlete and musician, etcetera. The Venetian ambassador to England wrote home that Henry was the handsomest potentate he’d ever set eyes on, with great legs and a beautiful face.
This article by Philippa Gregory has an interesting comparison between the suits of armour worn by Harry in his mid-twenties and his mid-forties.
It just happens that I read a couple of articles over the weekend on the personality change in Henry the VIII and what may have caused it. “Traumatic brain injury after jousting accident” sounded so convincing that I didn’t want to believe it first, so I had to google around. Anyway, here’s the story that set it off:
It’s amazing you offered that link vifslan, because over the past few days I’ve been wondering exactly whether that jousting accident could be blamed for his viciousness in later life.
Quoth Northern Piper:
After taking a look at Charles II of Spain’s family tree on one of those Wikipedia links, I’m not so sure on that score.
Ah yes, Charles II. Poster boy for why family trees shouldn’t be loopy. Both meanings of the word.
Henry’s on first after that bloop single that left his bat shattered, and it looks like he’s got his eye on second.
I say! Kindly remember which side of the pond Henry is on.
He is holding a shattered cricket bat in one hand and an early model of a wicket-keeping glove in the other.
No one has mentioned this possibility: that the second painting is simply done from the first. Often, a royal painting was chosen as the standard model for other paintings done thereafter. The latter paintings were simply based off the standard painting, in which case the actual person didn’t even need to be available for the painting. The copies usually copied the props as well as the positioning of the original.
The same was true of Henry’s grandfather, Edward IV. I’m reading a really interesting book about him right now which is all about his reign and how it was a really interesting period of cultural advancement in England but is now completely overshadowed by the War of the Roses and the drama surrounding Richard III.
Edward IV was like the John F. Kennedy of late Medieval England - a comparison made by the book, but also one I thought of on my own before reading it - he was extremely popular, truly a king who was loved by his people. Every account of people who met him, like ambassadors and other nobles, goes on and on about how “beautiful” he was, saying that he was the most handsome king who ever ruled. He was 6’4" which meant that he was a giant, back then, and he was powerfully built. He was a well-respected soldier (even fighting on foot, on the front lines - here is a painting of him doing so, and you can see how tall and imposing he was.) But he was also a man of great culture, extremely learned, who made a point of developing a royal library and encouraging the arts and sciences. (He funded the very first printer in England, William Caxton.) Furthermore he was extremely glamorous; he was renowned for wearing elaborate and fancy clothes; and he was married to a real hottie, Elizabeth Woodville. (Which didn’t stop him from having affairs with dozens of other women - like JFK he was also renowned as a playboy.)
After he reclaimed the throne from Henry VI, though, he really started to go downhill. All the accounts of the later part of his life describe an obese, lazy, unfocused ruler who was more concerned with sensual pleasures than being a king. Supposedly he used to eat so much that he would force himself to throw up so he could keep eating; one quote from a contemporary who witnessed his downward slide, from the book I’m reading, said something to the effect of, “you could actually hear the fat flowing through his arteries.” (!) He died in his forties, of natural causes - widely acknowledged to have been brought on by his excessive eating, drinking, and physical inactivity.
Portraits of him throughout his reign make it clear how much he let himself go: he went from looking like this, to this, to THIS!
Like grandfather, like grandson, I guess. Although even Henry VIII was still pretty dapper even when he was on the portly side (the beard made it work.) Edward IV just wound up looking like Jon Lovitz.
Actually, those portraits don’t really make him look handsome. Look at that retrograde chin!
Really? I think it’s pretty prominent. In the first portrait he looks kind of like Kyle Maclachlan.
In the upper echelons of English society, having a chin is considered déclassé even to this day. 
Re the original painting, it looks more like a croissant to me. Henry had a weakness for snacking.
Edit: the thing in his hand, I mean, not his chin…