User talk:ThomasWolsey12

Henry VIII

Tyrant or Hero

Henry VIII was King of England from 1509-1547 and through out of his 38-year long reign, he both succeeded and failed in terms of domestic and diplomatic policy which is how historians have identified him as good or bad king. In today’s English society, he is most commonly remembered for being a tall, overweight monarch who married six times and executed two of his wives. Amongst British historians such as David Starkey and Geoffrey Elton, there has been an overriding debate to whether Henry was as a Hero or Tyrant of a monarch.

When we define the terms hero or tyrant, we typical associate the words ‘courage’, ‘achievement’, ‘cruel’ and ‘oppressive’, but was Henry any of the following? The renaissance prince was already at war with his traditional enemy, France at the tender age of 20, after he had joined Pope Julius 2nd Holy League in April 1512. Although he was secretly used by his father in law, Ferdinand 2nd Aragon, to allow him to capture Navarre, one year later, he had achieved what no English king had done since Henry V’s victory at Agincourt in 1415. While at war with France, his wife, Catherine of Aragon and the Earl of Surrey had defeated the 35,000 Scottish man at Flodden Field, but most significantly, had also killed the Scottish King, James IV. It is therefore safe to argue, Henry was most definitely a hero, or was he?

Henry’s personal issues began to dominate English politics by 1527, Henry was eager to divorce his 42-year-old wife, Catherine, after she had failed to provide Henry with a living male heir. The failure of Cardinal Campeggio’s legatine court at Blackfriars in 1527, led to the creation of the reformation parliament in 1529. Its sole purpose, to exploit the church’s beliefs, doctrine, ideologies and power amongst the English realm. With the elevation of Thomas Cromwell as Lord Chancellor in 1532, England had seen the most brutal attack on the Catholic Doctrine since the Crusades in 1095. Like his predecessor, Thomas Wolsey, Cromwell had gained a reputation for being a threating, bloodthirsty individual, for what he had done to the Catholic Doctrine in England. The Clergy Legal Privilege removed 1529, Act of Annates 1532, Act of supremacy 1534 and the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536-1541 had made Henry look like a tyrant.

Nevertheless, he was the first English king to succeed the throne without violence and was described by Lord Mountjoy as a ‘lover he is of justice and goodness’. The majority of Henry’s political and social failures derived from his minister’s greed for glory. For example, Wolsey’s attempt to raise money for Amicable Grant in 1525, forced plebeians and clergyman to pay levy on goods, which caused unwanted rebellions in Essex, Kent, Norfolk, Warwickshire, and Huntingdonshire. It is therefore wrong to argue that Henry was a tyrant of a king as it was his minister’s personal aim for higher status that brought somewhat of a divide amongst the English realm. Author Alison Weir, also argues that Henry was profound intellectual who read ‘St Thomas Aquinas for pleasure’ and was a ‘knowledgeable theologian’, what type of individual who was so encompassed around religion would betrayal the word of God? Henry ‘reinvented England’ in the words of David Starkey so was Henry really an evil tyrant or rather an individual who strived for the stability of his sovereign state?

On the other hand, during his reign 1509-1547, 16th century historian, John Stow claimed Henry had executed 50,000-70,000 people. His reign seemed to be surrounded with death and bloodshed after continuously taking his country to war, converting England’s religion to a more Lutheranism ideology and raising unneeded taxes on the country. In 1521, he executed fellow nobleman, Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and 20 years later, 1541, Henry ordered the execution of frail 67-year-old Margret Pole, who was once of his daughters, Mary’s governess. The 1531 Vagabond Act and with the extension of the Act for Punishment of Sturdy Vagabonds and Beggars in 1536, prevented the able bodied from being able to beg, if they were caught outside of their parish without work, they would be punished by being whipped through the streets, if caught a second time they could lose an ear and if caught a third time they could be executed. Even Henry’s tyrant attitude not only effected diplomatic policy but also all sectors of the hierarchy, even those who were far less fortunate.

From the evidence presented above, I would suggest Henry was both a hero and a tyrant respectively. Although he had somewhat succeeded as a hero in foreign policy at the beginning of his reign up until around 1514, he had caused widespread polarisation amongst England as a result of the separation from the Catholic church by 1535. Venetian ambassador, Sebastian Giustinian in 1515 quoted Henry as ‘he handsomest potentate I ever set eyes on’ which does not sound like the description of a tyrant. There are some logical explanations surrounding Henry’s tyrant attitude, his jousting accident on 24th January 1536 was believed to have transformed Henry from a relatively generous, benevolent ruler, into the ‘wife-murdering tyrant’.