Henry VIII

  • Thread starter Thread starter spellinggirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spellinggirl

Guest
Hey, everyone–

I’m a HUGE history buff, especially British history. Henry VIII is one of my favorite monarchs because he was so interesting. However, from a theological standpoint, I have been wondering:

Is Henry VIII in hell for breaking with the Church?

Personally, I would like to hope not. I don’t think he was a bad person… he just made a very bad, selfish decision. We all do that from time to time. I’m wondering what everyone here thinks.
 
Nobody can definitively pronounce whether a given soul is in heaven or hell, except God.

Henry was a very complex person. No one is all bad. . .but Henry’s ego was, I believe, his undoing, certainly in the ‘worldly’ sense. His treatment of Catherine of Aragon was abominable, in all respects.
 
spellinggirl said:
Is Henry VIII in hell for breaking with the Church?

Personally, I would like to hope not. I don’t think he was a bad person… he just made a very bad, selfish decision. We all do that from time to time. I’m wondering what everyone here thinks.
Click to expand...
which decision would that be? the ones where he decided to take up with all his mistresses, contracting syphilis along the way which killed him, infected his wife Jane Seymour and their son Edward, shortening the child’s life, the decision to divorce 4 wives and execute two others? the decision to brutally invade and rape Ireland? the decision to plunder the monasteries, kill the priests and bishops, and kill all Catholics who disagreed with him? the decision to bankrupt England by building a navy and staging lavish tournaments with European princes?
 
No one can tell who is in hell and who is not. It is not to us to judge a man’s salvation.

However, he was certainly not a saint (in the sense of someone who we can look to as a role model in our lives), although, like I said, he may be in heaven even now - that is between him and God.

(By the way, some of what he did was motivated by fear for England’s future after him and legitimate concerns about the teaching of the Catholic Church at the time. However, much of what he did was just selfish and childish).
 
puzzleannie said:
which decision would that be? the ones where he decided to take up with all his mistresses, contracting syphilis along the way which killed him, infected his wife Jane Seymour and their son Edward, shortening the child’s life, the decision to divorce 4 wives and execute two others? the decision to brutally invade and rape Ireland? the decision to plunder the monasteries, kill the priests and bishops, and kill all Catholics who disagreed with him? the decision to bankrupt England by building a navy and staging lavish tournaments with European princes?
Click to expand...
Nobody can prove Henry had or died of syphilis. He was in very poor health in general. Most historians believe Jane Seymour contracted an infection after giving birth in unsanitary conditions. Edward was a very healthy baby; there is no evidence Henry’s “syphilis” shortened his life.

He did not divorce all four wives. Jane Seymour died, his marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled, and Catherine Parr outlived him.

Henry had many faults, but this is ridiculous.
 
spellinggirl said:
He did not divorce all four wives. Jane Seymour died, his marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled, and Catherine Parr outlived him.

Henry had many faults, but this is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
no the marriage to Anne of Cleves ended in divorce, as annulment was not available to them, both being Protestants and excommunicated and out of reach of canon law.
 
:ehh:

I seem to be having a hard time coming up with things to admire about Henry VIII.

A very hard time.

A REALLY hard time.

A REALLY, REALLY hard time.

:confused:

:hmmm:

😦

I give up.

🤷
 
Just last week I finished reading The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir. It was an excellent book, but I certainly came away with the impression that King Henry was truly a monster. However, it must be added that he was surrounded by monsters. Many of the vicious, ambitious, godless men on his council and in his court sought to promote their own interests by encouraging the king’s romances with women of their own families or religious and political persuasions.

I think he might have been a very great king if only he had been taught to govern himself and to direct his formidable energy and passion toward doing good rather than pursuing his selfish pleasures.

I pray earnestly that he sought forgiveness for his many sins and that he will not spend an eternity separated from the grace of God. I would imagine that his pious wife (Katherine of Aragon) offered her considerable sufferings–all caused by his behavior–for expiation of his sins.

P.S.: Victorious, your post was very funny! 😃 (not that there is much amusing about Henry VIII !!)
 
puzzleannie said:
which decision would that be? the ones where he decided to take up with all his mistresses, contracting syphilis along the way which killed him, infected his wife Jane Seymour and their son Edward, shortening the child’s life, the decision to divorce 4 wives and execute two others? the decision to brutally invade and rape Ireland? the decision to plunder the monasteries, kill the priests and bishops, and kill all Catholics who disagreed with him? the decision to bankrupt England by building a navy and staging lavish tournaments with European princes?
Click to expand...
Which is probably similar to the aggression that some Catholic leaders in the 2000 years of the history of the Church has used, and not at all uncommon to the era in which he lived.

Answering the OP’s question anyhow…we can’t know where he is, keeping in mind all sin is repulsive to God and even King David exhibited highly questionable behaviour too, and he was one God’s chosen wasn’t he? Some people here are casting judgment on Henry VIII and haven’t even known the man, it’s completely pointless, he’s dead, and we can’t know in our lifetime where he is, and neither does it matter too much at this stage.

Also remember, when analysing leaders from a different era, we have to remember the culture was quite different then, the status quo, the authority of leaders and the environment people grew up in was quite different to what it is today, we can’t judge something from 400 years ago with the mindset of today’s standards.
 
By the way, SpellingGirl, I just started reading The Tudors by G. J. Meyer. Have you read it yet? This book is a history of all the Tudors–from Henry VII through Elizabeth I. Meyer feels that you need to learn about all of the Tudor monarchs in order to really understand the motivations behind some of their actions.

Have you read it?
 
puzzleannie said:
no the marriage to Anne of Cleves ended in divorce, as annulment was not available to them, both being Protestants and excommunicated and out of reach of canon law.
Click to expand...
I remember a chant from school we were taught to help us remember Henry’s marital history viz. ‘Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived’.

So not four divorces according to that. Mind you, beheading is a type of dvorce, I suppose.
 
puzzleannie said:
which decision would that be? the ones where he decided to take up with all his mistresses, contracting syphilis along the way which killed him, infected his wife Jane Seymour and their son Edward, shortening the child’s life, the decision to divorce 4 wives and execute two others? the decision to brutally invade and rape Ireland? the decision to plunder the monasteries, kill the priests and bishops, and kill all Catholics who disagreed with him? the decision to bankrupt England by building a navy and staging lavish tournaments with European princes?
Click to expand...
Amen. There is nothing admirable about Henry.

God Bless
 
puzzleannie said:
no the marriage to Anne of Cleves ended in divorce, as annulment was not available to them, both being Protestants and excommunicated and out of reach of canon law.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There was then, as there is now, such a thing as CIVIL annulment, under the law of the land, available when the secular legal requirements for a marriage had not been met. Because marriages between the nobility were a matter of secular contract law as well as religious law. For example, if the family of the bride failed to pay the dowry promised under the marital contract, as a matter of secular law the marital contract was null and void.

A modern day example - Britney Spears’ two-day Vegas marriage, possibly contracted while she was under the influence of drugs or mentally ill, and thus incapable of properly giving the consent required by law. No reference need be made to Church law to obtain an annulment in such a case. Certainly none was in Britney’s case, but the marriage could be and was annulled nonetheless because the requirements of secular marital law hadn’t been fulfilled. Such legal remedies were available in Henry’s day as well.

In Henry and Anne’s case, the argument was that she was precontracted (betrothed to someone else before her marriage to Henry). In those days a betrothal was as legally binding as marriage under both secular and Canon law. One could be sued, for example, for breach of promise (failure to formalise marriage when one had promised). Meaning one could not validly (under either secular or Canon law) contract a marriage with one party when one was already betrothed to another, unless it could be proven that the betrothal had been formally dissolved. I

n Anne’s case it couldn’t, and she acknowledged as much. The annulment was something they both wanted with all their hearts, so she certainly wasn’t going to argue the point anyway, but certainly secular annulments were available for such cases.
 
I’ve always found this a fascinating part of history, and one I am completely befuddled by, having been educated in Ireland. I often wonder how England, once the most Catholic of countries, and Henry, who had been given the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope for his staunch defense of Catholicism against Lutheranism, could have fallen so far, so rapidly.
 
mfairfax said:
I’ve always found this a fascinating part of history, and one I am completely befuddled by, having been educated in Ireland. I often wonder how England, once the most Catholic of countries, and Henry, who had been given the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope for his staunch defense of Catholicism against Lutheranism, could have fallen so far, so rapidly.
Click to expand...
Henry was a lot like a child in many respects.

As with any child, he was happy enough to be obedient to Mother Church when it gave him things he wanted (including honorifics such as the ‘Defender of the Faith’ title). And rebellious in the extreme when Mother didn’t give him something he wanted (such as an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon).

All the more so as he’d really never been told ‘no’ by anyone at all before. And then there were the rewards of breaking with Rome to be considered … such as the lands owned by the various religious orders that could be snapped up.
 
mfairfax said:
I’ve always found this a fascinating part of history, and one I am completely befuddled by, having been educated in Ireland. I often wonder how England, once the most Catholic of countries, and Henry, who had been given the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope for his staunch defense of Catholicism against Lutheranism, could have fallen so far, so rapidly.
Click to expand...
Fear, for one.

I think he did a lot of bad things.

But if you think about his break from the church, it was caused by a lot of things. Wife couldn’t have a son, so he needed a wife who could. The church wouldn’t give him his annulment. I think they were right not to because he had married his brother’s wife. The only way he was allowed to marry her was if they signed a document saying the previous marriage had never been consumated. Now, only the brother and Catherine know if it was or not. However, to have his marriage annuled would have essentially taken back the first annulment. Kind of a “make up your mind” type game for the church. Anyways, it seemed that Catherine’s family was more influential in Rome at the time (rightly so, as it seemed Catherine was very devout) so they blocked the divorce.

I’m sure many of you know this already, but I found it interesting. I mean, it wasn’t like a case of modern divorce where he wanted someone younger and hotter (I think she was, but that was just part of it). He just really really needed a son.

Maybe you could compare it to Abraham and Hagar?
 
You know, the whole “Catherine couldn’t give Henry a son” mindset ignores the obvious reality that the male determines the sex of the child.

In fact, Catherine DID give Henry a son. Her first child was stillborn at 7 months gestation; her second child was a son who lived 6 weeks and died from probably SIDS. She had other stillbirths (at least one recognized as a male infant) and then gave birth to the healthy Princess Mary.

The idea that Catherine “failed” Henry through ‘not giving him a son’ blames the wrong person for the situation.

. .
 
Furthermore, Catherine’s parents were King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Guess which parent had the more ‘important’ kingdom? The Queen.

Henry did not need a son per se. His jumped up dynasty had systematically wiped out the majority of the legitimate Plantagenet line and heirs that Henry VII had circumvented in order to claim the throne. It wasn’t as though Henry VIII’s kingdom faced great dangers ‘outside.’ France at the time was ruled by a king younger than Henry and in fact, the heirs by the time of Henry’s death were the sickly Valois children. Scotland’s King would have only the one (female) heir (Mary Queen of Scots). Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor were sympathetic to Catherine (and thus, while Henry acknowledged her as his wife) to Henry. Furthermore, there were plenty of 'Dukes" and nobility in the country who could have been raised and groomed to marry Princess Mary. Reginald de la Pole (of the Suffolk line) would have been a prime candidate.

There were many reasonable options. Henry USED the idea of ‘needing a son’. He had a talent for self-deception and for trying to cast his actions in the most ‘altruistic’ and noble light.

After all, kings had ‘legitimatized’ their bastard children before. The whole Lancaster line from which Henry VII (and Henry VIII) were descended were ‘legitimated’ children, originally illegitimate, of John Duke of Gaunt, son of Edward III. So young Henry “Fitzroy” (who became a Duke) could have also been brought to the throne if necessary. . .as could any other ‘illegitimate’ sons.
 
shelby2014 said:
I mean, it wasn’t like a case of modern divorce where he wanted someone younger and hotter (I think she was, but that was just part of it). He just really really needed a son.
Click to expand...
Henry was a slave to his passions. He *did *want somebody younger and hotter. The male heir thing was just an excuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top