Henry VIII

[LilyM]

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.

Nope. The Lancaster line included legitimate as well as illegitimate children of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Henry IV, V and VI were all legitimate children by John’s first wife, Mary Bohun, not his mistress Katherine Swynford (whose children were the later-legitimised Beauforts).

The Beauforts were a completely different kettle of fish. They were younger children of a younger child at the time of their legitimation, so there wasn’t any expectation whatsoever that they’d get their butts on the throne at any stage. Indeed, it wasn’t until several generations after their legitimation, when the Wars of the Roses took their terrible toll on England’s nobility, that the Beauforts became even a remote possibility.

Secondly, if Fitzroy had been legitimated there wouldn’t have been any question of his being brought to the throne ‘if necessary’. He would’ve been heir to the throne by right as the oldest male legitimate(d) heir. Any other sons would be placed below him, including any sons by Anne Boleyn.

This was a not-unimportant consideration for both Henry and Anne. Henry was still (as history proves) more than young and healthy enough to father more children.

In spite of all of this, there were rumours towards the end of Henry and Catherine’s marriage that he was getting desperate enough to consider not only legitimising Henry Fitzroy, but marrying him (yuck yuck) to his legitimate daughter by Catherine, Mary. This, if true, shows that Henry Fitzroy on his own wouldn’t have had a chance of getting on the throne, legitimised or not.

 

[Arismal]

Henry was a slave to his passions. He *did *want somebody younger and hotter. The male heir thing was just an excuse.

That depends on how you look at things, lots of historians actually think Henry may have had fertility problems of his own, it you look at his wifes records

Catherine got pregnant six tiems total, four were sons but all died young, she had a stillborn daughter and Queen Mary I so it’s unlikely there was a problem with her fertility

Anne Boleyn was pregnant at least four times, two stillborns and one miscarrige from the stress of Henry nearly being killed in a jousting accident in 1536, only Elizabeth survived

Jane Seymour was only pregnant once but had a healthy pregnancy

Anne of Cleves never consummated her marriage with Henry

Catherine Howard did consummate the marriage but had numerous affairs

Catherine Parr also consummated her marriage but owing to Henry’s age, a pregnancy was never likely

Henry also had an illegitimate son, Henry FitzRoy, who he desperately tried to get declared legitimate until the sons death

Also, due to the jousting accident in 1536 Henry’s varicose ulcers had to be kept open with hot irons, and they stank like rotting flesh, he was also obease. So more or less every wife after Anne would’ve slept with someone much older, overweight and who stank like a rotting corpse, it’s no wonder the last 3 gave him no children, it’s amazing Jane Seymour did, she deserves canonization for that feat alone in my opinion

It is important to consider, due to the succession issues from 1399 onwards that there was considerable intermarrying within the Plantagenet descendants of Edward III so health issues weren’t uncommon, perhaps infertility was one of them. There certinaly doesn’t seem to’ve been a problem with his wives, I think any problems with pregnancy lie squarely with Henry

 

[shelby2014]

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.

. .

And how were they supposed to know that in the 1500’s? Actually, it is both the male and female who determine the sex. But back then popular belief was it was the female. It makes sense - a woman spends nine months being pregnant. A lot goes on in that time. They didn’t know about genetics and such.

The other thing is that if a woman keeps having miscarriages and stillborns, then it was reasonable (and still is) to assume something was wrong with the woman.

 

[shelby2014]

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.
.

I find this interesting. Henry had no way of knowing, but Mary was actually quite willing to let her husband do most of the work. This would have been a reasonable route to take.

 

[Arismal]

I find this interesting. Henry had no way of knowing, but Mary was actually quite willing to let her husband do most of the work. This would have been a reasonable route to take.

If he’d let Mary marry and used her as his main heir not only would he be letting a devout Catholic get the throne, he’d also be dooming the Tudor dynasty to die out in the male line and so the name Tudor would be gone forever as well

It would have been more suitable to have chosen Elizabeth but as both girls had been declared bastards to legalize Henry’s marriage to his next bed warmer, he’d have to go back and declare them legitimate again, which would make his current marriage illegal and any (male) children he has with his current wife bastards and so bared from the throne in turn

He really shot himself in the foot with his libido

 

[Chancellare]

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.

Same here.
Great leaders work their way and rise to greatness until pride takes over. From there everything is downhill.

 

[elts1956]

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.

I don’t mean to beg the question, but what was different about morality back then as compared to the morality of today? Culture should not form the man, man should form the culture. Now where did I hear that? I know it’s not original.

 

[elts1956]

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.

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.

In his later years Henry became a monster. Now whether this was due to syphillis or just pure lust for power and control, I suppose we don’t know, but the symptoms of a disease were there, whether of the body, or of the soul. I do believe son Edward died of syphillis. Isn’t this inherited, or can be?

I do love reading about that era of history.

 

[Arismal]

In his later years Henry became a monster. Now whether this was due to syphillis or just pure lust for power and control, I suppose we don’t know, but the symptoms of a disease were there, whether of the body, or of the soul. I do believe son Edward died of syphillis. Isn’t this inherited, or can be?

I do love reading about that era of history.

I don’t think he died of syphilis, there would’ve been some evidence, back in Tudor times they’d treat it with mercury, there’s no evidence his doctors ordered any in their official expense accounts and records of deliveries of medicines. He would’ve had to be kept out of the public eye for several weeks or so to’ve been treated, there’s no record of that either so it’s very unlikely he had syphilis

As far as is known Henry died either from heart failure, infection or diabetes, owing to the HUGE amount of food he ate a day (13 dishes, mostly red meat, sweets and lots of alcohol) it’s be very surprising for someone with as unhealthy a diet and size as him not to have had some heart problems

There’s also evidence that after the jousting accident in 1536 where his horse, in full armor, fell on top of him and only his own armour saved his life, he was knocked unconscious for several minutes or even an hour, even a few seconds is extremely serious in modern times and it’s important to remember th at most of his harshest decrees were issued after this, it’s implied that he could’ve had a personality change after the accident.

He certainly wasn’t a very likeable man, his first wife, Catherine of Aragon despite being heavily pregnant took charge of defeating a Scottish invasion while Henry was away in France, even riding north in full armour and supposedly leading troops into battle (which is why she was so loved by the people of England why Anne Boleyn was so hated), she was incredibly devoted to him and he threw her aside when she was of no use to him anymore

 

[Victorious]

I don’t think he died of syphilis, there would’ve been some evidence, back in Tudor times they’d treat it with mercury, there’s no evidence his doctors ordered any in their official expense accounts and records of deliveries of medicines.

Can’t say I could be knocked over by a feather if it turned out HVIII had a sexually transmitted disease. I might be if it were to turn out he didn’t.

 

[ShanaA1984]

Prince Edward died from tuberculosis.

 

[HAP0623]

I love this question! I think Henry VIII is one of the most interesting people in history and love reading books on him… however seeing as he committed adultery, and killed many of his wives just because he was a selfish horny pig and wanted the next best girl does break at least two of the 10 commandments. He’s still great to learn about though!

 

[HarmonyServant]

sings Henry the Eighth I am, I am. Henry the Eighth I am!

I’ll admit, the Tudor line is fascinating history, but I feel such pity for all the Catholics brutally tortured and executed. Just for being Catholic. It was a scary time back then. If Mary Tudor had lived, had a child, England would’ve been a different place than it is now.

 

[elts1956]

sings Henry the Eighth I am, I am. Henry the Eighth I am!

I’ll admit, the Tudor line is fascinating history, but I feel such pity for all the Catholics brutally tortured and executed. Just for being Catholic. It was a scary time back then. If Mary Tudor had lived, had a child, England would’ve been a different place than it is now.

There were a lot of Protestants burned at the stake during Mary Tudor’s reign. I don’t remember, correct me if I am wrong, of Henry killing large amounts of people for their faith, only those Catholic prelates who would not regard him as the head of the church of England?? Henry destroyed the monasteries and abbeys, scraping all that money into the royal treasurey, that I have read.

 

[Miss_Linda]

Has anyone read Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor by Eamon Duffy?
It looks like an interesting book and I’m considering getting it.

There is also another book that interests me: The Last Divine Office: The Dissolution of the Monasteries Under Henry VIII by Geoffrey Moorhouse.

I would be interested in hearing any opinions on these books if any of you have read them.

 

[Victorious]

Haven’t read those books. But I will note that the dissolution of the monasteries firmly entrenched the Protestant rebellion in England. Henry larded his nobles up with the money and estates he stole from the Church, thereby giving them a strong economic incentive against reconciliation: reconciliation would have necessitated returning the swag.

Also, talk about stealing from the poor to give to the rich: the welfare safety net for the poor was run by the Church. This was destroyed with the dissolution of the monasteries.

 

[elts1956]

Has anyone read Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor by Eamon Duffy?
It looks like an interesting book and I’m considering getting it.

There is also another book that interests me: The Last Divine Office: The Dissolution of the Monasteries Under Henry VIII by Geoffrey Moorhouse.

I would be interested in hearing any opinions on these books if any of you have read them.

Sounds good. Thanks for the info.

 

[Rach620]

Even Rowan Williams, the [Anglican] Archbishop of Canterbury, admits that Henry VIII might be in hell. And you’d think he’d try his darnedest to legitimate the man who started the Anglican Church…

 

[Mattjolley]

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.

. .

All fair enough, but they wouldn’t have known that back then, particularly since their society was so male-dominated.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

I got married to the widow next door,
she was married seven times before
and all of their names were Hen-ery
she didn’t want a Willy or a Sam
I’m her eighth old man named Hen-ery
Hen-ery the eighth I am

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

What I wanted to ask is if you know of any good history books about Henry the 8th.