I think that tyrants throughout the ages have always been flattered and inspired by people who can give them what they really want. The genius of people like Cromwell and Wolsey is that they had a natural instinct of how to give their boss what they truely needed and desired – even at times when the boss himself perhaps didn't quite know himself what it was he needed and desired. That is the seductive genius of your typical 'brown-noser.' And Henry was always susceptible to this. A truly great leader and statesman is aware of it. But Henry did not fall into this catagory.

SR

The very fact that he had her executed and was neither moved nor felt any remorse about it, alludes to the fact that he conspired against her.  Of course he had everyone whispering in his ear as other families pushed their fertile nubile daughters in his direction.  He was a big fat spoiled child who tired of his 'toys' quickly and wanted new ones.  His ego was the only thing he truly cared about.  He was always suseptible to flattery.  Anne strikes me as the type of woman who told him like it was and didn't bow and scrape to his every whim.  That was her undoing in the end.  With his 'Great Matter' he had every last restraint on him lifted, and he could do anything he wanted, including brutally murdering his wives.

Still don't know how to regard Henry in the death of Anne and the time leading up to it. Maybe writing something will give me some food for thought?

Henry had an accident and had serious head trauma in January of 1536 that by all accounts changed his attitude and he had a severe personality change. I think that there was much more going on in Henry's court behind the scenes than we will ever know about. I also think that it was very hurried and not well thought out, at least on Henry's part. By dissolving  his marriage to Anne just prior to her death, Elisabeth would have no claim to the throne for example. The others put to death relating to the trumped up charges, may also hold a clue to what was really going on, not only in Henry's head but also in court.

Henry certainly did nothing to help Anne, she was not send to an obscure and remote castle as Catherine of Aragon was If he could have gotten away with killing Catherine, would he have done it?. The only concession Henry made was allowing Anne to be beheaded by a swordsman instead of an axe, that was the limit of his compassion. He had a cannon fired at the Tower to signal to him Anne's death. England was in turmoil with the plague, the break from Rome and many who would be king if Henry did not wake from his coma that January in 1536, were there plans made at that time in court?

To do nothing is still doing something, so yes, to my thinking Henry has a good share in Anne's death.

Paudie. 

You know I can see how brain injury would and does defintely change patterns of behavior.  My grandfather in the later stages of dementia (he being a gentle soft spoken man all his life ) tried to murder his wife of 62 years, (she was able to stop him thank God).  The brain and it's misfirings certainly cause all manner of illness and illusion.  I think that yes, he was a tyrant, a murdering one, a tyrant that was quite probably plummeting into madness.  My opinions of him haven't changed, however, the court around him knew how to manipulate him also.  They knew all about his moods and his rages, I believe even the King's bowel movements were recorded.  As was mentioned in another post it was a shark tank, with all of them swimming around smelling blood in the water. 

I don't believe Henry had anything to do with the death of Anne after all hes not the one who provided the guilty verdict. Its true he became unhappy with her only because she did not give him a son as once thought and I think Cromwell fueled that fire. Also those confessions were torch er induced I probably would admit to something I hadn't done if I were torchered like that. Also Lady Rochford was jealous of the queens relationship with her husband and also the rumors that he was gay Anne did not hold Jane Parker in high regard and mad no attempt to be friends with her she also confessed upon her death that she had lied about the queen Anne's adultery and incest. So that right there tells you Henry was just listening to what his so called “advisers” said after all that's what they were there for to advise him what to do. I think his mental state didn't help and also other “noble” families throwing themselves in front of him didn't help he was desperate for a male heir something I also think was causing his emotions to run wild it is frustrating to know you need a male heir to carry on the line and now two wives were not able to produce one for him he was running out of options and time.

LadytoAnneBoleyn said:

I don't mean to get on the soapbox, but I do not agree with killing an innocent woman because she did not give him a son.  It's not right.

Preach it, sister!. Quite a few of us are on the soapbox about this.

I really don't know where to stand on the whole issue and it really bothers me!!!  But I do tend to think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  I can't quite believe that Henry was totally innocent and didn't have a clue what was going on but nor do I think Cromwell was only carrying out Henry's orders.  After all Cromwell had his own agenda.

What I do think was that Henry at that particular point hated Anne.  Possibly as he'd never hated anyone or anything before.  How he came to so violently hate the woman he'd once loved so passionately I think is where the true mystery lies.  Was it Anne's failure to produce a son?  Did he suffer some kind of brain damage when he fell off his horse?  Had he had enough of Anne's forthright opinions and flirtatious ways?  Was he really that much in love with Jane Seymour?  Or was it a mixture of everything?

Henry must've hated her to believe the charges against her, for I'm pretty certain he did.  I cannot believe he'd have her put to death if he thought she were innocent, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.  So in his mind he was entirely justified in killing her.  Not that it makes it right, and even some people at the time thought it was going too far.

Gah, trying to come to grips with Henry's self-righteous, self-serving conscience makes my brain hurt! 

Impish_Impulse

---

He didn't stand in the courtroom and pronounce her guilty, but he didn't have to – he and Cromwell simply packed the trial jury (for all of the accused) with enemies of the Boleyn faction and/or people allied with or trying to curry favor with Cromwell. And had Anne's executioner hired and on his way before the trial started. I absolve him of nothing. YMMV (your mileage may vary), obviously.

Prior to Reitha Warnicke and the Showtime series, The Tudors, there weren't these pervasive rumors of George being gay. On the contrary, he was well-liked and regarded as a lady's man. Rumors of his contentious marriage are also disputed, as is his wife's involvement in giving testimony against George and Anne. And Jane's alleged confession on the block is fictitious – it didn't happen.

So, it's all his advisors' fault? He just does whatever they say, and if they're wrong – “Oops, oh well?”

I'll concede every one of those last points and still say it absolves him of nothing. He murdered his wife, and then spent the rest of his life trying to pretend she had never existed. That's horrifying behavior, to me.

Im not trying to defend what Henry did. I was merely stating that he was somewhat responsible for even listening to them and the opps oh well is exactly right once they were tried and dead it is oh well what can I do now  they are already dead. Iwasnt saying that he didnt conspire against her I believe the thoughts were put in there and he was already tired of her so it just fueled the fire. Now tell me if someone came to you and said your husband is cheating on you and I have proof would you or would you not be very angry, upset and have some sort of hate towards them. I know I would be furious and in his mental state  probably made it worse. Im not defending what he did but i dont believe it was only him

Im married not saying anything against anyone who isnt or anything against loyality but when I was told that my husband was being unfaithful and this person had proof I was furious even though I hadnt seen the evidence yet I still lashed out at himand if it was back then I would have said off with his head  even though these accustations turned out to be false. Noone said anything to disprove Annes guilt she wasnt even able to speak with him to deny these allegations.Now Henry was told she was being unfaithful and that cromwell had proof which was cohersed by tourcher he lashed out. Things today are much different than back in those days. Maybe Henry was so distrought about these allegations that he didnt want to hear her name and destroyed all her things(or so I have heard) because he didnt want that painful reminder we all agree he was psycho and maybe could have stopped it but she was found guilty and this was a king who didnt back down from anything. The question was did he conspire against AnneMeaning did he devise a plan of action against her to get rid of her on purpose ? My answer is no he didnt conspire against I believe he was told things by those around him which upset and hurt him and given his mental state at the time sent him over the edge had he been rational at the time I think Anne would have remained and maybe even given him a son. Now did Cromwell conspire against her? how bout brandon did he conspire against her? Did the seymours conspire against her? Yes they all devised a plan to bring her down and all they had to do was convince the king. They wanted her completely gone with no ties whatsoever they saw an oppurtunity and took it and who tragically suffered for it Anne, her brother, a wonderful muscian smeaton, and elizabeth 1 and any one else who they said was guilty Cromwell got his in the end though what goes around comes around. Sorry if I sound kinda mean not meaning to be I dont condone Henry but in someway I can understand where he was coming from