Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9:04 pm
March 30, 2012
Offline
Mya Elise said
Good points of Henry VIII? Hmmm, let me think…
He fathered a great Queen, Elizabeth.
From what I hear he probably was a quite the charmer.
He was good at jousting & tennis.
He might of been attractive in his younger years.
He could tell a good joke.
He could write music….
What else? Oh! He was an excellent liar.
Hi Mya:
To be perfectly honest, I don’t know how he looked in younger years, but wow — when he got older and a fat old barf, it really made me wonder who would want him for other than his riches and power! And yes, 
he certainly was an excellent liar!
7:52 am
May 16, 2011
Offline
Anne-fan, I know! LOL, I’ve looked at his potraits from when he was younger and I can never paint a picture in my mind like I can with Anne’s portraits. In one of the portraits, he looks like he’s making this face: 
. Then I try to study his brother, Arthur’s portrait and his father’s portrait to see if I can picture him similar to that but I can’t! I wish I knew how he looked when he was younger to see what Katherine & Anne were thinking when they saw him and what other’s were thinking when they called him ‘a golden prince’ and ‘very handsome’.
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
8:37 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
The coronation portrait makes him look so much like Arthur it’s uncanny.
It's always bunnies.
9:22 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Mya Elise said
Anne-fan, I know! LOL, I’ve looked at his potraits from when he was younger and I can never paint a picture in my mind like I can with Anne’s portraits. In one of the portraits, he looks like he’s making this face:
Mya you forgot to mention that Henry was also a hypocrite too.
I also think that he had a sadistic side too.
Love and hate were much the same thing to Henry. Just as he loved with a passion he could also hate with a passion too.
I rather think he got a kick out of playing the poor bleeding martyr to all and sundry, and equally so knew that his minions would have to play along with him or lose not just their position and standing at court but quite possibly their heads too.
Henry was a vain and self centred man, and I agree the only thing that was any good to come from him was Elizabeth.
He simply refused to allow himself to believe he was getting old and still saw himself as the golden youth of yesteryear.
Thomas More once said “If the lion knew his real power it would be hard for any man to hold him” and that became very true as Henry turned into a meglomaniac.
I’m thinking that when he died the people of England could at least breathe without having Henry jump on them for breathing out when they should be breathing in. In short his rule became one of fear after Anne died, but the strange thing is the people did love him and gave him the respect he wanted. but I think if they were given a chance to have their say without any form of repercussions I rather think they would have given Henry a piece of their minds and tore a few lumps out of him for good measure. He would certainly get a few swift kicks between his eyes from me that’s for sure.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
11:08 am
May 7, 2010
Offline
This may not be exactly good points in a personal sense but Henry was much more than a rather bad husband.
The Navy
Military reforms
Published author
Architecture/building programme
Religious reforms
Defensive forts along the south coast
Education and the arts
He took England from being a small territory to a realm which rivalled its larger contemporaries
He curtailed a lot of the power and ambitions of the established nobles and elevated a lot of the ordinary people
He brought colour and showmanship to the country
Use of parliament
and so on.
In conclusion I would just like to stand up and say Henry was not all bad. There is more to Henry than the divorce or death of queens.
Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60
5:59 pm
May 16, 2011
Offline
I know there is more to Henry then that, he did accomplish alot as King and brava for him but it can’t excuse how he treated his wives. Especially killing one wife just to have a new one and not having to deal with Anne fighting against him like Katherine did. Henry did do stuff other than murder and go through wives.
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
1:52 pm
January 22, 2014
Offline
I tend to defend Henry a lot in this debate: frankly I find people who claim he had no good points whatsoever to be extremely biased and ignorant, and their claims unjustified and frankly, incorrect.
However in this case I am going to defend someone else. I see a lot of people claiming that the only good thing Henry did was father Elizabeth, and I could rant about why that is utterly incorrect for a month, but I won’t. Instead I want to say that, forget Elizabeth for a minute, she wasn’t the only child of Henry’s and certainly not the only one worthy of merit.
What about Mary and Edward? Both of them were bad-asses in their own right and if we’re going to praise Henry for fathering Elizabeth, praise him also for fathering Mary and Eddie.
No Other Will But Hers
4:43 pm
June 3, 2013
Offline
Shae said
…What about Mary and Edward? Both of them were bad-asses in their own right and if we’re going to praise Henry for fathering Elizabeth, praise him also for fathering Mary and Eddie.
i see nothing praiseworthy in Edward VI or Mary, both sought to impose the religious solution that appealled to them – Elizabeth however sought to impose a religious solution that would hold the country together… Mary attempted to subsume a sovereign, independant state into that of Spain, Edward tried to break the law with regards to the succession – both are utter nonentities, and we should be grateful that neither of them lasted long.
few of Henry’s wives were victims – almost all of them got a good look at him at court before he ‘fell in love’ with them, any of them could have retired to their country estates before things got serious and he’d have moved on the the next pretty girl on the make without a backward glance. Anne Boleyn argued for and participated in the replacement of a crowned Queen of England by a younger, prettier model – she can hardly complain when someone else did the same to her…
6:56 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
The best point about Lard arse is the fact that he’s dead.
I agree Shae he did fulfil his duty in providing heirs for England, (Sharon time to call the little men in white coats out, this will be the 3rd time in 2 weeks that I have given old stinky Lard arse a bit of credit) but equally so he failed in his duty to see that his heirs had heirs to follow them. Mary could have been married off theorecically at 12. Granted the English wouldn’t have wanted it to be a forgeiner understandable, but their were many English nobles she could have married. It wasn’t unheard of for a Princess to marry a Duke or an Earl his own sister Mary did. His trouble was that he was so self obsessed at having a son from his own loins that he forgot that his daughter Mary could have also been a help to him to secure the Tudor line just as well as any son he could produce. A grandson was just as good as a son surely? I wonder why he didn’t think of that himself. He knew the English people were against the idea of having a forgien King, who would rule England via his wife (Mary) so why not marry Mary to someone English, that way his grandson/s would at least have English blood, even if their mother was half Spanish.
If I have remebered William of Orange was barely tolerated by the English. In fact I believe, that a lot of rejoicing went on after the little man in the black coat brought about the death of William. The little man in the black coat of course being a mole, as King William was out riding one day when his horse’s hoof went down a mole hole throwing him onto the pommel of his saddle which caused a hemmorage or something in his bladder which led to peretonitus which killed him. Little bit of trivia for you about King William, the flower called Sweet William (one of my favourite flowers) is alledgely named after him. In Scotland however they are known as stinking Billy basically something to do with when he went up to Scotland and gave them a damn good thrashing at Culloden..possibly because he perhaps wore the flower on his armour or something.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:05 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Bob the Builder said
Shae said
…What about Mary and Edward? Both of them were bad-asses in their own right and if we’re going to praise Henry for fathering Elizabeth, praise him also for fathering Mary and Eddie.i see nothing praiseworthy in Edward VI or Mary, both sought to impose the religious solution that appealled to them – Elizabeth however sought to impose a religious solution that would hold the country together… Mary attempted to subsume a sovereign, independant state into that of Spain, Edward tried to break the law with regards to the succession – both are utter nonentities, and we should be grateful that neither of them lasted long.
Sadly most of the reforms done in Edward’s reign were in Edward’s name only. Edward actually had very little to do with the day-to-day governance England until a year or so before he died. It’s hard to say whether an older and more mature Edward would have reigned. He may well have continued down the path set out by his Lord Protecters or he may have decided to steer a more middle course like Elizabeth.
It's always bunnies.
7:45 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
If I have remebered William of Orange was barely tolerated by the English. In fact I believe, that a lot of rejoicing went on after the little man in the black coat brought about the death of William. The little man in the black coat of course being a mole, as King William was out riding one day when his horse’s hoof went down a mole hole throwing him onto the pommel of his saddle which caused a hemmorage or something in his bladder which led to peretonitus which killed him. Little bit of trivia for you about King William, the flower called Sweet William (one of my favourite flowers) is alledgely named after him. In Scotland however they are known as stinking Billy basically something to do with when he went up to Scotland and gave them a damn good thrashing at Culloden..possibly because he perhaps wore the flower on his armour or something.
Wrong William, Boleyn. Culloden was in 1745. The man who led the English was William Duke of Cumberland. Known fondly at home as Sweet William. Scotland had called him Butcher Billy or Butcher Cumberland.
7:46 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Anyanka It’s difficult to know, how Eddy’s reign would have panned out, but I do feel that he perhaps would have perhaps steered the middle line as Elizabeth choose to do when he got older. He and Mary certainly had some fierce battles when it came to religion, but in the end I believe he allowed her free use of her conscious, even though he railed against her and periodically tried to persuade to see his side of things, which perhaps he knew she never would. If Eddy had lived to rule in the fullest sence of the word I think there would always be a bone of contention between him and Mary. Eddy would have seen Mary as a stubborn old maid, whilst Mary would always see Eddy as a disobediant wilful child.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:56 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Sharon said
Boleyn said
If I have remebered William of Orange was barely tolerated by the English. In fact I believe, that a lot of rejoicing went on after the little man in the black coat brought about the death of William. The little man in the black coat of course being a mole, as King William was out riding one day when his horse’s hoof went down a mole hole throwing him onto the pommel of his saddle which caused a hemmorage or something in his bladder which led to peretonitus which killed him. Little bit of trivia for you about King William, the flower called Sweet William (one of my favourite flowers) is alledgely named after him. In Scotland however they are known as stinking Billy basically something to do with when he went up to Scotland and gave them a damn good thrashing at Culloden..possibly because he perhaps wore the flower on his armour or something.Wrong William, Boleyn. Culloden was in 1745. The man who led the English was William Duke of Cumberland. Known fondly at home as Sweet William. Scotland had called him Butcher Billy or Butcher Cumberland.
Yeah your right Sharon.. brain in knots today. I knew it was an “William” and Culloden just hit on it being King William.. It’s dinosaur’s fault he interupted me in mid think mode.. asking me where the rake was.. Hadn’t got the heart to tell him the silly bugger had it in his hand, enough said…
It was only when he went back outside to look for it he realised he was holding it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
8:06 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Boleyn,
8:18 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
He died……does that count?
12:10 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
I think the younger Henry would have been easy to fall in love with. He was tall, handsome, sporty, intelligent, witty and charming. That was the Henry Catherine of Aragon first knew and the one Anne fell in love with in the 1520s, and I think we have to see him through their eyes. What Henry became is another matter, but it seems at one point that he was a real Renaissance man who also valued input from his wives, his first two anyway.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
1:47 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Yeah I will agree that the younger Lard Arse was charismatic, and charming. (Seriously I must get myself booked in for a appointment to see the shrink. I’ve given Lard Arse a fair few merits in as many weeks) But I feel that even in his youth he was capable of being spiteful, vindictive and vicious, as I believe it was Olga pointed out. His treatment of Buckingham says quite a lot. Did Buckingham actually do anything other than shoot his mouth off to threaten Lard Arse’s throne?
I think perhaps Buckingham’s hissy fit, perhaps brought home just how tenious his grasp was on the throne. As there were many rivals to the throne who at least had a brace of sons to follow them. That’s where Lizzy Woodville comes in as she had married her sisters to most of the nobility, when she married E4, so any number of Woodville sisters decendents could make a claim to the throne via their mother or grandmother. It had worked once before so there was no reason to think it wouldn’t work again.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:37 pm
January 22, 2014
Offline
Bob the Builder said
i see nothing praiseworthy in Edward VI or Mary, […] both are utter nonentities, and we should be grateful that neither of them lasted long.
few of Henry’s wives were victims […] any of them could have retired to their country estates before things got serious and he’d have moved on the the next pretty girl on the make without a backward glance. […] she can hardly complain when someone else did the same to her…
If I actually deigned this comment with a sufficient response I would surely offend people as much as this comment offends me, so I am going to pretend I conveniently did not see this from here on out; I do not acknowledge it and nor shall I respond to it.
Boleyn said
I agree Shae he did fulfil his duty in providing heirs for England,
I did not mean simply in terms of providing heirs. As I’ve said before, I always take Henry’s side in this debate (he was certainly not a weak, ill-tempered tyrant) and I find those who dismiss or dicredit him to be rather uninformed and painfully biased in their views, but my point about Mary/Edward was NOT about Henry’s potency/ability to fulfil his duty to provide heirs, but rather a response to the view that fathering Elizabeth was one of his good points. I do not disagree with that, and nor do I mean to disregard Elizabeth, who certainly warrants praise, but I simply mean that both Mary and Edward deserve to be recognised as Henry’s “good points” alongside her. Both strike me as very intelligent, strong, and endearing people, and I think it’s a tragedy that they are dismissed in favour of their half sister. Elizabeth is great, but I’d argue she is no better or worse than her siblings, and they should be given some acknowledgement, too.
No Other Will But Hers
6:54 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Of the 3 children Lard Arse fathered legitimately, I would have to say that Elizabeth was the best off the bunch, but that was only because she lived long enough to be able to prove her worth.
If Edward had of lived he may have proved himself a very capable and effective ruler, every bit as good as Elizabeth was. From what little we know of Eddy he was popular with the people, just as Elizabeth was. I know at one point Lady Jane Grey was considered as a marriage prospect for him as was Mary QOS in his youth. But I actually wonder who he would have married? Would he be able to choose his own Queen or would she have been chosen by his guardian, given his youth?
Mary on the other hand was a complete disaster, but she may have been a success if the England she knew as a child still existed. It seems to me at least that both Edward and Elizabeth inhereited most of Lard Arse’s good traits (they are but few) Whereas Mary inherited all the suspitions and neurosis of both her mother and her father, not a nice combination, given that her Aunt was known as Juana the mad, (Juana I believe suffered from clinical depression) and Lard Arse “may” have inherited the strain of madness that was in his bloodline via Catherine of Valois. (whose father was known as Charles the mad. If memory serves he believe at one point he was made of glass, and that if anyone touched him he would shatter).
Lard Arse did as I said fulfil his duty by providing heirs, but as for good points I don’t think he really had many, to be honest. Yes I’ll give him a brownie point for reforming the church, but minus a million for squandering money, on ponching around France playing the big I am and acheiving bugger all, killing 2 of his wives, hounding one to her grave (KOA), making a lot of people very miserable, killing his freinds and family, and just being a git to all and sundry.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
11:20 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
HAd Mary become queen in 1547, I think that she would have been more respected as a monarch as she would have had more time to get married , return England to Rome, etc..
I always feel that she was going to fast simply to try and stop Elizabeth suceeding the throne. I wonder if she could have got the Spanish to agree to Mary of Scotland being her heir rather than Elizabeth???
It's always bunnies.
