Hi Cynthia,

I think history has painted Henry as the Henry of Holbein's portraits, brash, overbearing and not to be messed with. The \”full on\” life size picture painted by Holbein since destroyed in a fire, was what greeted people on entering Henry's rooms in court, setting the mood for the conversation ahead? As king of England and known for all he had put to death, he somehow needed a lot of imagery around to remind people.

He was known for his physical abuse of his servants and I'm sure that this treatment was not reserved for just the servants?

We have all met people with some of Henry's traits, maybe not all of them and not all in the one person and would we not treat them accordingly?

I have pondered the accident and coma of Henry's in 1536 and how Anne got fast tracked to the Tower soon after, I still think that there were plans made if Henry was to die then and Anne was possibly blamed for how others would see the throne filled. While I would like to think that Henry lacked in his judgement as a result of the head trauma, I am thinking that his way of being before and after would take any sympathy away from him. 

I flip-flop too on Henry, think that there was more than a little \”Wizard of Oz\” theatrics to build him up in the eyes of people. He changed England beyond all expectations in his time, however I believe Elisabeth I to have been ten times more than Henry in her time, maybe as a result of the mix of DNA?

The little regard I give Henry comes from Anne's speech before she died, if she loved him, there must have been some quality in him that history did not pick up?

Paudie. 

Having read Suzannah Lipscombe's book, '1536: The Year That Changed Henry VIII', I believe that Henry's jousting accident may have caused some brain damage that later changed his personality. He was unconscious for two hours, which frightened everyone to death. After the accident, his behaviour became much more erratic, with huge moodswings. He also became more paranoid and suspicious of the people around him.

If he hadn't had the accident, I wonder what would have happened to Anne? For one thing, she could have carried her son to full term.

i too feel that that head injury could of changed him. though unfortunatley i dont feel Anne would have held her son to full term… there was underlying stress (ie; jane, etc) that prob would have hindered her pregnancy anyway…she had it rough

La Belle Creole said:

I'm hesitant to blame Henry's personality disorder on his jousting concussion/coma.  He was already abusing people with whom he'd enjoyed close relationships (Katherine of Aragon, Wolsey, Mary Tudor, Sir Thomas More) prior to his accident. 

It's difficult to psychologically diagnose a historical figure ethically and fairly, and some allowance has to be made for Henry's position in life — most royals, especially kings, were raised to believe they answered to no earthly superior.

Many politically savvy monarchs operated as Henry did, surrounding themselves with ministers, advisors, and even mistresses who could be used as a shield to deflect blame from the monarch when unpopular policies were enacted.  Anne Boleyn's unpopularity is a classic example of this kind of political manipulation.  Henry was not a tyrant; rather he was the “victim” of a “witch,” had been seduced from his wife and family and the national religion by an ambitious “wh*re,” etc..  The public conveniently overlooked that Henry was the one in charge, the one forming policy.

I think what points out Henry's mental illness — whatever it may have been — was his inability to form and retain lasting, non-abusive friendships or other meaingful family relationships.  Many of his “closest friends” left his service for the scaffold.  He used and abused people (servants, less important mistresses) with impunity.  He seduced all his wives and won their affections, then catted around on them, but turned homicidal if they returned the favor. 

There isn't a single relationship I know Henry to have had that wasn't somehow dysfunctional, abusive, or unstable.  Most competent kings seek to employ some degree of stability and consistency, but Henry seemed to operate on emotional chaos.       

I agree, Henry did operate on emotional chaos, I think a lot of his behaviour has similarities to Narcissistic Personality disorder- I've read a little about this (I did psychology for A level) and I'm sure that I read something about Narcissistic personality disorder and how it can lead to turbulent or abusive relationships in some cases. I'm really going to have to get my old notes out!

Also Henry was a King, surrounded by bad advisors and under immense pressure a lot of the time so if he did have Narcissistic personality disorder-it would have been made 100 times worse!

Henry was a….very….interesting person. I think becoming King really changed everything for him, if that had not of happend then Henry may of never been like he was – an evil, almost psychotic, tyrant. He was a spoiled brat before which is understandable because he was a prince and basically got everything handed to him so that’s inevitable in this case but everything could of been avoided unless the term ‘fate’ is actually real therefore it was all according to plan. I just think all the stress and persusaion from 20 different sides finally got to him and literally broke him and he was never the same again. I also think his fall from the horse during his marriage to Anne B caused something too, he probably hit his head real hard and something just went wrong. My brother is a proven fact of that too, he got a concusion about 2 years ago (?) and from that day his personality almost completely altered and he has a hard time paying attention and has a hard time thinking things through which wasn’t an issue before.
Over time and all the different difficulties and situations I think affected the way Henry turned out to be. He wasn’t a good man, in my eyes, he is someone I love learning about because of all the horrible things he’s known for.

It’s true that Henry was killing off friends way before the accident in January 1536. The accident didn’t change him, because the cruelty and self absorption were always there. They may have been exacerbated by the accident, but the basic mentality of the man had always been there. I think it’s true that 1536 changed him, but that was because of his actions, which indelibly tainted the rest of his reign.
I don’t think the accident was the cause of Anne’s death. I believe he was behind her death, and that Cromwell was merely putting into effect Henry’s wish to rid himself of her. Admittedly Cromwell used the opportunity to also get rid of some powerful courtiers who were thorns in his side, and not because they were nasty to Wolsey, but Henry didn’t care that friends were being sacrificed provided he got what he wanted.
Henry was able to play along for weeks with the plot without giving the game away. He was still showing support for Anne until her arrest. He played it cleverly. He was the consummate politician in his two-faced actions, giving nothing away. Those aren’t the actions of a mentally ill man who was simply out of control with his paranoia. He knew exactly what he was doing. It was a calculated plot which Henry was able to conceal through cunning and deceit.

Totally agree Louise. Henry’s attitude towards life and towards the lives of those around him was very strange. I suppose it could be classed as a little like the Pharoahs of Ancient Egypt. Their kings were seen as the living embodiment of a God, and revered and worshipped as such. These kings had the power over life and death and at the drop of a hat they could find themselves on the end of a rope or going home with their head in a bag.
Henry was typical of a man who had it all but still wants more.
Sharon I think you are onto something about Freud. It does seem wholely possible that Henry had a touch of the Norman Bates about him.
I agree Henry was a master manipulator, and the strange thing is woman would literely throw themselves at his feet. In that direction he was a charmer.
To give him some merit (although he doesn’t deserve it) I’ve seen no evidence that he abused any of wives other than verbally, although he wasn’t beyond giving his Yes men the odd clout round the ear.
I believe that he had a sadistic streak about him, this kind of showed out when he gave Cromwell the title of the Earl of Essex one week and then had him (Cromwell) arrested, and executed. I also think the same thing happened with Henry Howard when he was given the Order of the Garter only to be arrested a few months later and executed (19th January 1547). Don’t quote me.

I don’t think he had a a concious guilty or otherwise, he killed people just because he could. I think that Anne.B death was the one that affected him more than anything. He did genuinely love her, his fall didn’t help things and I think her death at his order did actually affect him phychologically. Her death at his order was more that his mind could accept, Yes Mark Smeaton and the others who died with him he could find an excuse and blame someone else for their deaths in much the same way as he blamed Howard and the Seymours for Cromwell’s death. But Anne’s death fell squarely on his own shoulders and he couldn’t handle it. K.H’s digrace and downfall didn’t help matter much either although again as in the case of most of his victims he was always able to lay the blame on someone else. The Howards being the main whipping post here.
As to what actually killed him I don’t think we’ll really ever know, the usual twee words have been bounced about for hundreds of years and yet there hasn’t been anything to back up the use of these twee words to give anyone a plausible and debatable explaination.

Mon Ami AmandineR.
Thomas More once said of Henry. “If the Lion knew his own strength no man would be able to hold him” and that just about summed Henry up.
Yes I totally agree with the sentence, He killed all those who would harm him, and yes your sentence is completely right. Don’t worry about your English it’s ok. He basically removed all those he thought or percieved as a threat. One of his worst executions was Margaret, Countess of Salisbury. She was a elderly lady, who when asked to kneel at the block saying she had committed no crime and was no traitor to Henry, so the headsman was forced to chase Margaret around the block hacking away at her until she fell to the ground so he could chop her head off. Her crime? being the mother of Reginald Pole who had spoken out against Henry destruction of the monastries.
Yes it was perfectly normal for woman to throw themselves at his feet, it would have been seen as a great honour back then being the King’s mistress, and who knows by the time the King got fed up and moved onto his next conquest they could well end up with a husband of nobel origin.
Certainly Henry is remembered for sticking 2 fingers up the Pope and shouting eh mon oeil, but really he didn’t acheive an awful lot when he was on the throne. He really is only remembered for having 6 wives and killing 2 of them.
Yes I agree he changed England’s religious path, but that would have come later on in history anyway. The Luterans were gaining ground on the continent and nothing the Hapsburgs or the French said or did would have made any difference, which in time would have affected England’s religious structure.

Ellie,
That about sums up Henry!

I read something the other day, We know that it took a long time for Jane to get pregnant after she married Henry and at one stage there was talk that he was going to toss her aside because of it.. Was it possible that Henry was suffering from Gonadotropin? Could this be a reason to why Henry couldn’t father anymore children after Edward? From what I read it’s said that it can cause impotence in a man. In a woman can produce false pregnancy symptoms. Now this is just a thought I’m in no way suggesting it as fact..