Was Henry VIII a bold leader steering England through turbulent times, or a cruel tyrant driven by greed and paranoia?
From his six ill-fated marriages to his brutal purges and shocking betrayals, I uncover the chilling truths behind one of history’s most infamous kings.
Discover how he shaped a nation—and destroyed lives along the way.
Do we admire his legacy or condemn his cruelty? Cast your vote in the poll in the community section of my YouTube channel and have your say.
Transcript:
Henry VIII—the larger-than-life monarch who shaped a nation and inspired generations of fascination and debate. If you’ve ever studied history, you’ve likely encountered his commanding image, captured by Holbein: a king with hands firmly on his hips, legs apart, radiating power. But beneath the grandeur lies a far darker legacy. This was a man who married six times, executed two of his wives, and left a trail of destruction among his advisors, subjects, and even his own family. Today, I want to ask: Was Henry VIII a necessary strongman for his time, or does he deserve the label of a tyrant? Let’s dig into the evidence.
When I first learned about Henry VIII as a child, I was both awestruck and horrified. How could a king, meant to guide and protect his people, commit such brutal acts? Even now, after years of studying Tudor history, my view hasn’t softened. Yes, he was a product of his era, and we must be cautious about judging historical figures by modern standards. But even Henry’s contemporaries labelled him a tyrant.
A line from *Harry Potter* springs to mind, when Olivander describes Voldemort: “He did great things—terrible, yes, but great.” Some would argue the same of Henry VIII. His break with Rome may have paved the way for the English Reformation, but at what cost? The deaths of men like Thomas More, John Fisher, and the Carthusian monks. Some see him as a Renaissance prince: generous, cultured, and intelligent. Yet, the cruelty and tyranny cannot be overlooked.
Even compared to his father, Henry VII, who ruled in a far more precarious time, Henry VIII’s reign was marked by disproportionate brutality. Henry VII managed to consolidate power and maintain stability without resorting to the same level of violence against his advisors and subjects.
So, what makes Henry VIII stand out as a tyrant in my eyes? Let me share the reasons.
Why Henry VIII Was a Tyrant?
- The Executions of Dudley and Empson – When Henry VIII ascended the throne, his first act was to scapegoat two of his father’s most loyal advisors, Sir Edmund Dudley and Sir Richard Empson. Accused of plotting a coup, these men were executed despite a lack of evidence. Their true crime? Being the face of Henry VII’s unpopular financial policies. A convenient way for the new king to distance himself from his father’s legacy.
- Targeting Innocents as Scapegoats – Henry’s reign saw many other victims framed and executed to consolidate his power. Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, lost his life for merely being of royal blood. Members of the Pole family, including the elderly Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, were executed because Henry couldn’t punish Cardinal Pole, who criticised him. Even Thomas Cromwell, once Henry’s most trusted advisor, fell victim when political tides turned against him.
- Persecuting Those Who Opposed Him – Dissent was not tolerated. Elizabeth Barton, the “Nun of Kent,” was hanged for prophesying against Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. Sir Thomas More, Bishop John Fisher, and the Carthusian monks also met brutal ends for refusing to acknowledge Henry as the Supreme Head of the Church.
- The Dissolution of the Monasteries – Nearly 900 monasteries were dissolved, their wealth and land seized by the Crown. This not only uprooted thousands of monks and nuns but also dismantled a vital social safety net. Monasteries had provided education, charity, and healthcare. Henry’s actions were motivated more by greed than by concerns over corruption within the Church.
- Cruelty Toward His First Wife and Daughter – Catherine of Aragon, once Henry’s closest confidante, was cast aside, stripped of her title, and forced to live in harsh conditions. Her daughter, Mary, was separated from her mother, declared illegitimate, and threatened by the king’s advisors. A father who allows such treatment of his own child? That speaks volumes.
- The Treatment of His Wives – Anne Boleyn was executed on fabricated charges, along with her brother and four innocent men. Jane Seymour was silenced when she tried to advocate for mercy. Anne of Cleves endured public humiliation. Catherine Howard ended up on the scaffold for not being a virgin when she married the king and for having secret meetings with a groom of her husband’s privy chamber. Their marriage could have been annulled on the basis of her already being “married” or pre-contracted to Dereham. The king could have been merciful and have her sent away in exile, but no, she had to die. And the lady who had helped her and had a mental breakdown after her arrest? Well, he went as far as changing the law to allow him to execute people displaying signs of lunacy.
His sixth wife Catherine Parr barely escaped the same fate as wives 2 and 5, and only did so by having to submit completely to the king. Each wife’s story is a chilling testament to Henry’s callousness. - The Pilgrimage of Grace – In response to this Northern rebellion against his religious policies, Henry broke promises of pardon and brutally crushed dissent. He ordered mass executions, targeting not just rebels but abbots and monks, women and children.
- Abuse of Acts of Attainder – Henry wielded Acts of Attainder to eliminate opposition without trials. Parliament would declare guilt, stripping victims of titles, lands, and even the right to pass on inheritance. Over 130 people fell victim to this tactic during his reign, and nearly all of them during an 8-year period, 1532-1540, compared to 2 in his son’s reign, 2 in Mary’s reign, and two in Elizabeth’s 44 year reign.
- Brutal Punishments – Executions like Richard Roose being boiled alive for alleged poisoning, or Anne Askew’s illegal torture before her execution, highlight the cruelty of Henry’s reign.
- Ireland and Silken Thomas – After Thomas Fitzgerald rebelled against Henry, the king reneged on promises of safety, executing Thomas and five of his uncles. Henry’s “Surrender and Regrant” policy forced Irish chieftains to submit entirely to English rule, erasing cultural autonomy.
Even in his own time, Henry was called a tyrant. Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys compared him to Theramenes, one of the Thirty Tyrants of Athens. The Marquis de Aguilar said in 1539 that he was “growing more inhumane and cruel”. Cardinal Pole described him as a plundering despot who cared only for personal gain. Reformers like Philip Melanchthon called him the English Nero, and French ambassador Charles de Marillac criticised his greed, paranoia, and instability.
Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as one who rules without regard for law, prioritises self-interest, and uses cruelty to maintain power. Henry may have manipulated the law to his advantage, but his methods certainly fit the rest of this description.
So, was Henry VIII a necessary tyrant, a ruler who ensured England’s survival in a turbulent era? Or was he a monster who inflicted unimaginable suffering to satisfy his own ambitions? As we’ve seen, his contemporaries and his actions suggest the latter. But I leave it to you to decide: Do we admire his legacy or condemn his cruelty? Let me know your thoughts.
I agree he was a tyrant who acted out of self interest, the 16th century was a cruel intolerant age, yet Henry V111 was seen by his contemporaries as most intolerant, we are all a little in love with the young Henry myself especially, if we strip the layers of fat away and smooth the furrows on his brow we can catch a glimpse of how he looked in his youth, god like slim muscled dazzlingly handsome and cultured to, a Renaissance prince, but alas he did not stay that way, it is man’s heritage to age and eventually die so in the end, we return to the dust from which we came, as the bible tells us, but most of us retain our basic character, and as we grow older we grow in wisdom, and in fact grow less patient we grow kinder and more tolerant, but something happened to this prince that destroyed any vestige of mercy any decency and sense of justice in him, if indeed he ever possessed any, he did treat his first wife very cruelly, he barred their daughter from visiting her even on her death bed and Mary was not even allowed to attend her funeral, he sent his second to the scaffold without any consideration for their baby daughter, and it could have been her death that caused a deep psychological trauma in Elizabeth, but there were so many victims of Henry V111 all with their own different stories, he did renage on his promise to Silken Thomas and he also did the same with Robert Aske one of the leaders of the northern rebellion, those actions were not worthy of a king and rendered him incapable of integrity, he also did not care that his cousin Margaret Pole was an elderly woman and had been his eldest daughters much loved governess, without warning she was told she was to die and the treatment meted out to her was without mercy kindness or compassion, yet he did not suffer with remorse, and Anne Askew died a most painful death after being tortured in the most horrible way known to man, yes Richard Rous was also condemned to an unspeakably painful death and he changed the law so Lady Rochford went to the block alongside her young mistress, all these deaths were not necessary and yet we have to take into account his medical history which in fairness to him, may explain his darkening character, he suffered two head injuries the second one rendered him unconscious and which would of course have had an impact on his reasoning, only medical science knows the answer, Henry V111 to me at least rather resembles Nero who himself was considered very cruel with maybe a touch of insanity, Henry was not insane but he did order the deaths of thousands of people during his lifetime, so yes I agree he was a tyrant but like in Harry Potter, he did indeed achieve some good things, and on a lighter note he does make the Tudor age very very interesting to read about.