King Henry VIII

[Strefanasha]

Great Harry still fascinates me, but the admiration has long passed. I regard his abuse of scripture to justify his divorce as heretical (and so, it seems, did Martin Luther). One historian i read described him as shrewd, deep and utterly selfish. That he was deep and very complex is why so few actors have come anywhere close to capturing his essence in their portrayals. After all he was a sports star AND a theologian; a composer AND a torturer; physically AND mentally gifted

[franciszek8D]

Do not forget that this was adulterous king who tortured And killed many people who disagreed with his sexual pervertion. In order to justify his misconduct he seperated from the universal Church and established on his own image church, anglican church.

What is most interesting the majority Of the British people still believe in this church created by this corrupted king.

[mxylpx]

Nice editing and beautiful music....nicely done.

[rossmjones27]

I LOVE THIS VID

[QueenAnnesFury]

@rossmjones27 Thanks very much!

[juliie007]

henry was a complicated guy especially when it came to love he had a romanticized if not fantasical approach to love.

[nuipret]

i'm an anti-royalist but this guy HENRY V111 fascinates me.

he took no shit from anyone and when he cut all ties with the catholic church he showed the world that he was a force to be reckoned with.

i think henry was the most interesting man in history.

[meroyn]

he did bankrupt us though and declared a war with france and fell of his horse!

[nuipret]

lol! yeah he was a real big spender was henry!

and he would not have been an amazing monarch if he didn't go to war woth france meroyn! why break with tradition?!

but the guy has both my admiration(for breaking with the catholic church,(a good move!) and my disgust at his cold blooded treatment of his wives.

but one things for sure....he was absolutely fascinating.

and you like the olympics?me too! so that makes you interesting,not boring at all!

you have a nice profile.

[meroyn]

lol, may reasons for liking Henry! i guess your'e right. For me, it wasn't the treatment ofhsi wives that gets me, his wives knew what they were getting into when the said 'i do'. it was his two daughters i felt sorry for, espcially Mary, she was so badly treated and watched her mother die in front of her.

[lyndono72]

bugger he fell of his horse thats terrible did he bruise his thumb too

[meroyn]

not quite, he ripped his calf muscle and went into a coma for 5 hours, its thought he suffered a great deal of brain damage and these was a posible cause of his unpredictable moods and temper later on in life.

[TroyaE117]

Savage and uncompromising.

His legacy lies from one end of the country to the other. Endless wrecked and looted monasteries.

He even tore up the tomb of Thomas Beckett, for the gold, apparently.

[MunichRedsox]

the fat henry is still burning in hell

[audie83]

I would not doubt it. :/

[cezza57]

im related to henry viii

[jaidemm]

Um, you would be royalty than hun.

[meroyn]

you cannot be related to him, Henry VIII's line became extinct when Elizabeth I died in 1603, the Stuarts were not related through Henry VIII, The current Queen is related to Henry VII though, his line continued though his daughter Margeret, who married James Stuart, King of Scotland, grandfather of Mary Queen of Scots

[QueenAnnesFury]

one can be related (distantly) w/o being royalty. I'm like that with Anne Boleyn

[meroyn]

yes you can be related to the boelyn family, that would make you a distant blood relative of Edward III (not the Tudors) but not anne boleynn herself, as her only child died in 1603. but yep you can be related to them without being a royal - it does make you an heir, bu there are probably thousands of people in front of you. you should get yourself registered and have your own coat of arms made up by the royal society.

[audie83]

His deeds against his wives and children-especially his daughters-are inexcusable. His murderous acts against two of his wives, and thousands of others in the name of monarchy are deplorable.

That being said-it cannot be denied that he was a great King who for better or worse dared to take on the then-powerful Roman Catholic Church and he started a great church of his own making-the Church of England. He always meant to stay Catholic but in his own way.

And once again-5 Stars!! :)

[junevi2000]

Breaking with Rome is of course the worse thing he did. He not only started a new church but made mimself the head of the Church of England. He is a murderer and a false head of a counterfeit church. That is the start of english hypocricy and rapaciousness which is contaminating the whole world. That is worse not better.

[audie83]

Well that is why I wrote-for better or for worse. It depends from where you are coming from culturally, etc. I personally do not approve of Henry VIII's actions against God, and Country, and above all his family but-there was something about him and that is why he is remembered. Few dared do what he did-break away from Rome.

[AndromedaMariaCarmen]

I take it you hate Protestants

[meroyn]

Henry did not want a protestant church, he destroyed monasteries because he needed money and didn't want to tax people. in 1539 he created the 6 articles which told everyone the country was still Catholic just without the Popes leadership, he hated the idea of giving money to Rome and wanted English money to stay in England, Cromwell was the real murderer and didn't care who got in his way

[audie83]

I agree for the most part-but it was Henry who ruthlessly signed the death warrants of even his own Plantaganet relations amongs others-both Catholics and Protestants alike were killed by the thousands.

[audie83]

Continued: Cromwell may have urged him on-but Henry was an intelligent man and he knew very well what he was doing-anyone that got in the way of his plans he wiped off the face of the earth-or banished like his first wife Katherine of Aragon-or he disrespected, demeaned and demoralized like his own children-Mary and Elizabeth whom he had declared illegitimate under his own Church's laws, etc. I say again he was ruthless-a cold, unfeeling despot imo.

[audie83]

continued: Henry may have considered himself and his new found Church to be 'Catholic' but not by the head of that Church-the Pope. To Catholics-both English and abroad-Henry VIII was a heretic-a blasphemer, and an apostate against what they considered to be the 'true' Catholic and Apostolic Church. My dad used to say that 'Old Hal's Church began in his Codpiece'. Even some Anglicans-like my dad-have a droll, irreverent sense of humour about it.

[meroyn]

plantagenets relations? who? as far as i'm aware the plantagenets died out with Richard III and Elizabeth of York, Henry had weak plantagenet claims to the throne and could hardly be seen as one himself. Henry was not absolute - magna carta. He did make them legitimate in 1544 when Cromwell was dead! + he was English Catholic no-one saw otherwise, The Pope didn't even excommmunicate him so he wasn't a heretic, few people saw him that way, Anne sueded him to lose Pope anyway...

[audie83]

What do you mean Henry 'could hardly be seen' as a Plantaganet himself? His father was a Tudor-his mother was a Plantagenet. Read his bios-some of his mother's relations (in turn making them HENRY'S relations)-did not fare well under his reign. Look it up.

[audie83]

Henry VIII signed the death warrants of his own Plantaganet relations-most infamously that of the closest member of the House of Plantagenet-Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. She was murdered by Henry VIII for no other reason than he considered her a threat-a ridiculous assumption but the paranoid King had her and other relations executed. The poor old Countess was hacked to death by an inexperienced executioner on 28 May, 1541. Again-look it up.

[meroyn]

margaret Pole had no claim to the throne, she was not royal but noble, there's a difference.

all nobles at that time could trace blood to the royal family, thats why they were nobles and not commoners, this did not mean they had a claim to the throne by right.

Henry VIII was 100% secure on his throne he saw no threats from pretenders, there were none, the Duke of warwick, the last pretender died mysteriously in the Tower in his fathers reign.

[meroyn]

his mother was planategent, not in name, but by distant blood relation.

Henry was welsh in birth and in name.

[audie83]

And Henry and his cousins had Plantagenet blood just the same however small the amount. It is the current Queens Stuart blood (hardly more than a drop) that gives her rights to the throne. Margaret Pole was executed by Henry VIII-royal or noble it doe not matter. Lady Jane Grey was not royal but lost her head just the same-it is thanks or no thanks to her Tudor bloodline that she had any claims to the throne at all after Edward VI's death. She was I believe 4th in line after her mother Frances.

[meroyn]

Lady Jane Grey was royal she was the granddaughter of Henry's sister Mary Tudor, she was a huge threat to Mary being at the centre of protestant hopes in the last days of Edwards reign. Mary initially decided Jane should not be killed in 1553, however, when Wyatt rose in rebellion in Kent a year later to place Elizabeth on the throne, Mary believed she had no choice but to remove all potential threats to her throne, including Jane, she also imprisoned Elizabeth.

[meroyn]

yes they did have that blood to support their claim to the throne, However, you are crucially playing too much on it, it was not Henry Tudors blood line that made him King of England, he was so distantly related through marriage that he had no real claim. He won the throne through conquest alone and the execution of all other rivals of the House of York. He left his throne very secure in 1509 so that his son could rule unopposed by the strife of the civil war of previous century.

[audie83]

'The Pope didn't even excommmunicate him so he wasn't a heretic, few people saw him that way, Anne sueded him to lose Pope anyway' Clearly you haven't done your homework meroyn... On 11th July 1533 Clement VII declared Anne & Henry's children illegitimate, he declared the annullment from Catherine illegal and a bull was drawn to excommunicate Henry VIII by Pope Clement VII. In 17th Dec 1538 Henry VIII was Excommunicated by Pope Paul III. He is still considered a heretic by the Church of Rome.

[meroyn]

of course, Henry was Catholic 100%, he only used his power to obtain a legitimate heir. but his break with rome was ireverseable, Henry knew this, he allowed protestants to tutor his son and Elizabeth, and did little to stop its spread.

in 1536 Henry declared that anyone who attacked the Catholic church should be hanged or beheaded, that was a Catholic law, not a protestant one. He had no religious intentions, he merely wanted power and money, and a son

[audie83]

And for all his so-called 'pro-Catholic' leanings-he was still excommunicated by that Church. If a church-any church-excommunicates a member-they are no longer considered a member of that church. Henry had no respect for the Pope at the end-so how could he be by any stretch '100 %' Catholic? A true Catholic tries to follow that faith's beliefs-and it's leaders for the most part. imo

[meroyn]

yet again you miss the point, The Popes did not use excommunication because the monarchs were not Catholic, they used it even before the reformation as a punishment for undermining church authority. Henry was not a protetsant at all, he rejected the leadership of the Pope but not his catholic dogma. Henry was 100% Catholic, perhaps not Roman Catholic, but simply Catholic. he did not want to change the church, he only wanted to control it

[meroyn]

besides, i dont believe the church ever excommunicated Henry, the Popes never dared to do so, for fear that it would allow heresy to be unleashed in England. England was not excommunicated until 1570. it simply left the fold of its own accord.

[audie83]

How can you 'not believe' the church ever excommunicated Henry VIII when if what I have read over the years is correct-the Vatican has the original Bull doing so? Excommunicated he was-unless the Church of Rome's documents are wrong.:/

[faeryquene]

Henry VIII was indeed excommunicated by the Catholic Church audie. It is a matter of historical fact and the Vatican did indeed execute the Bull of Excommunication-I'd have to go back and check which Pope did so though.