autrenecherche:

@maharanis replied to your post:

I sort of alluded to this with Dickens and Austen, since they’re both significant authors of 19th century England; as I definitely think there was a shift by the 19th century. That the myth that Henry VIII had syphilis began in 1888 (within the Victorian era, one in which sexuality was “repressed”) is significant. STI’s were viewed as a sort of divine retribution, i.e. punishment by God, for one’s sins, and there was a fascination with syphilis especially:

Male anxieties in relation to both physical and mental health in the Victorian era often seem to have concentrated on the supposedly baleful effects of masturbation, which was alleged to cause a wide range of physical and mental disorders, and on venereal diseases, especially syphilis. 

It sort of seems like, the farther he got away from English memory (as in– I don’t quite know how to put this–the more generations passed, the fewer grandparents that were able to pass down stories of those that been in Henry VIII’s presence, from their own parents etc. as time passed); the more tarnished his legacy became. This is probably also because as time passed, people were less likely to compare Henry with his predecessors and contemporaries, and more likely to compare him to his successors. 

With fatphobia, also, authors link a correlation with gluttony, sloth, and sin to excessive weight. This also became more prevalent in the 19th century in the way Henry was viewed:

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a change in the tone of the discussion in both moral and beauty texts about what the body represents takes place. There is a shift towards an emphasis on hygienic physical health and dietary compliance as virtuous imperatives.

This has lead to a lot of assumptions being made regarding his weight gain. Often it’s claimed that he must have begun to eat/drink/consume more starting in 1536, when it’s equally possible he ate as he always had (even in 1515, he was a large– if not ‘wide’– man), but his metabolism had slowed, or he was eating as he always had and unable to exercise as he always had due to the state of his legs. 

I think, to a certain extent, every historic figure is judged and viewed the lens of whatever era they were judged in. We define them by our society’s morals and ideals. Tudors was released in 2007, right at the peak of the golden age of tabloids (”pop culture died in 2009″) and celebrity-obsession – it was a BBC production, but aimed at appealing to American audiences. Little wonder that their Henry was little more than a reality tv brat. 

But beyond eras, I (perhaps controversially) think different views are taken of him in scholarship depending on whether the author in question are Catholic or Protestant– much as they are in views on Anne Boleyn. Ideally, I actually think the author should be neither; unless they can keep their bias out of it (with Tudor articles…in general, honestly? I really don’t want to see another take by a pro-Mary historian suggesting that Mary I being remembered as “Bloody Mary” is more of an injustice than the hundreds of people that were burnt at the stake because of her policies…)

It also depends a lot on who the biography is written about, although sometimes biographies of Henry VIII himself also portray him in a clearly biased light. Most biographies of Katherine of Aragon or Mary I do not have balanced views on Henry. I would say most biographies about Anne Boleyn, besides Ives’, have the same issue. The only scholarly work I’ve ever read that was focused on Mary I and had a balanced view on actually both Henry VIII and Anne was this essay, Stoking the Fires.

One I’ve been reading about George Boleyn was imbalanced re: Henry to the point of being off-putting, to the point where I examined the author’s claim further.  Academic/scholarly articles and books tend to be more balanced on Henry then, say, pop. history genre books such as Weir’s, that often cite any story that displays Henry in a negative light without examining the veracity or credibility of the source, the story in context, or how that story came to be in the first place (and they’re very rarely questioned, as readers tend to be inclined to believe the worst about him anyway).