Henry VIII may had  been a little fanatic about continuing his line but at the end it was all about the succession going smoothly and not about an heir of his body to be next in line at all costs. He put Jane Grey in case none of his children had kids of their own as did Edward no matter what you think about the nine days a queen fiasco.

(part 2) I’m not even going to start about Elizabeth and children because some people have wild ideas about her but saying James becoming king of England is a big “fuck you” to her is so funny cause she never stated she didn’t want him on the throne, she was just scared of naming an heir. Thus said, I agree that there are things we should criticize them but bringing such trivial things and making them some kind of flaws is just plain nonsense

Hm, idt I agree with you about Henry being fanatical about continuing his line. He was about as focused about it as other monarchs of the time. If we go by the Reader’s Digest version of history (my World History textbook for one of my classes, in the small section about the Tudors, said, verbatim “Anne Boleyn didn’t have a son; so he had her executed on false charges of adultery, incest, and treason”, but correlation does not prove causation), then he was definitely fanatical but I don’t subscribe to…those issues.

Also, I don’t believe the creation of the Church of England is proof that he was ‘fanatical’ about continuing his line, either. Had he broken with Rome like, a year after being stonewalled constantly about the annulment and double-dealt by other foreign rulers (Charles V, for instance, breaking the betrothal with Mary and marrying elsewhere so that he could have his own son as early as possible, which he did– the same year he was throwing his weight behind blocking the annulment proceedings, done so Henry himself could secure an heir after nearly twenty years of failing to do so, as much as he could) I think that argument could be made. 

The creation of the CoE doesn’t strike me as an impulsive choice. How can an impulsive choice take place over the span of six-odd years?

I agree that it was his focus; the security of the realm depended on the security of a succession. For a monarchy, it always did.

And yes, I agree that that is funny. And that there are definitely plenty of valid reasons to criticize the Tudors (yes, all of them); both in their leadership/reigns and in their personal lives– to the point where the hyperfocus on things like paranoia, and the pearl-clutching over how the line was Too Bastardy to Live/Laugh/Love, does seem pretty silly.