“The Worst Monarch in History”? – Contextualizing Henry VIII

I have an opinion on the study of unpopular historical figures, particularly Henry VIII, on this site that might be … unwelcome but it’s been bugging me so here we go.

If you’re presented with evidence that is contrary to a perception you have of this person and your first reaction is, “I don’t care, he’s still a dick,” that confuses me. No one is arguing that Henry is not, overall, a terrible person. Believe me, that’s the general consensus with every modern historian. No biography of Henry’s ends each chapter with, “But remember, he was still an asshole!” because we know. David Starkey, a man who has dedicated much of his academic career to understanding Henry VIII has fully said that this king is probably roasting in Hell. But what this evidence presents is that there are layers to Henry, layers that are stripped away by common myths and misconceptions. Our idea of Henry VIII causes us to inflate the importance of rather meaningless parts of his life (such as when he wrote, “this book is mine” as a child in one of his books – people took that as some early evidence of him being possessive and terrible when, in reality, his mother Elizabeth of York did the same thing and for god sake’s so did I when I was a kid and probably so did many of you and you just don’t want to admit it) while ignoring evidence that contradicts these myths. It prevents us from examining the positive parts of his reign and the financial care he took for those closest to him – yes, even his former mistresses. All of this must be studied in conjuncture with his more unforgivable acts, his ruthless treatment of those who’d displeased him, his eventual nose-dive into tyranny. Because otherwise, it’s a skewed examination.

So if your knee-jerk reaction is to say “I don’t care, he’s still a dick” to arguments and evidence that add complexity to Henry VIII then you don’t actually care as much about the study of history as you claim you do. You only care about being proved right no matter the evidence, and that is not how you study history.

#henry viii #but this goes for every single historical figure ever not just the unpopular ones #and im aware that a lot of history posts here are shitposts and thats fine #i love a good shitpost #but there are some like this that are in earnest #and those bug me

I fell into a post in which you reported the account of a venetian ambassador who found Henry VIII beautiful… And like I understand that les goûts et les couleurs… But it seems it was quite a frequent description (at least in his youth) and yes the guy was tall, athletic and had all the right colorings… But I can’t be the only one noticing that he had a super flat face (la face plate)… Am I missing an historical context about flat face here?

Hm…I don’t particularly notice that, honestly? His most attractive portrait is probably this one.

Idw to sound blunt but also like…portraits weren’t like…photographs? They were likenesses.

Idk about historical context re: flat features; but re: misogyny and beauty standards…Queen Consorts were expected to be models of beauty. When they did not meet that exacting standard, it was commented on rather harshly. Kings, however, were not expected to be so– so when they were handsome, the praise was fulsome and lavish– this was viewed as a bonus; not a requirement. We see this in ‘a great deal handsomer than the King of France’, etc…

The comments COA’s appearance garnered vs. Henry’s are demonstrative of how ambassadors tended to be more critical of the appearance of wives than husbands:

Personal charisma also shouldn’t be discounted here– it certainly has an effect on whether or not we view someone as physically attractive, and in context the same secretary says of Henry:

The ambassador made a fine and skillful oration, to which his Majesty listened to with the utmost attention, standing immoveable under the canopy; with his eyes always fixed on the ambassador’s eyes and countenance, so that he seemed very much delighted with him and fluent discourse.

Quite simply, it seems that Henry was a delightful person to converse with; these were the reports given by several men that were not his subjects, and who were not praising him directly (so have no reason to exaggerate or lie), rather writing to their home country with the goal of writing as accurate and expressive an account as possible:

He is affable and gracious, harms no one, does not covet his neighbour’s goods, and is satisfied with his own dominion, having often said to me, ‘Sir Ambassador, we want all potentates to content themselves with their own territories; we are satisfied with this island of ours.’ He seems extremely desirous of peace.

So…I don’t believe every single person found him to be incredibly handsome as that’s not realistic (everyone has different personal judgement of beauty, and as you said to each their own)– but he seems to have been a person, in his youth, of infectious enthusiasm, energy and laughter…and I think others’ impressions of his personality possibly colored their opinions of his appearance as well.