lucreziaborgia:

I really think bias has led historians – and particularly popular historians/fiction authors that fancy themselves academics – to undermine Henry’s aptitude as a politician and leader, and to even go so far as to omit or lie to frame everything he did as king as selfish, foolish, clumsy, or downright nonexistent.

There’s been a lot of rhetoric that Wolsey, Anne, Cromwell, and co were the only ones who ran the show and had all the ideas … but Henry was the one who made things happen. He was the boss. And it needs to be understood that listening and taking the advice of consellors is actually the mark of a good leader? Elizabeth suffers much of the same treatment of people attributing her success to advisors and those around her (due to misogyny in her case), but it’s been noted in counter-arguments that she was the one that reworked ideas provided to her and made them function.

I’m not claiming he was the Best King or most skilled diplomat by noting this, but there’s a keen urgency to dismiss anything Henry might have accomplished that was productive, to blame him for the pitfalls in his reign but claim he was a puppet king if anything had positives. His role in the Reformation is constantly written off, and if it’s noted, it’s condensed to him being power hungry (and honestly, most kings were…?).

I don’t blame people for disliking Henry – although it irritates me how many deem anyone who finds him interesting an “apologist” – but it seems to go forgotten that so many historical politicians and monarchs were personally vile, abhorrent people…