The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 10:04:16 AM

Title: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 10:04:16 AM
I'm currently listening to a song, 'The Ballad of Queen Jane'. The 3rd wife of Henry VIII, she gave him his son, & died to do it. But the song leads me to reflect on the reign of Henry. I know the man well. My MA thesis was on Henry & the Royal Supremacy. I would like to follow it up w/ another book, this to explain the truth of the man, rather than the half-truths & outright slander that we are taught in school. There's no doubt Henry had faults. But overall, he was 1 of the most brilliant monarchs England has had. I intend to write in order to change people's minds & make this much misunderstood man who gave so much to his country a level of humanity that most books on him lack, due either to ignorance, or because the author has an axe to grind. Thoughts, anyone?
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 10, 2013, 11:25:07 AM
The sacking of the monastries and the forced, violent religious conversions was good? His invasion(s) of france were an economic disaster, he spent away a massive treasury surplus, his building of the Royal Navy was an ecological disaster for the south-west, he allowed Cromwell free-reign to terrorise Ireland.

I'd like to know what you thought was good about his rule.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 12:55:31 PM
As re: Ireland, NO English King has EVER been good. Under Elizabeth, 41% of Ireland starved to death. The building of the Navy was no more ecologically damaging than any military activity was in that century anywhere in Europe. The forced religious changes would never have been tolerated by a population that was fully armed if they had been objected to that highly. Say what you want about people being forced, but the majority of England either supported the religious changes, or didn't care much. & the religious changes allowed England to develop the centralised state that would be needed later. I'll grant that he was prodigal w/ money. & yes, his French campaign wasn't helpful. But that is balanced by the Battle of Flodden, where 10,000 Scots (which included the King & most of the aristoracy) were wiped out. The Dissolution of the Monasteries, while harsh, also could have been resisted by an armed population. It wasn't. Henry enabled England to be truly English for the first time. I'll note also that the
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 01:01:40 PM
official language of government was switched from Norman French to English by Henry, thus allowing for the development of the language & nation along nationalist lines. This nationalist development was needed @ a time when, in order to survive & prosper, every other nation in Europe was doing the same. The fact that such radical changes in England were necessary only points out that EVERY country, even the RC ones, were enforcing religious uniformity. Ever heard of the Spanish Inquision? They were all building militaries @ frightful ecological costs. You can't judge Henry by 21st century standards. By 16th century standards, he was damned good, I think.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2013, 06:17:50 PM
As re: Ireland, NO English King has EVER been good. Under Elizabeth, 41% of Ireland starved to death.

That does not make him good, just equally as bad.

Quote
The building of the Navy was no more ecologically damaging than any military activity was in that century anywhere in Europe.

Again, just as bad... Not good.

Quote
The forced religious changes would never have been tolerated by a population that was fully armed if they had been objected to that highly. Say what you want about people being forced, but the majority of England either supported the religious changes, or didn't care much. & the religious changes allowed England to develop the centralised state that would be needed later.

This is a highly speculative contention.  There could be a great number of explanations, such as fear of reprisal against the general population by the better equipped and trained British Army.

Quote
I'll grant that he was prodigal w/ money. & yes, his French campaign wasn't helpful. But that is balanced by the Battle of Flodden, where 10,000 Scots (which included the King & most of the aristoracy) were wiped out.

Oh, so a massacre of 10,000 Scots is a redemptive act for wasting money.  Tell me more.

Quote
The Dissolution of the Monasteries, while harsh, also could have been resisted by an armed population. It wasn't. Henry enabled England to be truly English for the first time.

Again, highly speculative, and you are also assuming that a monastery is something that a populist movement might have frequent contact with.  Monasteries are not always in the center of a town.

Quote
I'll note also that the official language of government was switched from Norman French to English by Henry, thus allowing for the development of the language & nation along nationalist lines. This nationalist development was needed @ a time when, in order to survive & prosper, every other nation in Europe was doing the same. The fact that such radical changes in England were necessary only points out that EVERY country, even the RC ones, were enforcing religious uniformity. Ever heard of the Spanish Inquision? They were all building militaries @ frightful ecological costs. You can't judge Henry by 21st century standards. By 16th century standards, he was damned good, I think.

Why can't we judge him by 21st Century standards?  Just because he may not have been a tyrant back then, does not mean we have to absolve him of the things he did.  We do not absolve Britain and America of its history of slavery just because it was the 18th & 19th century.  This kind of relativism undoes to whole notion of learning from history.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 06:45:49 PM
The reason people were well armed is because there was no English Army. Every time England went to war, they called out the citizen militia. In fact, that is why the War of the Roses went on the way it did. The crown couldn't effectively fight the nobles. In fact laws had passed in the 1300s requiring Englishmen to own the arms & train in using them. By Henry's time, few people were doing it. His 1st command as King that affected the general pop. was to insist the law be complied w/. There was much grumbling due to the expense involved. Henry can't be judged by 21st century standards for a simple reason. EVERYONE around him thought similarly. He couldn't easy have done any differently than he did. Henry VI was a saintly man. As a result he was deposed twice, & finally murdered. The 15th-16th centuries were no times for Gandhis. Sesame Street hadn't been invented, & nobody gave 2 shits about cooperation & teamwork. England didn't get a standing army til the time of Charles I in the 1600s. Before then, it was
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 06:48:57 PM
deemed too damned expensive to maintain one. & a British army couldn't exist, England & Scotland were not united. The UK of Great Britain didn't exist til the Act of Union in 1707.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
My bad, I thought England had a standing army at that point.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 07:05:34 PM
Most European states did, & did their best to keep weapons out of the hands of the general pop. A thing much remarked on by foreigners was how in the world Henry could, even @ the height of feeling against him, could go out in public w/ only a very light guard, & not be fearful. No Continental monarch would have ever considered it!
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: rooster on December 10, 2013, 07:24:05 PM
Most European states did, & did their best to keep weapons out of the hands of the general pop. A thing much remarked on by foreigners was how in the world Henry could, even @ the height of feeling against him, could go out in public w/ only a very light guard, & not be fearful. No Continental monarch would have ever considered it!
Because he was insanely egotistical.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 07:34:31 PM
Well, that implies that every English King was egotistical, because they all did what he did. Every year during summer the Court went on progress to see & be seen. The English Kings deemed it essential to have that sense of unity w/ their people. In fact, they usually only travelled in the South. Henry changed that by going to York 1 yr. The reason they travelled in the south was due to the difficulty of moving some 5,000 people about, & the fact that getting back to London in an emergency would have been hard. EDIT & yes, when those Scots attack w/o provocation whilst you are in France, they get what they deserve.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 10, 2013, 07:41:01 PM
Oh, so a massacre of 10,000 Scots is a redemptive act for wasting money.  Tell me more.


Walk round Glasgow on a Saturday evening, then we'll talk.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2013, 08:26:38 PM
Well, that implies that every English King was egotistical, because they all did what he did.

Anyone who believes they rule by divine right probably has some ego inflation issues.

 
Quote
EDIT & yes, when those Scots attack w/o provocation whilst you are in France, they get what they deserve.

Spoken like a true Zionist.  You implication was that him killing 10,000 scots made up for him wasting money.  You must admit that sounds rather absurd.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 08:45:11 PM
I said it counter-balanced it. I should have further said that it doesn't make up for it per se. That's just the way things are. As for divine right & egotism, every European monarch felt that way (& so also in Asia: what about the Mandate of Heaven?). In fact, English Kings had some limits on their power due to the Magna Carta (1215) & various Acts of Parliament. Although in Henry's time he wielded FAR more power than Victoria 300 yrs later, even IN his time, Parliament controlled the purse strings, & stopped Henry from yet 1 more frivolous attempt to go to France. He only went twice, rather than thrice. EDIT What does being a Zionist (I am) have to do w/ Henry VIII?
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on December 10, 2013, 09:51:41 PM
Monarchs rarely have free reign to rule, there's usually something that prevents their rule being absolute. Henry VIII was no better.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
I don't know. Louis the Sun King was pretty absolute. I forget his regnal number, XVI or XVII. What was that phrase he is accused (possibly apocryphally) of saying: 'Le Etat, se moi!' Even if he didn't say it, his policies bore it out.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: rooster on December 10, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
Speaking of which, King Louis XIV is so much more interesting than King Henry VIII.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 10, 2013, 11:19:58 PM
Louis XIV, is that it? Well, my knowledge of French history is 2nd to that of Britain, except where they intersect (which they do quite frequently). But do tell, what makes the Sun King more interesting than Henry? & no, I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm genuinely curious.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 12, 2013, 05:45:17 PM
So, why is Louis XIV interesting? I don't know much about him, actually.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spoon on December 12, 2013, 11:05:37 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=King+Louis+XIV
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: rooster on December 12, 2013, 11:56:17 PM
Because I think he is. I might come back to this later but it's the end of the quarter and I'm really busy at work doing lots of over time.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 13, 2013, 12:20:05 AM
Understood. When you get time free, do tell. I shall also visit Spoon's suggested page.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 17, 2013, 10:41:44 PM
I'm currently listening to a song, 'The Ballad of Queen Jane'. The 3rd wife of Henry VIII, she gave him his son, & died to do it. But the song leads me to reflect on the reign of Henry. I know the man well. My MA thesis was on Henry & the Royal Supremacy. I would like to follow it up w/ another book, this to explain the truth of the man, rather than the half-truths & outright slander that we are taught in school. There's no doubt Henry had faults. But overall, he was 1 of the most brilliant monarchs England has had. I intend to write in order to change people's minds & make this much misunderstood man who gave so much to his country a level of humanity that most books on him lack, due either to ignorance, or because the author has an axe to grind. Thoughts, anyone?
"Brilient man?" Are you flippin kiding me his is a SEXIST and a MISGOGINIST he killed 8 of his wives!!!!!!!! The onley good thing he ever did was split from the Pagen Catholic Church
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 17, 2013, 10:48:12 PM
"Brilient man?" Are you flippin kiding me his is a SEXIST and a MISGOGINIST he killed 8 of his wives!!!!!!!! The onley good thing he ever did was split from the Pagen Catholic Church

All 8  wives hey?

Out of 6 women he married.

That's some going.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 17, 2013, 10:51:16 PM
"Brilient man?" Are you flippin kiding me his is a SEXIST and a MISGOGINIST he killed 8 of his wives!!!!!!!! The onley good thing he ever did was split from the Pagen Catholic Church

All 8  wives hey?

Out of 6 women he married.

That's some going.
What are you talking about he maried 8 woman
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 17, 2013, 10:58:57 PM
"Brilient man?" Are you flippin kiding me his is a SEXIST and a MISGOGINIST he killed 8 of his wives!!!!!!!! The onley good thing he ever did was split from the Pagen Catholic Church

All 8  wives hey?

Out of 6 women he married.

That's some going.
What are you talking about he maried 8 woman

Name them  (I'll give you a clue, 3 Catherines, 2 Annes and a Jane).

Unless you think they were all called Mary after he maried them. I mean he's the king, maybe he could do that.

Link or it's lies  :P
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 17, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
He married 6 & executed 2.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 18, 2013, 11:34:36 PM
"Brilient man?" Are you flippin kiding me his is a SEXIST and a MISGOGINIST he killed 8 of his wives!!!!!!!! The onley good thing he ever did was split from the Pagen Catholic Church

All 8  wives hey?

Out of 6 women he married.

That's some going.
What are you talking about he maried 8 woman

Name them  (I'll give you a clue, 3 Catherines, 2 Annes and a Jane).

Unless you think they were all called Mary after he maried them. I mean he's the king, maybe he could do that.

Link or it's lies  :P
He married 6 & executed 2.
Prove her maried 8
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 18, 2013, 11:37:05 PM
Prove her maried 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 19, 2013, 12:02:30 AM
EJ, I had to write an MA dissertation on this guy. Find me one source that counts 8 wives, let alone him killing them all. Fraser, A. The Wives of Henry VIII. Lacey, R. The Life and Times of Henry VIII. Scarisbrick, J.J. Henry VIII. Weir, A. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. All book titles & authors. Publication dates available.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 19, 2013, 12:02:53 AM
Prove her maried 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.
Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 19, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
Prove her maried 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.
Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII)

wikipedia is not so much a source as a collection of sources, you merely have to lick the little numbers and find where it's information comes from to determine it's validity.

Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 19, 2013, 12:23:17 AM
Prove her maried 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.
Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII)

wikipedia is not so much a source as a collection of sources, you merely have to lick the little numbers and find where it's information comes from to determine it's validity.
The fact that you picked Wikipedia as a sorce takes away any credibilitey you have. Thus all sorces tis null and void
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 19, 2013, 12:27:38 AM
Prove her maried 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.
Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII)

wikipedia is not so much a source as a collection of sources, you merely have to lick the little numbers and find where it's information comes from to determine it's validity.
The fact that you picked Wikipedia as a sorce takes away any credibilitey you have. Thus all sorces tis null and void

I picked Wikipedia because it is quick, easy and agrees with the encyclopedia I have on my shelf. I was unaware that the Encyclopedia Britannica now made articles available free online.

You can argue that the encyclopedia Britannica is wrong if you like but I'd still like the names of the 8 wives from you.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 19, 2013, 01:18:09 PM
Stop. responding. to. EJ.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 19, 2013, 01:33:19 PM
Stop. responding. to. EJ.
Why?
I'm not trying to make you respond to him so why are you bothered about what I do?
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 19, 2013, 01:52:45 PM
He's a troll and he'll go away quicker if people ignore him.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 19, 2013, 02:01:36 PM
He's a troll and he'll go away quicker if people ignore him.

I like trolls.

My parents never let me have a dog.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 19, 2013, 06:19:06 PM
Stop. responding. to. EJ.
Why?
I'm not trying to make you respond to him so why are you bothered about what I do?

Because we're in the serious forums, and EJ's flailing about for attention invariably ruins any genuine discussion that could have been had.  If you want to play with the trolls, do it in the basement.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 19, 2013, 06:22:05 PM
Saddam has a good point.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 19, 2013, 07:28:53 PM
Saddam has a good point.

He has a point.

I'm not sure it's a good one.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 20, 2013, 01:23:59 AM
Prove her maried 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.
Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII)

wikipedia is not so much a source as a collection of sources, you merely have to lick the little numbers and find where it's information comes from to determine it's validity.
The fact that you picked Wikipedia as a sorce takes away any credibilitey you have. Thus all sorces tis null and void

I picked Wikipedia because it is quick, easy and agrees with the encyclopedia I have on my shelf. I was unaware that the Encyclopedia Britannica now made articles available free online.

You can argue that the encyclopedia Britannica is wrong if you like but I'd still like the names of the 8 wives from you.
Well maybe you shouldntve picked it in the first place
Stop. responding. to. EJ.
Stay. out. of. the. conversation!
Stop. responding. to. EJ.
Why?
I'm not trying to make you respond to him so why are you bothered about what I do?
Exacley. Now heres something me and spank can agree on
He's a troll and he'll go away quicker if people ignore him.
Ugh just be quiet ghost all because I have difrent views from you doesnt mean im a troll ::)
He's a troll and he'll go away quicker if people ignore him.

I like trolls.

My parents never let me have a dog.
Good for you. To bad im not a troll tho :)
Stop. responding. to. EJ.
Why?
I'm not trying to make you respond to him so why are you bothered about what I do?

Because we're in the serious forums, and EJ's flailing about for attention invariably ruins any genuine discussion that could have been had.  If you want to play with the trolls, do it in the basement.
Im not flaling about for atention im just puting out my views and debating with people. If you dont like — TO FLIPPIN BAD !
Saddam has a good point.
No he doesnt
Saddam has a good point.

He has a point.

I'm not sure it's a good one.
Ikr
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 20, 2013, 01:38:02 AM
Well maybe you shouldntve picked it in the first place


why not?

I cant find any references to the contrary and there have been numerous studies on Wikipedia which have found it to be equally reliable as any other encyclopedia such as Britannica and Encarta, in some cases MORE accurate if you don't include current affairs.

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)

so all in all it could be considered an excellent reference point for facts on Henry VIII
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 20, 2013, 01:40:46 AM
Well maybe you shouldntve picked it in the first place


why not?

I cant find any references to the contrary and there have been numerous studies on Wikipedia which have found it to be equally reliable as any other encyclopedia such as Britannica and Encarta, in some cases MORE accurate if you don't include current affairs.

(http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)

so all in all it could be considered an excellent reference point for facts on Henry VIII
Prove it
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 20, 2013, 01:41:36 AM
Well maybe you shouldntve picked it in the first place


why not?

I cant find any references to the contrary and there have been numerous studies on Wikipedia which have found it to be equally reliable as any other encyclopedia such as Britannica and Encarta, in some cases MORE accurate if you don't include current affairs.

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)

so all in all it could be considered an excellent reference point for facts on Henry VIII
Prove it

sorry, I accidently put the proof in img tags, not url.

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)

edited my last post to fix.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 21, 2013, 12:07:24 AM
Well maybe you shouldntve picked it in the first place


why not?

I cant find any references to the contrary and there have been numerous studies on Wikipedia which have found it to be equally reliable as any other encyclopedia such as Britannica and Encarta, in some cases MORE accurate if you don't include current affairs.

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)

so all in all it could be considered an excellent reference point for facts on Henry VIII
Prove it

sorry, I accidently put the proof in img tags, not url.

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html)

edited my last post to fix.
Anyone can just go and change it wich just shows that it is genareley wrong
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: spank86 on December 21, 2013, 12:42:44 AM
Anyone can just go and change it wich just shows that it is genareley wrong

Simply not true.

There are procedures in place to prevent tampering.

I have yet to hear of a name for Henry's 7th or 8th wife from you.

Or indeed any sources despite me having produced many for you.
Title: Re: King Henry VIII.
Post by: Excelsior John on December 21, 2013, 04:00:58 PM
Anyone can just go and change it wich just shows that it is genareley wrong

Simply not true.

There are procedures in place to prevent tampering.

I have yet to hear of a name for Henry's 7th or 8th wife from you.

Or indeed any sources despite me having produced many for you.
Prove it