Discussion: LOVE VS. DUTY

"How many members think that Henry VIII would have been a more successful King if he had put the needs of his kingdom ahead of his personal desires? Henry, we recall, always had to be "in love" or at least sexually attracted to his women. For this reason, he dismissed Anne of Cleves, who may have borne him a male heir. There were also plenty of other monarchs who married less-than-beautiful women and managed to sire lots of children, keeping mistresses for their lust-interests. We shall see that in the end, he will marry Catherine Parr supposedly for "companionship". But a lot of lives were lost and IMO the reputation of England was compromised before this. "

"True. Take Francis I for instance. Queen Claude DEFINITELY was not as beautiful in real life as she was on the show (I think she was crippled or deformed) and she and King Francis had 8 children during their 10 yr marriage until she died! She brought alot of titles to their marriage in her own right, so that union was highly advantageous to the French crown."

"True. Funny, but he doesn't seem so much like a Tyrant when you consider how recent world events have churned out such Tyrants as Charles Taylor in Liberia (among way to many African dictators to name here), Pol Pot, Hitler..."

"So Francis did his duty and kept his mistresses on the side...and yet he is not considered a greater King than Henry. 500 years later, Henry is considered a Great King...... a complex complicated man.....who started out with great potential....brought the English into the Renaissance to form their own identity....and a tyrant. "

"well I don't think you can totally ignore Henry's 38 year reign as having no effect on religious reform. Although the reformation "machine" was already a movement which would have happened anyway, Henry and Cromwell did speed it along. It certainly wasn't about religious reform for Henry however. It was more about Power. And Elizabeth's 45 year reign really confirmed it. If their monarchies hadn't occurred....it would have been interesting to see how long it wouldl have taken for the reformation to take hold. It is of course speculation on all our parts. The English identity ...separate from the Pope's influence definitely would have been different. Henry made England have its own autonomy so he can be credited with something whatever your religious sympathies."

"Personal Monarchy formed and molded a country to the personality of that Monarch. If Henry had been a different man...one who was still mired in the old traditional ways.....not open to new thinking.....England would have been a very different place. By him breaking with Rome, he gave his country an autonomy which would be built on by succeeding monarchs. In a sense you can say that Henry "got the ball rolling"...he was a vital step in making England into the world power it would become. From there the English expanded into the world and colonized many areas of the world. The English saw themselves differently because of Henry and his policies. Not to say he did this on his own because we know the men around him were equally as important in this transformation...notably Cromwell."