History vs. Henry VIII – Mark Robinson and Alex Gendler

History vs. Henry VIII – Mark Robinson and Alex Gendler

Posted on by Ryder Prohaska


He was a powerful king whose
break with the church of Rome would forever change
the course of English history. But was he a charismatic reformer
or a bullying tyrant? Find out on History versus Henry VIII. Judge: Order, order. Now, who do we have
here? Looks like quite the dashing fellow. Defense: Indeed, your honour.
This is Henry VIII, the acclaimed king who reformed England’s
religion and government and set it on course to becoming
a modern nation. Prosecutor: I beg to differ. This is a
cruel, impulsive, and extravagant king who had as little regard for his
people as he did for his six wives. Judge: Six wives? Defense: Your honor, Henry’s first
marriage was arranged for him when he was only a child. He only married Catherine of Aragon to
strengthen England’s alliance with Spain. Prosecutor: An alliance he was willing to
toss aside with no regard for the nation. Defense: Henry had every
regard for the nation. It was imperative to secure the Tudor
dynasty by producing a male heir – something Catherine failed to do in
over twenty years of marriage. Prosecutor: It takes two to make an heir,
your honor. Defense: Ahem. Regardless, England needed
a new queen to ensure stability, but the Pope refused to annul the union
and let the king remarry. Judge: Sounds like quite a pickle.
Can’t argue with the Pope. Prosecutor: And yet that’s exactly
what the king decided to do. He uprooted the country’s
religious foundations and broke the Church of England
away from Rome, leading to centuries of strife. Defense: All Henry did was give the
Church honest domestic leadership. He freed his subjects from the corrupt
Roman Catholic establishment. And by rejecting the more radical changes
of the Protestant reformation, he allowed his people to preserve
most of their religious traditions. Prosecutor: Objection! The Church had been
a beloved and popular institution that brought comfort and
charity to the masses. Thanks to Henry, church
property was seized; hospitals closed, and precious monastic
libraries lost forever, all to enrich the Crown. Defense: Some of the funds
were used to build new cathedrals and open secular schools. And it was necessary for England
to bring its affairs under its own control rather than Rome’s. Prosecutor: You mean under
Henry’s control. Defense: Not true. All of the king’s
major reforms went through Parliament. No other country of the time allowed
its people such a say in government. Prosecutor: He used Parliament as a rubber
stamp for his own personal will. Meanwhile he ruled like a tyrant, executing
those he suspected of disloyalty. Among his victims were the great
statesman and philosopher Thomas More – once his close friend and advisor – and Anne Boleyn, the new queen
Henry had torn the country apart to marry. Judge: He executed his own wife? Defense: That…wasn’t
King Henry’s initiative. She was accused of treason
in a power struggle with the King’s minister,
Thomas Cromwell. Prosecutor: The trial was a sham and she wouldn’t have been convicted
without Henry’s approval. Besides, he wasn’t too
upset by the outcome – he married Jane Seymour
just 11 days later! Defense: A marriage that, I note,
succeeded in producing a male heir and guaranteeing a stable succession… though the new queen tragically
died in childbirth. Prosecutor: This tragedy didn’t deter him from an ill conceived fourth
marriage to Anne of Cleves, which Henry then annulled on a whim and
used as an excuse to execute Cromwell. As if that weren’t enough, he then
married Catherine Howard – a cousin of Anne Boleyn –
before having her executed too. Defense: She was engaged in adultery
to which she confessed! Regardless, Henry’s final marriage
to Catherine Parr was actually very successful. Prosecutor: His sixth! It only goes to
show he was an intemperate king who allowed faction and intrigue
to rule his court, concerned only with his own
pleasure and grandiosity. Defense: That grandiosity was part of the
king’s role as a model for his people. He was a learned scholar and musician
who generously patronized the arts, as well as being an imposing
warrior and sportsman. And the lavish tournaments he hosted enhanced England’s reputation
on the world stage. Prosecutor: And yet both his foreign and
domestic policies were a disaster. His campaigns in France and his brutal
invasion of Scotland drained the treasury, and his attempt to pay for it by debasing
the coinage led to constant inflation. The lords and landowners responded
by removing access to common pastures and turning the peasant
population into beggars. Defense: Beggars who would soon
become yeomen farmers. The enclosures made farming more
efficient, and created a labor surplus that laid the foundation for
the Industrial Revolution. England would never have become the
great power that it did without them …and without Henry. Judge: Well, I think no matter what, we can all agree he looks great
in that portrait. A devout believer who broke
with the Church. A man of learning who executed scholars. A king who brought stability
to the throne, but used it to promote his own glory, Henry VIII embodied all the contradictions
of monarchy on the verge of the modern era. But separating the ruler from the myth
is all part of putting history on trial.

100 thoughts on “History vs. Henry VIII – Mark Robinson and Alex Gendler”

  1. Check out more videos in our "History vs." series to see how more controversial leaders wielded their power: http://bit.ly/2qJCdbs

    Reply

  2. 2:35 Thomas moore was a tyrant too, he burned and put people on the rack for daring to Own a bible in English. He tortured them for reading the bible in their own language.

    And he was made a saint in the 20th century and in the year 2000 was made 'the patron saint of politiicans''. So Henry is'nt to blame for executing him.

    Reply

  3. @2:39 Anne Boleyn had an affair (while its true the affairs were exaggeratted) historians have evidence she did do that. When you're marreid to a king thats treason and when ou look at the Wars of the Roses having an affair back then could lead to decades of civil conflict which killed thousands. So there was a legitimate reason to execute her.

    Reply

  7. 4:40 and without India too! The Industrial Revolution of Europe was sponsored by the Colonisation of India.

    Reply

  12. While many of Henry's actions were horrendous, his choice to create the anglican church was a good one. It seperated the chruch in England from a corrupt and unfair political system of the clergy in Rome that doesn't always work that well. He made sure no other changed were made and allowed most of the christian practiaces to remain unlike Luther who went on to seperate his own church from Christ himself. I do not think that Henry was a good king but his choice to create the church of England wasn't a wrong one, it was a lot like the orthodox church deciding not to follow the pope.

    Reply

  13. If you ever plan on doing more episodes about monarchs, I think Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany or Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary would be pretty good choices.

    Reply

  19. As A English citizen, here is the general British opinion; he wasted money, married and executed thousands of people, and exhausted the army and people. However, his religious reforms did change British Culture, and he firmly established Britain by having three heirs, the best, Elizabeth the First, would establish the Empire. So, he was a terrible king but set the stage for England to rise. He was actually a good king till he got a massive brain injury. Goodish

    Reply

  42. Henry straight up had brain damage from 2 really bad jousting accidents 1 where he forgot to pull the visor down and got hit in the forehead and the second one was when he was hit by his opponent he was thrown from his horse proceeded to land on him so brain damage combined with always being in pain is probably why he was so bad

    Reply

  45. He loved Jane, he is actually buried along side her, when she died suddenly he became very withdrawn and mourned her… but then again he didnt have enough time to get bored of her, so who knows?

    Reply

  50. Wu Zetian vs History
    Anne Bolyen vs History
    Catherine de Medicci vs History
    Bloody Mary vs History

    Edit:also….elizabeth 1 vs history
    Marinna"brazo de oro"Bracetti vs history

    Reply

  57. Divorce, Beheaded and Died
    Divorce, Beheaded, Survived
    I am Henry the VIII and I had six sorry wives
    Some would say i ruined there lives

    Reply

  59. Funny story about King Henry the eighth. My friend says that his like 15 great grandmas aunt was one of the king wife

    Reply

  63. I have three recommendations:
    – Vlad the Impaler ( Said to a hero in Romania, yet infamous in his favorite way of execution.)
    – Donald Trump ( news)
    – Elizabeth Bathory ( How many kills was she actually responsible for, and was she telling the truth.)

    Reply

  64. It's a pity King Henery VIII wasnt put in charge of BREXIT, he would of handled that well considering how he split England from Rome!

    Reply

  74. Personally, I would love to see History vs. Armand Jean du Plessis. Or simply, History vs. Cardinal Richelieu.

    You can have a whole lot of fun with the Alexander Dumas angle, along with early nationalism, the 30 years war, and Richelieu's spy-network.

    Reply

  77. They forgot to mention that Henry VIII went from pleasant to tyrant was because of an injury from a jousting accident…. Yeah, I never knew that at all until this year recently went I went back to learn the history more… that explained a lot.

    Reply

  82. In a modern discussion, does "maintaining stability" really equate to "producing a male heir?" I mean, a modern adjudicator would almost always rule in favor of the accuser, rather than the defendant. That's usually the case for their "History vs." series, however, this one is especially skewed. I can't recall a single plus from the defendant's side.

    Reply

  88. I hope there’s going to be more history vs trials this is good stuff for children Ted-Ed plz make more I have an idea
    History vs kasier Wilhelm the second

    Reply

  99. The info is very good, and the trial setting is captivating… but historians really are NOT JUDGES, nor should defend or accuse the subject they study. This is a very common yet absolutely wrong image of historians: the judge emits a verdict, and that's what historians should never do. I am happy to see here that there is no such verdict but it could give a really wrong idea of what history is, or at least that's my opinion (and Marc Bloch's in "Historian's craft" before me).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *