The Instigator
Atheist-Independent
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hatshepsut
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Henry VIII of England was a good king (3)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
hatshepsut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,948 times Debate No: 63065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Atheist-Independent

Pro

As you can see, this is the third time that I have attempted to debate this subjuect. The first time, my opponent totally trolled and the second time my opponent forfeited. Therefore I am hoping to have a civil debate about this for once.

The premise for this debate is: Henry VIII was overall a positive influence on England during his reign.

I will take the Pro position of the premise, while my opponent will obviously take the Con position.

The debate structure will be generic, with the first round being for acceptance only.



Good Luck! Also, the person who loses this debate consents to getting their head chopped off, so accept at your own risk.
hatshepsut

Con

Accept, and agree not to base arguments on Henry's personal character except as this may have affected his performance as head of state.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Round 2

I will be arguing that Henry VIII was overall a good king for England. There is lots of controversy surrounding around Henry VIII, and it primarily originates from his six wives and infamous beheading of two of them. I will attempt to show that despite these gruesome events, Henry VIII was overall good for England. For each of my arguments, I will provide the historical context and then make my own personal analysis about the matter.

Providing Stability

Henry inherited the throne during a delicate time in England's history. Henry's father, Henry VII, had taken the throne after a bloody war with house of York [1]. This war, often dubbed the Wars of the Roses due to the fact that the Heraldic badges of the houses of Lancaster and York where a Red and White rose, respectively. In order to create peace between the two families, Henry VII announced his marriage to Elizabeth of York to create a joint unity between both houses.

Despite this supposed peace between the two families, the tension between the houses of Lancaster and York has still not been resolved when Henry VIII assumed the throne. In order to avoid another war, Henry VIII took a more moderate approach when it came to dealing with the Yorks. One example would be how he pardoned multiple Yorkists that had been imprisoned by his father following his coronation as king [2].

The Yorks, however, were not the only problem that was presented to Henry VIII during his reign. One notable issue was the matter of religion. The reign on Henry VIII began and continued throughout a period called the Reformation, when many began to question the authority of the Catholic Church. This event was able to spread due to the invention of the Printing Press, and Henry VIII knew that it would not be long until the Reformation spread to the British Isles. To solve this problem, Henry VIII was remarkably lenient when it came to religion and was able to prevent a religious war similar to the one in the Holy Roman Empire. One way that this was possible was when Henry VIII split off from the Catholic Church in Rome and created the English Church with himself as the head. This was partially because Henry had wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, however it solved many problems. For one, the Church was essentially Catholic and had not changed any of the doctrines, with the one difference being that there was no pope. However, it also kept the Protestants happy because their complaints had been directed towards the Church in Rome, and now that England had split off they were satisfied [3].

These two examples, amongst many, show clearly that Henry VIII was a natural at manipulating his enemies. He was able to turn his enemies into allies, or at least not threatening. This is a very good trait to have as a king. Given Henry VIII natural ability to prevent war with clearly more powerful enemies, it is clear that England was better off having Henry on the throne.

Making England Stronger

Because of both the Wars of the Roses and the small population, England was a relatively weak country when Henry VIII ascended to the throne. However, Henry managed to strengthen the power of both himself and the country by the end of his reign. One way that Henry strengthened the authority of the crown was by splitting off from the Church in Rome. By creating the Church of England and placing himself in direct power, he made his vassals fear him. This was because Henry now had all political and religious authority. Another method that Henry utilized in order to gain authority was fear. Henry made his vassals fear him because he showed that he was willing to punish anyone severely if they ever plotted against him. This can be seen clearly in his executions of Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, the Duke of Norfolk, etc. This fear of the king allowed Henry to take full control over the kingdom and through his absolutism allow England to leave the lawlessness of the Middle Ages.

Henry VIII made England stronger militarily as well. By the time Henry VIII inherited the throne from his father, England has five royal warships in its navy. By the time he died in 1547, there were over forty far superior war ships in the navy. This strong navy was essentially in providing defense for England and also making England a powerful political force [4].

One last way that Henry VIII made England stronger was through education. Using his own money, Henry VIII established schools that were called Kings Schools [5]. These schools were so impressive because they accepted talented peasants as well as noble sons. Through these Kings Schools developed some of the brightest minds in the world such as Christopher Marlow and William Harvey. He also had the Tyndale Bible published in a unified English dialect. Before this bible was published, English varied greatly depending on the region. However, the Tyndale Bible allowed England to become a more united nation due to their new common language.

Conclusion

Had Henry VIII not become king, England would have been considerably weaker. They would have faced stronger threats and potentially war with the Yorks, French, German, and Scotland, and may not have been able to overcome these challenges. Henry VIII also allowed England to advance with his acceptance and advancement of the Renaissance.

When one hears the name "Henry VIII" they generally think that he was an evil and bad king because he executed two of his wives. However, given the multiple number of advancements he provided to his county it is clear that Henry VIII was not only not a bad king, but a great one.

Sources

[1] http://www.britannica.com.........
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org.........
[3] http://www.britannia.com.........
[4] http://www.rmg.co.uk.........
[5] https://login.wikifoundry.com.........




hatshepsut

Con

My, I'm impressed with Atheist's homework, having had to empty my credenza finding a good response to it. Our Tudor tales will begin at the same place in near agreement with each other. Sadly, in mine we'll watch the monarch tumble down a much less rosy path than our readers just saw above.

Henry's father, King Henry VII, came up hardly short of ruthlessness at Bosworth Field or afterward. He did enter marriage alliance with the rival House of York, determined to put down the Wars of the Roses and end Richard III's chaotic reign. While king, Henry VII kept England out of war so it could recover politically and economically from the disastrous 15th century, even at cost of giving up on Brittany. Henry VIII was a promising, strong young man who acceded in 1509 with a full treasury, a consensus of the surviving noble families, and high popular support [1]. Almost immediately he began to squander this advantageous position. The 1520 Field of Cloth of Gold as diplomatic exercise and joust was an extravagant boondoggle, as he was at war with Francis I by the next year at a time when England had little stake in France [2].

Then his desire to be rid of a Catherine of Aragon who couldn't birth a male to secure his dynasty began to strain England's relationship to church, and to the broader Christendom, a fracas hardly salved by Cardinal Wolsey's 1529 firing and subsequent arrest after so many years of loyal service [3]. We must remember the Pope had already granted a special dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine, his older brother's widow. An annulment was too much to ask. The wives' tale and beheading of Anne Boleyn on adultery charges, also for failure to produce the desired heir, are well known and need no exposition here.


Significant was that Henry chose such waste of time while Spain and Portugal were building massive empires in the New World. Spain turned particularly hostile after being incensed over Queen Catherine's ouster. If the Tudor king built up to 40 warships during his reign, then the Hapsburg Charles V sent 40 vessels, including 15 large ships of war, against the French in the single Battle of Muros in 1543, managing this while running the Spanish Main to Cuba [4]. England ultimately fell 90 years behind in the naval race. Good thing it was an Englishman who would discover commercial potential in tobacco to become interested in a Virginia Spain overlooked, and that Portugal didn't go after India as seriously as it might have [5].

England's break with Rome and Henry's confiscation of the monastic estates - for by then he was short of funds after taking his court to dizzy heights of spending - left the country with no allies in continental Europe until common cause with the new Dutch Republic was reached under Elizabeth. Forced loans kept him afloat as he embarked on his fruitless serial conflict with France. The wrong enemy to be fighting would consume 2.1M pounds, the bulk of it during the 1542-1547 war in which he finished his life [6]. That the Catholicism of his daughter Mary, and later of Mary Queen of Scots, would become grave problems for England was now assured [7]. We could stretch to argue that Henry VIII's reign helped set up conditions for the English Civil Wars that would follow in the next century.

Reluctant to bring Henry's corpulence into the picture, I can't help concluding this and the many health problems it caused impaired the king's ability to think clearly. As the physical decline of his final years set in about 1542, he not only engaged that longest of his wars with France, but executed Catherine Howard, his second-to-last wife, and appears to have become mired in habits that ensured he wouldn't live long enough to prevent a minority at Edward VI's accession. Yet another dutiful wife, Catherine Parr, acted as his nurse [8]. In a race to the bottom among future judges, perhaps Henry's wasn't the very worst reign England endured, but I confess a hard task to describe it as a good one. England would never achieve ideal position in the world until the day of the Georges.

[1] full treasury: BBC History, http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] Cloth of Gold: Diarmaid MacCulloch, ed., 1995. The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety. pp. 60-71, 118-119.
[3] Wolsey: History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
[4] Batalla de Muros. Instituto de Historia y Cultura Naval, p. 271. http://www.armada.mde.es...
[5] Rolfe plants tobacco: Encyclopedia Virgina, http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org...
Spain: Cheryl Martin & Mark Wasserman, 2008: Latin America and Its People, 2 ed., vol. I.
[6] Forced loans: MacCulloch, pp. 86-87; Accounts pp. 86-92, Lifetime estimate and final war, p. 91.
[7] Mary & Mary Queen of Scots: Alison Weir, 1996. The Children of Henry VIII. pp. 200, 323.
[8] physical decline, Parr acting as his nurse: BBC History, http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Round 3

Thanks hatshepsut for your argument. I must admit, I am somewhat frightened to be debating the greatest queen of Ancient Egypt. However, much like the Hyksos, I must ruthlessly attack my opponents arguments!

I concur with my opponent that Henry VIII was not necessarily the most conservative of money spenders, especially during his early reign. Generally this is not an admirable trait for a king, or any political leader, to have. However, Henry's situation is unique due to the fact that when he died in 1547, England still had a large sum of money and certainly was not on its way to economic crisis. This is due to the Dissolution of the Monasteries between 1536 and 1541 [1]. The Dissolution of the Monasteries began when Henry VIII split from the Church of Rome, and essentially converted England to Protestantism. Due to his new church's quasi-Lutheran views keeping the extravagance of the monasteries around obviously contradicts their cause. Therefore Henry VIII saw a huge opportunity to gain a huge sum of money, and by dissolving the monasteries it is estimated that he gained approximately £1.3 million pounds [2]. Obviously this is not to much nowadays, however in the 1500's this is an enormous sum of money. While I will agree that they Dissolution of the Monasteries was one of Henry VIII's less admirable acts, as it destroyed much of England's art in records, it is hard to argue that it did not help Henry VIII's rule, and by extension, England.

Now for the arguments about Henry's early wives. The divorce with Catherine of Aragon may not have been... chivalrous. However the end result-- the splitting of England from the Roman Church-- eventually proved to be a very successful move for England. The reason for this is that it gave Henry near-absolute rule. While modern day Americans may wrinkle their nose at the proposition of an absolute monarch, considering the time period of Henry VIII's reign, it is clear that absolutism was for the greater good of the country. Due to the fact that England, along with the rest of Europe, was stuck in a feudal system for the vast majority of the middle ages. This feudalistic government caused countries to become decentralized, meaning that the feudal rulers had more power over their people than the king did. In essence this means that countries were more like separated states that were barely united under the myth of the power of the king. However, now that Henry VIII was both King of England and Head of the Church of England none of the feudal rulers were willing to object to his rule and therefore the country became more unified. Also, the "unification" of England allowed technological and humanist ideas to spread easier and therefore I would argue that Henry VIII played a large role in entering England into the Renaissance [3]. As for the beheading of Anne Boleyn, it was obviously an immoral and probably unnecessary act, however in all honesty the execution had little effect on England.

I also agree that Henry VIII was not a colonialist king, and in some ways this harmed his kingdom. However their are many reasons for this. For one, when Henry took the throne he had to be careful with his actions due to a possible war with the Yorks and it would have been most wise to keep his entire navy in England as opposed to discovering the New World. Also, given that Henry VIII left his successors in a relatively stable, financially and politically, situation, it allowed Elizabeth to proceed with the colonization's of Virginia and eventually the rest of the 13 colonies [4]. Also, owning colonies does not necissarily guarentee success for a country. A prime example would be Hapsburg Spain under the reign of Philip II. When Phillip II ascended to the throne after his father, Charles I (also V) resigned in 1555, Spain was the most powerful nation in the world. They had huge colonies in the Americas and the Carribean and was producing huge amounts of money. However, this caused massive infaltion withing Philip's empire and when imports of silver began to fautler, Spain collapsed entirely.

One blemish with Henry's reign which was pointed out by my opponent was his failure to convert his daughter Mary to the new Anglican faith. I agree that this was a major flaw, however it too can be justified. Due to the fact that Henry VIII assumed that his son Edward, would succeed him, he payed to majority of his attention to him. Henry did not have the ability to see into the future and therefore could not possibly know that Mary would eventually ascend to the throne.

Conclusion

I have displayed that Henry VIII was both responsible for unifying England under his authoritarian rule and by extension both stabilized and strengthened England. While I will admit that Henry VIII did have a few issues with his reign, if you consider the situation that he was placed in and the end result, it must be concluded that Henry VIII overall had a positive influence on England.

Thanks for the fun debate!

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://answers.yahoo.com...
[3] http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com...
[4] http://www.history.com...
hatshepsut

Con

Considering the princes in the Tower, murdered by Richard III just before the Tudors came to power, I had promised not to focus excessively on Henry VIII's personal character. Yet it rises to such egregious proportions I think it affected his rule and the welfare of England. The £1.3M he garnered by sacking 800 monasteries could have been saved had he refrained from that one last war with France I mentioned in round 2. Henry would elevate the hatchet man for the monastery job, Thomas Cromwell, to Earl in April 1540 but chop his head off two months later. While my opponent tells us Henry was strong against the feudal lords, was this beheading done to placate a Duke of Norfolk Henry may have been more afraid of than we suppose? [1]

And his addiction to jousting, a sport expected of young kings but hardly of a 44-year old monarch, in 1536 caused him a serious accident that would leave him able to walk only with difficulty the rest of his life, as ulcers from the leg wound festered. He had been expected to die right then, and when Anne Boleyn heard the news, she was so shocked she miscarried her baby, who would have been a male and perhaps Henry's long-sought heir. [2]

Thomas Cranmer, the Architect of the Church of England, burnt at the stake under Mary. Of course I realize Henry couldn't foresee that Mary would become Queen regnant, yet smart monarchs consider such possibilities [3]. Even if Mary had stayed a princess, that would have been a problem itself - her marriage alliance prospects would have been limited to France or Scotland, with no Spanish crowned head likely to offer a hand after Catherine of Aragon had packed her bags.

I will grant my opponent that England had money at Henry's 1547 death, albeit more of this in the private hands of sensible Englishmen than in the Exchequer. Yet I doubt the break with Rome ended feudalism, which was always more a matter of powerful secular nobles than of the Pope. England suffered considerable intellectual loss, because the monasteries had been schools, while the universities at Oxford and Cambridge went through repeated faculty turnovers as religious requirements see-sawed back and forth. Hawkes informs us of Cranmer's paean at the stake, two decades after Henry had declined his request to allow the capable Bishop Fisher to omit the Oath of Succession also costing the latter his life that day:

A heavy rain is
now falling
over Oxford. [4]

Henry's Reformation wasn't worth it at the time. England might have done better had Henry VII's eldest son Arthur lived to mount the throne. Now finished, I tip my hat to an honorable opponent for this excellent debate.

[1] Thomas Cromwell's fall: BBC History, http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] accident & miscarriage: The Independent, Apr. 18, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk...
[3] Cranmer at the stake: John Foxe, Acts & Monuments, 1563.
[4] paean: Robert Hawkes, Cranmer and Pole: Archbishops, Broken Jaw Press, 2000, p. 31.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/5:

An interesting debate, but problematic somewhat for reasons that should become clear.

VIII = Henry VIII

The resolution was that Henry VIII was overall a positive influence on England. This is a rough sort of resolution, because oftentimes with arguments like this it's going to come down to subjectives.

Pro outlined the framework in R1, and Con agreed to focus on his affect on England, not necessarily his personal character except inasmuch as it affected his performance of head of state.

Pro's first argument was stability. He argued that after the Wars of the Roses, England was in a "delicate time". He argued that VIII took a moderate approach to the Yorks, and that his creation of the CoE helped keep the Protestants happy. Pro argued that these two examples "amongst many" (A note to Pro, making references to things not noted isn't particularly compelling. What are the many? I have no idea, and have to judge on just the examples listed) show that VIII was good at manipulating his enemies and either nullify their threat or turn them into allies.

Pro argued that VIII made England stronger by creating the CoE, giving another benefit that he attributes to the split. But he says that it made the authority of the crown stronger--there wasn't really a specific benefit to England, in that. Are we supposed to assume that a stronger crown is intrinsically better for England?
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/5:

He claims that "fear of the king allowed Henry to take full control over the kingdom and through his absolutism allow England to leave the lawlessness of the Middle Ages." I wish he'd expanded more on this to show the impact.

He moves on to say that VIII increased the navy 8-fold, from 5 to 40 ships. That one seems more clearly a benefit to England. Likewise, the education efforts seem to stand on their own as beneficial.

Pro closes by arguing that "Had Henry VIII not become king, England would have been considerably weaker. They would have faced stronger threats and potentially war with the Yorks, French, German, and Scotland, and may not have been able to overcome these challenges. Henry VIII also allowed England to advance with his acceptance and advancement of the Renaissance."

Con takes over in R2. Con argues that "Henry VIII was a promising, strong young man who acceded in 1509 with a full treasury, a consensus of the surviving noble families, and high popular support. ... he began to squander this advantageous position. The 1520 Field of Cloth of Gold as diplomatic exercise and joust was an extravagant boondoggle, as he was at war with Francis I by the next year at a time when England had little stake in France", which rather harms Pro's conclusion of his case, where he argued that without VIII England *would* have been at war with France--since with VIII, they were. Con argues that the split with the Church was centered around the divorce, and that it did not help England. Con argues that these distractions allowed the Spanish and Portugese to gain power, and that it was the luck of the English to discover the commercial power of tobacco that mitigated the potential harms.

Con argues that the break with Rome cut England off with potential allies in Europe, and that the war he got England into was disastrous for the treasury.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/5:

Con argues that the split led to problems when his daughter and Mary Queen of Scots were Catholic, and indicates that "VIII's reign helped set up conditions for the English Civil Wars that would follow in the next century".

Con also notes the possibility that VIII's health problems caused impairment in VIII's cognitive ability, when he engaged in war with France, executed a wife, and engaged in habits that hastened his own death and caused trouble for his heir.

Pro agrees that VIII "was not...the most conservative of ...spenders". But he argues that the treasury was still in good shape on VIII's death, and no economic crisis was looming, primarily because of the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

Pro argues that "I will agree that they Dissolution of the Monasteries was one of Henry VIII's less admirable acts, as it destroyed much of England's art in records, it is hard to argue that it did not help Henry VIII's rule, and by extension, England." But I'm not really sold on the notion that anything that helped his rule necessarily extends to helping England, particularly when Pro admits it was a "less admirable act".

Pro argues that strengthening the crown and VIII's rule was a good thing because "England, along with the rest of Europe, was stuck in a feudal system... This ...caused countries to become decentralized, meaning ... countries were more like separated states that were barely united under the myth of the power of the king. However, now that Henry VIII was both King of England and Head of the Church of England none of the feudal rulers were willing to object to his rule and therefore the country became more unified. Also, the "unification" of England allowed technological and humanist ideas to spread easier and therefore I would argue that Henry VIII played a large role in entering England into the Renaissance"
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/5:

Pro admits that VIII's lack of colonialism harmed England in at least "some ways". He argues that colonialism is not always good, and that VIII left his successors in a "stable...situation".

Pro admits that a "blemish" in VIII's reign was Mary's failure to convert. He argues that this lack of foresight was not Henry's fault because he "did not have the ability to see into the future and therefore could not possibly know that Mary would... ascend..."

Con opens the final round by pointing out that, had Henry not gone ot war the last time with France, the entirety of the money he obtained from sacking the monasteries (something Pro admitted was less than admirable) would have been unnecessary. Con also notes that Henry promoted, and then beheaded, the man who got him the money from the monasteries. Con asks whether this beheading was done to placate a Duke of Norfolk--I'llj ust note that questions like that aren't really helpful to the case, generally speaking. If you want to say that's the case, say it's the case.

Con argues that VIII's addiction to jousting caused an injury that gave him problems the rest of his life, and that the shock of hearing of it caused Anne Boleyn to miscarry her baby, which would have been a male and could have been an heir. This seems rather a major point, and it's unfortunate that it was made in the final round.

Con notes that kings may not be able to see the future, but should consider possibilities such as Mary ascending. Con notes that even had she not ascended, she would have been in a problematic position.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 5/5:

Con argues that England had money at VIII's death, but that it was in private hands, not the national treasury. Con claims to doubt that the break with Rome ended feudalism, and caused "considerable intellectual loss, because the monasteries had been schools", and that "the universities at Oxford and Cambridge went through repeated faculty turnovers as religious requirements see-sawed back and forth."

So in the end, Pro has offered us the benefits of VIII as stability through making peace with the Yorks and Protestants, and through having money in the treasury. Con has offered that the peace with the protestants came at the expense of continental allies, and that the money in the treasury was the result of a negative act (sacking the monasteries) that wouldn't have been necessary if VIII hadn't gone to an unnecessary war (which I find it interesting that Pro never really contested this). Pro has argued that England was stronger militarily and in terms of the crown, but Con has argued that the crown was set up to wind up engaged in civil war, and never contested the ships.

And so I'm left with the question: Was he, overall, a positive influence on England during his reign? That Pro didn't contest the unnecessary war really hurts his case, and I really didn't see a strong case for a strong crown being a strong England (or, for that matter, a strong case that the crown was really as strong as Pro claimed, given Con's arguments about the Civil war).

But "Overall a positive influence"? There was just nothing clear-cut enough here for me to feel I can say "yes". Pro never outlined the BoP, so, I presume that the implied BoP is on him. As such, I just don't think he really gave a strong enough case for a positive influence. So, though it's close, I wind up awarding arguments to Con.

All other categories seemed equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Good point.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Well, sorry Jesus, but I would tend to disagree. Also, this debate is not about if Henry VIII was a good person (which he wasn't) , but rather if he was a good king.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Jesus said that no man is good and so did seneca.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Atheist-IndependenthatshepsutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.