
Henry VIII's evidence to support break with Rome turns up in Cornish library - benbreen
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/25/henry-viiis-evidence-to-support-break-with-rome-turns-up-in-cornish-library
======
SagelyGuru
What is unappreciated today, even by serious historians, is Henry's wisdom and
foresight in separating from the authority and commands of Rome. That is from
strategic point of view, as regards England's subsequent development vis-a-vis
the mainland of Europe. It was a masterstroke, not to be equalled by the
actions and strategic abilities of any subsequent kings or queens. It laid the
foundations for the British Empire, which would have been quite impossible to
create otherwise and at best would have ended up like the Spanish one.

Compared to this, the endlessly hyped story of how many wives he divorced
pales into insignificance. I even think that they were just a useful means to
him of justifying this break with Rome, which was his prior primary objective.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
" I even think that they were just a useful means to him of justifying this
break, which was his prior primary objective." Probably not, since prior to
his penis getting the best of him, his regime was impeccably orthodox-the
title "Defender of the Faith" was bestowed by the Pope for defending
Catholicism against Lutheranism (I believe in a book that was largely ghost
written by Thomas More). Even after the Act of Supremacy, his regime
officially remained orthodox in a way that ruffled the feathers of many more
radical reformers. Despite the fact that Henry was a really bad catholic who
skirted the bounds of heterodoxy, and laid the grounds for the more radical
reformation of Edward VI.

~~~
SagelyGuru
What I have tried to convey, perhaps not successfully, is that as a king he
had to think strategically about his kingdom's interests, not about
theological disputes. That is why even in those times it was understood that
the king, as a worldly power, was separate from the church's power. By
emphasising that separation, regardless the finer points of catechisms, he
strengthened himself and his country.

OK, you may argue as to whether this was his explicit intention but it
undoubtedly was the effect.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
You are still reading a very Whiggish, anachronistic view of history into what
happened. With a corresponding value judgement that Catholic England wasn't
worthy of survival, and that the great achievements of the Glorious Revolution
and parliamentary democracy were a given at the time of the break with Rome.

~~~
SagelyGuru
No, it is you who is reading a Popish view into it. My judgement is based on
informed comparison with countries like Spain and Portugal, and Bohemia, which
either never attempted such separation or failed in it - and their relative
importance compared to the British Empire.

~~~
voidlogic
Either way the British Empire being helped or hindered by Catholicism (or the
lack there of) is mostly conjecture. Its like trying to argue if the Romans
had abolished slavery they would have landed on the moon in 1462. Without time
traveling and alternate histories to explore we will never know.

~~~
SagelyGuru
But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We
really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way
refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed
to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is
what laid the foundations.

I am surprised and saddened for you, to get -4 votes here of all places. I
would have thought that at least some of you may have understood and
appreciated the important connection between free thought and scientific and
technical progress and the fact that Henry VIII just may have made that
possible in Britain.

Instead all I get is cheap jibes about "whiggish view" and Mussolini. Sad.

And no, it really is not interesting to see regurgitated back the standard TV
line that "it was all to do with his gonads". Kings can and do discreetly
satisfy their gonads without having to go through difficult public divorces.

~~~
mercurial
> But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point.
> We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way
> refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed
> to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That
> is what laid the foundations.

The foundation of what? Is your argument that the success of the British
Empire was due to a post-Henri VIII technological superiority over other
European powers?

~~~
SagelyGuru
There were other aspects to it apart from good science, education and
technology, all based on liberal thinking but, in a nutshell, yes. What I am
saying is that these were the main reasons for the British Empire eclipsing
the other European powers. It did not just happen totally by chance in one
particular lucky country, out of nothing. If that is a "whiggish view", then I
guess I am a whig.

~~~
mercurial
I assume you're talking about the Industrial Revolution, something that came
rather late. At the time of Newton, and afterwards, there was no shortage of
scientists of renown in catholic countries. But considering the English
Reformation as the leading reason for the Industrial Revolution to happen in
England and not elsewhere is far from an accepted opinion.

------
ripb
Interesting find. Makes me once again wonder what other previously thought to
be lost treasures are sitting, hidden from the general public, out there on
private shelves or in private collections.

~~~
benbreen
Or even on the shelves of famous libraries - one of my favorite historical
finds in recent decades was Deborah Harkness's discovery of John Dee's "Book
of Soyga" (an Elizabethan occult text written in code and thought to have been
lost). Turns out it had been sitting on a shelf in the Bodleian Library for
centuries, unnoticed and uncatalogued.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Soyga](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Soyga)

------
rtpg
I wonder if we'll get digital scans of the pages or something anytime soon.
This is cool, but I don't want to have to get a doctorate in history to be
able to flip through it.

------
cafard
Most interesting, though I would say "arguments" rather than evidence.

~~~
themartorana
Except _he_ may have called it "evidence."

I have no evidence to back that up, although I _have_ seen "The Tudors" which
probably qualifies me as an expert.

