Editing Henry VIII (section)

== Historiography ==
The complexities and sheer scale of Henry's legacy ensured that, in the words of Betteridge and Freeman, "throughout the centuries, Henry has been praised and reviled, but he has never been ignored".<ref name="bandf1"/> In the 1950s, historian [[John D. Mackie]] summed up Henry's personality and its impact on his achievements and popularity:

{{Blockquote|The respect, nay even the popularity, which he had from his people was not unmerited.... He kept the development of England in line with some of the most vigorous, though not the noblest forces of the day. His high courage – highest when things went ill – his commanding intellect, his appreciation of fact, and his instinct for rule carried his country through a perilous time of change, and his very arrogance saved his people from the wars which afflicted other lands. Dimly remembering the wars of the Roses, vaguely informed as to the slaughters and sufferings in Europe, the people of England knew that in Henry they had a great king.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mackie |first=John D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IPPjvveNsTQC&pg=PA443 |title=The Earlier Tudors, 1485–1558 |date=1952 |publisher=Clarendon Press |isbn=978-0-1982-1706-0 |pages=442–445}}</ref>}}

A particular focus of modern historiography has been the extent to which the events of Henry's life (including his marriages, foreign policy and religious changes) were the result of his own initiative and, if they were, whether they were the result of opportunism or of a principled undertaking by Henry.<ref name="bandf1">{{Harvnb|Betteridge|Freeman|2012|pp=1–19}}</ref> The traditional interpretation of those events was provided by historian [[A. F. Pollard]], who in 1902 presented his own, largely positive, view of the King, lauding him, "as the King and statesman who, whatever his personal failings, led England down the road to parliamentary democracy and empire".<ref name="bandf1"/> Pollard's interpretation remained the dominant interpretation of Henry's life until the publication of the doctoral thesis of [[Geoffrey Elton]] in 1953.

Elton's 1977 book on ''The Tudor Revolution in Government'' maintained Pollard's positive interpretation of the Henrician period as a whole, but reinterpreted Henry himself as a follower rather than a leader. For Elton, it was Cromwell and not Henry who undertook the changes in government – Henry was shrewd but lacked the vision to follow a complex plan through.<ref name="bandf1"/> Henry was little more, in other words, than an "ego-centric monstrosity" whose reign "owed its successes and virtues to better and greater men about him; most of its horrors and failures sprang more directly from [the King]".{{Sfn|Elton|1977|pp=23, 332}}

Although the central tenets of Elton's thesis have since been questioned, it has consistently provided the starting point for much later work, including that of [[J. J. Scarisbrick]], his student. Scarisbrick largely kept Elton's regard for Cromwell's abilities but returned agency to Henry, who Scarisbrick considered to have ultimately directed and shaped policy.<ref name="bandf1"/> For Scarisbrick, Henry was a formidable, captivating man who "wore regality with a splendid conviction".{{Sfn|Scarisbrick|1968|p=17}} The effect of endowing Henry with this ability, however, was largely negative in Scarisbrick's eyes: to Scarisbrick, the Henrician period was one of upheaval and destruction and those in charge worthy of blame more than praise.<ref name="bandf1"/> Even among more recent biographers, including [[David Loades]], David Starkey, and [[John Guy (historian)|John Guy]], there has ultimately been little consensus on the extent to which Henry was responsible for the changes he oversaw or the assessment of those he did bring about.<ref name="bandf1"/>

This lack of clarity about Henry's control over events has contributed to the variation in the qualities ascribed to him: religious conservative or dangerous radical; lover of beauty or brutal destroyer of priceless artefacts; friend and patron or betrayer of those around him; chivalry incarnate or ruthless chauvinist.<ref name="bandf1"/> One traditional approach, favoured by Starkey and others, is to divide Henry's reign into two halves, the first Henry being dominated by positive qualities (politically inclusive, pious, athletic but also intellectual) who presided over a period of stability and calm, and the latter a "hulking tyrant" who presided over a period of dramatic, sometimes whimsical, change.<ref name="morris19"/>{{Sfn|Starkey|2008|pp=3–4}} Other writers have tried to merge Henry's disparate personality into a single whole; [[Lacey Baldwin Smith]], for example, considered him an egotistical borderline neurotic given to great fits of temper and deep and dangerous suspicions, with a mechanical and conventional, but deeply held piety, and having at best a mediocre intellect.{{Sfn|Smith|1971|pp=passim}}