Was Henry Viii A Good King

According to the principles in Machiavelli’s The Prince, Henry VIII was an egotistical king and was not considered a good leader through, campaigns that mostly failed, the wasting of his own countries resources, and only considered advice that benefited his cause impulsively his unsuccessful campaigns. Henry VIII made countless mistakes through the failure of his campaigns in politics and military strategies. Through his failed campaigns, Henry also used the country’s wealth to fund them which inevitably drained his own country economically. There were one to many self-serving correspondents who henry relied on for advice and never contemplated the consequences of, which would lead careless actions. Through Henry’s reign, he would set out …show more content…
He had a selfish desire to be seen as a supreme ruler and by that he flushed the money from his own state. “With [Henry’s] doctrinal waverings left, His return to war with France… cost outrageous sums; this led to other financial ventures, including loans and currency depreciation, which combined to fuel a Europeanwide inflation and to swell the royal debt. “Henry’s greed and lust for power violates the first rule of how to be a wise leader, according to Machiavelli: “Either a ruler is spending his own and his subject’s money, or someone else’s. When the money is his own or his subjects’, he should go easy; when it’s someone else’s, he should be as lavish as he can.” (NOTE) Henry is known to history already as a self and greedy king who does everything to only his benefit; with no regards to the rest of the population. Wolsey and Henry VIII tried to extort money from the wealthy in the Amicable Grant of 1525, but were forced to back down when rioting ensued. (NOTE) In this case, the king knew he did not have the funds to support the war, so instead he pulled out as much money as he could out of his own economy without thinking about the well-being of the nation. He is not a good ruler simply because he failed use his own money wisely which no doubt would decrease his popularity with the people and the government. There is no foolishness in a ruler using his states money to benefit a cause, but when it’s spent impulsively and in large sums then the Economic state of the city suffers and the true nature of the cause unveils. There would be no final decision making for Henry if he didn’t have his self-serving court by his