In the original meaning of the word ... he couldn't have been a Tyrant because he was the Legally appointed King of England and thus an absolute ruler.
If by Tyrant you mean did he do things as he wanted without care for his subjects and was he harsh and cruel?
Again the answer is no, he was the King of England he wasn't there for the benefit of his subjects, he had the right to make laws ... and his subjects benefitted in many ways from his rule. The least of which was his overthrowing of the Tyrannical and despotic rule by the Catholic Church and its minions.
He was no more cruel or harsh than any King of the same period, and in many ways he was better. i.e. Under Henry VIII merit was rewarded rather than giving positions based upon birth he elevated a number of people from the merchant class, arguably this had far reaching beneficial results and helps to explain why the UK was considerably more successful than its continental neighbours who were tired down by both Catholic orthodoxy and the limited inbred gene pool of their ruling elites.
If you mean Henry VIII, yes, he was a tyrant in many ways.
a bloody tyrant
Dictator
Henry VIII was a monstrous tyrant but for some strange reason is remembered fondly today.
Henry was a tyrant, and all the ladies and gentleman at court was always wary of his moods he could be rutheless and angered quickly.
Which Henry? There were eight of them.
patrick henry, "give me liberty or give me death"
Being a tyrant Falling in love For Oodles on GSN, the answer is: All the answers are correct.
Henry Ford inrtoduced the eight-hour workday to his company in 1914.
This is a dictatorship.
The tyrant.
The tyrant.
King Henry was a tyrant. He cared for no one but himself. He was terrible and England was just terrible in the communities he focused on.