answersLogoWhite

0

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.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

What else can I help you with?