How much in the history of mankind have the wrong things been done for noble reasons?
My mind truly worries me some times, most specifically when I study the acts of people whom history calls cowards, tyrants or bad people and in a way, it makes sense to me the way in which what they did could have made sense to them at the time.
My most recent foray into the mind of madness has been studying Henry VIII of England. Often considered a bad guy for several reasons the more I study, the more I feel I may see a reason for what he did, as horrible as it was. This is by no means excusing it, nor is understanding it excusing the mistakes those people made, but in understanding I feel it brings them closer to center, more human than demon, and fail-able just as we all are.
As I understand it the world in which Henry VIII was born was one of many contentions, since the line of succession from the Plantagenet's was not clear and direct, there were as many people who has as much right to the throne as the sitting monarch. Power, then as much as now, was a delicate balance. When the legitimacy of a heir could be in question after you were gone, it makes sense that you would do what you could to protect that. I am not suggesting that killing off 2 wives and divorcing 2 others was right, but in the context of the time, if a queen was not as strong candidate for ruler, and not only her rein, but life could be put into question if someone else had the backing to dispose her.
Again, I am not saying that what he did was right. But in trying to hold and keep power, especially when others have as legitimate of a claim to the throne, it becomes hard to let voices of dissent go heard, since one day you are the King, the next day your rivals gain enough support to claim the same and have you killed. It is a hard place to be in. If you allow your rivals to dissent and that in turn can lead to not only your death but possibly the death of your children and you fight with the tools you have to keep that. It would be as if, you owned your home and plan on that providing for your children and then a neighbor steps in, takes your home kills you and gives it to their child. Even more is the problem of a child of yours based on their gender could not inherit your home. If you have an heir who could, it becomes possible for them to look out for their siblings, but without such an heir none of your children are protected against hardships that could include their own death.
I will not suggest that he did not have other reasons, be they lust or otherwise, but I am suggesting that this may have been a part of it. Added to that is this. When you have been given lands or in this case a country, you want your children to have as much of that enacted as possible. You may even think of it as your noble right to keep the throne against all threats both foreign and domestic. (You may be wrong, but that is not the question.) At one time in our history if you were the Alpha male in a tribe or group, and someone else wanted to challenge that you had recourse. You could fight them and if they won they took your place. In this case, those who spoke ill were killed as they posed a threat, and if we have learned anything it is that a person who is in power may use that power to keep power as long as they can. Sometimes it involves killing off rivals so you can secure your place and are not killed or erased from history. (Such as Hatshepsut, was erased by Tuthmosis III when he became pharaoh in 1458 BC)
Henry VIII is often categorized as a womanizer who divorced or killed his wives because he did not have male heirs from them. (With the exception of his third wife who died after childbirth) This may be the case. It may also be the case that he did as he did out of no noble reason but simply because he could. It may be that none of what he did, he did for more noble a cause but just lust. I would argue that perhaps his 5th marriage to Anne of Cleaves may have been partly that, but I find it hard to believe that it was all that.
The human condition is hardly an easy one. We have storms of emotion based on very little, and act sometimes on reasons that we do not know ourselves. Added to that is the fact that people do things sometimes for a number of reasons that point to the same answer. You may have a child because you wish to have the experience of raising children, or feel it is directly a commandment from your God, or you want a part of you to live on, or for countless other reasons, but rarely is it only one of those things. You may have a particular job because it pays the bills, or it allows you to do things you want to do, but it is rarely one thing only. I cannot say for sure that this king did what he did for one reason and only that alone, I am not sure any of us does, or anything would do. If you are hungry and anything will do, you should then eat anything as you have no actual preference, but the human psyche is not like that. We are like a trifle layered and our reasons add up to doing things people may view as only having one reason when it really has countless. Even something so simple as "How do I love, thee?" is continued with "Let me count the ways" as if something so essential as love needs to have a plethora of reasons for it to be valid.
I hardly believe anyone is that simple, and though the primary reason for something may be larger, the truth is that it is hardly as cut and dry as it is made out to be. My mind worries me, but to be fair, it is interesting to me to try to understand the way in which something may have made sense at the time because to me it makes these people more human and sometimes we need more humanity in our experiences.
