We all see him depicted in both history books and media as a wife-beheading guy who had a lot of wives, but I'm not knowledgable enough to know if six really is all that especially large a number for European history of the time for a century before and after, or if having any number of your spouses killed was that a-historical, or if it's that he did it twice. I know when I was a kid I was under the impression he had all but maybe one of his wive's killed, so many that's why I'm biased to thinking it's not as shocking as it really is, even in context.
Is it really THAT a-typical, or is it such a compelling story to us because he was the father of two of the most famous Queen's in English history and his own reign presided over a very pivotal moment during the protestant reformation.
I apologize if this is too vague of a question, but I do know monarchs of the past had many wives and executing a spouse was not uncommon, or am I mistaken? Or is it only not uncommon when looking at the entire historical record of Europe in the medieval era, but still an incredibly rare thing to have happen.
Thanks /r/askhistorians.
I can't speak for all of Europe. It was certainly atypical for England and he's generally judged in the context of English history first and foremost.
No other king of England had six wives. Between the time of the Norman Conquest and Henry VIII no other English king had more than two wives. At least during the period of their reign. Of those who had two wives all acquired their second wife after the death of their first except for one. It took Edward I about nine years to remarry (he was very much in love with his first wife). It also took Henry IV about nine years to remarry after the death of his first wife. When the wife of Richard II died he was allegedly devastated but he had to remarry relatively quickly because he didn't have an heir.
Edward III's wife (whom he was very close to) died and he reigned another eight years without remarriage (although he had a rather infamous mistress during that time). Henry VII also didn't remarry when his wife died in 1503 although he considered it.
The only exception to the remarry upon death trend is King John. His first marriage was annulled due to consanguinity. They had no children.
Going back before the Norman Conquest, King Cnut probably had two wives at the same time, Ælfgifu and Emma of Normandy. Cnut was also king of Denmark and his grandfather had been the one to convert Denmark to Christianity. So, the rules weren't quite as set in stone for them, at that point, as they were for other countries in Europe.
So, the very number of wives, alone, was definitely unusual. As was attempting to divorce Catherine, whom he had been married to for twenty years and had a daughter with. Annulments happened but it really wasn't a case of just a nudge and a wink to your local bishop.
I can't speak for all of the English gentry. There may have been some with many wives. Or who had a couple of annulments. But the trend of the kings would be typical through out the nobility. Because that is what aligned with their faith.
You have to remember this was a very religious time and marriage was a sacrament. Adultery (for men!) was a sin but forgivable. But breaking a union sanction by God was a whole other step. So, ending it was taken very seriously and was quite difficult to do. Especially once the marriage had produced children, who would effectively be made bastards by an annulment.
To address the second part about having spouses killed that was also not typical. No English king post conquest had his Queen killed prior to Henry. I'm not aware of any Anglo-Saxon king of England (as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon kings prior to the unification) to do so either.
Queen Isabella did depose her husband, Edward II. And may have been complicit in his later death. Needless to say that was a very unusual set of circumstances.
Henry II had his wife, Eleanor, locked up for the rest of his life after she helped organize a revolt against him led by their sons, Henry and Richard. Killing Eleanor would have been untenable. Aquitaine and Poitou would likely have revolted as would his sons. But the fact is that even armed rebellion wasn't enough cause for a king to kill his queen. And Henry II was a very strong king. He was certainly no pushover.
Killing spouses was also not typical for royalty in medieval France. There was a scandal under the reign of Phillip IV where two of his daughters-in-law were accused of adultery and locked up. And a third was also implicated in aiding the affairs. The two accused of adultery were locked away for the rest of their (rather short) lives and both died of natural causes as a result of the poor treatment. Although some suggest they were murdered. The third was released and remained married to her husband. The lovers were tortured and killed.
But, again, the royal wives weren't officially executed. Even if they were killed it was a quiet and hidden action. It was not a norm. There were French kings who had official mistresses. But they also weren't in the habit of marrying on the order of Henry.
It's a good question because it's important to put things in context. No one should just assume something is out of the norm because it violates our mores. But, yes, Henry's actions were definitely not the norm and was seen as unusual by contemporaries. That being said at least for the first three his concerns weren't invalid. He was only the second king of his line. England had been plagued by decades of conflict over succession prior to Henry VII. During the reign of Henry VII there were a couple of uprisings that were genuine threats to his throne (and more that weren't particularly at risk of succeeding). Henry VIII was more secure on his throne than his father (he was the grandson of Edward IV) but he was also concerned. There were people living with better claims to royal blood than the Tudors although between the two of them Henry VII and VIII managed to get rid of most. The last time a king of England died leaving only a female heir it led to years of civil war dubbed "the Anarchy." (Although, I don't think that is quite as convincing a motive as some claim. That was centuries ago and things had changed. The recent War of the Roses is a more convincing concern.)
So, needing a male heir wasn't just his ego. He saw it as a necessity. That doesn't really explain all his actions but it provides context.
But, yes, it was definitely an unusual period of history for that country in that time. And that is part of the reason why it is so infamous. That it lead to a huge break with the Church had major ramifications so that is a major cause of the attention it gets. There is also the element of poetic irony. He was so obsessed with providing a male heir but, in the end, both his daughters ended up ruling. The two major plots to usurp Mary were due to her religion not sex and they planned to put different queens on the thrones (Jane Grey and Elizabeth). Plus, both were put out relatively quickly rather than being a long protracted war. And Elizabeth reigned for 44 years without plunging the kingdom into civil war. Hell, Elizabeth managed to not have a natural heir without plunging the kingdom into civil war. And that was a major concern. Of course, he couldn't know that. But that retrospective "was it even necessary" tends to pull people.
Bear in mind that, to his contemporaries (and some modern scholars) one of the oddest things about Henry was that when he was courting Anne Boleyn, he chose to marry her. Setting aside a royal wife who was the Aunt to the Holy Roman Emperor and had given Henry children (though only one of them survived to adulthood) was not only considered unusual, but unthinkable. Fighting to marry Boleyn for almost a decade, only to have her executed less than three years later when she had also given him a child was considered even stranger. You didn't marry mistresses- only King Edward had done it, with Elizabeth Woodville. Henry's oddity is that he clearly wasn't content with that.