Some parts of your question were covered in this earlier answer, which points out that the earliest certain written record of Stonehenge only dates from the late Norman period (c.1130). And even after that, it wasn't until the first stirrings of antiquarianism in the mid-17th century that we get any sort of significant flow of information about the site and how it was regarded.

All that said, we do have some clues. Let's review the ways things stood from period to period.

Saxon era The word "Stonehenge" is a corruption of the Saxon Stanenges, "hanging stones". It's usually supposed the name was given to the site because the trilithons at its centre reminded people of gallows. Some support for that supposition comes from the discovery of the victim of a Saxon-era execution (an articulated skeleton known to archaeologists as "burial 4.10.4"), whose remains were found in 1922, inhumed in the north-east ditch that surrounds the monument. These remains were long thought lost, but when rediscovered in 1999 they were carbon-dated to c.600-690. The victim, a male of 5 feet 4 inches (1.65m), who may have been either Saxon or a Briton, and was aged 28-32, had been decapitated with a single well-aimed blow from an axe or sword. Pitts et al observe that several known Saxon execution sites are associated with Neolithic monuments such as long barrows. Hence we have some evidence that for the early Saxons, Stonehenge may have been an execution and funerary site. Also worth noting, Pitts says, is that this burial is "the oldest indication we have that Stonehenge had a significance in recent centuries."

Norman period The chronicler Henry of Huntingdon wrote about Stonehenge in the context of his listing of the four great wonders of England. For his (much less reliable) contemporary Geoffrey of Monmouth, who claimed to base his work on a probably non-existent old Welsh book, Stonehenge was a memorial to British soldiers killed by Saxon invaders led by Hengist in the fifth century AD, and later the burial site of two great British kings, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther.

From 1130-1530 Stonehenge again goes largely unrecorded in this period. The historian and Tudor propagandist Polydore Vergil mentions it, but only to repeat Monmouth's account.

Mid to late Tudor period The first known image of Stonehenge was executed probably by Joris Hoefnagel in 1568 or 1569. The original is lost, but several versions of it exist, including a print by "R.F." and a watercolour by Lucas de Heere. It's notable for its inaccuracy, showing the stones as "curvaceous as a Modigliani nude" (Burl) and focussing, as do so many later descriptions, on the sarsens rather than the less well preserved bluestone circle.

The topographer William Camden mentions the site in his Britannia (1588), though without devoting the sort of attention we might expect from our more modern perspective. He focused on the monuments; physicality, calling it "a huge and monstrous piece of work," made of "certain mighty and unwrought stones." He added that some thought the stones themselves were artificial, not things that had been quarried and carved, being stuck together with "some glewie and unctuous matter".

Stuart period The first systematic investigations of Stonehenge date to this period. James I and other members of a party paying a visit to the Earl of Pembroke, who lived nearby, excavated some ox bones from the site in 1620 (which they speculated were the products of sacrifices once made there), and the king asked his architect Inigo Jones to investigate the monument's history. Jones pitched a tent at the henge and took measurements, also excavating to find out how deeply embedded the stones were in the local chalk. His notes were published in 1655 as The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, Vulgarly Called Stoneheng, on Salisbury Plain. He thought it was a Roman construction and likened it to temples he knew of in Tuscany. At about the same that infamous royal favourite George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, also visited the site and excavated a large pit in the centre of the monument in order to topple one of the sarsen stones (55), also significantly undermining its companion (56), whic hby 1660 was leaning over at an angle of 75 degrees . Buckingham was interested enough in pursuing these inquiries to offer to purchase the site from its owner, a local gentleman, but he was rebuffed.

In 1663, Walter Charleton wrote a book on the monument, Chorea Gigantum ("giant's dance") which speculated that Stonehenge was a royal court or palace constructed by the Danes around the time of King Alfred.

Charles II also visited the site (on his way into exile, 1651) and was entranced by it, pausing in his flight to "reckon and re-reckon the stones." After his restoration in 1660 he ordered the renowned Stuart diarist John Aubrey to conduct fresh investigations at the henge.

Aubrey already knew the site well, though he considered it be be inferior in its plan and construction to the Avebury Circle. He was the first to attempt to compare Stonehenge to other ancient stone circles and also the first to associate it with the druids, speculating that it was an ancient religious temple (still a popular supposition even today, of course). It's also to Aubrey that we owe the discovery of the "Aubrey holes" inside the bank encircling the henge. Modern archaeologists believe these had been used to anchor wooden poles that had once surrounded the henge.

The Hanoverians Georg Keysler, a German traveller who visited Britain in the 1720s, saw Stonehenge and thought it had been constructed by Saxons. Organised excavations at the henge date to 1723, when Lord Pembroke (a descendant of the earl of the 1620s) had trenches dug around the altar stone at the centre of the monument and discovered numerous flints.

Finally we come to William Stukeley, another antiquarian, whose once-battered reputation has been undergoing quite a revival in recent years, It was Stukeley who first correctly suggested that the stones were of far greater antiquity than earlier thought, putting its construction at about 480 BC (still out by around 2,000 years, but by far the best and most thought-out guess made to that time – and that can be said to have ushererd in the modern period of Stonehenge studies.) He also identified the stones that make up the henge as coming from at least three different sources, and made the first serious efforts to place Stonehenge within the wider context of its surroundings.

Of course, while all this antiquarianism was going on, the local people of Salisbury Plain were also interacting with the monument - generally to despoil and quarry it for homes and road surfacing, but also to chip away at the stones to carve out bits of rock that were considered lucky charms. Examination of successive images of Stonehenge show the loss of some stones and the toppling and fracturing of others, as a result of this small scale but ongoing work. Other forces were also at work in this period, however; the loss of one 60-ton sarsen was caused by a band of "gypsies" who sheltered at Stonehenge in the early 1790s while waiting for a local fair to begin. They dug a shelter for themselves against the stone and this was enough to weaken the foundations and bring it down a couple of years later.

Sources

Burl, Aubrey. Stonehenge: A Complete History, 2006

North, John. Stonehenge, 1996

Pitts, M. and Bayliss, A. and McKinley, J. and Bylston, A. and Budd, P. and Evans, J. and Chenery, C. and Reynolds, A. and Semple, S. J. (2002) ’An Anglo-Saxon decapitation and burial at Stonehenge.’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 95 . pp. 131-146.

Richardson, R.C. "William Camden and the re-discovery of England." Trans. Leics. Arch. and Hist. Soc. 78 (2004) pp.108-123.