Image: Portrait of Henry VIII by Hans Holbein the Younger in 1540; owlcation.com
“Off with her head!” exclaims the bad-tempered Queen of Hearts when Alice (visiting Wonderland) displeases her. This is the Queen’s recurrent phrase, echoing the history of the Tudor monarchs of England. Who was the most brutal of the Tudors? Henry VIII is seen as the Tudor most keen on chopping off heads.
Of his six wives, two were beheaded. After he was crowned, he executed two nobles who had supported his father, and could now be an alternative centre of power. Two leading administrators who failed in enabling his divorce from his first wife Catherine of Aragon lost their jobs. One died in prison. The other was executed.
Chief Minister Thomas Cromwell (no relation to Oliver) ensured Henry’s divorce from Catherine. Cromwell then enabled the English Reformation after England ended its religious ties to Rome. He was Chief Minister from 1534 to 1540. After which he was beheaded.
Henry VIII despatched many more than these high-profile figures. Historians guess that during his 36 years of rule over England he executed up to 57,000 people, many of whom were either members of the clergy or ordinary citizens and nobles who had taken part in uprisings and protests up and down the country.
In a 2015 survey, historical writers voted their choice of the “worst” kings. Henry VIII came out on top, attracting the biggest proportion of votes. Robert Wilton, the author of The Spider of Sarajevo, called the Tudor king “a gross man-child, wilfully and capriciously dangerous to everything around him including the country.”
This desperately dangerous King provides an example of narcissism in action. His life illustrates how this personality disorder can develop, how narcissism can lead to aggression and how to recognise the signs of this character trait.
Growing up as first “spare” and then “heir”
We know that young people who are told they are “special” are more likely to demonstrate later narcissism. Similarly, “cold” caregivers nudge children towards narcissism.
Henry was the “spare heir” – his elder brother Arthur was trained as the future King. Arthur was brought up in the company of adult males, close to his father, Henry VII - the first Tudor King. Surely Arthur was the “special one”?
In contrast to Arthur, the young Henry was in mostly female company – his mother probably taught him to read, his grandmother was close, and he had sisters for company. Historian David Starkey considers that he was probably a “Mummy’s boy” with this female company.
Henry was a quick learner, an adept musician and good at sports. He would have got a lot of positive feedback.
And there was little corrective feedback. The “whipping boy” was a real person. Because of their near-divine status royals were not punished. When little Henry was a bad boy – another was whipped.
Life would have been very good for this special boy.
Until age 10. Brother Arthur, who was now married to Catherine of Aragon died of the “sweating sickness”. Henry joined his cold and austere father to learn how to be a King. Their mother, who Henry was particularly attached to, died two years later.
Alison Weir has written several books about Henry VIII and his wives. She quotes young Henry’s cousin Reginald Pole who claimed that the King (Henry VII) “had no affection or fancy unto him.” It seems that the relationship was all business; “all the talk in his presence was of virtue, honour, cunning, wisdom and deeds of worship, of nothing that shall move him to vice.” (P7, 2001).
Henry was kept close to his father and apart from young men and women. It would have been shocking for the boy who had been the centre of the universe in his mother’s care to be strictly managed by a tough-minded father. His preparation for Kingship lasted until the death of Henry VII, when Henry was 18.
Henry had absorbed the idea of his special abilities and was then subjected to a protracted period of emotional coldness. With this unpleasant interlude over, he was well-prepared for his career as a narcissistic king.
The young king as narcissist
As a young king Henry was dashing and super-competitive, the centre of a rolling maul of tournaments and events. A well-known example of his desire to be the best has him comparing himself to the newly crowned 21-year-old Francis I of France.
Image: King Henry VIII and his court arriving at a joust in Westminster, 1511; our warwickshire.org.uk
Lorenzo Pasqualigo, the Venetian Ambassador attended a 1515 pageant which featured the mythical Robin Hood and his archers. Pasqualigo describes being quizzed by the 24-year-old Henry about the height, stoutness and the legs of Francis. When told that the French king’s legs were “spare” or thin, Henry opened his doublet (an overshirt, often worn under a formal robe) and slapping his thigh said “Look here! I have a good calf to my leg” (P 182, Weir, 2001).
How does Henry match the profile of narcissist? Recent research has clarified the nature of this personality disorder. This tightens what has been a loose concept including a range of self-interested behaviour. Narcissism emerges from a core of entitled self-importance. This turbo-charges competitiveness and an appetite for admiration.
Think of two armour-clad horse-borne knights thundering toward each other. Each knight intending to use their heavy lance to smash their opponent off their mount. Watching from the pavilion are the ladies of the court together with visiting dignitaries.
Image: owlcation.com
A deputation of Spanish ambassadors was welcomed in 1517 as Henry attempted to establish England as a force in the ongoing three-way tussle with France and Spain. They were treated to a display of jousting followed by a splendid feast and festivities. Henry and the Duke of Suffolk eight times charged down the jousting course against each other, “shivering their lances every time, to the great applause of the spectators” (P 209, Weir, 2001). The tournament was followed by a seven-hour banquet, after which Henry danced with the ladies until dawn.
From the core of self-important entitlement emerge two expressions or styles of narcissism. The flavour we are most familiar with is grandiosity. Grandiose narcissists are goal-focused, dominant, and excitement-driven. They attract attention with their loud and colourful behaviour.
The other dimension of narcissism is not so obvious – vulnerability. While the grandiose narcissist boldly heads toward potential rewards, the vulnerable narcissist avoids threats – especially to their inflated self-esteem. They crave appreciation, but the people around them are not always 100% on message. “Tell me how good I am” can alternate with “You are so wrong about me.” This makes for volatile relationships. The vulnerable narcissist’s aggressive reaction to any hint of criticism alienates others.
For those who see people through the lens of the “Big Five” of personality, the grandiose narcissist is low on agreeableness and high on extraversion. Low agreeableness means competitive rather than empathetic. Socially assertive and pleasure-seeking defines high extraversion.
The vulnerable narcissist shares the core trait of low agreeableness (“it’s all about me”) and is high on “neuroticism”. That means more emotional, especially anxious and aggressive behaviour. Not at all chill and relaxed.
In my book on Remarkable People I describe the audacious Jean Batten (first to fly solo from England to New Zealand) and the charming Nancy Wake (a saboteur who fought Nazis behind the lines in occupied France) as examples of vulnerable narcissism and grandiose narcissism respectively.
We have seen Henry’s hard-driving, competitive, self-promoting style. His extraversion is evident in his pursuit of noble sports and courtly accomplishments such as dancing and making music. His emotionality was also legendary. In her 1991 book (The Six Wives of Henry VIII) Alison Weir gives an example of his temper: “Henry turned on his Lord Privy Seal (Thomas Cromwell) at least twice a week, bawling him out and calling him a knave and other derisory names, and sometimes he hit him on the head, pounding him soundly, so that Cromwell would leave the King’s chamber shaking with fright” (P 384).
Clues to narcissism
How do we distinguish narcissism from exuberance or emotionality? Organisational researchers Arijit Chatterjee and Donald C Hambrick used a range of clues to assess the narcissism of 111 technology company CEOs. They measured the number and size of CEO portraits in company reports. The number of references to the CEOs in PR releases. Also, these leaders’ use of “I-statements” in their public pronouncements, and the size of the gap between their remuneration and that of their direct reports.
There was no overall difference between the financial performance of the businesses led by more narcissistic leaders and the companies led by less narcissistic types. The key difference was the variability in company performance levels. Businesses led by narcissists did brilliantly, or terribly. All over the place, in contrast to the steady performance of those led by non-narcissists. Narcissistic leaders were more likely to make showy moves, which sometimes paid off, and other times fizzled.
Henry VIII made similarly bold moves. His 1513 campaign against France is estimated to have cost nearly one million pounds (quite a bit if we adjust for more than 500 years of inflation), for the capture of two not especially significant towns (described by some of his subjects as “graceless dogholes” P 164, Weir, 2001). But this did provide an opportunity for much celebration of Henry’s prowess.
Recent work has refined the definition of narcissism. Especially the behavioural signs of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. From a survey by Zlatan Krizan and Anne D. Herlache published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I use Henry VIII to illustrate these behavioural themes first for grandiose and then for vulnerable narcissism.
An advisory. It is easy to self-diagnose these behaviours. Or to see them in friends, family, or work colleagues. These behaviours become relevant to the syndrome of narcissism when they are so extreme that they interfere with the well-being of others. If you think you or someone you know is out there in terms of narcissism, try an informal survey to check on how people experience your or those others' behaviour.
Clues to grandiose narcissism
First, grandiose narcissism. We consider three signs. These people take the lead through domination. They exploit others. They head for the rewards – they want the good things for themselves.
Was Henry a dominator? He excelled in the competitive activities of the medieval court. He was an enthusiastic jouster. He was also a keen tennis player. Tudor tennis was a more intense game played on indoor courts with high walls. And viewing galleries – so that Henry’s skill could be observed. As a Venetian Ambassador noted “It was the prettiest thing in the world to see him play” (P 182, Weir, 2001).
A telling interpersonal example shows Henry in domination mode. The scholar Desiderius Erasmus, who might have been a tutor of young Henry described how Henry could put an arm around a man’s shoulder and put him at ease, but that he “could not abide to have any man stare in his face when he talked with them” (P3, Weir, 2001).
Was he exploitative? Henry was a callous user of people. Wives and key players in the effective administration of his kingdom were removed when not useful to him.
He wanted to get rid of his first wife Catherine because she had not produced a male heir. He petitioned the Pope to annul their marriage, but that was not going to happen. Two of his gofers attempted to achieve this impossible goal in the existing religious framework. Thomas Wolsey’s efforts were obstructed by the Pope’s local representative. Wolsey was removed and imprisoned in the Tower where he died. That did not move things the way Henry wanted them to go.
Henry then appointed his principal fixer Thomas More and tasked him with achieving a split with Rome to get around the veto of the Pope. More refused. He was removed and then beheaded.
Then the third Thomas, Cromwell got the job done. But he fell out with Anne Boleyn, the new wife. He also got the chop.
Was Henry reward-oriented? As a young man he ate, drank, danced, hunted, competed in martial sports, and made his mark in courtly pursuits such as song and dance.
Early in his reign a French Ambassador wrote “Henry is a youngling, who cares for nothing but girls and hunting, and wastes his father’s patrimony.” (P79, Weir, 2001).
As an older man he continued to eat and drink, so much so that his weight at death is estimated as 28 stone (178 kg).
The historical evidence of King Henry VIII’s dominance, his exploitation of others, and his rewards-focus fits with a diagnosis of grandiose narcissism. Perhaps a better fit than his armour. Henry needed larger and larger suits of armour as his waist grew from 32 inches (81 cm) in his 20s to 52 inches (132 cm) in his final suit before his death at 55.
Clues to vulnerable narcissism
How does he profile in terms of vulnerable narcissism?
Again, I use three signs, this time of the vulnerable flavour of narcissism. Someone who is attracted to a goal, but fearful of the risks in pursuing it, can be seen to vacillate between approach and avoidance. Such prevarication is an indication of vulnerable narcissism. So is paranoia. The narcissist is jealous of their reputation and sensitive to the threat of criticism or worse. A third indication of narcissistic vulnerability is extreme emotionality.
Was Henry a ditherer?
Many of Henry’s big initiatives took time. It took six years to divorce his first wife and to marry Ann Boleyn.
But this divorce was a complex business, involving a split from Rome and managing the fallout of a radical change in religious observance in England.
Later, after the (natural) death of his third wife Jane Seymour, Henry took his time choosing his next Queen. He wanted to ensure the right political alignment – French rather than Spanish he decided. But he also desired a compatible woman.
He endured jibes from the French Ambassador Castillon at his preference for meeting a potential wife: “Perhaps Sire, you would like to try them one after the other and keep the one you find most agreeable.” (P381, Weir, 1991).
Neither example is strong evidence of dithering. This seems like appropriate caution.
The evidence is that he reflected on advice, but he believed in his god-given ability to be right and would stick to his decision. Cardinal Wolsey made the point: “Be well advised what ye put in his head, for ye shall never pull it out again.” (P3, Weir, 2001).
Was Henry paranoid? Many families were destroyed because Henry thought they were plotting against him. Discussing the king’s ailments was reason enough for death. In the 1537 trial of the Marquis of Exeter and Lord Montagu it was alleged they had disrespectfully discussed Henry's health. They were accused of saying of the King: “he will die suddenly, his legge will kill him, and then we shall have jolly stirring” (P 515, Chalmers and Chaloner. 2009). These traitorous words led to their beheading.
Was Henry emotional? His 1543 marriage to Katherine Parr (four years before his death) ensured someone to care for his increasing infirmity and who would intercede when he lost his temper. “His sudden and terrible rages would send his courtiers fleeing and none but his wife could calm him” (P 516, Chalmers and Chaloner, 2009).
Henry was deliberate in reaching decisions rather than a vacillator. He was certainly paranoid and emotional.
Henry VIII seems to epitomise both grandiose and also some aspects of vulnerable narcissism. Is this feasible?
An intriguing study of the narcissism of over 1,000 Austrians demonstrated that these two aspects begin to merge as the levels of both grandiosity and vulnerability reach very high levels.
In Henry’s case, it seems that his sensation-seeking required more extreme efforts as his capability declined. As he became less athletic, his weight increased. He also suffered painful leg sores. Rewards became harder to achieve.
High self-esteem would have been harder to maintain. In this vulnerable state any hint of disrespect, or even his reflection on trivial failures, would trigger aggression.
Aggressive narcissists
Henry VIII was a dangerous man. As potential wife Christina, Duchess of Milan commented when sounded out about her eligibility: “The King’s majesty was in so little space rid of the queens that she dare not trust his Council, though she durst trust his Majesty.” (P 384, Weir, 1991)
Is aggression or violence part of the narcissistic syndrome? Not surprisingly, it is. High self-esteem is a defining aspect of the narcissists’ self-concept. An aggressive reaction to threats to that self-image is a natural, if unpleasant consequence.
A recent meta-analysis (of 437 studies including 123,043 people) found a consistent link between narcissism and aggression, including violence. The “effect sizes” of this relationship were low (just over .20 for those who want precision), but consistent across the different styles of narcissism (grandiose and vulnerable), gender and social context (individualistic or collectivist societies).
What could trigger narcissists’ violence? At the core of the syndrome is self-importance. It’s all about them. Especially their self-image. Henry was sensitive about his reputation , or as Alison Weir describes it: “He was also very jealous of his honour” (P3, 2001).
For the narcissist a threat to their personal brand will be interpreted as a provocation, triggering an aggressive reaction.
For Alice (in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland), the Queen of Hearts was an obstacle, and a dangerous one, to her journey. While playing Wonderland Croquet with flamingos for mallets and hedgehogs for balls, the other players are dragged away to lose their heads. Only Alice, the Queen and the King of Hearts are left on the lawn. Alice escapes this threat. How will you manage to play on if you must deal with a powerful narcissist?
You would not be advised to call out a Tudor monarch for their bad behaviour. Confronting a narcissist and challenging their behaviour is also not recommended.
The narcissist in your workplace, or at home, might not have the immense power of a medieval king or queen, but they are still capable of nastiness. Think in terms of one of the nobles in court, or the king or queen of another country. How can you deal with this unruly dictator, with the resources you can field?
Best to check in with your support crew and assess the heft of your alliances. You may have to take a long-term view in planning how you can out-manoeuvre this person, or how you can avoid them.
You have more options than those who lived in the 16th century. You have more choice about leaving home or your job without quite the restrictions of gender and class that applied then.
Proceed strategically and with just a bit of paranoia.
Particular thanks to Eliza Harris for sharing her knowledge of the Tudors.
Hi Stewart, I enjoyed this. Did you think about analysing the current Prince Henry and his wife when you were writing this?