Henry VIII Wasn't A Serial Killer

Henry VIII Was Not a Serial Killer: Why Modern Labels Distort Tudor Reality

I am excited about this one.

Since I started Crowns and Curiosity, I have been exposed to a lot more “historical” profiles than would show up in my normal algorithm, and I have to say, I’m pretty surprised to see (more than once) Henry VIII being labeled as a serial killer. I mean, I am not totally surprised, since today there are more true crime documentaries on Netflix than seemingly anything else. But being who I am, I do feel called to debunk that “myth” so all the self-professed True Crime pros on the internet can chill out.

Who am I, you ask? Besides the Tudor specialist, and your in-house guru on all things royal, I do hold 2 degrees from University. In what? I am glad you asked:

-B.A. Criminal Justice

-M.S. Homeland Security

So to talk about Henry VIII as a serial killer is literally two of my specialties colliding in the best way and I am here for it. (I have done many a research project on assorted serial killers and my senior thesis for one degree and was literally about child serial killers. I am not kidding, do not FA with me because you will FO.)

Here we go.

My biggest critique of studying history is that it CANNOT be done with modern eyes. Modern audiences love diagnosing historical figures. In a world saturated with true-crime narratives, it is almost irresistible to imagine Henry VIII as one of history’s earliest serial killers. After all, he executed two queens, several close friends, political rivals, and an unsettling number of courtiers. But while the label is catchy, it is fundamentally flawed. Henry VIII was ruthless, impulsive, paranoid, and spectacularly unsuited for introspection — but he was not a serial killer.

Read that again.

HE WAS NOT A SERIAL KILLER.

This isn’t historical apologism. It’s criminology. It’s legal analysis. And it’s refusing to flatten Tudor history into a true-crime trope.  Let’s discuss.

Serial Killing Is a Psychological Pattern — Not a Body Count

Criminology draws clear distinctions between motivation and method.  One of the foundational principles in criminology is that serial murder is defined by psychological motivation, not by the number of deaths. The FBI’s definition includes elements such as:

• psychological compulsion,
• an internal fantasy or gratification,
• a cooling-off period, and
• victims chosen for symbolic or opportunistic reasons.

Henry VIII fits none of these. Not one.

A serial killer seeks anonymity; Henry sought spectacle.

A serial killer kills for personal gratification; Henry acted out of political necessity, dynastic pressure, and paranoia.

A serial killer’s victims serve a private psychological purpose; Henry’s victims served political and legal functions.

Anne Boleyn, Thomas Cromwell, Catherine Howard — their deaths were not the product of homicidal obsession but of Tudor statecraft and factional politics. Brutal? Yes. Psychologically compulsive? Nope. Is it morally outrageous? Yes. Is it serial killing? Absolutely not.

The Legal System of Tudor England: Brutality by Design, Not by Personality

To understand Henry’s actions, we have to leave the realm of true crime and step into the Tudor courtroom—an environment far more frightening than any psychological thriller.

Tudor law normalized capital punishment on a scale that modern minds struggle to process. Treason, heresy, adultery, counterfeiting, theft, conspiracy—the list of capital offenses was long, and the penalties were intentionally public. Executions were not personal crimes but instruments of statecraft: deterrence, moral theater, and political messaging rolled into one.

Henry did not invent this system; he inherited it, weaponized it, and expanded it through parliamentary acts such as:

• The 1534 Treasons Act, which broadened treason to include words, intentions, and opinions
• The legal mechanisms that allowed queens to be tried (Anne and Catherine Howard)
• The use of attainder, allowing Parliament to declare someone guilty without trial

These were not the tools of a secretive psychopath; they were the tools of a king using law as both shield and sword. Tudor executions, even when politically motivated, were framed as legal necessities carried out in the name of the realm.

A serial killer acts outside the law.

Henry VIII operated through it.

Henry’s Psychology: Powerful, Paranoid, But Not Serial

The psychology behind Henry’s decisions reveals a ruler pressured by:

1. Dynastic instability

The Tudor dynasty was young; a lack of a male heir represented existential threat.

2. Paranoia and aging

Declining health and factional manipulation heightened Henry’s suspicion.

3. Religious and political upheaval

The Reformation destabilized every political relationship around him.

4. Absolute power

Henry’s belief in his divine right created moral certainty, not psychological compulsion.

His behavior reflects the psychology of authoritarian power, not the psychology of serial homicide.

But What About the Wives?

The wives are often cited as evidence, but their fates tell a different story:

• Catherine of Aragon — divorced, not executed.
• Anne Boleyn — executed legally (though unjustly), under charges of adultery, incest and treason.
• Jane Seymour — died naturally.
• Anne of Cleves — lived peacefully and prosperously.
• Catherine Howard — executed for treasonous behavior under Tudor law.
• Catherine Parr — outlived Henry entirely.

The variation in outcomes disproves any pattern that might resemble serial murder. Serial killers exhibit consistency; Henry VIII’s actions reflected circumstance.

Conclusion

Calling Henry VIII a serial killer may feel satisfying, but it misunderstands serial killers, early modern monarchy, and the entire legal structure of Tudor governance. Henry VIII’s violence was public, political, and legal—shocking by modern standards but entirely consistent with his time. Here in the United States, we have the death penalty. Are the members of the juries that impose the death penalty serial killers? Is the judge that allows that sentence a serial killer? No. It is just consistent with the legal system of our time.

His brutality tells us nothing about the psychology of compulsive murder.

It tells us everything about the psychology of absolute power.

Henry VIII’s psychology could be a whole other blog post, and I probably couldn’t even unpack it all. He was a lot of things, both bad and good and depending on which way you lean to, maybe more bad than good. Whatever he did, or I should say whatever you THINK he did, his reign helped shape England into what it is today.

At this point, I would like to remind you, dear reader, to go back to one of my previous blog posts about how to read history, then come back and read this again without your modern eyes.

:curtsies in American: