 The complexities and sheer scale of Henry 's legacy ensured that , in the words of Betteridge and Freeman , " throughout the centuries [ since his death ] , Henry has been praised and reviled , but he has never been ignored " . A particular focus of modern historiography has been the extent to which the events of Henry 's life ( including his marriages , foreign policy and religious changes ) were the result of his own initiative and , if they were , whether they were the result of opportunism or of a principled undertaking by Henry . The traditional interpretation of those events was provided by historian A.F. Pollard , who in 1902 presented his own , largely positive , view of the king , " laud [ ing him ] as the king and statesman who , whatever his personal failings , led England down the road to parliamentary democracy and empire " . Pollard 's interpretation , which was broadly comparable to 17th century publications of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and his contemporaries , remained the dominant interpretation of Henry 's life until the publication of the doctoral thesis of G. R. Elton in 1953 . That thesis , entitled " The Tudor Revolution in Government " , maintained Pollard 's positive interpretation of the Henrician period as a whole , but reinterpreted Henry himself as a follower rather than a leader . For Elton , it was Cromwell and not Henry who undertook the changes in government – Henry was shrewd , but lacked the vision to follow a complex plan through . Henry was little more , in other words , than an " ego @-@ centric monstrosity " whose reign " owed its successes and virtues to better and greater men about him ; most of its horrors and failures sprang more directly from [ the king ] " . 
