Does the world punish the privileged?

I'm currently reading yet another book about the Tudor family. It's a bit of an obsession however I allow myself this indulgence because who can deny a fascination with Henry VIII? His history and that of his family intersect with and transformed so many fundamental aspects of modern life, religion, marriage, class, government that it's easy to forget that it's simply the story of a family, albeit a powerful royal one  (besides the book, I was also inspired to write on this topic by Howard Brenton's recent and wonderful article on Anne Boleyn and the Reformation).

Henry VIII made so many mistakes in his life. We all know about his romantic foibles but he also had talented and gifted ministers executed. He spent in excess of what he had, burning through a large surplus left him by a prudent and spendthrift father. He maintained and built over 50 palaces, some of them ridiculously grand. Perhaps his greatest achievement, the English Reformation, probably came about because of a confluence of circumstances and personalities. The Protestant Reformation was already underway in Europe before Anne Boleyn arrived at Henry VIII's court in 1522 but that event dramatically changed its course. We tend to think of the English Reformation in simple terms, that is Henry VIII simply breaking with the Pope but it was a much more complicated political process. Although there were many in England caught up in the wave of continental Reformist ideas, the Catholic church was firmly established there. It was probably the predominant factor in everyday life for most (it's also worth noting that Henry VIII never official repudiated the catholic church).

Let's look at some of the actions Henry VIII took against the catholic church, ostensibly simply so he could marry his lover: ostracized his (catholic) wife and aunt of the Holy Roman emperor as well as her supporters in Parliament, introduced and passed several acts of Parliament reducing the church's influence in England, passed a law making it a treasonable offence to challenge royal supremacy and then immediately executing several prominent ministers who had fought earlier laws, appropriated the property and money of the catholic church, and violently suppressed resulting uprisings in various parts of England. This was just so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

Not that there weren't powerful and strong ecclesiastical, theoretical and philosophical ideas underpinning the English Reformation. There clearly were. But without such a flawed King, willing to undertake highly controversial actions that threatened his kingdom, would it have ever happened?

Maybe the religious undertones of Henry VIII's first divorce saved him but what could excuse his continued reckless behavior? After all, Henry VIII eventually beheaded the most vocal of the reformers at court, the one who perhaps believed most fervently in the burgeoning continental Lutheran ideas, Anne Boleyn.

Boleyn gave him a daughter on top of the one Catherine had and Parliament passed laws allowing both to inherit the throne so why the drastic action to get a son if his only concern was safety of the kingdom and the reform of the catholic church? He did so, again, for flawed personal reasons.

Henry VIII kept executing others who fell out of favor. The executions and bloodlust appear like something out of a mafia movie. It wasn't safe to be in court. One moment you could be in favor and the next, based on a scurrilous rumor, the king's mood, the influence of your enemies, you could be on the chopping block.

Yet Henry VIII was never punished truly for his recklessness. True he faced constant threats to his rule and miscellaneous rebellions but nothing out of the ordinary for the 16th century. Additionally, the 16th century circle of elite in England wasn't that large and the same families often patronized court again and again. In many cases the descendants and relatives of those Henry VIII had executed worked themselves back into favor. And this was a nation already at constant war with continental enemies as well as the occasional skirmish with the Scottish not to mention the recently concluded civil war won by his father, Henry VII, who in reality had no real claim to the throne but essentially won it through armed struggle, the last English king to do so.

Although just a theory, I think many of Henry VIII's excesses probably resulted in the (temporary) downfall of the monarchy nearly 100 years after his death.

Are there any other areas in modern life where we tolerate excesses because of privilege, either because of self-interest or fear? There most certainly are (although we here in America like to proclaim and display our egalitarian anti-monarchical stripes). And I think identifying this privilege provides insight as to why Henry VIII's excesses were so tolerated by those closest to him.

Privilege is inherited. It's passed from generation to generation. We see this a lot in closed (and often developing) societies where family and social ties are heavily predictive of future success. You help out the child or relative of a friend for no reason except that they are in your social circle. The system ensures that opportunities stay within your circle and your family does well. It also creates respect for members of prominent families. Such families, through social and family connections, are extremely influential.

More importantly, the goodwill and influence of truly exceptional individuals passes along to their families. My theory is that just like the son of a prominent hedge fund manager gets a light admission review when applying to a selective college, or when the small town police officer looks the other way when the child of a prominent politician gets into trouble, Henry VIII's flaws and excesses were tolerated and went unquestioned by many who remembered the iron fist and efficient rule of his father.

This is a weak theory but it rationalizes the lack of significant rebellion at court by the legacy of the Tudor family and the privilege that it provided to resulting monarchs. And it identifies a similar theme with respect to all privilege especially in tight knit closed societies. Basically, people will always treat you different based on who your family is, where you come from, your nationality, tribe, ethnicity and it has nothing to do with your individual actions but everything to do with the actions of those who preceded you.

It creates several dilemmas for all of us. The most prominent to me is the protection and embracing of privilege. Do we work to build on the privileges handed to us, so we don't squander them, or do we disavow any privilege wherever it appears and try to advance solely based on our individual traits? Admitting that this is impossible in all circumstances (you can't prevent someone from treating you better than an unknown individual if you don't know if and why they are) is this fair to the privilege handed to us by the sacrifices of others? Sure we might not have 16th century kingdoms to safeguard but what about the reputations of our families and communities? Second, can you earn privilege yourself through, let's say, hard work? Can we earn the right to be treated better than others like we do a first class ticket paid for with air miles?

Just some thoughts to ponder in a way too long blog posting. A lot of my ideas here are unorganized and quite lengthy but if you managed to get through this, well, wow I feel so privileged!

Interesting reading:
Anne Boleyn and the theatre of reformation, Howard Brenton, The Guardian.
Reconnecting with Europe, Ana Palacio & Margaritis Schinas, New Alanticist.
Hollywood's role in South Sudan's independence, Leslie Goffe, BBC.