I'm presuming you refer to King Henry VIII, in which case, I cannot say. Truly, it is only God "unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid."
Based on his actions? He was (as far as I know) an unrepentant adulterer who abused the power of the Church to annul marriages. Ultimately, his split from Rome was a political one and the reformation in England didn't start until after his death. I cannot say that I have high hopes for him. Just my opinion, and it is not my place to judge where he shall go for eternity. I pray that God is more merciful than history has been.
Henry VIII is a complex person, ill prepared for the throne, a traditional catholic, confronted by the issue of succession and all manner of influences. His influence was a major accelerator in the peoples access to Holy Writ in English, and like Luther he somtimes wondered about it. For the later part it seems he had few filters and many sychophants surrounding him. Henry VIII is very curates egg - good in parts. His ultimate destination is in the hands of God. I believe he died confident in the forgiveness that awaits those who turn to Christ.
That's good! It would be funny to talk to him in heaven about how England was in the old days, especially fashion.
I'm unsure of his place. What I do know is that, if he is truly saved, then wonderful. But if his sinfulness got the best of him (and in general, I don't hold him in high regard), then in any case God used him for his purpose. Whether it was as a Judas Maccabeus or Judas Iscariot, it's harder to say.
I think Henry VIII coming to the throne was truly a "fluke" of history. His older brother, Arthur, was far better prepared and trained to be king than Henry VIII. It's interesting to think what would have been different had Arthur not died. Some of Henry VIII's most dramatic changes may have also been linked to his injuries suffered during tournaments. He had a terrible head injury at one point which seemed to have increased his paranoia and confusion later in life. He also suffered a festering leg wound that followed him to the end of his life. He often played the Roman church and the English church against each other for power grabs and to prevent either from gaining to much influence. As for being in heaven, I've no idea. That's for God to know. I do think the English Reformation would have occurred if Henry VIII wasn't king. It may have turned very differently, but those ideas were still circulating all over Europe at the time. I do think Elizabeth I struck the right course in meditating between Protestant and Roman Catholic ideas, theology, worship, and politics.
She was Anglican but heavily influenced by the reformers. She, however, meditated between the extremes of her brother Edward VI & her sister Mary I. The changes Edward VI wanted would have pushed England more towards the continental Protestant Reformation seen in Germany, Netherlands etc... Elizabeth I maintained many parts of England's Catholic heritage against those pressures.
King Henry was truly a paradox if there ever was one. He was ironic in that he both wanted to serve God and to be God at the same time. My avatar of Henry is related to the fact that we both share a kind of religious zeal one would expect from a madman. I have shared his sympathies of wanting to do away with people who disagreed with my personal beliefs, and his promiscuous desires which are frighteningly ungodly, while still attempting to maintain some sort of spiritual integrity. When I pray my Anglican rosary from Westminster Abbey, I think of him. He gave new meaning to the saying, "God became man so man could become God."
I am not sure that is entirely fair. Henry believed in God, and redemption in Jesus Christ. He believed in the Church. He also believed in Kings, and was keenly aware that the scriptures say more about kings than they do about popes. Henry wanted to be a good king, and that included some specific responsibilities, one of which was to provide a line of succession (which he understood to be a male heir), and this proved most problematic for him. Standing in the way for this was a pope, who in some ways was acting more like a prince than a priest, and being manipulated by Spain. Henry both changed wives and his wives changed him. His religious position did not change enormously, save for his understanding of the role of the Pope which has to be seen in terms of his understanding of his own role as king. His view of kingship did changed far more than his view of God and faith. He was married to Catherine of Aragon for the longest time, and almost certainly loved her the most He married Anne Boleyn to produce a male heir which didn't happen. He was besotted by her, and she did not want play the mistress. Then followed Jane Seymour who produced an heir and died. After a space as a political arrangement organised by Cromwell her married Anne of Cleves (probably never consummated) Catherine Howard was put before him by the nobles trying to influence, however she was young, flirtatious, and given to some infidelity. Catherine Parr, twice married before was the companion wife of his last years. For all the illusion of power portrayed in the Hans Holbein partait, Henry was at times manipulated by others in the court. Very few of the European courts of the time could hold their heads up to high on a moral pretext when it came to the sport of chambering, and which it was clearly part of the Tudor Court (perhaps less so under Elizabeth) it was probably a good deal better than the French Court. I many ways I am more troubled by his dealing with Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who joined a list of Plantagenets who really were executed because if push came to shove, they too had a claim to the throne. It is hard to see justice being served in executing and old lady without trial.