Not to defend Henry, but I think "lust" is the wrong term here.
He had a serious concern that if he were to die without a legitimate male heir, England would be plunged into yet another civil war of succession--and history proved him right.
History did
what? Henry bluebeard achieved his goal of "a legitimate male heir" in the person of Edward VI, his son by Jane Seymour. Since the phony marriage to Anne Boleyn was not valid by any stretch of the imagination, and Queen Catherine could be said to have died a natural death, One could, vaguely, postulate the legitimacy of Edward - to whom Henry Bluebeard gave syphilis as a conception present.
There was no civil war when Henry died. Edward was too young to rule; he was in the hands of two successive regency councils. A very brief civil conflict - nine days, to be precise - followed Edward's death (from the syphilis he got from daddy): Edward attempted to declare both Princess Mary and Anne Boleyn's daughter illegitimate, and leave the thrown to a distant relative, Lady Jane Grey. England was not about to tolerate that. Queen Mary had a triumphal procession to London and was crowned with no hint of any protest. When the Protestant minority later attempted Wyatt's rebellion, Queen Mary had no serious trouble rousing London and putting a stop it it almost before it started.
Queen Mary's death also did not precipitate a civil war. Anne Boleyn's daughter took the throne without serious opposition, unfortunately.
Elizabeth, having taken an oath to maintain Catholicism, proceeded to break the oath and move to extreme Protestantism. She commenced imprisoning bishops, murdering priests, and quasi-judicially murdered her own legitimate heir, Mary Queen of Scots.
Despite this horrible behavior, Elizabeth's death (and what a frightful death it was!) did not precipitate a civil war either; Mary Stuart son, James VI of Scotland, became also James I of England. His death likewise did not precipitate a civil war.
What did, strangely enough, was the economic inflation of the period, itself begun by Henry the Wastewealth Bluebeard's despoliation of the monasteries, which ultimately also despoiled the Crown. Eventually, it caught up with the monarchy and made it impossible for Charles I to rule without kowtowing to the House of Commons. The King's attempt to raise funds brought on civil war, and the regicide of Charles I.
Charles II was restored, but the problem did not go away. He managed to die a natural death in London, but his brother and legitimate heir, James II, did not and could not last long; the business interests got rid of him in favour of his disgraceful daughter Mary and her husband William. Attempts to restore the legitimate Stuart line came close to success, particularly in 1745, but did not triumph.
So how does all this somehow vindicate Henry Bluebeard?
Fr. Serge