I see four out of the five you cite has highly accomplished, whereas
Henry was simply born into self-indulgence as King of England has it
entered its own. "Eccentric" is a word that can be deemed negative,
but has a certain patronizing tone. Any Beat could be called that
back in the 50s but might be conservative by today's definitions, a
love of jazz or Eastern disciplines back in the day of conformity. So
it is all relative, isn't it? If Emily Dickinson never left the
house or Henry David Thoreau built a shack out in the woods, they
would be dismissed, if they were not two of the most original geniuses
that nation has produced. Gandhi would be eccentric out of context,
would he not, advocating nonviolence before his time? But he was an
attorney, quite worldly and sophisticated, far more than the
conventionals who might have dismissed him as a demagogue or nutcase.
The four you cite all lost it in the end, much as did Citizen Kane or
King Lear. Because of great wealth, they took the self-indulgence of
the artist and drove it to their undoing. We all tend to unwind if we
live long enough, as we give up on pleasing others -- or as the brain
goes. I think the word is parochial, basically, since in the final
analysis a life that influences others for the better is well-lived in
the altruistic sense. It takes individuals to shift the crowd.

Spike Milligan