Category Archives: Uncategorized

by

I like Him Not! The Downfall of Thomas Cromwell.

Thomas Cromwell’s downfall was swift, sudden, and unexpected. The French Ambassador wrote to his master, King Francis I, informing him of the event and the shock waves that it sent pulsing through the Court. According to Marillac: Cromwell’s faction “seemed to be the stronger” (than the opposing Conservative faction, led by Bishop Stephen Gardiner and the Duke of Norfolk). So why people lazily assume that Cromwell’s downfall came about solely due to the disastrous marriage of Henry VIII to Anne of Cleves will always be something of a mystery to me.

True, Henry did declare to Cromwell that he “likes her not” (although, he never did call her “the Flanders Mare”), as Cromwell himself recounted in a preserved letter to the King, sent from his cell in the Tower of London. True, Henry implored his Councillor’s to get him out of the mess in which he had found himself. But there is no solid evidence that he blamed Cromwell alone. After all, Cromwell (like Henry) had never met Anne of Cleves. Cromwell, (again, like Henry himself), had only heard reports from Ambassadors who had been sent to see her. Also, of course, there was the infamous Anne of Cleves portrait. Hans Holbein had met her, and painted her likeness from life. There was a multitude of people more culpable than Thomas Cromwell for “misleading” Henry as to Anne’s looks and mannerisms; yet, none of them suffered any adverse effects. The painter responsible for the portrait continued to flourish, and enjoy the King’s patronage, right up until his perfectly natural death in 1543.

Anne of Cleves, by Hans Holbein.

Furthermore, in April of 1540 (four months after Anne’s arrival in England), Thomas was created Earl of Essex. This blacksmith’s boy being elevated to an Earldom was a heard-earned reward for endless hours spent in service to the King. Cromwell had, after all, made Henry powerful, and rich. So again, no sign of displeasure from the King.

Also, we come back again to Marillac’s letter. Cromwell’s faction at Court seemed to be stronger than his opponents. If Cromwell really had suffered a fatal blow following the Cleves marriage, then surely that would affected the standing of the rest of the Reformist faction?

However, Cromwell’s final letters to Henry VIII (all sent from his cell at the Tower), all talk extensively about the Cleves marriage. This is because Cromwell, despite being a prisoner, was still working on the divorce case. His letters, and the information contained within, were being used as evidence to procure the annulment. They were not being used as evidence against Cromwell himself, as they bore no relation to the charges that were brought against him.

The charges brought against Cromwell are my final point. He was not charged with treason, but Sacramental Heresy. It was not heresy to arrange a bad marriage for a King.

The exact reasons for the downfall of Thomas Cromwell remain uncertain. Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk (who had laboured long and hard to bring Cromwell down), may well have planted false documentation in his offices; leading to the charges of Sacramental Heresy. In all likelihood, it was a whispering campaign that spread like wildfire in those last few months of his life at Court, and Henry chose to start listening. But I believe that one reason that can be ruled out, is that of the Cleves marriage. Whereas the débâcle didn’t do Cromwell any good, all subsequent events show that it didn’t spell the end for him, either.

Sources: Letters and Papers of Henry VIII (British History On line).

John Schofield – Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII’s Most Faithful Servant.

by

Tower Correspondance.

While researching my next blog post (regarding Cromwell’s downfall), I found this letter (lLetters and Papers: vol. 15). I thought that I would share it both here, and on the Facebook page. Cromwell, in between dealing with the routine business, defends himself against the charges that have been laid against him:

Prostrate at your Majesty’s feet, I have heard your pleasure by your Controller, viz., that I should write such things as I thought meet concerning my most miserable state. And where I have been accused of treason, I never in all my life thought to displease your Majesty; much less to do or say “that thing which of itself is so high and abominable offence.” Your Grace knows my accusers, God forgive them. If it were in my power to make you live for ever, God knows I would; or to make you so rich that you should enrich all men, or so powerful that all the world should obey you. For your Majesty has been most bountiful to me, and more like a father than a master. I ask you mercy where I have offended. Never spoke with the Chancellor of the Augmentations and Frogmerton together at a time; but if I did, I never spoke of any such matter. Your Grace knows what manner of man Throgmerton has ever been towards you and your proceedings. What Master Chancellor has been to me, God and he know best; what I have been to him your Majesty knows. If I had obeyed your often most gracious counsels it would not have been with me as now it is. But I have committed my soul to God, my body and goods to your pleasure. As for the Commonwealth, I have done my best, and no one can justly accuse me of having done wrong wilfully. If I heard of any combinations or offenders against the laws, I have for the most part (though not as I should have done) revealed and caused them to be punished. But I have meddled in so many matters, I cannot answer all.

The Controller showed me that you complained that within these 14 days I had revealed a matter of great secrecy. I remember the matter, but I never revealed it. After your Grace had spoken to me in your chamber of the things you misliked in the Queen, I told you she often desired to speak with me, but I durst not, and you thought I might do much good by going to her and telling her my mind. Lacking opportunity I spoke with her lord Chamberlain, for which I ask your mercy, to induce her to behave pleasantly towards you. I repeated the suggestion, when the lord Chamberlain and others of her council came to me at Westminster for licence for the departure of the strange maidens. This was before your Grace committed the secret matter to me, which I never disclosed to any but my lord Admiral. By your commandment on Sunday last; whom I found equally willing to seek a remedy for your comfort, saying he would spend the best blood in his belly for that object.
Was also accused at his examination of retaining contrary to the laws. Denies that he ever retained any except his household servants, but it was against his will. Was so besought by persons who said they were his friends that he received their children and friends—not as retainers, for their fathers and parents did find them; but if he have offended, desires pardon. Acknowledges himself a miserable sinner towards God and the King, but never wilfully. Desires prosperity for the King and Prince. “Written with the quaking hand and most sorrowful heart of your most sorrowful subject, and most humble servant and prisoner, this Saturday at your (Tower)* of London.”

*The word “tower” is omitted from Cromwell’s original letter.

by

My Lord of Essex.

First of all, I can only apologise for posting this a day late. But, April 18th marks the anniversary of Thomas Cromwell, the son of a shearman and some time beer brewer, being elevated to the nobility. Despite suffering a knock following the disastrous marriage of Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves in January of 1540, Cromwell was created 1st Earl of Essex.  The ceremony took place at Westminster Palace; where he was appointed High Chamberlain of England, and Earl of Essex. Also at that time; Cromwell’s secretary, Ralph Sadler, and Thomas Wriothesley, were made Knights.

A remarkable achievement for a man of his era, who was born well and truly on the wrong side of the tracks.

by

Thomas Cranmer: A Small Tribute

Today, 21st March, marks the 456th anniversary of the burning of Thomas, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Despite recanting his “heretical” beliefs several times, it became clear that Queen Mary was fully determined to exact revenge against him (no doubt for his role in Henry VIII’s Great Matter), and have him burned regardless. He then recanted on his recantation, and at the moment of his burning thrust his right hand into lapping flames, stating it was the hand that signed the recantation, and thus deserved punishment first.

In including this little memorial post in a Thomas Cromwell blog, because, as we all know, Cromwell and Cranmer were great allies during the Reformation. He was one of very few people who openly spoke up for Cromwell at the time of his fall from power, prior to his execution, and of everyone at Henry VIII’s Court, Cranmer has always come across as a true gent, and scholar. So, forgive my digressing from the topic, but Cranmer, I think, deserves it!

Thomas Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury

by

The King’s Good Servant: Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell.

The quote professor Geoffrey Elton, “the English Reformation under Henry VIII produced, one might say, no victims, and only martyrs”. This statement was never more true when applied to Saint Thomas More. Additionally, never was this statement more fully realised than in the Robert Bolt play, “A Man For All Seasons.” So, for this blog post, I’ll be taking a little look at the play, and its depiction of the relationship between More and Thomas Cromwell.

A Man For All Seasons, the film version, was released in 1966. An undeniably excellent play, transformed into an equally compelling, well acted, film starring Paul Schofield as the protagonist, Saint Thomas, and Leo McKern as the brutish, bully boy Cromwell. More’s portrayal can be summed up quite simply: he is an easy going, 1960s liberal who just happens to be alive during the reign of Henry VIII. Contrasting with More; is Cromwell. At one point in the dramatisation, Cromwell even considers using the rack to break More. It all fits so neatly; hand-in-glove, to present one man’s silent defiance against the over-bearing State which is personified in the Cromwell character (strangely, the real head of state, King Henry, barely gets a mention). But, how much actual truth is there in this seemingly impeccable work?

Paul Schofield stars as Thomas More, in Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons" (1966).

Thomas More himself, in a letter to his eldest daughter (Margaret Roper), talked of his gentle handling by Cromwell: “Master Secretary (as he that most tenderly favours me) said, and he swore a great oath, that he would lever his only son had lost his head, than that I would refuse to swear this oath.” Also, there are other testaments from the More family of Cromwell’s kind treatment of them. More’s wife, Lady Alice, refers to him in one letter as “my especially tender friend.” It was also Thomas Cromwell who arranged family visits, and arranged a handsome pension for Lady Alice following the execution of her husband, in July 1535, and turned a blind eye as Margaret rescued her beloved father’s head from the pike.

So, the letters exchanged were certainly polite; warm even. But, there were also actions that show Cromwell bore no particular death grudge against Thomas More. For a moment, allow me to regress back to “A Man For All Seasons”. The Cromwell character, at one stage, goes to great lengths to implicate More in the Elizabeth Barton scandal (Barton, aka the “Holy Maid of Kent, who was hanged in 1534 for prophesying the King’s death). The truth behind this could not be more different.

More strenuously denied having any involvement with Barton, with the exception of one letter in which he commanded her to cease and desist with her treasonous behaviour. However, when the bill of attainder was drawn up against Barton and her accomplices (including her dubious sounding handler, Edward Bocking), King Henry made sure that More’s name was included in the list. But, it was Cromwell (along with many others), who pleaded with the King to remove More from it. Thus, thanks in part to Cromwell’s intervention, More was saved from being dragged down in the swell of the Barton/Bocking scandal.

Although the men were, ideologically speaking, worlds apart; Professor Elton asserts that: “Both Cromwell and Cranmer tried hard to save More from Henry, and himself.” He later goes so far as to state that: “Cromwell had a real liking for More.” However, Cromwell’s behaviour towards More must surely have stemmed from the Master Secretary’s appreciation of the fact that creating martyrs to the supremacy/reformation would have been counter-productive in the extreme. But also, ultimately, the new Church of England, that Cromwell was striving to build, would be created solely through law; not the brutality of bloodshed and coercion. He simply did not want anyone to have to die for the future he had in mind.

None of this, of course, is discussed or explored in “A Man For All Seasons”. Bolt has black and white heroes and villains, and it is plain what he thought of Cromwell. But, the blackening of Cromwell’s name serves a higher purpose. That, naturally, is to assist in the whitewashing of the plays main man, Saint Thomas More himself. Where Cromwell is slandered, More is utterly sanctified, as though to compensate.

Although the focus of the play is about More’s silent protest against the Supremacy, his time as Lord Chancellor is covered. But nowhere is there a mention of More’s extreme religious policy. Not a single heretic burned, nor a single servant whipped on the orders of Thomas More. But, between 1529 – 1534, rough six to eleven heretics were burned under his orders. According to More’s recent biographer, John Guy, one of them was even burned illegally (as Guy states it, he “neglected the paper work”). It was as though More felt that the law of the land did not apply to those he deemed as “heretical”.

Also detailed in “A Daughter’s Love” by John Guy, is the case of Richard Purser. A young servant that More ordered to be whipped after being caught reading an English Bible. Following his public flogging, he was tossed out onto the streets. From there, he was employed by none other than Thomas Cromwell. Guy claims Cromwell employed Purser to feed his “pet Leopard” but I can find no source that claims Cromwell kept such a pet; but rather that Purser was merely feeding his numerous hunting dogs (boring, I know. The Leopard was far funnier!)

None of More’s negatives were included in the play. He was conditioned and re-moulded to fit nicely with twentieth century ideals and sensibilities. But, there is another word for what Bolt created here. Propaganda. Or at least, I would consider such blatant and deliberate whitewashing of political/historical figures to be a form of propaganda. And this, I think, gives it a slightly more sinister edge than other dramatisations. It has been made with an agenda in mind. “The Tudors” may have been a soap opera, but there was no agenda there. It did not set out to demonise on one hand, and sanctify with the other.

Also, A Man For All Seasons has another advantage. It has long perceived as “high brow”. It has a sheen of respectability and realism that other dramatisations (not least, the above mentioned “The Tudors”) lack completely. Therefore, its propaganda properties are all the more insidious, because it can hide behind that veneer of credibility that Oscar awards and fine acting have given it. But, it would be deeply uncharitable of me to say that this is all bad. It is beautifully written, beautifully filmed, and wonderfully acted out. However, readers, theatre goers, and film buffs ought to cautious. Robert Bolt does for Thomas Cromwell what Shakespeare did for Richard III. This film may even be a bit posh, but it is as accurate as “The Other Boleyn Girl.”

Paul Schofield (left) as Thomas More, and Leo McKern (right) as Thomas Cromwell. A Man For All Seasons.

Sources:

Elton, G. “England Under The Tudors” (1991 edition)

Guy, John. “A Daughter’s Love” (2008)

Letters and Papers vol. 6-8

Schofield, John “Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell” (2008)

Smith and Wegener “A Thomas More Resource Book” (2004)

by

Wall Of Shame.

Okay, I have a recommended reading for fiction and non-fiction alike. But, I think it’s time to take the (possibly controversial) step of having a “Wall of Shame”, for those truly hideous moments literature (fiction and non-fiction). Here, I will list some awful portrayals of Cromwell in novels, plays, and biographies, and give an explanation of why they’re here. Like the other pages, this is a work in progress, and will be updated intermittently, as and when new culprits are discovered.

Taking “pride of place” at number one, is Emily Purdy (or Brandy Purdy in the USA), and her truly dire novel “The Boleyn Wife.” LINK TO AMAZON HERE.

Not only is there a horrendous portrayal of most characters, but Cromwell deserves special attention. Not only does he go about tricking Jane into making her spill all of George’s darkest secrets, but he does so through sex. Yes, sex. That well known method of interrogation that Cromwell was forever resorting to. Naturally, Jane then conceives Cromwell’s love child, which she self-aborts. And of course, once Cromwell has all the information he needs from Jane, he casually tosses her aside like last night’s take away.

Other  “highlights” of this piece of odious trash literature involve a lesbian fling between Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard, and the highly interesting use of a pot of honey.

I have a sense of humour, and can have a laugh as much as anyone. But this is rather beyond a joke. Cromwell is painted up to be as low as a rapist, and I sincerely wish that writers of fiction would remember that he was also a human being. As such, he and his story deserve a bit of respect!

Jane Boleyn looking for nookie from our Cromwell?

 

by

The Chronicle of King Henry VIII.

Further to my last post about the arrest, and alleged torture of Mark Smeaton, I decided to provide a link to the offending source. So, here it is, a link to:

The Spanish Chronicle

The many faults of the Spanish Chronicle/Chronicle of King Henry VIII have already been highlighted in my previous article, and the same source has also been disregarded by most historians. However, it is still useful to read all sources, and as a contemporary account of events, can never be fully disregarded.