Nothing at all to do with Thomas Cromwell, but about history in general. What makes an historian? I do not claim to be one, but am certainly an enthusiastic amateur, especially where dear old Cromwell is concerned!

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.

 So now, I am breaking the incident down, and building up from there, to try and form a picture of what happened in the violent and bloody month of May, 1536. To begin at the beginning, this blog post will be looking at the arrest, and alleged torture, of Mark Smeaton (a young musician in the Queen’s household), who was the first of Anne’s alleged lovers to be arrested.

 This is a story that many of us will be familiar with. On the day of his arrest (April 30^th), Smeaton was summoned to Austin Friars (Cromwell’s private home), and there subjected to a barrage of questions, before being gruesomely tortured for information. After being grilled about the monies obtained by Smeaton for liveries and horses, a knotted rope was produced and wrapped tightly about his head, over his eyes, and tightened to push his eyes back, or even burst them. According to Alison Weir, (The Six Wives of Henry VIII, p314) Smeaton was “Grievously racked” upon his arrival at the tower, on May 1^st.

Mark Smeaton on the rack (The Tudors, Showtime/BBC)

 In his account of what happened, David Starkey (Six Wives, the Queens of Henry VII, p 568), casts doubt on the use of torture at Cromwell’s private home, but concurs with Weir that Smeaton was racked upon his arrival at the Tower:

“Probably, he was put to torture as soon as he arrived. His ordeal lasted four hours, as ‘it was 10 of the clock that he was well lodged in his cell’”.

In his biography of Thomas Cromwell, Robert Hutchinson, also concurs with the use of torture. However, although he is rather vague on the details, he does go further to implicate Cromwell in his personal torture of the musician. In his book, “Thomas Cromwell: The Rise and Fall of Henry VIII’s Most Notorious Minister,” he has this to say:

“Mark Smeaton, a groom of the Privy Chamber and a musician and dancer who was probably a covert homosexual*, was lured from Greenwich and tortured, probably by Cromwell, into a stammering confession that he had been Anne’s lover.” (p86).

So, consensus on the use of torture is wide across the spectrum, and it all fits very snugly. Smeaton was a low born musician who could be legally tortured, unlike his noble co-accused. He was the first to be arrested, thus perfect to implicate the others. However, what is the actual primary source evidence of the arrest and interrogation of Mark Smeaton?

 The first thing I wish to address is the issue of the knotted rope. This is almost certainly a myth, and a myth that gets’ repeated in several dramatisations, novels, and later historical accounts. First of all, the only primary source for this story is the notoriously inaccurate Spanish Chronicle. For not only does the Chronicle (who’s author remains unknown) get this wrong, but he gets the names of Anne Boleyn’s alleged lovers wrong (and one man, Francis Weston, is omitted altogether). Other glaring errors in the Spanish Chronicle include Thomas Cromwell interrogating Queen Katherine Howard about her alleged adultery, including a word for word conversation that was said to have taken place between them. Despite the fact that by the time Howard’s adultery had been brought to light, Cromwell had been dead for almost two years. To get around this, the Chronicle places Katherine as Henry VIII’s fourth wife, and Anne of Cleves his fifth. So, is the Chronicle making genuine mistakes, or is it a deliberate effort to blacken Cromwell’s name by placing him at the centre of controversies that happened long after his own demise through manipulation of the facts? Certainly, in his biography of Thomas Cromwell, John Schofield has hinted at exactly that:

“Then leafing through the pages of the Chronicle the reader is puzzled to find Cromwell, who died in 1540, investigating adultery allegations against Catherine Howard, which were not uncovered until the following year. The solution – and it takes a moment or two for this particular penny to drop – is that the chronicler has been engaging in some rather radical historical revisionism.”

Further to later accounts of Smeaton’s arrest, there is no mention of torture in any other account. For instance, Smeaton was perfectly capable of walking to his place of execution. Meaning that the use of the rack was highly unlikely (it, after all, dislocates every bone in the body). There is no mention anywhere in any primary source that Smeaton bore sign of any injury at the time of his trial. Surely, if he had been “grievously racked”, walking unaided, or standing up at all, would have been nigh on impossible. None of this is mentioned in Hall’s Chronicle, for instance (one of the key primary sources for the era). No eye witnesses to the trial or executions mentioned injury, and Smeaton certainly did not have to be carried to the scaffold.

In the account of George Constantine, a personal servant of Henry Norris who was lodged at the Tower with his master, he reports rumours that Smeaton had been racked, stating:“I could never know if this is of a truth”. In other words, they were rumours, and not actually stated as fact. This is something that few historians care to point out in their endless renderings of what occurred at that time. They also fail to note that there were many rumours flying. Others suggesting that Smeaton freely confessed in a fit of shame at his “indecent” thoughts of the Queen, and his jealousy of her other “lovers”.

Of course, no one can state for sure that Smeaton was not tortured. I, personally, would never presume to do so. Nor is it my intention to whitewash the dreadful events of April-May, 1536, or in any way imply that Anne Boleyn was guilty. All I intend to do here is point out that there are many causes for doubt about the perceived wisdom and common thought that surrounds this episode. To point out that perhaps, just maybe, Thomas Cromwell is not quite the bogeyman that many have branded him. After all, that is what this whole blog is about.

* Hutchinson claims that Smeaton was “probably a covert homosexual”. Actually, this theory dates only to Retha M Warnicke’s “The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn”. There is no primary source documentation, or prior academic work to back this assertion up. The percieved wisdom is that Mark Smeaton, nor any of the other men implicated in Anne Boleyn’s downfall, were anything but heterosexual.

Sources:

British History Online.

Hall’s Chronicle (on line edition).

Hutchinson, Robert: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII’s Most Notorious Minister (Phoenix, 2008).

Schofield, John: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII’s Most Faithful Servant. (the History Press, 2009)

Spanish Chronicle.

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens’ of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2004).

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII (Vintage, 1997 edition).

Finally, this is just a short post to keep people updated. A proper post about Thomas Cromwell (the real one, that is) is pending. After a very busy Christmas and New Year period I am only just catching up on research. Anyway, I hope you all had a great holiday, and see you all again soon!

However, one who was definitely not among those rejoicing on the 28^th July 1540, was the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt. He penned an eloquent lamentation of his personal loss, and the verse speaks of a man who was not only his patron, but his friend, and confidant.

Wyatt, in the second line, describes Cromwell as “the strongest stay of my unquiet mind”. Was Cromwell the man whom Wyatt confided in in times of need? A shoulder to cry on? It sounds that way, from the words used. Although, it is hard to imagine Cromwell as some sort of agony uncle. But something must have prompted Wyatt to write in such a manner, about a man who’d suffered a spectacular fall from grace.

Overall, the poem is a clear and moving account of Wyatt’s grief at the loss of such a great man. Wyatt himself died just two years after Cromwell, a fact that makes the final line of the verse all the more poignant. Here it is in full:

The pillar perished is whereto I leaned,

The strongest stay of my unquiet mind;

The like of it no man again can find –

From east to west, still seeking though he went –

To mine unhap, for hap away hath rent

Of all my joy, the very bark and rind,

And I, alas, by chance am thus assigned

Dearly to mourn till death to it relent.

But since that thus it is by destiny,

What can I more but have a woeful heart,

My pen in plaint, my voice in woeful cry,

My mind in woe, my body full of smart,

And I myself, myself always to hate

Till dreadful death do ease my doleful state.

A general rule of thumb for all such sites, is sources. Where has the information come from? Who originally provided the information? From what time frame (ie, a primary or secondary source)? If there are no sources cited, then it is better to be safe than sorry, and disregard the information altogether. So, in this post, I am providing some links that I have found invaluable when undertaking historical research in general, and also for Thomas Cromwell specifically.

The links here are to free websites, and free downloads; and both primary and secondary sources. Although there only three links here, I hope to be adding more as time goes by:

1.)  British History Online.

British History Online is an invaluable treasure trove of both primary and secondary sources from all major eras of British History. The best part is, the Tudor section is completely free to access, and contains a wealth of information about all Tudor personalities, from the horse’s mouth. From the gossipy letters of Eustace Chapuys, to the lists and inventories, and acts of Parliament, it is all found in here!

2.) The Life And Death of Thomas Wolsey By George Cavendish.

George Cavendish was Wolsey’s Gentlemen Usher, and close friend of both the Cardinal, and Thomas Cromwell. This biography, written during Cavendish’s retirement during the early reign of Elizabeth I, is an intimate portrait of Thomas Wolsey, in which Cromwell makes frequent appearances.

3.) The Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwel, Volume One. By Roger Bigelow Merriman.

The Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, Volume Two. By Roger Bigelow Merriman.

These two volumes are a nineteenth century compilation of the letters of Thomas Cromwell. Although Merriman’s tone towards Cromwell is rather lecturing and disapproving, and accuses him of “whining for mercy” at the end, it is still invaluable for the compilation of letters, alone.

All historic fiction, (whether in novel, or TV show/movie form), is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be a wildly entertaining romp through time obscured eras. On the other, it can be a wildly inaccurate, confusing, mess (*cough*The Tudors*cough*). Or, it can be both. Worse still, are authors who undertake minimal research, and then pass their wild flights of fancy off as Historical fact, (I’m mentioning no names, but we all know who I’m referring too. A certain somebody with the initials, “P.G”).

However, Wolf Hall is different. Mantel’s research was obviously painstaking. She took the time to present an alternative picture of an often maligned figure. She presented the other side of the story, without resorting to making it all up off the top of her head. Best of all, for a HF reader, it was beautifully written. No bodice-ripping, no heaving bosoms, and no verbose, endless paragraphs about frocks. Just a refreshing look at a pivotal moment in British Constitutional history. The focus kept firmly on the future shaping political changes that Cromwell wrought, and not the distracting side-subjects that were the mere fluff and baubles of the era.

So, if anything in the world of Historical Fiction today deserves the dramatisation treatment, it is Wolf Hall. Besides, now all of us Cromwell fans can have endless hours of fun speculating over who could possibly be playing the Big Man, himself. I’ve had a few mention James Frain (who played him in “The Tudors”, already), but, time for a change, methinks. TBH, I have no idea!?

In one recent article, published in “The Mail Online” just recently, there is recounted an old, gory, myth that:

“Henry VIII’s chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, sent to walk the same, well-trodden path to the scaffold as his victim, Anne Boleyn, implored the young executioner to dispatch him with a single stroke. But the novice made a butchery of Cromwell’s decapitation, hacking and sawing at his thick neck and causing even the bloodthirsty crowd on Tower Hill to protest.”

There is no source cited in the article, but sounds very similar to an account that dates back to the Victorian times, and has two headsmen hacking at Cromwell’s neck for nigh on half an hour before finally managing to sever his head. It is all lurid, gratuitous stuff, indulged in by those who relish the idea that Cromwell, in some way, “deserved” his death.

In more recent accounts of Cromwell’s death, namely Robert Hutchinson’s recent biography “Thomas Cromwell: The Rise and Fall of Henry VIII’s Most Faithful Minister”, the idea that a novice was deliberately chosen by Henry to make Cromwell suffer even more. In answer to this, you have to wonder why Henry would do this. If Henry really wanted Cromwell to suffer, would he not just let the mandatory sentence of hanging, drawing, and quartering stand? Also, Cromwell had been convicted of Sacramental heresy, the sentence for which was burning. I daresay, like others, that if Henry wanted Cromwell to suffer that much, he would not have commuted Cromwell’s sentence to beheading in the first place. Again, this is another rumour that just doesn’t ring true.

Then there are the dramatic accounts of Cromwell’s execution. In the 2003 film, Henry VIII, staring Ray Winstone as the King, and Danny Web as Thomas Cromwell, we see a teenage executioner haphazardly swinging around an axe, taking three attempts to sever Cromwell’s head, as a jeering crowd looks on.

Thomas Cromwell, as played by Danny Web, faces the teenage executioner.

In the recent TV show, “The Tudors”, we see James Frain’s Thomas Cromwell despatched by an executioner who’d been deliberately taken out for a night on the tiles before the big day. A “joke” played on him by Sir Francis Bryan, the Seymour brothers, and Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in the hope that it would affect his performance.

According to "The Tudors", Thomas Cromwell (James Frain), faced a drunk executioner.

So, how much truth is there in these accounts of Cromwell’s demise? We have just one first hand account of Cromwell’s execution, and it comes from the London Chronicler, Edward Hall. He simply has this to say:
“He bore patiently the stroke of a ragged and butcherly miser.”

And that’s it! From that one, small sentence, people have inferred all sorts of gruesome horrors being heaped upon Thomas Cromwell, as he met his end at the age of approximately fifty five. You can make of the expression, “ragged and butcherly miser”, what you will. It does seem, to myself personally, that something did go wrong. However, this was more than likely plain, old, human error. There is no evidence of drunkenness, malicious monarchs exacting last minute revenge, or even teenage apprentices. The age of the executioner is not mentioned anywhere. One can only conclude that these tales and embellishments have come from those glorifying in the death of a man who’s reputation as a Machiavellian plunderer has preceded him throughout history.