This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Cromwell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 28, 2012, July 28, 2013, and July 28, 2024. |
![]() | Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Thomas Cromwell was copied or moved into Fictional portrayals of Thomas Cromwell with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Nearly all the information from this page has been deleted. It should be restored to what it was under a previous more complete edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.63.160 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 September 2005
what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.227.113 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 February 2009
I changed the job Cromwell had which gave him the authority to dissolve the monasteries. I've read that: Cromwell's titles of vicar-general and vicegerent in spirituals should be kept apart; it was as vicar-general that he visited the monasteries, but as vicegerent that he presided in Convocation. - G. R. Elton, Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government: Vol. One, p. 43.-- Johnbull 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I have read that Henry VIII regretted executing Cromwell, but I don't know much of the details of that. This is one of the things that makes Cromwell a fascinating figure: his rise to power under a mercurial king, and then his downfall for making just one mistake. Someone who is more knowledgeable should add that information to the article.-- Caleb Murdock 09:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I see at the bottom of the page he is labeled as Secretary of State and then Lord Privy Seal but the article, under the header of "downfall" refers to him as "Chancellor". Can someone clear this up and make the necessary changes please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful1749 ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cromwell was never Lord Chancellor, I have removed the reference to "Chancellor" in the text and replaced it with "King's chief minister" which is I believe an accurate description of his position.
122.104.64.184 (
talk)
13:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
We appear to have agreement that this person should be the primary meaining of the term "Thomas Cromwell". Should we handle this by moving this page to Thomas Cromwell, or do we turn Thomas Cromwell to a redirect here? Also, how do we bring in the play Thomas Lord Cromwell? Do we just add a hatband here about the Canadian jurist, or do we treat the play as equal, which means this article would have to have a hatband to a disambiguation page? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It's true that he was a prominent name in the Reformation in England, but before that he was a Roman Catholic and he choose to die in the Roman Catholic faith, like the historical accounts shows. I can provide one example of many that show it: "An act of attainder was passed against him without a dissentient voice, and after contributing his mite towards the divorce of Anne, he was beheaded on Tower Hill on the 28th of July, repudiating all heresy and declaring that he died in the Catholic faith." [1] This is taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica. 81.193.214.198 ( talk) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This are the last words of Thomas Cromwell, according to Edward Hall:
"I am come hether to dye, and not to purge my self, as maie happen, some thynke that I will, for if I should do so, I wer a very wretche and miser: I am by the Lawe comdempned to die, and thanke my lorde God that hath appoynted me this deathe, for myne offence: For sithence the tyme that I have had yeres of discrecion, I have lived a synner, and offended my Lorde God, for the whiche I aske hym hartely forgevenes. And it is not unknowne to many of you, that I have been a great traveler in this worlde, and beyng but of a base degree, was called to high estate, and sithes the tyme I came thereunto, I have offended my prince, for the whiche I aske hym hartely forgevenes, and beseche you all to praie to God with me, that he will forgeve me. O father forgeve me. O sonne forgeve me, O holy Ghost forgeve me: O thre persons in one God forgeve me. And now I praie you that be here, to beare me record, I die in the Catholicke faithe, not doubtyng in any article of my faith, no nor doubtyng in any Sacrament of the Churche.* Many hath sclaundered me, and reported that I have been a bearer, of suche as hath mainteigned evill opinions, whiche is untrue, but I confesse that like as God by his holy spirite, doth instruct us in the truthe, so the devill is redy to seduce us, and I have been seduced: but beare me witnes that I dye in the Catholicke faithe of the holy Churche. And I hartely desire you to praie for the Kynges grace, that he maie long live with you, maie long reigne over you. And once again I desire you to pray for me, that so long as life remaigneth in this fleshe, I waver nothyng in my faithe.
And then made he his praier, whiche was long, but not so long, as bothe Godly and learned, and after committed his soule, into the handes of God, and so paciently suffered the stroke of the axe, by a ragged and Boocherly miser, whiche very ungoodly perfourmed the Office."
I think some versions changed some words to say that he died in the "old faith" or the "traditional faith". Reading more carefully his words, it really makes sense that he was refering to the Church of England. The fact that he doesn´t openly names the Church of England might have lead some to think that his references to the Catholic Church were made to the Roman Catholic Church, but I really think that the interpretation that he died in the Anglican faith while renouncing Protestantism really makes more sense. Mistico ( talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reference to Cromwell's faith in the information column on the right hand side should be deleted for the simple reason that his religious beliefs cannot be summed up in a single word. I propose instead a new section explaining that, though Cromwell was a major proponent of the Anglican Reformation, he apparently regretted his actions at some point prior to his death and returned to Catholicism. The evidence for that is clear-cut. Wfgiuliano ( talk) 09:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The book "The Tower of London" by Christopher (Newsweek Books 1981) states that Cromwell was executed at Tyburn. This Wikipedia article states he was executed at the Tower. An internet search produces references that he was executed variously at Tyburn, inside the Tower, and on Tower Hill. Can others produce good citations either way?
Bryan MacKinnon ( talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Lacking better references, I have changed the place of Cromwell's execution to Tyburn according to the above reference. If anyone has a better reference that contradicts this, please cite them.
Bryan MacKinnon ( talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a plaque on Tower Hill commemorating that Cromwell had been executed there. I therefore take this as the superior citation and have changed the article as such.
Bryan MacKinnon ( talk) 12:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So, just what's wrong with where Holbein's portraits hang? The following quote pertains: "...hang facing each other on the same wall..".
That must be some non standard kind of wall, yeah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.113 ( talk) 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be mistaking the meaning? Portraits are not always depicting the subject of the painting facing straight forward. Perhaps Cromwell's portrait was on the left facing his left/viewer's right and More's portrait was on the right facing Cromwell's? TimBRoy ( talk) 21:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Merge them. Verica Atrebatum ( talk) 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The idea should be to expand Wikipedia's knowledge base, not unnecessarily contract it. The shortish nature of the article presents an open challenge to expand and seek out more knowledge on the topic. 78.105.199.11 ( talk) 08:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, Elizabeth Wyckes may not have been notable, but she was a part of English history and as her own person she deserves her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahlou911 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree with a marge. She is notable enough for own article due to historic relevance. -- 24.154.173.243 ( talk) 20:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states that Cromwell's downfall and execution was prompted by Cromwell coercing the King into a marriage with Anne of Cleves, perceived by the King as a disastrous union. The relevant passus in the article says: "His final downfall, however, was caused by the haste with which he encouraged the king to marry Anne of Cleves, a princess from the United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg. This was a marriage that Cromwell hoped would put the English Reformation back on track after the recent setback with the Six Articles. The union became a disaster when King Henry confided to Cromwell that he had not consummated the marriage.[20] Henry told Cromwell to get him out of the marriage by legal means, but the king was obliged to go ahead with it or risk the vital German alliance. The disaster of the king's marriage to Anne of Cleves was all the opportunity that Cromwell's opponents, most notably the Duke of Norfolk, needed to press for his fall from grace."
However, historian G.J. Meyer says the following about this topic: "Contrary to what has often been asserted, he did not die because he had used a deceptive painting by Hans Holbein to trick the king into marrying a miserably homely Anne of Cleves. He died, rather, because he had become too closely identified with the evangelical party in England and the Protestant cause in Europe, and because the collapse of the latest alliance between Francis of France and the emperor Charles gave Henry a choice of Catholic allies and made Cromwell not only expendable but a diplomatic liability." (Meyer, G.J., "The Tudors: The complete story of England's most notorious dynasty", Delacorte Press, Kindle Edition, 2010, location 5.390)
In my personal opinion, I consider Meyer's version of history the more likely one. Even though the King may well have been cross with Cromwell for coaxing him into marrying a woman he turned out not to find attractive, I find it unlikely that for such a flimsy reason King Henry would dispose of (and not only dispose of him as an officer, but attaint him, condemn him to death and kill him) his most efficient and trusted lieutenant. I find it much more believable that political considerations such as the ones described by Meyer (the prospect of a possible alliance with Charles V against France or with France against Charles V), would be required to prompt the downfall of the second most powerful man of the Kingdom, who had invariably proven to be extremely efficient in the furtherance of Henry's goals.
In any event, there is a logical flaw in the version which is currently featured in the article. If Henry told Cromwell to get him out of the marriage by legal means (which he probably did), that cannot logically be followed by the king being obliged to go ahead with it (it being the marriage). He can only need to ask Cromwell to get him out of a marriage by legal means, after having entered into the marriage in the first place. But if he had already entered into it, then it makes no sense to say that he was still obliged to go ahead with it, as if it hadn't happened yet.
And also, by stating that the king was sadly obliged to go ahead with the marriage, despite having asked Cromwell to get him out of it by legal means, the article suggests that such efforts would have failed. I'm not sure whether or not this was Cromwell's doing, but the King did get out of the marriage. It was annuled for non-consummation.
In conclusion, I guess I'm saying that in my opinion the article's account of the reason for Cromwell's downfall and execution should either be changed into Meyer's version, or at least make mention of it as an alternate version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpa248 ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Another point to add is the time between Henry's marriage to Anne and Cromwell's arrest. Six months passed between the two events which begs the question: If Henry was so upset with Cromwell about the marriage that he would have Cromwell executed, why did he wait six months to do so? Not to mention that Cromwell was promoted by the king to the peerage in that same six months. 47.133.211.143 ( talk) 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Convincing argument for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and agrees with the "exceptions" guidelines found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility. -- Hadal ( talk) 07:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex →
Thomas Cromwell – He is clearly the primary meaning, Thomas Cromwell already redirects here. Histories of the period usually just refer to him as "Thomas Cromwell" or "Cromwell", I am not aware that he is ever referred to as "the Earl of Essex" or "Essex", and even many educated people with some knowledge of the history of the period may be unaware that he held this title. We should therefore go for his common name and remove an unnecessary disambiguator.
PatGallacher (
talk)
11:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about listing Cromwell as an Anglican, since I believe his protestant beliefs came before the formation of the CoE. It is very clear that Cromwell was a reformist and a Protestant, but can it be said he was an Anglican? I mean the early years of the Anglican Church was up and down, and since Cromwell was one of the ones to work towards the overthrow of Catholicism in England, his religious beliefs would predate the formation of the CoE. Wouldn't it make more sense then to just list him as a Protestant? Just a thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.230.177 ( talk) 08:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
"Catholic" with a capital "C" is used as a proper name. "c" with a lower case "c" is an adjective meaning universal.
The current version of the article is inconsistent in that it refers to Oliver Cromwell both as Thomas's great-grandson and great-great-grand-nephew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.216.112 ( talk) 08:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Place of birth is listed as: Putney, Surrey, England - however putney is in west london, not surrey. Is this a different Putney? If so the hyperlink to Putney west london should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.146.163 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 January 2013
A well written article with contributions by editors committed to only adding content if there is a clear basis in writing by noted historians. Near amazingly, and thankfully, there are still no URL-only sources. However, there are the following longstanding and emerging matters to which attention should be called: (i) inconsistent style of lede, with regard to citation; (ii) over-reliance on a subscription ref.: Leithead's "Cromwell, Thomas, Earl of Essex", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online, OUP (which for most, requires subscription); (iii) sporadic blocks of completely unreferenced text; (iv) occasional use of apparent primary sources.
I invite use of the tag Done to note when the following requests are addressed. This Talk entry is a call to:
Motivation for making this request is to ensure the article remains solid, and does not drift. Weak (e.g., weakly sourced) content invites more of the same; standard for quality of the article is set by those editors devoted to the article. If blocks of citationless text are allowed to stand, more will appear. If original research begins to be allowed, based on deciding the meaning of primary sources, or deciding between interpretations of major Tudor historians (rather than just reporting those interpretations), then the article will move toward editor opinions (as some appear to desire, in the sections above). Bottom line, we are thought reporters, not thought leaders. All that matters is our faithful reporting of the preponderance/major strains of thought, from sources written by the thought leaders (historians).
Thanks again for all the prior hard work, and sorry to suggest more. But quality will drift without attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Could we have a translation into modern English of these quotations, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 ( talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
When did all the reference links in two paragraphs of "Early life" get replaced with numbers? Can this be easily reversed? Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"The arbitrary and unpredictable streak in the King's personality, which more than once exercised influence during his reign, surfaced again and washed Cromwell away in its wake." is an example of the risk of writing in something other than a simple and direct style.
Do streaks actually surface and wash away people ? Is that the same streak that also exercised influence?
In any event, the best solution would be adoption of a clear and direct style of writing with fewer presumptions of "style" which are too difficult for our typical contributors to bring off. DCDuring ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I get that Cromwell's demise is something of a mystery, but I think we've added to it by this piece of text:
Catherine Howard was an opportunity to displace him? How? We don't say. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The convention in Wikipedia pages is to refer to a person at the start of their article and in the infobox (if not the article's title itself) by their current name (if alive) or their last (if dead). Here, the subject is referred to in the first line as Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex KG PC and in the infobox as The Right Honourable Thomas Cromwell KG PC. Apart from the obvious inconsistency, and the oddity of including "KG" while omitting "Sir", there is the matter of the Downfall and execution section which states that all of Cromwell's honours were removed shortly before his death. In that case the first line and the infobox should both read simply Thomas Cromwell. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In the section Lawyer, Member of Parliament, adviser to Wolsey, we have He was one of Wolsey's council by 1519... followed shortly by In 1526, Wolsey appointed Cromwell a member of his council. Can anyone clear this up? Yes, I admit I'm dodging work... Eric talk 03:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
References
1. In the lead is says 'chief minister to King Henry VIII of England from 1532 to 1540'. The year 1532 is however not mentioned in any of his functions in the sidebar. 2. In the same sidebar are mentioned his daughters Anne, Grace, and Jane. In the main text Jane has disappeared...
-- GvN ( talk) 15:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
At time of posting there is a {{clarify}} tag against "The clergy resisted the Act of 1529 where they were prevented from appealing to Church-established courts, or Ecclesiastical courts to settle disputes.". This seems to be referring to the Commons' petition " Supplication against the Ordinaries" of 1532, which included a demand for this measure. According to Leithead, a principal source for the article, Cromwell may have attended the 1529 parliamentary session where this was discussed, but no Act resulted. I'm suggesting that the wording here is wrong and I propose changing it, subject to other editors' views. I may be missing something, of course.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hilary Mantel's famous Cromwell novels are comprehensively dealt with in the "Fictional portrayals" section but she is also cited in the section dealing with Cromwell's early life: Walter Cromwell's violent behaviour and Thomas Cromwell's participation in the battle of Garigliano. As fiction Mantel's work (albeit strongly researched) shouldn't be called upon in support of facts.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 20:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I love this prophetic quote, foretelling Cromwell's own fate, but it isn't in Leithead, the referenced source, and I can't find it anywhere that doesn't originally trace back to this page itself. Unless anyone knows where it actually came from I'll (reluctantly) replace it with what Leithead actually says he said. Tagged {{Verify quote}}.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 08:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
…it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief, and art likewise causer of the apprehension of us that be noble men and dost daily earnestly travail to bring us to our end and to strike off our heads, and I trust that or thou die, though thou wouldest procure all the noblemen's heads within the realm to be stricken off, yet shall there one head remain that shall strike off thy head.
Thanks to User: Martinevans123, this has been resolved.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The recent addition of The Serpent' Oath to the "Novels" section appears to be a promotion to a newly published (April 2021) novel. It's only available from Kindle Direct Publishing, Amazon's self-publishing service, and has no notability. It should be reverted.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 13:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The post-nominals KG and PC are regularly inserted into the lede section and the infobox, and just as regularly removed. Are these modern conventions, never used in Tudor times, appropriate in this article? I would delete them again but this may continue further the "in/out" cycle.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Cromwell | |
---|---|
The Earl of Essex | |
---|---|
Other articles about earls (for example Earl of Beaconsfield, Earl of Derby and Earl of Chatham), include the earldom as the name in the infobox, so should Thomas Cromwell's name be listed as The Earl of Essex in his infobox? Also, other articles about Knights of the Order of the Garter (for example Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli, Edward Heath and James Callaghan) have KG listed as an honorific suffix in the infobox, why isn't this the case in this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.76.243 ( talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There are a couple of things in the article that I wonder if they could be errors, or need clarifying due to seeming inconsistencies with other articles. Firstly the succession box for Lord Great Chamberlain indicates the next holder of the office was The 16th Earl of Oxford. However the article for Lord Great Chamberlain has a list which indicates that the 16th Earl only got the post in 1553, ie 13 years after Cromwell's death, and that four individuals held the office between Cromwell and him. This suggests Cromwell's successor was Robert Radcliffe, 1st Earl of Sussex, as does Sussex's article. I think this is therefore probably an error.
The other point I am doubtful about relates to the section on Cromwell's downfall. In relation to the aqusation that Cromwell had shared the fact Henry had been unable to consummate his marriage it says "Southampton (or possibly Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London) made sure that Cromwell was blamed for the indiscretion". I would take that Southampton is meant to be William FitzWilliam, 1st Earl of Southampton who is mentioned a few lines earlier. However Thomas Wriothesley is also mentioned as knowing earlier and his article names him as the one who told "the king that Cromwell was indiscreet about Henry's inability to consummate his marriage to Anne of Cleves" (and indeed most historians identify him as a key player in his erstwhile friend and patron's fall. Wriothesley was later (but not in 1540) Earl of Southampton, so I wonder if this is actually meant to be a reference to him? Dunarc ( talk) 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The extent to which Cromwell "engineered" Anne's fall is very much open to discussion to this day, so the references clarifying this need to be selected carefully. The Susan Bordo reference, used to support "Most historians[…]are convinced that her fall and execution were engineered by Cromwell", doesn't quite say this: Bardo merely states that Cromwell had no scruples in exploiting existing rumours about Anne. [1] Tagged.
References
-- AntientNestor ( talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I've now put in a counterbalancing ref and removed the tag.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 13:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Cromwell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 28, 2012, July 28, 2013, and July 28, 2024. |
![]() | Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Thomas Cromwell was copied or moved into Fictional portrayals of Thomas Cromwell with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Nearly all the information from this page has been deleted. It should be restored to what it was under a previous more complete edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.63.160 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 September 2005
what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.227.113 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 February 2009
I changed the job Cromwell had which gave him the authority to dissolve the monasteries. I've read that: Cromwell's titles of vicar-general and vicegerent in spirituals should be kept apart; it was as vicar-general that he visited the monasteries, but as vicegerent that he presided in Convocation. - G. R. Elton, Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government: Vol. One, p. 43.-- Johnbull 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I have read that Henry VIII regretted executing Cromwell, but I don't know much of the details of that. This is one of the things that makes Cromwell a fascinating figure: his rise to power under a mercurial king, and then his downfall for making just one mistake. Someone who is more knowledgeable should add that information to the article.-- Caleb Murdock 09:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I see at the bottom of the page he is labeled as Secretary of State and then Lord Privy Seal but the article, under the header of "downfall" refers to him as "Chancellor". Can someone clear this up and make the necessary changes please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful1749 ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cromwell was never Lord Chancellor, I have removed the reference to "Chancellor" in the text and replaced it with "King's chief minister" which is I believe an accurate description of his position.
122.104.64.184 (
talk)
13:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
We appear to have agreement that this person should be the primary meaining of the term "Thomas Cromwell". Should we handle this by moving this page to Thomas Cromwell, or do we turn Thomas Cromwell to a redirect here? Also, how do we bring in the play Thomas Lord Cromwell? Do we just add a hatband here about the Canadian jurist, or do we treat the play as equal, which means this article would have to have a hatband to a disambiguation page? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It's true that he was a prominent name in the Reformation in England, but before that he was a Roman Catholic and he choose to die in the Roman Catholic faith, like the historical accounts shows. I can provide one example of many that show it: "An act of attainder was passed against him without a dissentient voice, and after contributing his mite towards the divorce of Anne, he was beheaded on Tower Hill on the 28th of July, repudiating all heresy and declaring that he died in the Catholic faith." [1] This is taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica. 81.193.214.198 ( talk) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This are the last words of Thomas Cromwell, according to Edward Hall:
"I am come hether to dye, and not to purge my self, as maie happen, some thynke that I will, for if I should do so, I wer a very wretche and miser: I am by the Lawe comdempned to die, and thanke my lorde God that hath appoynted me this deathe, for myne offence: For sithence the tyme that I have had yeres of discrecion, I have lived a synner, and offended my Lorde God, for the whiche I aske hym hartely forgevenes. And it is not unknowne to many of you, that I have been a great traveler in this worlde, and beyng but of a base degree, was called to high estate, and sithes the tyme I came thereunto, I have offended my prince, for the whiche I aske hym hartely forgevenes, and beseche you all to praie to God with me, that he will forgeve me. O father forgeve me. O sonne forgeve me, O holy Ghost forgeve me: O thre persons in one God forgeve me. And now I praie you that be here, to beare me record, I die in the Catholicke faithe, not doubtyng in any article of my faith, no nor doubtyng in any Sacrament of the Churche.* Many hath sclaundered me, and reported that I have been a bearer, of suche as hath mainteigned evill opinions, whiche is untrue, but I confesse that like as God by his holy spirite, doth instruct us in the truthe, so the devill is redy to seduce us, and I have been seduced: but beare me witnes that I dye in the Catholicke faithe of the holy Churche. And I hartely desire you to praie for the Kynges grace, that he maie long live with you, maie long reigne over you. And once again I desire you to pray for me, that so long as life remaigneth in this fleshe, I waver nothyng in my faithe.
And then made he his praier, whiche was long, but not so long, as bothe Godly and learned, and after committed his soule, into the handes of God, and so paciently suffered the stroke of the axe, by a ragged and Boocherly miser, whiche very ungoodly perfourmed the Office."
I think some versions changed some words to say that he died in the "old faith" or the "traditional faith". Reading more carefully his words, it really makes sense that he was refering to the Church of England. The fact that he doesn´t openly names the Church of England might have lead some to think that his references to the Catholic Church were made to the Roman Catholic Church, but I really think that the interpretation that he died in the Anglican faith while renouncing Protestantism really makes more sense. Mistico ( talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reference to Cromwell's faith in the information column on the right hand side should be deleted for the simple reason that his religious beliefs cannot be summed up in a single word. I propose instead a new section explaining that, though Cromwell was a major proponent of the Anglican Reformation, he apparently regretted his actions at some point prior to his death and returned to Catholicism. The evidence for that is clear-cut. Wfgiuliano ( talk) 09:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The book "The Tower of London" by Christopher (Newsweek Books 1981) states that Cromwell was executed at Tyburn. This Wikipedia article states he was executed at the Tower. An internet search produces references that he was executed variously at Tyburn, inside the Tower, and on Tower Hill. Can others produce good citations either way?
Bryan MacKinnon ( talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Lacking better references, I have changed the place of Cromwell's execution to Tyburn according to the above reference. If anyone has a better reference that contradicts this, please cite them.
Bryan MacKinnon ( talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a plaque on Tower Hill commemorating that Cromwell had been executed there. I therefore take this as the superior citation and have changed the article as such.
Bryan MacKinnon ( talk) 12:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So, just what's wrong with where Holbein's portraits hang? The following quote pertains: "...hang facing each other on the same wall..".
That must be some non standard kind of wall, yeah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.113 ( talk) 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be mistaking the meaning? Portraits are not always depicting the subject of the painting facing straight forward. Perhaps Cromwell's portrait was on the left facing his left/viewer's right and More's portrait was on the right facing Cromwell's? TimBRoy ( talk) 21:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Merge them. Verica Atrebatum ( talk) 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The idea should be to expand Wikipedia's knowledge base, not unnecessarily contract it. The shortish nature of the article presents an open challenge to expand and seek out more knowledge on the topic. 78.105.199.11 ( talk) 08:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, Elizabeth Wyckes may not have been notable, but she was a part of English history and as her own person she deserves her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahlou911 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree with a marge. She is notable enough for own article due to historic relevance. -- 24.154.173.243 ( talk) 20:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states that Cromwell's downfall and execution was prompted by Cromwell coercing the King into a marriage with Anne of Cleves, perceived by the King as a disastrous union. The relevant passus in the article says: "His final downfall, however, was caused by the haste with which he encouraged the king to marry Anne of Cleves, a princess from the United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg. This was a marriage that Cromwell hoped would put the English Reformation back on track after the recent setback with the Six Articles. The union became a disaster when King Henry confided to Cromwell that he had not consummated the marriage.[20] Henry told Cromwell to get him out of the marriage by legal means, but the king was obliged to go ahead with it or risk the vital German alliance. The disaster of the king's marriage to Anne of Cleves was all the opportunity that Cromwell's opponents, most notably the Duke of Norfolk, needed to press for his fall from grace."
However, historian G.J. Meyer says the following about this topic: "Contrary to what has often been asserted, he did not die because he had used a deceptive painting by Hans Holbein to trick the king into marrying a miserably homely Anne of Cleves. He died, rather, because he had become too closely identified with the evangelical party in England and the Protestant cause in Europe, and because the collapse of the latest alliance between Francis of France and the emperor Charles gave Henry a choice of Catholic allies and made Cromwell not only expendable but a diplomatic liability." (Meyer, G.J., "The Tudors: The complete story of England's most notorious dynasty", Delacorte Press, Kindle Edition, 2010, location 5.390)
In my personal opinion, I consider Meyer's version of history the more likely one. Even though the King may well have been cross with Cromwell for coaxing him into marrying a woman he turned out not to find attractive, I find it unlikely that for such a flimsy reason King Henry would dispose of (and not only dispose of him as an officer, but attaint him, condemn him to death and kill him) his most efficient and trusted lieutenant. I find it much more believable that political considerations such as the ones described by Meyer (the prospect of a possible alliance with Charles V against France or with France against Charles V), would be required to prompt the downfall of the second most powerful man of the Kingdom, who had invariably proven to be extremely efficient in the furtherance of Henry's goals.
In any event, there is a logical flaw in the version which is currently featured in the article. If Henry told Cromwell to get him out of the marriage by legal means (which he probably did), that cannot logically be followed by the king being obliged to go ahead with it (it being the marriage). He can only need to ask Cromwell to get him out of a marriage by legal means, after having entered into the marriage in the first place. But if he had already entered into it, then it makes no sense to say that he was still obliged to go ahead with it, as if it hadn't happened yet.
And also, by stating that the king was sadly obliged to go ahead with the marriage, despite having asked Cromwell to get him out of it by legal means, the article suggests that such efforts would have failed. I'm not sure whether or not this was Cromwell's doing, but the King did get out of the marriage. It was annuled for non-consummation.
In conclusion, I guess I'm saying that in my opinion the article's account of the reason for Cromwell's downfall and execution should either be changed into Meyer's version, or at least make mention of it as an alternate version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpa248 ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Another point to add is the time between Henry's marriage to Anne and Cromwell's arrest. Six months passed between the two events which begs the question: If Henry was so upset with Cromwell about the marriage that he would have Cromwell executed, why did he wait six months to do so? Not to mention that Cromwell was promoted by the king to the peerage in that same six months. 47.133.211.143 ( talk) 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Convincing argument for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and agrees with the "exceptions" guidelines found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility. -- Hadal ( talk) 07:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex →
Thomas Cromwell – He is clearly the primary meaning, Thomas Cromwell already redirects here. Histories of the period usually just refer to him as "Thomas Cromwell" or "Cromwell", I am not aware that he is ever referred to as "the Earl of Essex" or "Essex", and even many educated people with some knowledge of the history of the period may be unaware that he held this title. We should therefore go for his common name and remove an unnecessary disambiguator.
PatGallacher (
talk)
11:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about listing Cromwell as an Anglican, since I believe his protestant beliefs came before the formation of the CoE. It is very clear that Cromwell was a reformist and a Protestant, but can it be said he was an Anglican? I mean the early years of the Anglican Church was up and down, and since Cromwell was one of the ones to work towards the overthrow of Catholicism in England, his religious beliefs would predate the formation of the CoE. Wouldn't it make more sense then to just list him as a Protestant? Just a thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.230.177 ( talk) 08:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
"Catholic" with a capital "C" is used as a proper name. "c" with a lower case "c" is an adjective meaning universal.
The current version of the article is inconsistent in that it refers to Oliver Cromwell both as Thomas's great-grandson and great-great-grand-nephew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.216.112 ( talk) 08:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Place of birth is listed as: Putney, Surrey, England - however putney is in west london, not surrey. Is this a different Putney? If so the hyperlink to Putney west london should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.146.163 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 January 2013
A well written article with contributions by editors committed to only adding content if there is a clear basis in writing by noted historians. Near amazingly, and thankfully, there are still no URL-only sources. However, there are the following longstanding and emerging matters to which attention should be called: (i) inconsistent style of lede, with regard to citation; (ii) over-reliance on a subscription ref.: Leithead's "Cromwell, Thomas, Earl of Essex", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online, OUP (which for most, requires subscription); (iii) sporadic blocks of completely unreferenced text; (iv) occasional use of apparent primary sources.
I invite use of the tag Done to note when the following requests are addressed. This Talk entry is a call to:
Motivation for making this request is to ensure the article remains solid, and does not drift. Weak (e.g., weakly sourced) content invites more of the same; standard for quality of the article is set by those editors devoted to the article. If blocks of citationless text are allowed to stand, more will appear. If original research begins to be allowed, based on deciding the meaning of primary sources, or deciding between interpretations of major Tudor historians (rather than just reporting those interpretations), then the article will move toward editor opinions (as some appear to desire, in the sections above). Bottom line, we are thought reporters, not thought leaders. All that matters is our faithful reporting of the preponderance/major strains of thought, from sources written by the thought leaders (historians).
Thanks again for all the prior hard work, and sorry to suggest more. But quality will drift without attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Could we have a translation into modern English of these quotations, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 ( talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
When did all the reference links in two paragraphs of "Early life" get replaced with numbers? Can this be easily reversed? Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"The arbitrary and unpredictable streak in the King's personality, which more than once exercised influence during his reign, surfaced again and washed Cromwell away in its wake." is an example of the risk of writing in something other than a simple and direct style.
Do streaks actually surface and wash away people ? Is that the same streak that also exercised influence?
In any event, the best solution would be adoption of a clear and direct style of writing with fewer presumptions of "style" which are too difficult for our typical contributors to bring off. DCDuring ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I get that Cromwell's demise is something of a mystery, but I think we've added to it by this piece of text:
Catherine Howard was an opportunity to displace him? How? We don't say. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The convention in Wikipedia pages is to refer to a person at the start of their article and in the infobox (if not the article's title itself) by their current name (if alive) or their last (if dead). Here, the subject is referred to in the first line as Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex KG PC and in the infobox as The Right Honourable Thomas Cromwell KG PC. Apart from the obvious inconsistency, and the oddity of including "KG" while omitting "Sir", there is the matter of the Downfall and execution section which states that all of Cromwell's honours were removed shortly before his death. In that case the first line and the infobox should both read simply Thomas Cromwell. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In the section Lawyer, Member of Parliament, adviser to Wolsey, we have He was one of Wolsey's council by 1519... followed shortly by In 1526, Wolsey appointed Cromwell a member of his council. Can anyone clear this up? Yes, I admit I'm dodging work... Eric talk 03:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
References
1. In the lead is says 'chief minister to King Henry VIII of England from 1532 to 1540'. The year 1532 is however not mentioned in any of his functions in the sidebar. 2. In the same sidebar are mentioned his daughters Anne, Grace, and Jane. In the main text Jane has disappeared...
-- GvN ( talk) 15:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
At time of posting there is a {{clarify}} tag against "The clergy resisted the Act of 1529 where they were prevented from appealing to Church-established courts, or Ecclesiastical courts to settle disputes.". This seems to be referring to the Commons' petition " Supplication against the Ordinaries" of 1532, which included a demand for this measure. According to Leithead, a principal source for the article, Cromwell may have attended the 1529 parliamentary session where this was discussed, but no Act resulted. I'm suggesting that the wording here is wrong and I propose changing it, subject to other editors' views. I may be missing something, of course.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hilary Mantel's famous Cromwell novels are comprehensively dealt with in the "Fictional portrayals" section but she is also cited in the section dealing with Cromwell's early life: Walter Cromwell's violent behaviour and Thomas Cromwell's participation in the battle of Garigliano. As fiction Mantel's work (albeit strongly researched) shouldn't be called upon in support of facts.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 20:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I love this prophetic quote, foretelling Cromwell's own fate, but it isn't in Leithead, the referenced source, and I can't find it anywhere that doesn't originally trace back to this page itself. Unless anyone knows where it actually came from I'll (reluctantly) replace it with what Leithead actually says he said. Tagged {{Verify quote}}.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 08:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
…it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief, and art likewise causer of the apprehension of us that be noble men and dost daily earnestly travail to bring us to our end and to strike off our heads, and I trust that or thou die, though thou wouldest procure all the noblemen's heads within the realm to be stricken off, yet shall there one head remain that shall strike off thy head.
Thanks to User: Martinevans123, this has been resolved.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The recent addition of The Serpent' Oath to the "Novels" section appears to be a promotion to a newly published (April 2021) novel. It's only available from Kindle Direct Publishing, Amazon's self-publishing service, and has no notability. It should be reverted.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 13:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The post-nominals KG and PC are regularly inserted into the lede section and the infobox, and just as regularly removed. Are these modern conventions, never used in Tudor times, appropriate in this article? I would delete them again but this may continue further the "in/out" cycle.-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Cromwell | |
---|---|
The Earl of Essex | |
---|---|
Other articles about earls (for example Earl of Beaconsfield, Earl of Derby and Earl of Chatham), include the earldom as the name in the infobox, so should Thomas Cromwell's name be listed as The Earl of Essex in his infobox? Also, other articles about Knights of the Order of the Garter (for example Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli, Edward Heath and James Callaghan) have KG listed as an honorific suffix in the infobox, why isn't this the case in this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.76.243 ( talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There are a couple of things in the article that I wonder if they could be errors, or need clarifying due to seeming inconsistencies with other articles. Firstly the succession box for Lord Great Chamberlain indicates the next holder of the office was The 16th Earl of Oxford. However the article for Lord Great Chamberlain has a list which indicates that the 16th Earl only got the post in 1553, ie 13 years after Cromwell's death, and that four individuals held the office between Cromwell and him. This suggests Cromwell's successor was Robert Radcliffe, 1st Earl of Sussex, as does Sussex's article. I think this is therefore probably an error.
The other point I am doubtful about relates to the section on Cromwell's downfall. In relation to the aqusation that Cromwell had shared the fact Henry had been unable to consummate his marriage it says "Southampton (or possibly Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London) made sure that Cromwell was blamed for the indiscretion". I would take that Southampton is meant to be William FitzWilliam, 1st Earl of Southampton who is mentioned a few lines earlier. However Thomas Wriothesley is also mentioned as knowing earlier and his article names him as the one who told "the king that Cromwell was indiscreet about Henry's inability to consummate his marriage to Anne of Cleves" (and indeed most historians identify him as a key player in his erstwhile friend and patron's fall. Wriothesley was later (but not in 1540) Earl of Southampton, so I wonder if this is actually meant to be a reference to him? Dunarc ( talk) 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The extent to which Cromwell "engineered" Anne's fall is very much open to discussion to this day, so the references clarifying this need to be selected carefully. The Susan Bordo reference, used to support "Most historians[…]are convinced that her fall and execution were engineered by Cromwell", doesn't quite say this: Bardo merely states that Cromwell had no scruples in exploiting existing rumours about Anne. [1] Tagged.
References
-- AntientNestor ( talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I've now put in a counterbalancing ref and removed the tag.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 13:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)