Talk:Thomas Cromwell

Info?

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 don't understand the above comment. I can't find a previous page with lots of text that has been deleted.--Caleb Murdock 09:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Title for the dissolution

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)

Henry VIII regretted executing Cromwell

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)

Title error

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)

Moving pages?

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)

Thomas Cromwell was and died as a Roman Catholic

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)

You say "I really think that the interpretation that he died in the Anglican faith while renouncing Protestantism really makes more sense." Looking at the text that is a interesting and good interpretation.

I'm not sure about it however. In 1540, Protestantism (the teachings of Luther or Calvin, etc.) was not particularly rampant in England so as to make renouncing Protestantism in favor of the C.o.E. a thing Cromwell would feel necessary--unless he had been accused of being Protestant. But he does say, in effect "Many have slandered me and accused me of having evil opinions, which is not true, but I confess that while the Holy Spirit guides us in truth, the Devil seduces us and I have been seduced: But hear me now that I die in the Catholic Faith of the Holy Church." It is still ambiguous. He could be saying, "Some say I am Protestant [or Apostate], but I am not, I believe in the Catholic Church of England." Or he could be saying "Some of you may have heard I was an adherent to the wicked tenants of Church of England, but I do not, I believe in the Catholic Church." [It seems to me that latter is a way one might renounce the C.o.E. at the last minute, by adopting the mildly ironic defense against the accusation of *not* being Catholic--knowing the audience knows what it signifies. It's how I would do it.]

The real problem is one of the language at the time. In 1540 could/would Cromwell have used "Catholicke faithe of the holy Churche" to refer to the CoE, in this context? I tend to think it is a reference to Roman Catholicism but below are a some examples that might be informative, particularly the last long segment from a biography of Cromwell:

"Christian people, I am come hither to die for the faith of Christ's holy catholic church; and, I thank God, hitherto my stomach hath served me very well thereunto, so that yet I have not feared death; wherefore I desire you all to help and assist with your prayers, that, at the very point and instant of death's stroke, I may in that very moment stand steadfast without fainting in any one point of the catholic faith, free from any fear. And I beseech Almighty God of his infinite goodness to save the king and this realm, and that it may please him to hold his holy hand over it, and send the king a good council." -- Scaffold speech of Bishop John Fisher (1535).

Henry VIII 's Act of Supremacy (1534): "the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia" and does not use the word Catholic.

"moste hertelie beseachinge theym all to praye for us and to see our bodies buryed accordinge to the Quenys will and pleasur and that we maye have the suffrages of the holie Churche accordyng to the Catholicke faithe wherein we ende our lief in this transitorye worlde." -- Last Will of Anne of Cleves (1557 [Under Mary I])

"The Cardinall of Bourbon, the Chancellor and the three Bishopes that came to Noyon to the Kinge, wherof your Lordship was before advertised, are come to the campe, expreslie to perswade the Kinge to be instructed in their Catholicke faithe, as also to conclude a peace with his subjectes, wherof they seeme to assure the Kinge. Hee putteth them in hope that he wilbe become a Catholicke, as him selfe confesseth to me; and did were two daies together a cloacke of the order of St. Espritt,--wherat the common sorte doe greately rejoice; also he offereth them to conclude a peace with reasonable conditions, which I beleeve to be impossible." -- Correspondence of Sir Henry Unton, knt., ambassador from Queen Elizabeth to Henry IV, king of France, in the years 1591 or 1592.

-------------------

LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS CROMWELL, Vol. 1, BY ROGER BIGELOW MERRIMAN (Oxford-Clarendon, 1902)

[Page 300] [O]n July 28 ' Thomas Cromwell, shearman,' was led forth to execution. In a letter to Francis, Marillac simply mentions the fact of his death 5 , but a more complete account of the end of the great minister is fortunately preserved to us in the chronicles of Holinshed and Hall, and the history of Foxe 6 .

5 Cal. xv. 926.

6 Holinshed, p. 817 ; Hall, p. 839 ;

[301] From the stories of all these chroniclers it appears that Cromwell on the scaffold made an address to the people, declaring the faith in which he died. That his speech was printed and publicly circulated is attested by [Cardinal] Pole; and the fact that Holinshed, Hall, and Foxe give it in almost exactly the same words corroborates the truth of the Cardinal's statement. Pole, however, goes on to say that though at first he accepted the printed speech as a true version of Cromwell's words, he later learned from trustworthy persons that what Cromwell had actually said was something very different 1. The words of the speech certainly have the appearance of being composed beforehand and forced upon Cromwell's dying lips. He confessed that he had done wrong, asked forgiveness of his King, and finally asserted that he died in the Catholic Faith, not doubting in any article of his faith, ' no nor doubting in any Sacrament of the Church 2. This last statement was certainly untrue ; nor would it have been in any way less false, if Cromwell had said that he died a true Protestant 3 . His religious beliefs were, as far as can be discovered, absolutely nothing when disconnected from practical ends, and he probably made his last speech at the King's command, either to save himself from a more shameful death than beheading, or else, as is quite probable, to avert the ruin of his son Gregory, who he perhaps feared would fall with him. On this point, however, he need not have had any apprehension ; Gregory Cromwell, perhaps on account of his fortunate marriage with the aunt of Prince Edward, appeared to be in as high favour as ever 4, and the title of Baron Cromwell, which his father forfeited at his attainder, was regranted to the young man by patent, Dec. 18, 1540 5.

1 Cal. xvi. 40. 5 Cal. xvi. 379 (34).

2 Cf. Appendix at the end of this chapter.

3 Cf. Collier, vol. ii. p. 181. 'I readily grant Cromwell was no Papist at his Death. But then, it is pretty plain he was no Protestant neither.'

4 Cal. xv. 940.

5 Gregory Cromwell died in 1557, and was succeeded by his eldest son Henry. The latter's grandson Thomas, fourth Baron Cromwell, was created Earl Ardglass in the Irish peerage, April 15, 1645. The earldom of Ardglass expired in 1687, and the barony of Cromwell became dormant in 1709. Life of Thomas Cromwell, in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xiii. p. 202.

[302] Besides this speech, which has given historians so much trouble, Hall makes mention of the fact that Cromwell ' made his praier, which was long, but not so long as both Godly and learned 1. This prayer is given in full in Foxe, and, as it reads there, it certainly justifies the use of the epithets that Hall applied to it 2 . Whether Foxe's words were Cromwell's words, or whether Cromwell's words were his own, and not those of the King which were given him to speak, is however entirely another matter. It is unfortunate that we have no more credible authority than the martyrologist on this point. Cromwell's prayer, as he gives it, was certainly that of a man who humbly acknowledged his faults, and threw himself solely on the mercy of God ; but the words which he spoke are suspiciously devout, for those of a man to whom religion mattered so little.

'And thus,' says Foxe, 'his Prayer made, after he had godly and lovingly exhorted them that were about him on the Scaffold, he quietly committed his Soul into the hands of God, and so patiently suffered the stroke of the Ax, by a ragged and butcherly Miser, which very ungodly performed his Office 3.

1 Hall, p. 839.

2 Cf. Appendix at the end of this chapter.

3 Foxe, vol. ii. p. 434. Cf. Mendes Silva, pp. 34, 35: 'Acabadas de pronunciar estas palabras, se dispuso a morir, pidiendo al verdugo, llamado Gurrea, para no sentir dilatada pena, le cortasse la cabega de vn golpe. Tendiose, pues sobre el madero, y recibiole terrible, muriendo aquel que nunca. deuiera nacer, por quien Inglaterra desde entonces se abrasa en infernal incendio de heregias.'

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIV - PASSAGES FROM FOXE'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY - Vol. ii. p. 433.

'A true Christian confession of the L. Cromwel at his death.'

' I am come hither to die, and not to purge my self, as some think peradventure that I will. For if I should so do, I were a very wretch and a Miser. I am by the Law condemned to die, and thank my Lord God, that hath appointed me this death for mine Offence. For sithence the time that I have had years of discretion, I have lived a sinner, and offended my Lord God, for the which I ask him heartily forgiveness. And it is not unknown to many of you, that I have been a great Traveller in this World, and being but of a base degree, was called to high estate, and sithence the time I came thereunto I have offended my Prince, for the which I ask him heartily forgiveness, and beseech you all to pray to God with me, that he will forgive me. And now I pray you that be here, to bear me record, I die in the Catholick Faith, not doubting in any Article of my Faith, no nor doubting in any Sacrament of the Church. Many have slandered me and reported that I have been a bearer of such as have maintained evil Opinions, which is untrue. But I confess, that like as God by his holy Spirit doth instruct us in the Truth, so the Devil is ready to seduce us, and I have been seduced ; but bear me witness that I die in the Catholick Faith of the holy Church ; and I heartily desire you to pray for the Kings Grace, that he may long live with you in health and prosperity ; and that after him his Son Prince Edward that goodly Impe may long Reign over you. And once again I desire you to pray for me, that so long as life remaineth in this flesh, I waver nothing in my Faith.'

------------------------ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 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)

Where was Cromwell executed?

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)

But?

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)

Elizabeth Wyckes merger

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)

Merge them. Elizabeth Wyckes is not notable enough to merit a page on her own. Agricolae (talk) 05:46, 12 February 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)

Everyone who has ever lived in England was a part of English history, but Wikipedia requires that one be notable to merit a page. Agricolae (talk) 03:47, 25 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 reason for Thomas Cromwell's downfall and execution.

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Support WP:PRECISION; if this is the primary topic of "Thomas Cromwell", and he is commonly known that way, then the current title is too long. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even on the dab page he's just linked as the forename and surname. Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - as this is an article on a peer, the relevant guideline is WP:NCROY, which mandates the current title unless the exceptions apply - it's not a matter of disambiguation or what is the primary topic (as a comparison, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, would clearly be the primary topic for John Churchill (which indeed redirects there), but that's not a reason to move the article there). Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that the current title is inappropriate, as he's hardly ever referred to as the Earl of Essex, having received that title shortly before his downfall and only months before his death. However, the same argument does not apply to the other option, Thomas Cromwell, 1st Baron Cromwell - he is referred to as "Lord Cromwell", not as often as "Thomas Cromwell" but still relatively frequently, and indeed is called that in the title of Thomas Lord Cromwell. "Lord Cromwell" was of course a title he bore for four years at the height of his power. I'm not convinced that the personal name alone is so overwhelming as to use it as the article title. I'm therefore opposing this move request, but would support a request to move it to Thomas Cromwell, 1st Baron Cromwell. Proteus (Talk) 11:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That is a paricularly awkward halfway house, being neither his common name nor the title which follows from the strict application of WP:NCROY. "Lord Cromwell" might crop up occasonally, but not the full title given here. The duke is usually known as Marlborough, not Churchill, so that's not a good comparison. PatGallacher (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Putting "Earl of Essex" in big letters at the top of the article makes the title look way more significant than it really was. Cromwell had many titles. This one didn't get much use. Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Looking at WP:NCPEER (a section of WP:NCROY), there is an exception for "peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names". Having looked through the references in the article and having a gbooks search, I feel that this is certainly the case for Thomas Cromwell. Jenks24 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Thomas Cromwell already redirects, so as long as it is a more common name than the full one currently used (which it seems to be), I don't see an argument against. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anglican?

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)

The word "Catholic" can be used in several ways. My history teacher says that Henry's church was called the "Catholic Church of England" , which is why the original church was called the "ROMAN Catholic Church". And even today the Apostles Creed refers to Christianity in general as "the holy Catholic church". 2601:C2:202:3BC0:35EC:5ADA:5C21:D73F (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Catholic" with a capital "C" is used as a proper name. "c" with a lower case "c" is an adjective meaning universal.

Relationship to Oliver Cromwell

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

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

Putney WAS in Surrey until 1889. AND the WP aricle states it as being in southwest London. AND you created a section and then deleted it here. AND you didn't sign your name. Think that's enough for starters Basket _Feudalist 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Existing and emerging citation issues

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:

1. make the lede uniform, most likely by insuring material appearing there also appears in the body, paraphrasing and moving the quote, and thereby leaving the lede without need for (and so without) inline citations, and so completely of uniform style in this regard;
2. examine sources for whether primary or secondary, and if primary, examined for whether WP:OR is involved, and if the primary source is truly needed (e.g., is the point redundantly referenced?), then removing unnecessary primary sources (original Court documents, etc.), and adding for any remaining;
3. examine long spans of unreferenced text and edit history, to decide if text should remain or be removed (e.g., is it from an established editor or one-time visitor, etc.); if remaining, pinging the editor and requesting return to provide citations, or, if content expert, editing to correct and add citations from your available reliable citations; sections with long paragraphs needing citations are tagged; and
4. seek to broaden the referencing away from just Leithead, in the many places this citation appears; currently, this one source approaches half of all inline citations (>30 appearances); as a subscription only source (for most of English speaking world), reliance upon it means no available direction for an interested reader to go for followup reading, and it means inability of many expert editors to check the reference's content.

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)

The great majority of serious readers have access to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online through their academic or public library. We do not disparage articles for using the best source. Rjensen (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotations in Middle(?) English

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)

Cromwell's time was roughly the middle point of Early Modern English, though a bit closer to Middle than modern. Updating all the language could be a bit unwieldy; are any particular parts giving you trouble? In some cases, this wouldn't be straightforward. What exactly does it mean that his executioner was "a ragged and Boocherly miser"? --BDD (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

References replaced with numbers

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)

That’s not exactly what happened: it was a copy-paste addition of presented text (as opposed to wikicode) from Gregory Cromwell, on the 27th of last month. The attribution failing WP:PATT would justify reversion, but if the content is worthwhile here the references and attribution could be fixed by simply re-copying the wikitext from there (as long as the reference format is compatible–I haven‘t checked the details, but both articles appear to use the same approach) while providing a proper breadcrumb trail for licensing purposes.—Odysseus1479 20:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think properly supported text would be better than what we have now, even if it is later removed or trimmed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Now done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not quite … we need a link to the source article and a tag on the Talk page there, which I’ve now done. I also see some tweaks were made in the interval; will review & update as appropriate.—Odysseus1479 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Done" as in "sources instead of bracketed numbers." But could you explain about the need for a tag on the Talk Page of the original article, if text if copied over with all its sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the references: the editors who contributed the original text need to be credited to conform with the CC-BY-SA licence. The tag on the source Talk page is to prevent the loss of attribution should that article be deleted or moved. I don’t know the technical details, but the idea is to alert whoever performs such actions to do whatever‘s necessary to preserve the relevant history and its accessibility from the target article.—Odysseus1479 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Is something special about the first time text is added? Surely whatever I add, whether it copies existing material or not, is necessarily covered by "my" CC-BY-SA licence? That becomes my responsibility? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is something special about the first time text is added-- the author has a copyright in it, which is released for use by Wikipedia in the CC-by-SA license. Basically this is an obscure rule imposed by the lawyers to comply with the CC-by-SA Rule that all the text has to be traceable to the original author. Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And this applies equally to every anon ip that adds material? How are our lawyer friends going to trace them? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

yes it does apply to them-- this is only a technicality to fulfill the requirements of the CC by SA, as the tracing is in practice never done to my knowledge. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. Good job we aren't hamstrung by mindless bureaucracy, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this makes a good reason to rewrite rather than copy-paste—quite aside from editorial ideals. But I guess we should be thankful that a history link is considered sufficient, rather than having to credit each contributor individually.—Odysseus1479 23:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And how does one determine that a sentence, passage or paragraph has indeed been copied from an existing article rather than just added by coincidence? And does this apply only to verbatim copies, or also to (close) paraphrases? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a rule that I have never seen enforced, & is there because the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers wanted to follow the CC by SS rules. I read it as a mandate for every editor who makes an exact copy or paraphrase from article X in Wikipedia and puts it in article Y that he should leave a record of that on the Y talk page or the Y edit summary. Rjensen (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifcation, although my questions remain unanswered. Such a rule would make sense to me if user registration was mandatory, and if the rule was policed in some way, although I'm really not sure how it could be. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mixed metaphor

"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?

1. A tide (as of anger) might be said to wash away someone. A tide also ebbs and flows, which might fit the nature of Henry Tudor's moods.
2. A deep or concealed anger might surface.

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)

Vague text

I get that Cromwell's demise is something of a mystery, but I think we've added to it by this piece of text:

Cromwell's conservative, aristocratic enemies, headed by the Duke of Norfolk and assisted by Bishop Gardiner (colloquially known as 'Wily Winchester'), saw an opportunity to displace their foe, in the form of Catherine Howard.

Catherine Howard was an opportunity to displace him? How? We don't say. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Expanded.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Cromwell's name and titles

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)

Discrepancy: member of Wolsey's council

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)

Diarmaid MacCulloch explains that some primary source documents relating to this period were misdated. I have altered the article accordingly.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Inconsequenties

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)

Formally appointed as chief minister in 1534, but in practice had taken over the job two years earlier. Adding this. Somebody has already expanded "Jane" quite a bit.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Supplication against the Ordinaries

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)

Resolved. The Act was 21 Hen. VIII cap 13, restricting clergy from holding too many benefices and preventing them from buying dispensation for the practice from Rome. Just about to add this and remove the tag.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wolf Hall overspill

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)

Now removed. Extensive coverage in "Fiction" section remains.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Darcy quote from the scaffold

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)

What does Leithhead actually say Darcy said? Access to ONDB seems to be somewhat restricted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was only going to paraphrase from Leithead:

…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.

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it not possible that he said both things? Although, admittedly, the current version is not in the current source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. here is another source for the version you give above: [2]

Found it! Inspired by Martin Evans's additional source I widened the search. Watch this space.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to User: Martinevans123, this has been resolved.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, IP 217. Quick work. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROMO for a new, self-published novel

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)

Now removed.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Post-nominals (again)

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)

OK, as Thomas More said to Cromwell: "Silence implies consent", so I'm trying this again.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Name and honorific suffix

The Right Honourable Thomas Cromwell 1st Earl of Essex

The Right Honourable The Earl of Essex KG

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)

It's all explained at Template:Infobox person#Parameters. Specifically for name: "Common name of person" and "Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter". Honorific suffix should be those that were "attached to the name in formal address". These weren't used as "formal address" back in Cromwell's time. Any help?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

All of Cromwell's titles and honours were forfeit shortly before his death, so I would prefer we didn't use them at all in the infobox. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A couple of questions/possible errors

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)

Anne Boleyn's fall engineered by Cromwell

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. 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)

Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton

The article says: ".. and he allowed Cromwell to impart this information to William FitzWilliam, 1st Earl of Southampton who, as Lord Admiral, had conveyed Anne from Calais. Back home at Austin Friars, and uncertain how to deal with this new problem, Cromwell also told Thomas Wriothesley, his principal secretary (who also served the king in various important positions)." So who was 1st Earl of Southampton? FitzWilliam or Wriothesley? Or both? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Serial comma inserted as a fix.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks AntientNestor, that Oxford comma clarifies that there three people, not two, who were "erstwhile friends of Cromwell." But we still have two people both called "1st Earl of Souuthampton": one is FitzWilliam and the other is Wriothesley. Which of these two is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to sort this by checking ODNB but it has both as earl of Southampton. Fittzwilliam: "18 October [1537] Henry created him earl of Southampton.", so FitzW (who was the sailor) looks like the correct one. I'll try to sort it and fix the article—watch this space. Good catch!--AntientNestor (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote added to article; typo in my last (above) fixed.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks AntientNestor, for adding that footnote. That makes things a lot clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lordship of the manor of Romney

Just to note that the lordship of the manor of Romney isn't mentioned at Rumney, Cardiff or at Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham. British History Online calls it "Rompney". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is sourced to MacCulloch in the article. There are many spellings of the manorship, with MacCulloch settling on "Rhymney or Romney in Glamorgan", explaining that the manor formerly belonged to the "attainted Duke of Buckingham". A review specifically confined to Cromwell's land holdings has "Rompney, or Rumney, in Monmouthshire, had been, until 1521, part of the great marcher lordship of the dukes of Buckingham. On Edward Stafford's attainder and execution in that year, it was forfeit to the crown and leased to the widowed duchess in life tenure only. ". British History Online's "The manors of Cardiff district" notes the transfer of the manor to Gregory Cromwell after Thomas Cromwell's attainder.

--AntientNestor (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Perhaps surprising that Rumney was considered to be in Monmouthshire at one time. I'm also surprised that it's not mentioned at all at Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. not to be confused with Rhymney, which is not that far away.

I don't think Rumney (Cardiff) was ever considered to be in Monmouthshire—probably just Robertson's understandable confusion. I chose Romney as the alternative spelling to use in the article, even though Rumney and Rhymney are more common, hoping to avoid confusion. Didn't work so well! AntientNestor (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Or Romney, of course... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Rauf Cromwell

I've tagged a reference for Thomas Cromwell becoming Chancellor as {{Failed verification}} because it seems to refer to Rauf Cromwell, Chancellor to Henry VI from 1450–1455. The text is extremely difficult to read, being in clerks' heavily abbreviated dog Latin of the fifteenth century, so I may be missing something. Can anybody clarify?--AntientNestor (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Afterthought: The actual page number might help. Thomas Cromwell appears only once, on page 326, wherein he (and Cardinal Wolsey, so Cromwell wasn't yet Chancellor) are together in receipt of l^~res, found in a cupboard. I couldn't work out what "l^~res" was/were—perhaps libri, books. All the other instances are to Chancellor Rauf.-AntientNestor (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

After-afterthought: searched the adjoining pages and found the word in another context, demonstrating that l^~res is letters. Obvious, really.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Ref removed, text unchanged.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)