Notes
1 Circa Regna tonat – from Thomas Wyatt’s poem on the fall of Anne Boleyn, printed in Complete Poems of Thomas Wyatt, ed. R. A. Rebholz (Middlesex, 1978), p. 155.
2 LP 9, nos 148, 205, 443, 984, 994, 1001, 1013; CSP Ven. 5, no. 80.
3 LP 9 App. 7, pp. 404–5; LP 9, no. 1038; Merriman 1, pp. 434–6; Merriman 2, p. 1.
4 Merriman 2, pp. 1–2.
5 CSP, Span., 1536–8, no. 29, pp. 54–9.
6 CSP Span., 1531–3, no. 1043, p. 583; CSP Span., 1534–5, no. 71, p. 206; no. 221, p. 563, no. 222; CSP, Span., 1536–8, no. 43A, pp. 86–8.
7 Merriman 2, pp. 5–6; LP 10, no. 410.
8 CSP, Span., 1536–8, no. 29, p. 59; no. 43, pp. 79–85.
9 LP 10, no. 615. Solomon (1 Kings 11); Rehoboam (1 King 12:1–11); Haman (Esther 3–5).
10 E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 2004), pp. 307–9.
11 On the Pilgrimage of Grace, see chap. 10. Wolsey had also carried the Haman tag – see G. Walker, ‘Wolsey and the satirists: the case of Godly Queen Hester re-opened’, in S. Gunn and P. Lindley (eds), Cardinal Wolsey: Church, State and Art (Cambridge UP, 1991), pp. 243–5. It may have become a catch-all insult for any minister unpopular for some reason or another.
12 E. Ives, ‘Anne Boleyn and the early Reformation in England: The contemporary evidence’, HJ 37 (1994): 398, fn. 76; LP 10, nos 797, 910. .
13 CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 40.
14 WA, Br 7, p. 396 = LW 50, pp. 136–8; LP 10, no. 665.
15 This and the following discussion, including the events of 18 April, is taken from CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 43A, pp. 85–98.
16 Merriman, 1, p. 231.
17 LP 10, nos 688, 759. Chapuys knew the French had seen Henry on 19 April. An example of the unpredictability and fluidity of European diplomacy is that shortly after this Cromwell was astonished to hear a report that Charles and Francis were making an alliance, and he asked Chapuys if this was true, and whether their negotiations should be halted: see CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 43A, pp. 99–101.
18 LP 10, no. 670, p. 269.
19 CSP Span., 1536– 8, no. 48, pp. 107–8.
20 Cranmer, Misc Writings, p. 322.
21 Wriothesley, pp. 189–91, 205; LP 10, nos 848, 876.
22 SP 7, pp. 683–6 (on the dating, see the note in LP 10, no. 726); Merriman 2, p. 10.
23 LP 10, no. 736; S. Lehmberg, The Reformation Parliament: 1529–1536 (Cambridge, 1977), p. 221; CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 47, p. 106.
24 Cromwell and Sampson: VA, England K.7, Konv. 1536/1, fol. 98 = LP 10, no. 753. (For reasons not clear, this document is not calendared in the CSP Span. volumes.) On Sampson see S. Lehmberg, The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII: 1536–1547 (Cambridge, 1977), p. 2.
25 CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 48, pp. 107–8.
26 LP 10, nos 669, 673, 675, 738, 742, 747–8, 756, 779, 789, 865, 875.
27 LP 10, no. 1036; William Latymer’s Chronicle of Anne Boleyn, ed. M. Dowling, Camden Miscellany 30 (CS 4th series 39, 1990), p. 37.
28 CSP Span., 1536– 8, no. 48, pp. 107–8.
29 George Constantine, Memorial to Thomas Cromwell, ed. T. Amyot in Arch. 23 (1831), p. 64.
30 Cromwell was at his home in Stepney on 30 April, from where he wrote a fairly routine letter to Gardiner: Merriman 2, p. 11.
31 LP 10, no. 1036, p. 429; Constantine, Arch. 23, p. 64.
32 CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 58; LP 10, nos 798 (p. 338), 956.
33 LP 10, nos 793, 869, p. 358.
34 Burnet 1, pp. 316, 330, 332; G. Walker, ‘Rethinking the Fall of Anne Boleyn’, HJ 45 (1) (2000): 1–29; G.W. Bernard, ‘The Fall of Anne Boleyn’, EHR 106 (1991): 584–610. See also the Ives/Bernard debate in EHR 107 (1992): 651–74.
35 Bernard, ‘Anne Boleyn’, EHR 107: 667.
36 CSP Span., 1536–8, nos 54–5; LP 10, no. 901. There is an interesting reference to Cromwell in one of these letters (no. 55, p. 123). Back on the subject of good relations between Henry and Charles, Cromwell reminded Chapuys of his words on St Mathias, and that he ‘was right in his predictions with regard to her’ (et que si bien me souvenoye de ce que mavoit tacitement assez declaire et pronosticque ce quen adviendroit). This seems another free translation, but it may mean only that Cromwell had always been hopeful of favourable outcome generally. St Mathais is 24 February. There is a letter from Chapuys on that date (no. 29) but it contains no specific dire predictions regarding Anne, only a general optimism on Cromwell’s part that Anglo-Imperial relations would, despite the difficulties, turn out for the best. Chapuys had also heard from the bishop of Carlisle that Henry claimed that he knew his second marriage would end the way it did (no. 55, p. 127). But if Henry had entertained some suspicions about Anne, the record is quite clear that nothing was done until those three lords went to the king at the end of April. It is always easy to be wise after the event.
37 Burnet 1, pp. 325–7.
38 LP 10, no. 965.
39 Merriman 2, pp. 11–12.
40 LP 10, nos 953, 964; Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. J. H. Baker, vol. 1 (London, 1977), p. 71.
41 LP 10, nos 797, 799, 843, 1036 (p. 429); CSP Span., 1536–8 no. 48, pp. 107–8.
42 Merriman 2, pp. 46 = LP 10, nos 376–7; LP 10, nos 254, 341, 827; William Latymer’s Chronicle, ed. M. Dowling, Camden Miscellany 30 (CS 4th series 39, 1990), pp. 23–66 – on p. 28.
43 For Anne’s indictment, see Wriothesley 1, p. 191 = LP 10.876 (7). Norfolk: LP 10, nos 848 (3); 876 (1, 5); 1036, p. 430.
44 Cromwell and Wolsey compared: CSP Span., 1534–5, no. 228, p. 569. Anne and her father: CSP Span., 1531–3, no. 664, p. 96. Peasants’ War: CSP Span., 1531–3, no. 1133, pp. 822–3. The parliamentary committee: CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 43A, p. 102; Lehmberg, Reformation Parliament, p. 223, fn. 4.
45 Merriman 2, p. 21.
10
A New Queen of the Old Faith
John Foxe eulogised Thomas Cromwell for ‘setting up Christ’s church’ in Henry’s reign, and devoting his entire life ‘to advance and further the right knowledge of the Gospel and reform the house of God’. He was the ‘mighty wall and defence of the church’, who ‘first caused the people to be instructed in the Lord’s Prayer and Creed in English’, before putting an end to the worst pilgrimages to ‘rescue the vulgar people from damnable idolatry’. He reduced the number of ‘idle holy days’, so that ordinary folk were not prevented from trading on such days and earning a decent living, and he used his office to ‘procure for them liberty to eat eggs and white meat in Lent’. Foxe was biased, of course, but his is not the only testimony to Cromwell’s pre-eminence among reformers. Cromwell has ‘done more than all others together’ in the cause of the ‘reformation of religion and the clergy’, agreed Archbishop Cranmer, seemingly content to be Cromwell’s deputy in the evangelical movement.1
So Nicholas Shaxton was fretting needlessly when he urged Cromwell not to abandon the cause of reform after Anne’s fall. Anne’s demise and Jane’s accession left some evangelicals forlorn and jittery, but for the steely, phlegmatic Cromwell, substantially nothing had changed. His task of spreading the Gospel in England remained the same as before. His problem – to persuade Henry to accept the Augsburg Confession – also remained the same as before, because despite the noticeable thaw in Anglo-Lutheran relations, Henry was not ready to make that commitment to the Protestant faith.2
Due to the influx of evangelical ideas, parishioners had been hearing mixed messages from the pulpits, and many were becoming confused. On 7 January 1536 the government had issued a royal circular to bishops regretting the disunity, and condemning the growing number of ‘indiscreet persons which, although they be furnished neither with wisdom, learning nor yet good judgement, are nevertheless authorised to preach and permitted to blow abroad their folly’. Bishops were implicitly rebuked for having failed to ‘stop the mouths of such as rather sow
sedition than with wisdom travail to remove out of men’s hearts’ the abuses of Rome. The king desired that his people should be ‘educated, fed and nourished with wholesome and godly doctrine, and not seduced with the filthy and corrupt abominations of the bishop of Rome or his disciples and adherents, nor yet by the setting forth of novelties and the continual inculcation of things’ that lead only to contention and disturbance. Bishops were ordered to examine all preaching licences.3
A letter from Cromwell accompanied the circular, which may well have been drafted by him. It contains a carefully constructed Cromwellian vagueness that is a feature of many of his public pronouncements on religious matters. On the one side were the Papists, but those noisy preachers of novelties are not so easy to identify. By now Henry had started his Lutheran policy, and Melanchthon had dedicated his Loci to Henry. Henry had also sent a personal letter and a gift to Melanchthon, while Foxe, Heath and Robert Barnes were in Germany with Henry’s blessing. So it is difficult to believe that Henry meant to attack Lutheran preachers too strongly, especially when men such as Cranmer, Latimer and Barnes now enjoyed his favour. The government’s targets may have been religious radicals like the Anabaptists, known chiefly for their rejection of infant baptism and their opposition to Christians joining the civil government. Alternatively, it may be an example of Cromwellian gamesmanship, giving the public impression of steering a respectable, measured middle way between two opposing factions, all the while pursuing his Lutheran policy circumspectly.
Henry was now willing to consider an alliance with the Germans, depending on the terms. His embassy to Germany enjoyed some success, and the Germans’ response in the spring of 1536 was encouraging. The Schmalkaldic League invited Henry to indicate his willingness to accept the Augsburg Confession. If he would do so, a formal alliance would be made, and a German embassy sent to England headed by Melanchthon, whom Henry greatly wished to meet. If Henry was not prepared to accept the Augsburg Confession yet, then some limited alliance might still be concluded; for example, England and the League might agree that neither would support an attack on the other, and neither would attend a General Council of the Church without first consulting the other.4
Henry was listening closely to Cromwell and Cranmer on religion, but men of the old faith were not bypassed entirely. Stephen Gardiner, now English ambassador in France, tried to draw Henry back from a treaty that, he claimed, would leave England ‘bound to the churches of Germany’. Gardiner cleverly pointed out that whereas Henry was a king, the electors of Germany were ‘only dukes and lower degrees, such also as acknowledge the emperor as their supreme lord’. So German Lutherans were apparently beneath the King of England and Defender of the Faith. It was a skilful ploy, calculated to play on the king’s vanity. It may well be one reason why Henry’s attitude to the Germans, though interested and friendly, remained cautious as well.5
In May and June, however, constitutional affairs were more pressing than matters of religion. The newly assembled parliament was required to pass a new succession law. Cromwell had been promoting parliamentary candidates favourable to the king, and he was now organising parliamentary business. On 8 June the opening speech was given by Chancellor Audley. In what sounds like a deliberate rebuke of Skip’s sermon of 1 April – the one that compared Henry to Solomon taking foreign wives – Audley likened Henry to Solomon for his divinely given wisdom and benevolence. The chancellor went on to confirm Anne’s treason and Henry’s new marriage, and he urged all present to pray to God for the blessing of an heir. Richard Rich, believed to be Henry’s preferred choice, was then elected as Speaker.6
Another outstanding issue concerned Princess Mary, now officially Lady Mary, who had still not formally accepted her downgraded constitutional status. In a frank letter to Cromwell on 10 June, Mary promised that she would now follow his advice. She urged him, however, ‘as one of my chief friends’, to intercede for her so that no more may be demanded of her; because ‘if I be put to any more (I am plain with you as with my great friend) my said conscience will in no ways suffer me to consent thereunto’. Cromwell’s relations with Mary are no less intriguing than those he had had with her mother. The likelihood of further resistance to Henry’s rule would be considerably lessened if Mary as well as Jane – both royal ladies of the old faith – were seen to be accepting the Royal Supremacy, and Cromwell was pressing Mary to yield, apparently forcefully. One of his letters severely scolds her for her obstinacy and disobedience, and threatens to give up trying to help her if she refused to obey. So it is surprising to find Mary, on 13 June, thanking Cromwell ‘with all my heart for the great pain and suit you have had for me’. Mary made her formal submission two days later. More grateful letters were then penned to Cromwell. She thanked him for having ‘travailed’ for her, she promised her prayers, and was delighted at the gift of a horse, ‘which is a great pleasure … for I am wont to find great ease in riding’.7
Chapuys’s report to Charles on 1 July helps understand what has been happening. To obtain Mary’s submission, says Chapuys, Henry had sent a formidable deputation to her that included Norfolk, Suffolk and the bishop of Chester, but despite bullying and threats it was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Mary and Chapuys were communicating in secret. He advised her that if her life was in danger, then she should obey Henry; this would be acceptable to Charles, because on her depended the ‘tranquillity of this kingdom and the reform of the many great disorders and abuses by which it is troubled’. Henry knew nothing about these secret contacts, but her tardiness in obeying him had aroused his anger. Henry was also, according to Chapuys, furious with some of his councillors, including Cromwell, for ‘having shown sympathy’ for Mary. The marquis of Exeter and Fitzwilliam the Treasurer were dismissed from the Council; but after efforts behind the scenes by Cromwell and Jane as well as Chapuys, Mary duly made her submission and Henry’s wrath was mollified somewhat. Because Mary’s conscience was troubled by what she had felt compelled to do, Chapuys sent soothing messages to her, and Mary asked for secret absolution from the pope. Cromwell told Chapuys that the love of the people for Mary has ‘increased of late’, but some uncertainty remained about her title and her future as heiress. Mary acknowledged Cromwell’s ‘good intentions and affection towards her, and that he has been, and is still, working for her welfare and the settlement of her affairs’ (Chapuys’s words). Chapuys commended Cromwell’s conduct towards Mary.8
After what has been seen already regarding Cromwell and Catherine of Aragon in Chapter 7, there should be little reason to doubt what Chapuys was saying about Cromwell and Mary. Her letters to him go far beyond normal Tudor niceties. Strange to relate, he had behaved more considerately towards her than Catholic magnates like Norfolk had done. It is likely, therefore, that Cromwell’s severe letter to her discussed above was composed more for Henry’s eyes than Mary’s: Cromwell had to convince the king that he was doing his utmost to press his troublesome daughter to submit. Then either something gentler went to Mary, or else Mary understood Cromwell’s tactic and did not take the harsh tone to heart.
Chapuys at least was convinced of Cromwell’s good intentions. In subsequent despatches he described Cromwell doing all he could to reconcile Mary to Henry and Henry to Charles. Chapuys had also heard, from ‘honourable and good men’, that Henry was thinking of marrying Mary to someone in England in order to keep her under his control and deny her any opportunity to revoke her submission. Rumours suggested that Cromwell might be the privileged man, though Chapuys doubted this.9
The crisis with Mary over, Cromwell’s fortunes continued to rise. On 16 June William Peter, a servant of Cromwell’s, argued that because Cromwell represented Henry as Vicegerent, he should have the chief place in Convocation. With barely a murmur the clergy agreed, and on the 21st Cromwell took his place in Convocation to hear Cranmer declare Henry’s marriage to Anne void. Then on 1 July Cromwell was made Lord Privy Seal, replacing Thomas Boleyn, Anne’s father, though Boleyn did not disappear from public life entirely, a
nd he remained on more or less friendly terms with Cromwell, occasionally dining at his house. Incidentally, this presents another predicament for conspiracy theorists: for why should Boleyn senior socialise and dine with the man who had masterminded the judicial sacrifice of his daughter?10
On 4 July the new Succession Act was passed. The previous act of 1534 named Elizabeth as an heir if Henry and Anne had no sons; but because Henry had nullified his marriage to Anne, Elizabeth was now declared illegitimate like Mary. The succession would pass to Henry’s sons by Jane, or any lawful future wife and their heirs, and failing any male heir, to his legitimate daughters. Technically this ruled out Mary and Elizabeth. Should Henry have no suitable heir either male or female, the act gave him discretion to name an heir either by letters patent or in his last will. Various other clauses were added to try and forestall the danger of a disputed succession. The act was first presented to the Lords by Audley, and it is not clear exactly what role Cromwell had in preparing it.11
Meanwhile, some foreign observers had wondered whether Anne’s fall would prompt Henry to seek reconciliation with Rome. Cardinal Campeggio hoped that Norfolk, Suffolk, Tunstall and Gardiner might be able to lead Henry in the right direction, and he even dreamed of being the mediator nominated to obtain absolution for a penitent Henry. Such fond expectations were dashed by another act of the summer session, the Act to Extinguish the Authority of the bishop of Rome. Drafted by Cromwell and Audley, the act denounced the pope for distorting Holy Scripture, for his worldly pomp and his pretensions to authority over kings and princes. However, it stopped short of calling the pope the Antichrist, which Cranmer had done in a lengthy sermon at Paul’s Cross earlier in the year. Whether this omission was mainly for diplomacy’s sake, or whether Cromwell did not share Cranmer’s view, we do not know. Apart from reinforcing the Royal Supremacy, the new act also tightened up on those who, while appearing to accept Henry’s headship of the church, at the same time continued to show some sort of loyalty to the pope, for example by failing to blot his name out of service books. From now on, any act of support for the papacy ‘by writing, ciphering, printing, preaching or teaching, deed or act’ would risk praemunire proceedings, resulting in loss of lands and possessions, though not the death penalty. It was emphasised, however, that act was not ‘prejudicial or derogatory’ to godly ceremonies and decent order in the church.12
The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell Page 24
