Talk:Thomas Cromwell

message: 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)
thread_title: Info?

message: 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)
thread_title: Title for the dissolution

message: 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)
thread_title: Henry VIII regretted executing Cromwell

message: 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)
thread_title: Title error

message: 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)
thread_title: Moving pages?

message: 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)
thread_title: Where was Cromwell executed?

message: 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)
thread_title: But?

message: I agree. Merge them. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge them. Elizabeth Wyckes is not notable enough to merit a page on her own. Agricolae (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Elizabeth Wyckes merger

message: 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)
thread_title: The reason for Thomas Cromwell's downfall and execution.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Anglican?

message: 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)
thread_title: Relationship to Oliver Cromwell

message: 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)
thread_title: Place of birth

message: 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  to note when the following requests are addressed. This Talk entry is a call to:
# 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;
# 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;
# 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
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Existing and emerging citation issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quotations in Middle(?) English

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Ah, I see, thanks. Good job we aren't hamstrung by mindless bureaucracy, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References replaced with numbers 

message: "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?
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Mixed metaphor 

message: 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)
replies: text: Expanded.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cromwell's name and titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsequenties 

message: At time of posting there is a  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Supplication against the Ordinaries 

message: 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)
replies: text: Now removed. Extensive coverage in "Fiction" section remains.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Wolf Hall'' overspill 

message: 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)
replies: text: Now removed.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROMO]] for a new, self-published novel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-nominals (again) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Name and honorific suffix 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A couple of questions/possible errors 

message: 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. --AntientNestor (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne Boleyn's fall engineered by Cromwell