It should be evident what direction Wolf Hall is now headed from the opening placard. Anne Boleyn, it tell us, has promised Henry VIII a son. In return, the King has cast off his first wife, and, over the objections of the Pope and the rest of Christendom, crowned Queen Anne.

Wolf Hall is now lapsing into the blame game proper, where Henry VIII is continually absolved of his crimes by delegating them to various councillors, courtiers, wives, or bangs on the head. Evidently we are to believe Henry tore his kingdom apart simply because Anne Boleyn promised him a son. Not because he no longer wanted to recognise Papal authority. Of course Wolf Hall won’t show you Anne Boleyn fleeing Henry’s advances and taking refuge in her family home when Henry first began to pursue her. It won’t show you the ideals of Queen Anne Boleyn who was dedicated to real religious reform, not Henry VIII’s version of reform which meant retaining all Catholic ideals and rituals but plundering the abbeys of their wealth. It will only show you Mantel’s version of Anne – in Mantel’s own words a woman who took her maidenhead to market and sold it for the best price.

Henry himself would have been pleased with the blame game, he was perfectly adroit at the game himself. Every time he decided he regretted one of the many executions he ordered, he blamed someone else for goading him into it. Indeed, he blamed Anne herself for the executions of Bishop Fisher and Thomas More. But most historians agree it was little to do with Anne, and far more to do with Pope Paul III making Bishop Fisher a cardinal. The Pope was trying to save Fisher’s life. It failed, to the grief of all of Europe.

Wolf Hall‘s Thomas more is stripped of most of his wit, gentleness and warmth, by way of lessening the viewers’ sympathy for him at his execution. Moreover, we’re treated to a fictional account of a young Thomas More ignoring a younger Thomas Cromwell, as if Cromwell’s supposed disenchantment with More should somehow settle the matter. We’ve seen More being abrasive to his wife, coldly misogynist, ambitious, a man who put himself and his conscience above his family, whose ideals could only be borne of intellectual arrogance, and a man who delighted in torturing and burning Evangelicals. Of course nowadays we’re led to believe that the Tudors invented the burning of heretics, with little indication of the execution method being sanctioned by the Catholic Church several centuries earlier nor its theological significance.

Why would a viewer feel sympathy for this portrayal of Thomas More? The Catholic Church has rightly called it perverse, and has gone so far as to dub Wolf Hall anti-Catholic. We’re certainly seeing a one-sided view of England in the earliest stages of religious reform. Elizabeth Barton’s story weaves in and out of the plot to reinforce the idea that rabidly superstitious and corrupt Catholics were ruining the realm. What the show won’t depict is how actual Protestant reform didn’t come about until the reign of Edward VI. It won’t show you the actual unrest of the citizens of England who were truly afraid of breaking with Rome. It won’t show you the after effects of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the real impact it had on the social climate. It won’t show you the thousands made destitute, hungry and homeless when they no longer had the abbeys to employ, feed and heal them. It won’t show the the later persecutions of Evangelicals Henry VIII continued to carry out because he was still a Catholic at heart.

Bishop Fisher

Bishop Fisher

And what it didn’t show us was Bishop John Fisher’s imprisonment and execution, nor Thomas Cromwell’s continued efforts to save both Fisher and More’s lives. The first victims of the King’s Great Matter, as David Starkey puts it were chosen deliberately for their eminence and distinction: the monks of the Carthusian Order, Bishop Fisher of Rochester and Sir Thomas More himself. The Carthusians were the holiest monastic order in the country, Fisher the most saintly prelate and greatest theologian, while More was both Henry’s intimate friend from boyhood and the Englishman with the widest European reputation.

The torture of the Carthusian monks was horrifying, and Henry forced his courtiers to attend the execution and watch.

Both Thomas More and Bishop Fisher suffered greatly during their incarceration. Fisher, who was in his sixties and frail, wrote to Cromwell appealing for help. Fisher constantly felt the cold and was growing ill from his poor diet. As John Schofield notes A certain Anthony Bonvisi, a man Cromwell knew, was wont to send meat and wine two or three times a week to More, and wine and jelly daily to Fisher, but these supplies may have stopped when the prisoners were brought to trial for fear of provoking Henry. Henry who had delighted in beggaring and humiliating an old bishop, threatening to send his head to Rome if they sent Fisher’s cardinal hat, did not even care to see that a sick and dying old man who had been his own Grandmother’s spiritual adviser was provided with adequate food.

Wolf-Hall-Devils-Spit-Thomas-More-Execution

Fisher was so frail he had to be carried to his execution in a chair. Both Fisher and More’s heads were displayed on pikes on London Bridge. The tomb Fisher had built for himself at St John’s College, Cambridge, was dismantled, his heraldic emblems  defaced, and the college statutes redrafted to eliminate all mention of him.

This shocking tyranny pre-dates the now-popular idea that Henry VIII suffered brain damage in a jousting accident in 1536, and allegedly “changed”, only then “becoming” a tyrant. Henry’s true tyranny had been growing for years, but in reality it was probably Wolsey’s death that allowed it to come out in full force.

As Thomas More once said: Ever tell him what he ought to do, but never what he is able to do … For if a lion knew his own strength, hard were it for any man to rule him.

Thomas Cromwell and Thomas More ultimately shared the same fate. They both ended their old age with their heads on the block. It’s about time we remembered who was actually responsible.

 

About The Author

Olga Hughes is currently pre-occupied with fairy tales, fantasy, misanthropy, medieval history and the long eighteenth century. She has a Bachelor of Fine Art from the Victorian College of the Arts and is currently majoring in Literature and History at Deakin. She has contributed to websites such as History behind Game of Thrones, The Anne Boleyn Files and The Tudor Society.

10 Responses

  1. Jasmine

    Bravo, it’s good to read a more realistic account of Henry VIII’s actions than the myriad fictional accounts that have been written over the years, many of which continue Henry’s own approach ie finding someone else to blame for it all.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      Thanks Jasmine, glad you enjoyed it. I wonder sometimes if people are just too uncomfortable to admit that a man who reigned for so long was able to get away with so much.

      Reply
  2. Clare

    Great, but slightly depressing article, Olga. Cromwell may well have been the notional hero in Mantel’s books, but I sometimes wonder why she chose to make him responsible for Henry’s crimes. He was a better man than she allowed him to be. I hope she never tries to rehabilitate me!!

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      This episode depressed me to be sure. We were watching the Hans Holbein documentary earlier and the presenter kept talking about ‘Cromwell’s’ Dissolution of the Monasteries, like Henry had nothing to do with it at all. There’s always someone else responsible, like Henry was just a dupe who was manipulated by everyone else.

      Reply
  3. Neil Kemp

    This portrayal of More did him no favours. He is shown as a snob who causes his own downfall as he feels free to tell his secrets to a man of lesser rank as they are a nobody who doesn’t matter. This is then highlighted by showing More ignoring Cromwell as a boy by virtue of the fact that he was a nobody and therefore unworthy of his attention.
    This low portrayal of More is then compounded as he is shown as a coward who cannot remember what he has said and who only shouts his convictions after being found guilty and realising he cannot worm his way out of his situation.

    Cromwell meanwhile is shown as having a massive chip on his shoulder and, in failing to bow his head at More’s execution whilst remembering his boyhood slight at More’s hands, comes over as petty and vindictive in securing his revenge.

    Mantel does no favours to anybody in this production, apart from Henry, who doesn’t seem to be to blame for anything thus far.

    Reply
  4. Banditqueen

    Well done, Olga, this article shows Mantel for what she truly is, an ex lapsed Catholic with a massive chip on her shoulder, because she hated having a strict education. Thomas More did have a tough attitude towards heretics, so did everyone else. He wrote extensively on the subject and condemned a couple of lapsed heretical leaders who came under his jurisdiction as a magistrate and Chancellor. He enforced the law. There is no real evidence to support wild accusations of torture. Two criminals were flogged on his orders. Neither were tried for heresy or burnt. One was a servant in his household, caught lifting up young women’s skirts in church, the other guilty of theft. Heretics could be flogged as a lawful punishment imposed by the court. Servants could legally be flogged by their masters. Just because we are sensitive to such things does not give us the right to completely vilify someone merely for carrying out their duty as a man of the law, 500 years ago. Did we not flog people with the birch not so many decades ago? Did we not hang kids for theft 150 years ago and flog them for being absent from school less than 60 years ago? What makes us any better than people back then?

    Even the martytologist Foxe admitted that some of these tales which Mantel based her stories on about Thomas More were nonsense. One accusation was made at the time of torture but an investigation proved it to be slanderous nonsense. Five heretics were burned while More was Chancellor. Two were condemned by the court, under him as magistrate, three others outside of his jurisdiction, as lapsed heretics he had freed. Two of these were actually rearrested but he was in the Tower when they were condemned, so had nothing to do with it.

    More was not shown as a scholar, forward thinking in the education of women, championing free speech in Parliament, with a quick and ready whit, being an impartial judge, nor his reasons for his stance against Henry, his home life, defence of rights in law, his suffering in the Tower, his dignity, his fair mindness, the witness of the monks being dragged to their deaths, or anything else positive. Like every character, he too was assassinated by Mantel.

    Reply
  5. Olga Hughes

    That’s a good assessment Bandit Queen. This was a really sickening portrayal of More and the real shame of it is that people enjoyed it, saying things like he deserved to be knocked off his pedestal.

    Reply
    • Banditqueen

      Thanks Olga, a great shame people have not read any of the well balanced biographies of either Thomas Cromwell or Thomas More. Both were statesmen of enormous importance in Reformation history, from opposite ends of the scale, but both contributed to an era which redefined England forever. Both men were extremely complex and intelligent. Drama rarely does them justice, but this portrait of More set my blood boiling. Again sad people enjoying watching a great, if flawed humanist attacked with no counter balance. At least the Tudors showed him fairly without denying his passion and fundamental views. He was shown as a man of principles, the blame for his death weighing on Henry. Thanks for your kind response.

      Reply
      • Olga Hughes

        The problem with More is he has drawn the ire of Ricardians – despite the fact it has been demonstrated time and time again that his ‘history’ was neither intended as an actual history or to ever be finished or published. Some of them actually consider him a real villain, so to see him taking a sadistic pleasure in personally torturing someone delighted people. I saw plenty of comments along the lines of ‘it’s about time we saw the real Thomas More’, which just shows how easily and *ridiculously* history can be twisted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.