Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T23:12:45.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fall of Wolsey Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

G. W. Bernard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the autumn of 1529, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, who had served as Henry VIII's principal minister for a decade and a half, fell from power. On October 17 he surrendered the great seal, thus formally resigning as lord chancellor, the position he had held since 1515. A few days earlier, on October 9, he had been indicted in the Court of King's Bench for offenses under the fourteenth-century statute of praemunire (which restricted papal powers within England), and on October 22 he was to acknowledge his guilt in an indenture made with the king. Nevertheless, he was not utterly destroyed. He remained archbishop of York and was allowed to set off for his diocese in early 1530.

The fashionable explanation for these events is to see Wolsey as the victim of faction, a notion briefly asserted or implied in much current writing and substantially elaborated by E. W. Ives. For J. J. Scarisbrick, Wolsey was “the victim of an aristocratic putsch”: “There can be no doubt that for long an aristocratic party, led by the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, had been hoping to ‘catch him in a brake’ and dispossess him, and that they looked to Anne Boleyn as their weapon … it was an aristocratic faction that led the way.” For David Starkey, “Boleyns, Aragonese, nobles … sank their fundamental differences and went into allegiance against him. Together they worked on Henry's temporary disillusionment with his minister, and the pressure coupled with Anne's skilful management of her lover, was enough to break the trust of almost twenty years and destroy Wolsey.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 277 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII (1968), p. 229Google Scholar; Starkey, D., The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (1985), p. 101Google Scholar; Guy, J. A., The Public Career of Sir Thomas More (Brighton, 1980), pp. 97, 106–7Google Scholar; Haigh, C., English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), pp. 93–94, 111Google Scholar; Block, J. S., Factional Politics and the English Reformation (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 13, 19Google Scholar. See also Elton, G. R., “Thomas Cromwell's Decline and Fall,” in his Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1974–1992), 1:193CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Norfolk “leading the assault” against Wolsey); Miller, H., Henry VIII and the English Nobility (Oxford, 1986), p. 111Google Scholar; Barrie-Curien, V., “La reforme anglicane,” in Histoire du Christianisme des origines a nos jours, viii. Le Temps des Confessions (1530–1620/30), ed. Venard, M. (Paris, 1992), p. 188Google Scholar, n. 3. Place of publication throughout is London unless otherwise indicated.

2 Ives, E. W., “The Fall of Wolsey,” in Wolsey: Church, State and Art, ed. Gunn, S. J. and Lindley, P. G. (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 286–315Google Scholar. Ives describes my earlier doubts about his interpretation as offered in his Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 1986), pp. 136–52Google Scholar (see Bernard, G. W., “Politics and Government in Tudor England,” Historical Journal 31 [1988]: 159–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar) as “rhetorical questions and assertions” (Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” p. 303Google Scholar, n. 74). This article is a response to that implied invitation to offer a more substantial critique. It seeks to build on the perceptive and compelling arguments in Gwyn, P. J., The King's Cardinal (1990), pp. 504–98Google Scholar.

3 Rex, R., Henry VIII and the English Reformation (Basingstoke, 1993), p. 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Gunn, S. J., Charles Brandon (Oxford, 1988), pp. 109–10Google Scholar; Gunn, S. J. and Lindley, P. G., “Introduction,” in Gunn, and Lindley, , eds., p. 25Google Scholar.

5 Gwyn, esp. chap. 12; Bernard, G. W., “The Rise of Sir William Compton, Early Tudor Courtier,” English Historical Review 96 (1981): 754–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and War, Taxation and Rebellion in Early Tudor England (Brighton, 1986), esp. pp. 40–45, 52, 60–66, 73Google Scholar; Walker, G., John Skelton and the Politics of the 1520s (Cambridge, 1988), esp. pp. 1, 5, 70–80, 84–88, 90, 97, 158–60, 168–85, 222Google Scholar, and “The ‘Expulsion of the Minions’ of 1519 Reconsidered,” Historical Journal 32 (1989): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cavendish, G., The Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey, ed. Sylvester, R. S., Early English Text Society, vol. 243 (1959), p. 104Google Scholar (my italics).

7 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” p. 208Google Scholar. For discussion of Cavendish's account of the fall of Wolsey, see Gwyn, pp. 584–85.

8 Calendar of State Papers, Spanish (hereafter Cal. S.P., Spanish), vol. III, pt. ii, no. 621, pp. 886–87Google Scholar(Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII [hereafter LP], ed. Brewer, J. S., Gardiner, J., and Brodie, R. H. [1862–1932], vol. IVGoogle Scholar, pt. iii, no. 5255; cf. Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 291, 302, 305Google Scholar.

9 Bourilly, V. L. and de Vaissiere, P., eds., Ambassades en Angleterre de Jean du Bellay (Paris, 1905), p. 543Google Scholar (“Wolsey is in great difficulty, for the affair has gone so far that if it do not take effect, the king will fall out with him”; LP, IV, iii, no. 5210).

10 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 302, 294, 305Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., pp. 294–95, 297–98, n. 54; LP, IV, iii, no. 5749. See Gwyn, pp. 613–14.

12 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey” (n. 2 above), p. 295Google Scholar; Hall, E., Chronicle (1809), pp. 758–59Google Scholar; see Walker, G., “Wolsey and the Satirists,” in Gunn, and Lindley, , eds. (n. 2 above), p. 247Google Scholar, and Plays of Persuasion: Drama and Politics at the Court of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1991), p. 112Google Scholar.

13 LP, IV, iii, no. 5750; e.g., Ives, , Anne Boleyn (n. 2 above), p. 141Google Scholar, and, most recently, Palmer, W., The Problem of Ireland in Tudor Foreign Policy, 1485–1603 (Woodbridge, 1994), p. 40Google Scholar.

14 Carver, P. L., ed., The Comedy of Acolastus, trans. Palsgrave, John, Early English Text Society, vol. 202 (1937), p. xxviiGoogle Scholar, n. 1; LP, III, ii, nos. 2903–5, 3003; Hall, pp. 655–56.

15 Cavendish (n. 6 above), p. 90; Hall, p. 758; Vienna, Haus-Hof- und Staatsarchiv, England, Berichte, box 4, fols. 209v–10 (I am grateful to the British Academy for grants enabling study in Vienna); Public Record Office (PRO), PROB 31/18/2/1, fols. 411–411v; Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 160, p. 236Google Scholar.

16 Vienna, Haus-Hof- und Staatsarchiv, England, Berichte, box 4, fols. 209v–10; PRO, PROB 31/18/2/1, fols. 411–411v; Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 160, p. 236Google Scholar. Compare Gunn (n. 4 above), p. 103, n. 162.

17 Gunn, pp. 103–7, 113, 159–64, 199–201.

18 Cavendish, p. 90; see Walker, , “Wolsey and the Satirists,” p. 247Google Scholar.

19 Hall, p. 758 (my italics).

20 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” p. 304Google Scholar; Gunn, p. 110.

21 State Papers of Henry VIII (hereafter State Papers), 11 vols. (1830–1852), vol. vii, no. 250, p. 194Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5711), for Wolsey and the adjournment; see Gwyn (n. 2 above), pp. 529–30. Henry's anger at the cardinals was specific and tactical. Before long he was urging the pope to make Jerome Ghinucci, bishop of Worcester and one of the king's agents in Rome, a cardinal; and he was still pressing that suit as late as November 1532 (LP, IV, iii, nos. 6292, 6387, 6705, 6757; LP, V, nos. 28, 33, 1036, 1522). And Campeggio does not seem to have borne any grudges against the dukes: in June 1536 he counted Suffolk and Norfolk among his friends in England in whom he chiefly trusted (LP, x, no. 1077).

22 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey” (n. 12 above), p. 300Google Scholar, and Anne Boleyn (n. 22 above), pp. 142–43; LP, IV, iii, no. 5816.

23 “Apart from the pillage of which he is accused, and the quarrels sowed by him between Christian princes, so many other matters are brought against him that it has maddened him”; “they regard it as lese-majeste that he held the [papal] legation for more than ten years against the laws of the land”: Scheurer, R., ed., Correspondance du Cardinal Jean du Bellay (Paris, 1969), p. 112Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, nos. 6018–19); discussed by Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 305–6Google Scholar; Hall (n. 12 above), Chronicle, p. 760.

24 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 307–8Google Scholar; Hall (n. 12 above), p. 724.

25 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 310–11Google Scholar; Hall pp. 767–68.

26 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 311–12Google Scholar. See E. Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth (1649), p. 274Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii 6075) for the signatories. The witnesses of the elevation of Wiltshire are in PRO, C66/655 membrane 19 (LP, IV, iii, no. 6085).

27 Ives, E. W., “Henry the Great,” Historian 43 (1994): 4Google Scholar.

28 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 293, 304, 302Google Scholar.

29 See, e.g., State Papers, i, no. cix, pp. 194–95Google Scholar (LP, IV, ii, no. 3217); Gwyn, chap. 12.

30 LP, IV, ii, no. 4699.

31 Cal. S.P., Spanish, III, ii, no. 614, p. 877Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., III, ii, no. 621, pp. 885, 887.

33 Ambassades de Jean du Bellay (n. 9 above), p. 543 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5210).

34 For a general review, see Gwyn (n. 2 above), pp. 587 ff.

35 State Papers, vol. vii, no. 229, pp. 143–45Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5152).

36 State Papers, vol. vii, no. 231, pp. 148–51Google Scholar, at 149 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5213).

37 State Papers, vol. i, no. 171, p. 329Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii 5393).

38 LP, IV, iii, no. 5416.

39 PRO SP1/53, fols. 210–11 (State Papers, vol. vii, no. 239, vii, pp. 166–69Google Scholar, at 167; LP, IV, iii, no. 5481).

40 State Papers, vol. vii, no. 239, p. 170Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5519). Ives, , Anne Boleyn, p. 137Google Scholar, quotes but misses the significance.

41 PRO, SP1/54, fols. 53–55 (State Papers, vii, no. 244, pp. 182–83Google Scholar, at 182; LP, IV, iii, vol. 5635). See Gwyn, pp. 587, 591.

42 Correspondance de Jean du Bellay (n. 23 above), no. 22, pp. 63–64 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5862); see Gwyn, p. 590; Walker, , Plays of Persuasion (n. 12 above), esp. pp. 231–34Google Scholar. For Wolsey's earlier suspicions about what was being said about him at the French court, see LP, IV, iii, app. 193. The tone and contents of Suffolk's correspondence make it plain that he had been sent to France by the king. The suggestion by Jean du Bellay, the French ambassador, that it was Anne Boleyn who was responsible for the despatch of Suffolk to Francis I (Correspondance de Jean du Bellay, no. 17, p. 58 [LP, IV, iii, no. 5742, which, however, says it was the duke of Norfolk; Le Grand, , Histoire du divorce de Henry VIII, 3 vols. (Paris, 1688), 3:333Google Scholar, leaves blanks]; see also Ives, , Anne Boleyn, [n. 2 above], p. 140Google Scholar), contradicts what he wrote earlier about Suffolk going “de la part de son maistre” (Correspondance de Jean du Bellay, no. 8, p. 25 [LP, IV, iii, no. 5601]). The evidence of Henry's actions in 1529 so far discussed must also cast doubt on du Bellay's report on May 22 that “les dues de Soffort et Norfoch et les autres mectent le roy d'Angleterre en oppinion qu'il n'a tant avance le mariaige quil eust faict s'il eust voullu” (Correspondance de Jean du Bellay, no. 7 bis, p. 22 [LP, IV, iii, no. 5581]).

43 British Library (BL), Cotton MS, Vitellius B xi, fol. 169 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5703).

44 PRO, SP1/54 fols. 96–97, at 96v (State Papers, vol. vii, no. 248, pp. 189–90Google Scholar, at 189; LP, IV, iii, no. 5711).

45 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xi, fol. 166 (State Papers, vol. vii, no. 248, pp. 190–91Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5715).

46 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xi, fol. 194 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5762).

47 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xi, fol. 192 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5761).

48 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xi, fol. 203 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5780).

49 PRO, SP1/55, Ms. 5–8 (in cipher) (State Papers, vol. vii, no. 250, pp. 193–97Google Scholar, at 194, 197; LP, IV, iii, no. 5897). Dating and authenticity are discussed by Gwyn (n. 2 above), pp. 527–28. See Benet's later warning to the pope: LP, IV, iii, no. 5848.

50 Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 83, pp. 132–33Google Scholar. See also Wolsey's warning to the French ambassador in May that if Francis I did not help him over the king's divorce it would be his complete ruin: “il pourroit estre seur d'avoir cause a mondict sr le legat une totale ruyne” (Correspondence de Jean du Bellay, no. 7, p. 19 [LP, IV, iii, no. 5582]). For earlier threats that the king might be forced to break with the pope, see Ambassades de Jean du Bellay (n. 9 above), p. 543 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5210); LP, IV, ii, nos. 3913, 4120, 4166, 4481, 4977.

51 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey” (n. 2 above), pp. 304, 293, 302Google Scholar.

52 State Papers, vol. vii, no. 250, p. 193Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5797).

53 LP, IV, iii, nos. 5801, 5881 (ii), 5883, 5884. I am grateful to David Norris for this suggestion.

54 Correspondance de Jean du Bellay (n. 23 above), no. 20, p. 63 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5853); Gwyn, pp. 591–93.

55 Correspondance de Jean du Bellay, no. 5, p. 15 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5547); Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 28, pp. 55–59Google Scholar.

56 PRO, PRO31/18/2/1, fol. 390 (Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 132, pp. 189–90Google Scholar). See Gwyn, p. 591.

57 LP, IV, iii, no. 5945; Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 31, p. 83Google Scholar.

58 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 293–94Google Scholar; Samman, N., “The Henrician Court during Cardinal Wolsey's Ascendancy, c. 1514–1529” (Ph. D. thesis, University of Wales [Bangor], 1988), pp. 218–20, 232, 386Google Scholar. (I am very grateful to Neil Samman for lending me a copy of his thesis.)

59 PRO, SP1/55, fol. 23 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5817: omitting the last words of the document).

60 PRO, SP1/55, fol. 29 (Ellis, H., Original Letters Ilustrative of British History, 3d ser. [11 vols. in 3 ser.], pt. 1 [1824–1846], pp. 34–35Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5825).

61 PRO, SP1/55, fol. 79–79v (State Papers, vol. iv, no. 210, p. 568Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5886).

62 PRO, SP49/2, fol. 58 (State Papers, iv., no. 45, pp. 79–80Google Scholar [wrongly dated]; LP, IV, iii 5844).

63 LP, IV, iii 5906 (16).

64 PRO, E101/420/8, fols. 26v–27, cited by Samman, p. 386, but the document records expenditure at Tittenhanger on August 14 and 15 only, not August 16 as well. Apart from the sources discussed in the text, there are two letters from the duke of Norfolk to Wolsey, both of which refer to letters which the king had just received and asked Norfolk to forward to Wolsey. Norfolk's letters are dated Barnet, August 15 and 16, but bear no year. The editors of LP calendared them under 1529 (PRO SP1/55 fols. 46, 47; LP, IV, iii 5850–51). If that is correct, they would suggest that Henry never left Barnet, but it is more likely that the letters in fact date from 1525 when other evidence (Samman, p. 371) shows that the king was at Barnet on August 13 and 16.

65 PRO, SP49/2, fol. 58 (State Papers, vol. iv, no. 45, pp. 79–80Google Scholar [wrongly dated]; LP, IV, iii, no. 5844).

66 BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian F ix, fols. 144–46, at 144 (ink foliation) (LP, IV, iii, no. 5865).

67 BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian C iv, fols. 337–38, at 338 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5893).

68 State Papers, vol. i, no. 180, pp. 343–45Google Scholar, at 345 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5936). The LP version misleadingly says that Wolsey could explain his concerns “further to the king when you arrive and relieve the king from this agitation,” with its suggestion of an imminent meeting between king and cardinal. In fact the text here reads, referring to the matter about which Wolsey did not wish to write, “or if it be any other matier in this realme, soo to towche in your said letters [some] parte therof, leaving the circumstances to be [explained] by Your graces mouth (at your cumming hither upon——next following, at which tyme Your Grace shal [do] your pleasour to repaire to His Highnes, as by mouth [I] have shewed vnto Your Graces servaunt Forest).” This places the emphasis on Wolsey's dispelling the king's anxiety by writing at once, while a meeting between king and minister is pushed into an unspecified date in the future. (I am grateful to David Norris for drawing my attention to the LP reading.)

69 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xii, 173 (Ellis, p. 307; LP, IV, iii, no. 5953); see LP, IV, iii, no. 5995.

70 PRO, PRO31/18/2/1, fol. 394 (Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 152, pp. 213–15Google Scholar).

71 PRO, SP1/55, fols. 77–78, at 77v (State Papers, vol. 1, no. 277, pp. 338–39Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5885).

72 BL, Cotton MS, Titus B i, fols. 303–4 (State Papers, vol. i, no. 278, p. 342Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5890); cf. Gwyn (n. 2 above), p. 592.

73 LP, IV, iii, no. 5820 (see Cal. S.P., Spanish, IV, i, no. 182, p. 273Google Scholar); Gwyn, p. 593.

74 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xii, fols. 169v–70, at 169v (LP, IV, iii, no. 5819).

75 PRO, SP1/55, fol. 59 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5867).

76 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xii,, fol. 169 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5821).

77 BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian F ix.

78 BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian F ix, fols. 144–46 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5865); Gwyn, pp. 592–93.

79 BL, Cotton MS, Nero B vi, fol. 28 (LP, IV, iii, no. 5868); Gwyn, pp. 592–93.

80 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius, B xii, fol. 223–23v (State Papers, vol. i, no. 175, p. 335Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5864); Gwyn, pp. 592–93.

81 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xii, fol. 224–24v (LP, IV, iii, no. 5923); Gwyn, pp. 592–93.

82 PRO, SP1/55, fol. 97 (State Papers, vol. i, no. 181, p. 345Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5925); Gwyn (n. 2 above), pp. 592–93.

83 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xii, fol. 172 (State Papers, vol. i, no. 182, p. 347Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5928); Gwyn, pp. 592–93.

84 BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B xii, fols. 171–72 (State Papers, vol. i, no. 180, pp. 343–44Google Scholar; LP, IV, iii, no. 5936); Gwyn, pp. 592–93.

85 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey” (n. 2 above), pp. 300, 302Google Scholar, and “Henry VIII: The Political Perspective,” in The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, ed. MacCulloch, D. (1995), pp. 17–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 LP, IV, iii, no. 5891.

87 BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian C iv, fols. 337–37v (LP, IV, iii, no. 5893).

88 State Papers, vol. i, no. 179, pp. 342–43Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5894).

89 State Papers, vol. i, no. 181, p. 345Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5925), Ives, , “Henry VIII,” pp. 17–18Google Scholar..

90 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 300–301Google Scholar.

91 State Papers, vol. i, no. 181, pp. 345–46Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5925).

92 Ives, , “Fall of Wolsey,” pp. 300–301Google Scholar.

93 State Papers, vol. i, no. 181, p. 345Google Scholar (LP, IV, iii, no. 5925).

94 See Bernard, G. W., “The Pardon of the Clergy Reconsidered,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37 (1986): 258–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gwyn (n. 2 above), pp. 593–94.