The Most Dangerous Man In Tudor England - Tynedale.....BBC4 at 8pm tonight.

Velasquez - "his sons are spoiled".   He only had one son

Yass...but...Richard Cromwell (nephew) asked to become a son by adoption when his father died (Ep.1)...as Guinness says, "2 now..."

The most dangerous man was Tyndale

Being married to Henry VIII must have been the most dangerous job a woman could have in Tudor England
I am amazed he had any takers

Oscar Pistorius had nothing on Henry

I'm recording all these.

I'm saving them up

Velasquez - "Yass...but...Richard Cromwell (nephew) asked to become a son by adoption when his father died (Ep.1)...as Guinness says, "2 now..." Grin

But he didn't did he?, in fact as it turned out he was rather glad he didn't.  Sorry, I was relying on what little history I had read, rather than using what is portrayed in this excellent drama

ebul, anne and Cromwell had a huge fallout over the distribution of the monasteries wealth. The version for their fall out in wolf hall I find quite pathetic really. The version as in "wolf Hall" doesn't really show this as it doesn't look good for Cromwell.

As the monasteries effectively doubled up as social services, anne wanted this money or a large part of it to be used to cover the social services aspect that was taken away through the destruction of the monasteries. Cromwell wanted to take all the money for the crown (and no doubt a little for himself). And basically sod the poor.

How the next episode is going to get round the facts of Cromwell fabricating most if not all the evidence against her should be interesting. As well as the fact of the torture methods he used on Smeaton. Forcing a false confession admitting sex with anne on a day he couldn't have even done it as she was away at the time in Richmond.

Oh I see Flower

maleuki

History is interpretive

I think it is reasonable to believe that Henry wanted rid of Ann Boleyn, and Cromwell was given the job. It would
hardly have been his own idea.

Now I am not happy with the dissolution of the Monasteries either. But Cromwell genuinely believed they exploited the poor,
the other view is they helped the poor. I accept the latter may have been true.

I do not see Ann Boleyn as a martyr here, she played for high stakes, normally she should have accepted being the Queen's
mistress as her sister did. She gambled and lost. If Henry lost interest in Katherine of Aragon he could lose
interest in her...she placed a lot on being able to produce a son.

I think it is also reasonable to believe Henry would have wanted the money from the monasteries for himself, Cromwell tempted
him with it, but in the end it was the King's decision.

Ann idea of reform and helping the poor seems better to me. But what evidence is there for this? One must also remember Ann Boleyn
was not universally popular as Queen, she may have seen this as a way to curry popularity.

To understand History you need to see this as a game of power, not right or wrong these are subjective.

Hilary Mantel has shown Ann Boleyn in a poor light I agree, it is her interpretation.

Others have been kinder to Ann Boleyn. We were not there, who knows?

Seems likely Mafeking

I would not have thought Cromwell would have been hatching plots of his own??? far too risky


Also of course, as with Thomas More

When Cromwell asked the King what would happen if Thomas More was found innocent at his trial?

The King replied it was in Cromwell's own interest that More was not found innocent


I think Cromwell was in the same situation with Ann Boleyn, if it was not Ann Boleyn's head then it would be Cromwell's.

Henry was a zero tolerance employer, one failure and you are dead.


Actually the case against Ann Boleyn may have been true, since Ann must have been desperate to get pregnant again, by any means.

But since torture was used to get confessions, no can say, historians are unconvinced about any unfaithfulness.

I think her body betrayed her, she was at an age she could not hold a child.

Henry was also a zero tolerance husband.

Yes you are right..but we had had some strong women before that during the Plantagenet era.

and if any one were real men the Plantagenet's  were.

Some women were extremely politically aware, and used their knowledge to manipulate men, one sees great influence

being exerted in this era, by some Queens.


Perhaps Henry had been brought up to believe he had to have a son?

We have had worse Rulers than Henry but I don't think he was a particularly good one

He allowed himself to be controlled by his emotions far too much for me, he seemed to have an addiction to the sins of the flesh,

notably sex, food and drink. Kings were not meant to be in love with their wives, because these marriages were often politically

arranged while they were children. If they wanted love and sex, well that is what their mistresses were for. Wives were business.


Physically impressive was Henry, but sadly far from that between the ears I feel. Which I think is more important.

Just my impression of Henry, he seemed like a child at times, albeit a very spiteful child


Elizabeth I was a good ruler. She kept herself aloof from any entanglements. Perhaps she was afraid it would undermine her if she married?

Although Mary I had married. Her husband Philip of Spain was seen as her consort, but that may have been because he was Spanish.

But it worked well for Elizabeth I, she kept men with sound judgement around her, but no physical stuff, she was greatly loved

by the people.

The Queens in the Plantagenet era were not Queens in name. Although Isabella of France may as well have been

at times.

Arguably Queen Matilda was in name in Norman times, although she was always at war with her cousin Stephen.

But was politically aware enough to let Stephen have the throne if her son Henry II succeeded him.

A very good decision.

Not my theory ebul. Ive no idea whether its true or not but thats the view of some historians.

You do not have to see him as a nice guy maleuk01

Hilary Mantel has made him sympathetic, others do not see him like that
Without actually knowing him, who knows for sure?

Politics or the game of power, is never a nice game then or now.....
It is too important for that

If something has to be done for the good of the country, or for whoever rules, somebody has to do it.
Cromwell's job was to serve the King, the morality was actually Henrys.

I admire Cromwell because of where he came from a son of a blacksmith, to very close to the top of society.
In fact he was de facto ruler for a time.
That was unheard of then. Cromwell was a very clever man, a man of ability, but also ruthless when needed.
Yes he was very streetwise, somebody had to be.

He was also a strong Protestant believer. Him and Cranmer drove Protestantism, without Henry being aware tbh.
Did not say a lot for Henry as King.
Cromwell destroyed the base of Catholicism the Monasteries. I feel this is his crime if he has one.

Henry never had better servant than Cromwell. One mistake downed Cromwell and it was a mistake. His judgement failed him for once.
Norfolk and others who hated him for his low birth pounced. Low Birth was the most heinous crime of all then.

Having communist/socialist inclinations his low birth makes a hero with me

Cromwell's job was to serve the King, the morality was actually Henrys.


Not true ebul. You are responsible for your own actions. German soldiers participating in war crimes used this argument. They where simply following orders.

Cromwell was a fixer and as you say ruthless, but he was prepared to do things others would not .

And just because he was son of a blacksmith doesn't make him ok, or someone to look upto as he climbed the ranks.

More's Man of All Seasons image, was too gentle, More was never that.

In the Man for all Seasons, they should have had Leo McKern play Sir Thomas More,(He looks just like him) and had Paul Schofield (Good ol' Sussex Boy!!) play Thomas Cromwell.  History would have been so different

true Blackbarn

One of the most cruel, vicious and vindictive men of the Tudor period. With not an ounce of fair play or morality.

you are making a very generalised judgment here I feel maleuk01

Hilary Mantel is questioning your judgement of this man.

As for More, well he was Catholic, Cromwell was protestant, not only would he have seen it his duty to bring down More
for his King but also for his religion.
Anyway he only smeared Thomas More to shake More's reputation for honesty.
It was Mores failure to accept to accept Henry as Supreme Head of the Church of England which led to his own death.
If he had done this he would have been left alone.

Anne Boleyn
Well that was a tough choice.
You see if he had not brought down Anne Boleyn, Henry would have deemed Cromwell would have failed, so he would then
have suffered the same fate as Wolsey. Failing Henry was fatal.

The fact that Cromwell knew Anne was after his own head made it easier for him.

I am not defending Cromwell's morality anyway. It is his importance that strikes me.

He was instrumental in changing this countries religion from Catholic to Protestant, this was a high very stakes then.
We have to look at this man as more just a pantomime villain, we really do.

I caught this weeks episode after missing a couple. I quite like it, it's nice and atmospheric.
I really like the main characters voice, it's velvety pleasing on the ear, he should do voice overs and audio books!
He's also a fantastic actor, I'm surprised I've not seen him in more things.