Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7:44 pm
April 24, 2013
Offline
So I’ve been re-watching The Tudors lately, and Cardinal Wolsey is not portrayed in the best light. Obviously I’m aware that the show is not completely factual in relation to him (I mean, just look at how they portrayed his death!) but I also figure they must have had their reasons for portraying him as they did. What do people here think of him (the historical figure, not the character in the show)? I don’t know all that much about him save for what I’ve managed to find online in my spare time the past few days so it would be interesting to hear others’ opinions.
8:04 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Esmeralda said
So I’ve been re-watching The Tudors lately, and Cardinal Wolsey is not portrayed in the best light. Obviously I’m aware that the show is not completely factual in relation to him (I mean, just look at how they portrayed his death!) but I also figure they must have had their reasons for portraying him as they did. What do people here think of him (the historical figure, not the character in the show)? I don’t know all that much about him save for what I’ve managed to find online in my spare time the past few days so it would be interesting to hear others’ opinions.
Cardinal Wolsey was a unique and very able diplomat, but like most people of the era he was obsessed with power and because he was alledgely the son of an Ipswich Butcher it got the backs up of those of the nobility, who felt some one of such low birth shouldn’t have such power and wealth. These days of course we would just say fair play and well done feller your’ve done well for yourself, but back then the common riff raff as we were seen as should be happy with their lot and neveer try to rise above their station. I think Wolsey did kind of rub it in the faces of the nobility that he was able to rise far above his low birth whilst they were handed their power and status simply by being born from the right parents.
I think in a way Wolsey could be classed as a role model for those of low birth because he was saying to the common riff raff “Hey look at me folks I wasn’t born with the right nobby parents and my wealth has come from my own hard graft and determination. You too can be like me if you want to, just stick to your guns and work hard”
I think that is death was one of the great tragedies of Tudor life, as he was really did do a lot to save England a lot of hassle and stress in those times. Henry was never really the same after Wolsey was ousted from his side.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:20 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
During the first part of Henry’s reign, Wolsey worked, while Henry played. During the Great Matter, Wolsey worked dilligently to get Henry the annullment Henry wanted. Unfortunately, there was a huge obstacle in the way. KOA’s nephew, Charles V’s control over the pope. If Charles had not captured the pope, Wolsey would have been successful in getting the annullment that Henry desired. When Compaggio finally came to England for the hearing, Wolsey thought he was close to gaining the annullment. He had no way of knowing that Compaggio was in England to stall the proceedings, which he accomplished. That was the end for Wolsey. He had failed his king.
If we are to believe the story, Anne hated Wolsey for breaking up her relationship with Percy. I’m not so sure about this. This happened in 1523/24. If she was in love with Henry by 1528, and Wolsey was the ‘go to’ guy to help them be together, why would she continue to hold a grudge? He was helping her.
2:37 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Further to my proir post I also feel that Wolsey protected Henry from those power graping minions such as the Howards and Seymours etc who were there only to use Henry as a way of making themselves more powerful. Wolsey was able to keep the power hungry dogs at bay from Henry’s backside, of course once Wolsey was dead there was no one to stop them from chewing lumps out of Henry’s bum.
The Val Dor was perhaps Wolsey’s crowning acheivement as he managed though skilful diplomancy to avert a war which would have cost the country dear and very likely the King his life too. The throne being left to a girl of 7 or 8 was a big no no and would have caused no end of trouble for England in the long run, and I think Wolsey knew this which was why he worked like stink on a monkey to make sure that war was the last thing would happen.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:39 am
April 24, 2013
Offline
There are some good points here. I think Wolsey really did work hard, and really did respect the king and his country. I also agree with Sharon that it seems odd that Anne would continue to hold a grudge when Wolsey was so close to the king and was trying to help her. He’s definitely an interesting man that I will try to read more about – fictional portrayals have not been particularly kind!
9:44 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Totally agree with both Sharon and Esmerelda. Anne was perhaps angry that Wolsey had interfered with her plan to marry Percy but in no way do I feel she was instrumental in his downfall. It was Henry who made the call to have him arrested. He felt that Wolsey had let him down due to the divorse, when in fact Wolsey worked almost tirelessly to do Henrys bidding. I doubt that the Pope would have even sent Cardinal Campagio to England in the first place if it wasn’t for Wolsey’s hard work.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:36 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Wolsey had enormous influence over Henry, which gave him enormous power and enormous wealth. He worked hard on getting Henry a divorce; not because he agreed with it, but because that was what Henry wanted. He failed, for all the reasons Sharon said, but not for the want of trying. Unfortunately for Wolsey, his wealth and power, and his introduction of the Eltham Ordinances, which he abused by getting rid of men who were a challenge to him, meant he amassed a number of enemies. Those enemies, such as Norfolk, Thomas Boleyn and Charles Brandon, colluded in his downfall by blaming him solely for the failure to obtain a divorce. Had it not been for those enemies he may have survived the fall. Who know?
He grew greedy on Henry’s generosity and patronage, but I don’t think he was a particularly bad man. No more so than the other ambitious, greedy back stabbers who surrounded Henry. However, after Wolsey was banished to York, he did in fact commit treason. He acted to the detriment of Henry and Henry’s longed for divorce by corresponding with Catherine and the Pope. He acted incredibly foolishly. I’ve no doubt that if he had not have died, Henry would have had him executed. There would have been a charge of treason with at least some merit to it.
3:21 am
November 22, 2011
Offline
“It is believed that Wolsey’s father, Robert, fought and died at the battle of Bosworth.”
http://www.rosswillmott.co.uk/…..onnection/
Now that Richard III’s remains have been discovered, what are the odds of anyone taking up the challenge of locating the remains of Thomas Wolsey?
