How accurate is the movie "A Man for All Seasons" about St. Thomas More?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPolo

Guest
Regarding the 1966 movie A Man for All Seasons. Is anyone familiar enough with the history to answer questions about the movie? :o
  • Was the “official” reason the king had St. Thomas More executed because St. Thomas More would not swear to the king’s title as head of the church?
  • Was St. Thomas More’s son-in-law really Lutheran at one point?
  • And did he revert back to Catholicism prior to marrying St. Thomas’ daughter?
  • Did St. Thomas More’s family flee the country like he requested (it seems at least Meg stayed until after the execution)?
  • Did St. Thomas More have a friendship with Master Rich and exhort him to be a teacher prior to Master Rich’s rise to high courts?
  • Was Cardinal Wolsey really against St. Thomas More and with the king on the matter of the divorce?
  • Did the Pope refuse the king a divorce because the Pope recognized Catherine as the king’s valid wife?
  • Were St. Thomas More’s last words really to the executioner that he was sending him to God?
 
Also:
  • Did St. Thomas deny Master Rich’s testimony during the trial?
  • Was St. Thomas once given a silver cup that he realized later was a bribe?
 
I loved the play/movie, and read several biographies about St. Thomas More.

I cannot answer most of the questions because I do not remember. Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher were the only 2 promient folk to stand against the marriage thing because it was more complicated than a divorce which was scandelous in Catholic Europe…Wolsey was a better politician by all accounts than churchman, but that is between him and God ultimately.

Also King Henry 8 had been recognised as a Defender of the Faith due to his treatise on the Lutheran rumblings by the Pope (Innocent ?). I understand Henry was a good churchman attending daily Mass and assisted as an altar server.

The period is a fascinating one…try to find a good bio in your local library…good hunting
 
First, before responding to your questions, it is important to note that the movie (based on a play ,and later screenplay, written by Robert Bolt) inaccurately portrayed More as having been arrested essentially for “remaining silent” and that his silence was interpreted as denial of Henry VIII’s title of head of the church in England. I own the Yale collection of the entire works of St. Thomas More and I can assure you that More was NOT silent after he resigned as Chancellor. On the contrary, More wrote some of his most beautiful and apologetic works ever written during his life. More defended the Catholic Church more forcefully after his resignation than before. So do not believe the scene where More (played by Paul Scofield) tells his wife Alice that he “shall remain silent”, and that “they will leave him alone”.

Questions in black - answers in red
  1. Was the “official” reason the king had St. Thomas More executed because St. Thomas More would not swear to the king’s title as head of the church?
More was actually indicted with four counts of treason. (1) He maliciously refused to accept the King’s supremacy over the Church in England, (2) He conspired against the king by writinig treasonous letters to Bishop Fisher, (3) He stirred up sedition by describing the Act of Supremacy as a two-edged sword, that if obeyed, it would mean spiritual death and if disobeyed it would mean bodily death, and (4) He “maliciously, traitorously, and diabolically” denied Parliament’s power to declare the king to be head of the Church in England.

The first three articles of indictment were so weak and so lacking in evidence that the judges dismissed them almost as quickly as More argued against them. Silence was NOT equal to acceptance (which was correctly depicted in the film). More wrote no treasonous letters to Fisher, but even if he had, it did not matter, as no letters were produced. More denied the third charge, but said that he had discussed the statement in the indictment hypothetically, and as a hypothetical discussion, it could not be called seditious.

The judges and jurors focused on the fourth article of the indictment, and Richard Rich did testify as shown in the movie. Obviously because of time, the movie focused on the fourth charge. More so thoroughly discredited Rich’s testimony and credibility that Rich asked for two “witnesses” to come forth to support his claim - two men who accompanied Rich to remove More’s books from his cell (which the movie showed as having been ordered by Cromwell). But the two men would not perjure themselves. They both denied hearing any substance of the conversation.

In the end, it did not matter. Contrary to the movie’s portrayal, the jury did deliberate - all of 15 minutes - and promptly found More guilty (lest THEY be imprisoned by Henry for failing to rule as Henry wanted).

More, however, was an excellent lawyer and very clever. Before the judges pronounced the judgment, More moved the Court (as was his right) to address the TRUE issue before the court: was the law More was charged with breaking in itself a valid law? This touched upon the consciences of the judges, for they were speechless for several minutes. Finally, one of them - Chief Justice Fitz-James - answered More in an odd manner: “My lords all . . . , I must confess that if the Act of Parliament is not unlawful, then is not the indictment in my conscience insufficient?”

As an attorney myself, even I had to read this question several times because of the use of double-negatives in the phrasing.

The Chief Justice was not saying More was wrong. He was merely posing a hypothetical of his own: If the Act of Parliament is lawful, then the indictment is sufficient according to his conscience. But that begged the question More raised: what about the fact that the Act stood in conflict with the entire weight of tradition and revered laws in Christendom that NO layman could be made head of Christ’s church? Judge Audley and the others were so flustered by More’s argument that they simply glossed over his argument and pronounced the judgment of death.
  1. Was St. Thomas More’s son-in-law really Lutheran at one point? Yes.
  2. And did he revert back to Catholicism prior to marrying St. Thomas’ daughter? Yes, but not in the manner shown in the movie. Roper “became” Lutheran AFTER marrying More’s daughter, but after much prayer by More, Roper soon realized his errors and became a steadfast Catholic again.
  3. Did St. Thomas More’s family flee the country like he requested (it seems at least Meg stayed until after the execution)? No. One must remember that true Catholic persecution did not occur until Elizabeth I’s rule, and that was YEARS after More’s death. And after Henry VIII’s death, Henry’s daughter Mary became queen and re-established Catholicism as the faith of England (as best she could).
  4. Did St. Thomas More have a friendship with Master Rich and exhort him to be a teacher prior to Master Rich’s rise to high courts? This probably falls in the realm of “myth”, as there is no evidence this occurred. In fact, considering the movie shows that this conversation occurred only between More and Rich, how else was one to know this might have been done if not attested to by More or Rich?
cont’d
 
  1. Was Cardinal Wolsey really against St. Thomas More and with the king on the matter of the divorce? It was not so much a matter that Wolsey was “against” More, as he was so willing to accomodate the King in order to keep his position. Remember, Wolsey, till this day, is considered to have had the greatest power of any cardinal in history. He built himself a sumptuous palace (Hampton Court) and kept a mistress there for many years. Wolsey did not want to upset his “applecart”, even if it meant “bending” some rules and applying pressure to aid his “king”. But in the end, even Wolsely was not prepared to defy Rome.
  2. Did the Pope refuse the king a divorce because the Pope recognized Catherine as the king’s valid wife? First, one must remember what a decree of nullity is. People often mistakenly refer to it as an “annulment” - it is not. An “annulment” gives the connotation that a court is rendering an act “null”. Under a decree of nullity, no such thing occurs. A decree of nullity is a finding that no valid marriage EVER occurred at the time of the wedding. Second, under the then-existing canon law, Henry VIII was prohibited from marrying Catherine because she had been married to Henry VIII’s brother. But as the brother and Catherine were so young and Catherine maintained that they had not had conjugal relations, Henry VIII and his father, Henry VII, petitioned Rome for a dispensation, for state reasons, to decree that the marriage between Henry’s brother and Catherine was not valid, and that Henry could indeed validly marry Catherine. Rome gave this dispensation. By the time that Henry’s “conscience” dictated to him that he had “sinned in marrying his brother’s wife”, almost all of Christendom knew of Henry’s extramarital proclivities and Rome was not about to grant a dispensation that would permit Henry to divorce his valid wife, Catherine, in order to marry another woman.
As an aside, without Wolsey’s knowledge, Henry was so desperate that he dispatched a messenger seeking a dispensation from Rome that would allow him to have TWO WIVES AT ONE TIME!!! Catherine would leave court and reside in a monastery for the remainder of her life and be considered a “sister” to Henry, and Henry would go on to marry Anne Boleyn. Wolsey managed to find out before the message reached Rome and intercepted it, thereby preventing Henry from making himself out to be ever more of a fool (if that was possible).
  1. Were St. Thomas More’s last words really to the executioner that he was sending him to God? The best evidence suggests that More, who had by the time of his execution grown a long beard, put his neck on the chopping block and told the executioner, “I pray you let me lay my beard over the bloock lest you should cut it.” I personally think More’s REAL last words were some sort of prayer, and that he was still probably praying - albeit silently - as the axe came down.
  2. Did St. Thomas deny Master Rich’s testimony during the trial? Yes. More so thoroughly discredited Rich’s character (what little he had) that Rich called two witnesses to support his story, but even they refused to corroborate what Rich said. In the end, it did not matter - Henry wanted a guilty verdict and one did not go against what Henry wanted and live.
  3. Was St. Thomas once given a silver cup that he realized later was a bribe? Again, I believe Bolt (the playright and writer of the screenplay for the movie) seems to have added this in an attempt to show just how incorruptible More truly was as a judge. In all of my studies of More, I could find no evidence of such an event occurring.
 
I’ll answer the ones I can.
MarcoPolo said:
Regarding the 1966 movie A Man for All Seasons. Is anyone familiar enough with the history to answer questions about the movie? :o
  • Was the “official” reason the king had St. Thomas More executed because St. Thomas More would not swear to the king’s title as head of the church?
Click to expand...
Yes, among other things. The oath Thomas refused to swear, the one required by the First Succession Act, also required swearing that Henry’s second marriage, to Anne Boleyn, was legitimate, and that his daughter from his second marriage, Elizabeth, was the true heir to the throne. It also required the oathtaker to renounce the authority of any ‘foreign authority or potentate’, in other words to deny that the Pope had any sort of authority, including spiritual authority, over Englishmen.
  • Was St. Thomas More’s son-in-law really Lutheran at one point?
Click to expand...
It seems so - he was summoned before Cardinal Wolsey for professing at least some of Luther’s doctrines, including sola fide.
  • And did he revert back to Catholicism prior to marrying St. Thomas’ daughter?
Click to expand...
According to the son-in-law’s own biography of St Thomas, he did revert but it appears to have been after the marriage. He reports More as saying ‘Meg, I have a long time borne with thy husband; I have reasoned and argued with him in these points of religion …’

Note husband, not fiance, which suggests the disputes (and Roper’s heresy) continued after the marriage.
  • Did St. Thomas More’s family flee the country like he requested (it seems at least Meg stayed until after the execution)?
  • Did St. Thomas More have a friendship with Master Rich and exhort him to be a teacher prior to Master Rich’s rise to high courts?
  • Was Cardinal Wolsey really against St. Thomas More and with the king on the matter of the divorce?
Click to expand...
Difficult to say - on the one hand Wolsey was very much Henry’s man first and a churchman second. His last words were reportedly ‘if I had served God as well as I have served the King, He would not have abandoned me in my old age’.

On the other hand, Wolsey was also a shrewd politician who was hoping that after the annulment Henry would marry a French princess. He hated Anne Boleyn, definitely, and interfered with her betrothal, prior to her involvment with Henry, to Henry Percy on the grounds that she wasn’t good enough for Percy, who I think was in his household at the time. So he definitely wouldn’t have considered her, a mere commoner, half good enough to be Queen.

It is most likely that Wolsey became unenthusiastic about the annulment once it was clear that Henry in fact intended to marry Anne, so stopped working for it quite so hard as he might have.
  • Did the Pope refuse the king a divorce because the Pope recognized Catherine as the king’s valid wife?
Click to expand...
Put it this way - the Pope took an INCREDIBLY long time about definitively refusing Henry. I don’t think he would’ve been so slow if he’d been wholeheartedly convinced.

On the one hand Henry was powerful and wanted the annulment. On the other hand the Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s nephew, was more powerful and the Pope (who was a member of the Medici family) was beholden to Charles for restoring the Medici to power in Florence.
  • Were St. Thomas More’s last words really to the executioner that he was sending him to God?
Click to expand...
He made a couple of jokes at his execution, including pushing his beard out of the way of the axe, saying ‘it [the beard] has committed no treason!’

From memory he also said ‘I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first’.

I don’t know that the words you mention were his last, if indeed he said them. I don’t think it’s certain which of the things he said was his last.
 
The two best biographies I have read (and I have read quite a few) on More are:

Thomas More - A Portrait of Courage by Gerard B. Wegemer

and

The King’s Good Servant But God’s First by James Monti

In Monti’s book, he not only provides biographical material on More, but delves into More’s writings, especially his apologetics work during the time of the Protestant Revolt and heresies. More’s arguments - even back then - serve as a model for excellent Catholic apologetics today.

When More and Fisher were canonized in 1935, it was said (I think by Chesterton) that More would be even more relevant 100 years later. I have read that today, More is considered by the majority of the English people (Catholic and Anglican alike) as one if its greatest historical heroes.
 
thank you all for such an excellent history lesson. great questions and great answers.
 
Salvatore123 said:
  1. Was Cardinal Wolsey really against St. Thomas More and with the king on the matter of the divorce? It was not so much a matter that Wolsey was “against” More, as he was so willing to accomodate the King in order to keep his position. Remember, Wolsey, till this day, is considered to have had the greatest power of any cardinal in history. He built himself a sumptuous palace (Hampton Court) and kept a mistress there for many years. Wolsey did not want to upset his “applecart”, even if it meant “bending” some rules and applying pressure to aid his “king”. But in the end, even Wolsely was not prepared to defy Rome.
  2. Did the Pope refuse the king a divorce because the Pope recognized Catherine as the king’s valid wife? First, one must remember what a decree of nullity is. People often mistakenly refer to it as an “annulment” - it is not. An “annulment” gives the connotation that a court is rendering an act “null”. Under a decree of nullity, no such thing occurs. A decree of nullity is a finding that no valid marriage EVER occurred at the time of the wedding. Second, under the then-existing canon law, Henry VIII was prohibited from marrying Catherine because she had been married to Henry VIII’s brother. But as the brother and Catherine were so young and Catherine maintained that they had not had conjugal relations, Henry VIII and his father, Henry VII, petitioned Rome for a dispensation, for state reasons, to decree that the marriage between Henry’s brother and Catherine was not valid, and that Henry could indeed validly marry Catherine. Rome gave this dispensation. By the time that Henry’s “conscience” dictated to him that he had “sinned in marrying his brother’s wife”, almost all of Christendom knew of Henry’s extramarital proclivities and Rome was not about to grant a dispensation that would permit Henry to divorce his valid wife, Catherine, in order to marry another woman.
As an aside, without Wolsey’s knowledge, Henry was so desperate that he dispatched a messenger seeking a dispensation from Rome that would allow him to have TWO WIVES AT ONE TIME!!! Catherine would leave court and reside in a monastery for the remainder of her life and be considered a “sister” to Henry, and Henry would go on to marry Anne Boleyn. Wolsey managed to find out before the message reached Rome and intercepted it, thereby preventing Henry from making himself out to be ever more of a fool (if that was possible).
  1. Were St. Thomas More’s last words really to the executioner that he was sending him to God? The best evidence suggests that More, who had by the time of his execution grown a long beard, put his neck on the chopping block and told the executioner, “I pray you let me lay my beard over the bloock lest you should cut it.” I personally think More’s REAL last words were some sort of prayer, and that he was still probably praying - albeit silently - as the axe came down.
  2. Did St. Thomas deny Master Rich’s testimony during the trial? Yes. More so thoroughly discredited Rich’s character (what little he had) that Rich called two witnesses to support his story, but even they refused to corroborate what Rich said. In the end, it did not matter - Henry wanted a guilty verdict and one did not go against what Henry wanted and live.
  3. Was St. Thomas once given a silver cup that he realized later was a bribe? Again, I believe Bolt (the playright and writer of the screenplay for the movie) seems to have added this in an attempt to show just how incorruptible More truly was as a judge. In all of my studies of More, I could find no evidence of such an event occurring.
Click to expand...
These are two excellent posts. My only comment, at first glance, is that Henry’s case in his Great Matter, was stronger than is given here, involving a probable undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, in the original dispensation which allowed his marriage to Catherine, rather than the dispensation from the impediment of affinity in the first degree, collateral, which was what was sought. It is a murky point, but Henry, in his own causa, did not take that tack, as was urged unsuccessfully by Wolsey. Still, Henry was attempting, in seeking the decree of nullity he was sure would come, as it had for his sister, with an even weaker case, to play the game as it was played at the time.

As an aside, Scarisbrick, in his outstanding bio of Henry, says that both Henry and Clement toyed with the bigamy idea, Clement in discussions with Henry’s emissary (Knight), in 1530, but that it was a ruse on Clement’s part, to stall for time (at which Clement was expert) and also to get Henry to admit that if Papal authority did extend to bigamy, it would, perforce have not been ultra vires for Julius to have permitted a marriage within the impediments of affinity in the first degree, collateral (Scarisbrick, p. 197). is convoluted. Even Henry, in his instructions to Knight, had abandoned the bigamy approach (Scarisbrick, pp. 159-160), before the meeting with Clement. The subject, like all history, is convoluted.

GKC
 
Salvatore123 said:
The two best biographies I have read (and I have read quite a few) on More are:

Thomas More - A Portrait of Courage by Gerard B. Wegemer

and

The King’s Good Servant But God’s First by James Monti

In Monti’s book, he not only provides biographical material on More, but delves into More’s writings, especially his apologetics work during the time of the Protestant Revolt and heresies. More’s arguments - even back then - serve as a model for excellent Catholic apologetics today.

When More and Fisher were canonized in 1935, it was said (I think by Chesterton) that More would be even more relevant 100 years later. I have read that today, More is considered by the majority of the English people (Catholic and Anglican alike) as one if its greatest historical heroes.
Click to expand...
John Guy’s bio of More has some comments on the accuracy of the play/film.

GKC
 
Ditto, thank you all for your replies and Salvatore for your additional references. I have read all herein. :o

I enjoyed the movie myself but am of course wary of a Hollywood portrayal when it comes to historical accuracy. Nevertheless, how amazing it is that only 40-some years ago a movie with a protagonist that prays to Mary could win best picture and actor from that crafty Academy.
 
LilyM said:
I’ll answer the ones I can.

Yes, among other things. The oath Thomas refused to swear, the one required by the First Succession Act, also required swearing that Henry’s second marriage, to Anne Boleyn, was legitimate, and that his daughter from his second marriage, Elizabeth, was the true heir to the throne. It also required the oathtaker to renounce the authority of any ‘foreign authority or potentate’, in other words to deny that the Pope had any sort of authority, including spiritual authority, over Englishmen.

It seems so - he was summoned before Cardinal Wolsey for professing at least some of Luther’s doctrines, including sola fide.

According to the son-in-law’s own biography of St Thomas, he did revert but it appears to have been after the marriage. He reports More as saying ‘Meg, I have a long time borne with thy husband; I have reasoned and argued with him in these points of religion …’

Note husband, not fiance, which suggests the disputes (and Roper’s heresy) continued after the marriage.

*]Did St. Thomas More’s family flee the country like he requested (it seems at least Meg stayed until after the execution)?
*]Did St. Thomas More have a friendship with Master Rich and exhort him to be a teacher prior to Master Rich’s rise to high courts?

Difficult to say - on the one hand Wolsey was very much Henry’s man first and a churchman second. His last words were reportedly ‘if I had served God as well as I have served the King, He would not have abandoned me in my old age’.

On the other hand, Wolsey was also a shrewd politician who was hoping that after the annulment Henry would marry a French princess. He hated Anne Boleyn, definitely, and interfered with her betrothal, prior to her involvment with Henry, to Henry Percy on the grounds that she wasn’t good enough for Percy, who I think was in his household at the time. So he definitely wouldn’t have considered her, a mere commoner, half good enough to be Queen.

It is most likely that Wolsey became unenthusiastic about the annulment once it was clear that Henry in fact intended to marry Anne, so stopped working for it quite so hard as he might have.

Put it this way - the Pope took an INCREDIBLY long time about definitively refusing Henry. I don’t think he would’ve been so slow if he’d been wholeheartedly convinced.

On the one hand Henry was powerful and wanted the annulment. On the other hand the Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s nephew, was more powerful and the Pope (who was a member of the Medici family) was beholden to Charles for restoring the Medici to power in Florence.

He made a couple of jokes at his execution, including pushing his beard out of the way of the axe, saying ‘it [the beard] has committed no treason!’

From memory he also said ‘I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first’.

I don’t know that the words you mention were his last, if indeed he said them. I don’t think it’s certain which of the things he said was his last.
Click to expand...
Some good points here.

GKC
 
MarcoPolo,

You mentioned the Academy Award that Paul Scofield won for his portrayal of More. Scofield, who died just two years ago at 86, was one of only a handful of actors who managed the “Triple Crown” of acting - something very rare: Scofield won an Oscar for film, an Emmy for TV, and a Tony for Broadway.

Although he did an excellent supporting role in the movie Quiz Show (for which he was nominated for a Best Supporting Oscar), Scofield, for me, will always be More. Charlton Heston redid the role for TV in the 1980s and it was more faithful to Bolt’s play than the movie, but it was painful for me to watch. I admired Heston as an actor, but he was just “too big” of a personality for the role of More. Scofield portrayed More as someone vulnerable because of his beliefs whereas Heston simply did not convey someone who was troubled by the events occurring in his life beyond his control.

I do, however, think that the Heston version is worth renting it to watch.

As an aside, it is interesting to see in the Heston version, Henry hiding behind some curtains during More’s trial. It then shows a closeup of Henry supposedly showing anguish when More declines to accept Henry’s offer of clemency if he would only sign the Acts of Succession and Supremacy.

A somewhat similar thing occurred during the recent Tudors series on Showtime - one episode shows Henry screaming out with apparent great regret at the fact that he was responsible for More’s death.

Because St. Thomas More is my patron saint and because of my extreme devotion to him and desire to learn “all things More”, I have collected just about every book written about the saint. My interest finally led me to corresponded with Professor Warren Carroll, founder of Christendom College, and graduate of Columbia University with an M.A. and Ph.D. in history. Having also purchased Professor Carroll’s multi-volume Catholic history opus (the best history of the Catholic Church, hands down) - I encourage everyone to either purchase it or read it), I was always curious if any evidence existed that showed Henry regretted taking the life of More. Professor Carroll told me that although it is natural for one to hope that Henry regretted his decision to kill More, no evidence exists supporting that conclusion. Professor Carroll made an excellent point in responding to me: Henry had become so egotistical that the feeling “regret”, even if felt inside, was something Henry would have never shown to a third person. For Henry, that would have amounted to weakness, and Henry’s psychological profile was such that he simply could not allow that to occur.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Professor Carroll made an excellent point in responding to me: Henry had become so egotistical that the feeling “regret”, even if felt inside, was something Henry would have never shown to a third person. For Henry, that would have amounted to weakness, and Henry’s psychological profile was such that he simply could not allow that to occur.
Click to expand...
Do you think Henry’s disposition may have been that he was king and he could denyhaving regret simply by declaring it so? Was he of the mind that whatever he desired was true? More (in the movie anyway) posited that if the king declared there was no God it would not make it so, suggesting that the king had a streak in him for declaring what he saw fit as truth.

Also, it seems timely to me having watched this movie for the first time last night. (I actually bought it because someone mentioned it on one of the Catholic radio shows as one of his favorite movies…can’t remember who now!) The pressure placed on More was for him to confirm the king in his sin. Yet More considers the Christian way—what is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul? And we contemporaries watch a secular media distort the words of the Pope on contraception—it is a pressure of sorts, that the Pope be “loving” and give his consent to their sin. Yet the Pope has given no such approval, despite “King Media VIII’s” desire that he has said so.
 
In his famous work Two Treatises of Government, John Locke discusses the two theories by which Kings could claim their right to the throne: (1) by divine right as granted to them to rule by God, or (2) to govern their subjects by the consent of those governed.

If I was a betting man, I think Henry considered himself to have been made king because God saw fit that he be king. Whether he truly believed that deep down, no one knows - only God has a window into a man’s soul. But look at how Henry reacted when certain events unfolded:

A. When Catherine either miscarried male sons or they died soon after birth, Henry told people that was a sign from God that “he had sinned by marrying his brother’s wife” and the lack of a male heir was his punishment. I personally think that was a bit convenient to suddenly have such scruples after having been married to Catherine for so long, but he towed the line until he broke with Rome.

B. Henry did not have to break with Rome in order to remarry. He could have simply ignored Rome, divorced Catherine (using a patsy bishop to grant the divorce), and then married Anne Boleyn, all the while allowing England to remain Catholic. But Henry, of course, went a huge step further: he established not only a new Church of England, but installed himself as head of it. This was the first time that a ruler and layman had declared himself to be the arbiter of God’s will. These were violations of the highest order: by setting himself up as head of the Church in England, Henry violated Magna Carta as well as his own Coronation Oath of office.

You are correct when you say that More asked if Parliament had the right to declare that God was not God. But this was answered as More expected - “No - Parliament, nor anyone else, could declare that God was not God”, no more than someone could “make” the Earth flat simply by declaring it flat.

One thing that More said about Henry that was very telling for me regarding Henry’s personality (and I am paraphrasing): “The King considers me one of his best friends and relies heavily on my counsel, but I harbor no illusion that if the a castle in France could be won with the loss of my head, my head would be gone.”

Finally, two ironies:
  1. Despite his break with Rome, Henry actually persecuted several people at court for going too far in their beliefs and romance with Lutheranism. By all accounts, Henry actually continued practicing the “catholic faith” (as much as one could without being under the Pope’s authority) until his death.
  2. Till this day, part of the title given to rulers of England is still “Defender of the Faith”, a title bestowed upon Henry by the then-Pope for Henry’s defense of the seven sacraments against Luther. I find it laughable that Anglican rulers kept that title considering it was created by a Pope. Prince Charles (goofball that he is) said several years ago that if he became King, he wanted to change part of his title from “Defender of the Faith” to “Defender of Faith”. Such a move would mean the monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, would no longer be known as Defender of the Faith for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII. That announcement caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea, claiming he wanted to “embrace” the other religions in Britain. In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.
Of course, once you say you stand for everything, you really, in fact, stand for nothing. I truly believe Elizabeth is holding out as long as possible so that the title passes to her grandson, Prince William of Wales, to avoid having Charles coming to the throne. I hate to sound so uncharitable, but the phrase “idiot son” comes to mind every time I see Charles.
 
Salvatore123 said:
In his famous work Two Treatises of Government, John Locke discusses the two theories by which Kings could claim their right to the throne: (1) by divine right as granted to them to rule by God, or (2) to govern their subjects by the consent of those governed.

If I was a betting man, I think Henry considered himself to have been made king because God saw fit that he be king. Whether he truly believed that deep down, no one knows - only God has a window into a man’s soul. But look at how Henry reacted when certain events unfolded:

A. When Catherine either miscarried male sons or they died soon after birth, Henry told people that was a sign from God that “he had sinned by marrying his brother’s wife” and the lack of a male heir was his punishment. I personally think that was a bit convenient to suddenly have such scruples after having been married to Catherine for so long, but he towed the line until he broke with Rome.

B. Henry did not have to break with Rome in order to remarry. He could have simply ignored Rome, divorced Catherine (using a patsy bishop to grant the divorce), and then married Anne Boleyn, all the while allowing England to remain Catholic. But Henry, of course, went a huge step further: he established not only a new Church of England, but installed himself as head of it. This was the first time that a ruler and layman had declared himself to be the arbiter of God’s will. These were violations of the highest order: by setting himself up as head of the Church in England, Henry violated Magna Carta as well as his own Coronation Oath of office.

You are correct when you say that More asked if Parliament had the right to declare that God was not God. But this was answered as More expected - “No - Parliament, nor anyone else, could declare that God was not God”, no more than someone could “make” the Earth flat simply by declaring it flat.

One thing that More said about Henry that was very telling for me regarding Henry’s personality (and I am paraphrasing): “The King considers me one of his best friends and relies heavily on my counsel, but I harbor no illusion that if the a castle in France could be won with the loss of my head, my head would be gone.”

Finally, two ironies:
  1. Despite his break with Rome, Henry actually persecuted several people at court for going too far in their beliefs and romance with Lutheranism. By all accounts, Henry actually continued practicing the “catholic faith” (as much as one could without being under the Pope’s authority) until his death.
  2. Till this day, part of the title given to rulers of England is still “Defender of the Faith”, a title bestowed upon Henry by the then-Pope for Henry’s defense of the seven sacraments against Luther. I find it laughable that Anglican rulers kept that title considering it was created by a Pope. Prince Charles (goofball that he is) said several years ago that if he became King, he wanted to change part of his title from “Defender of the Faith” to “Defender of Faith”. Such a move would mean the monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, would no longer be known as Defender of the Faith for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII. That announcement caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea, claiming he wanted to “embrace” the other religions in Britain. In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.
Of course, once you say you stand for everything, you really, in fact, stand for nothing. I truly believe Elizabeth is holding out as long as possible so that the title passes to her grandson, Prince William of Wales, to avoid having Charles coming to the throne. I hate to sound so uncharitable, but the phrase “idiot son” comes to mind every time I see Charles.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff. Do you think William is a competent person?
 
Most of Henry’s biographers consider it likely that he did feel his marriage to Catherine was in violation of the Levetical prohibition, convenient though it might have been.

Henry had no such convenient route, as ignoring Rome and still remaining Roman Catholic, while separating from Catherine and marrying Anne. He required not only a male heir, but a legitimate heir, especially considering the tenuous Tudor claim to the throne. Short years before, red and white roses had fallen all over the land, in contested claims to whose bum would set enthroned in England. He needed to avoid a repeat. He had attempted to work with such assets as he had, his illegitimate son and Mary, his daughter, but neither seemed a workable solution, given the assumptions of the time. And the concept of a decree of nullity was designed to accommodate his sort of problem. And he attempted to keep his case within the jurisdictions (England) that he could control. But Catherine appealed to Rome and the Rota, as was her legal right. Neither Henry nor Clement was happy with that. But it was how the system was arranged.

And the system was arranged precisely to allow for the management of Henry’s sort of problem; the making and breaking of dynastic marriages, while maintaining Church control of the sacrament. It was precisely so done, a mixture of theology and real politic, to assure that it was not necessary for a ruler to tell Rome to chuck it. Henry was playing by the rules and fully expected the system would work for him as it did for others, such as his sister. It was commonplace in the day. But the system was one that took real politic into account and Henry ran into a greater political force than he. In that sense, the system worked.

Henry received the Defensor Fidei title partially because of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, partially for a couple of other things, including the fact that he (through Wolsey) was a pest and a pain in the neck, and had been, stretching back to when he started bothering Julius, in 1512. It is an interesting tale, that I’ve posted a number of times, in another forum here, over the years. Charles certainly stated a desire to be Defender of the Faiths (reflecting a pluralistic society, but the irony you see is tempered, perhaps, by the fact that the title now born by the British sovereign, technically, is not the one Clement awarded. That was a personal, not an hereditary one. It was Parliament that attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary had repealed that Act, during her reign; Elizabeth restored it, and that’s why it’s there today.

History is complicated. Henry’s Great Matter, a complicated example of that, has become a hobby of mine.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Most of Henry’s biographers consider it likely that he did feel his marriage to Catherine was in violation of the Levetical prohibition, convenient though it might have been.

Henry had no such convenient route, as ignoring Rome and still remaining Roman Catholic, while separating from Catherine and marrying Anne. He required not only a male heir, but a legitimate heir, especially considering the tenuous Tudor claim to the throne.
Click to expand...
What’s the scoop with the Tudors? I see this TV series called that and Salvatore mentioned it. What’s the history of the Tudor claim? And how accurate is the TV show?
 
MarcoPolo said:
What’s the scoop with the Tudors? I see this TV series called that and Salvatore mentioned it. What’s the history of the Tudor claim? And how accurate is the TV show?
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen any of the shows, my interest being in the history, per se, and, as far as I can tell, the show is a soap opera. So, no informed opinion of it.

Henry was only the 2nd Tudor on the throne. His father worked a not too solid claim to the throne (his problems were fore-shadowing of what Henry feared his own heir might face), and some fast foot work on Bosworth Field, into a seat on the power seat. It was to preclude the sort of differences of opinion among the mighty as to who Henry VIII’s successor should be that Hank was so set on a male, legitimate heir. Didn’t want to leave an unnecessary opening for another claimant, on the make.

GKC
 
Marco,

I watched the entire miniseries (it lasted several seasons) primarily because of my interest in St. Thomas More.

Although the producers played pretty loose with many historical events (which is what inevitably happens in TV and film), they did manage to capture the overall sense of what court-life under Henry VIII was really like, including the man himself:
  1. a degenerate womanizer who attended Mass daily (how he rationalized his receipt of Holy Communion is a mystery to me :rolleyes:),
  2. someone whose entire time spent as King was truly an adventure
  3. a man who was so egotistical (as I mentioned previously) that he gave little thought to lopping the heads off of even his most trusted advisors (More and then Cromwell; although Cromwell was a heretical fiend, he DID serve Henry to the best of his ability and even that was not enough to save him when Henry thought Cromwell’s usefulness was over)
  4. a man who was consumed for his entire life with securing a rightful heir to his throne
  5. a man with many, many passions (besides women) and whose dangerous exploits finally cost him his life; while still young, Henry actually took part in jousting matches himself; during one match, a jousting pole broke and several pieces pierced his right thigh; modern medical speculation is that one splinter was never removed and ended up lodging itself into the protective covering of his femur (thigh bone), thereby causing osteomyelitis, something that plagued him for the remainder of his life; modern medical analysis also speculates that Henry probably died from syphillis
  6. although a very handsome and athletic man when he was young, age took a great toll on Henry and by the time of his death (he was only in his 50’s, but looked far older based on contemperaneous accounts), he weighed a bloated 300+ pounds; he bulk was such that in order to ride his horse while wearing his suit of armor, a spelling pulley/wench system was designed to literally hoist him up and onto his horse because it was impossible for him to mount his horse as a one usually did
  7. the most accurate part of the series was its portrayal of Henry’s fight with Rome, his first wife Catherine, and St. Thomas More
As a final irony, Henry (and everyone during that time) blamed his wives for failing to bear him a healthy son instead of two daughters who survived him; the irony lies in the fact that a man’s sperm actually determines the sex of the child - NOT the woman’s eggs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top