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.
Salvatore123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This sounds like my Hank, all right, a fascinating train wreck,with a couple of demurs. But, for his time, not an Olympic class womanizer. He did judge those who he felt had failed him (What have you done for me lately?) harshly. Cromwell tripped over Anne of Cleves, and in his opposition to the SIx Articles, and he had a cabal of enemies at court. As Scarisbrick says, the fall was sudden and the reasons murky.

GKC.
 
Thank you, gentlemen. Have read everything with great interest. :o There is much fascinating about and much to be learned from that historic episode.
 
Although I try my best not to wish ill will on anyone, I must say that I hope that Henry VIII got his “come-uppance” upon his death. Under his rule, hundreds of holy people - priests, monks, St. Thomas More, Bishop John Fisher - went to their deaths because, quite frankly, Henry could not control his libido and, as with all those who repudiate Rome, thought he knew God’s will better than the Holy Father and Magisterium of the Church.

That man alone change the entire course of religious history for an entire island/nation, along with its empire.
 
Maybe it’s ok to wish him a good spank in Purgatory? 😉

But here’s a funny story showing how God has worked to put this incident in front of me. I mentioned how I heard someone on Catholic radio a few weeks back praise this movie, so I bought a copy and finally watched it the other night. So independently from that, I was looking for MP3s to listen to on the iPod. One of my favorite speakers/radio guests is Dr. Raymond De Souza. So maybe a week ago (a few days before watching A Man for All Seasons), I downloaded several EWTN shows featuring Dr. De Souza. There’s so much on my iPod that those downloads got lost in the shuffle. But last night I saw and had no recollection that I had downloaded Dr. De Souza’s guest appearance discussing the book he edited on King Henry VIII’s Defense of the Seven Sacraments! I thought what are the odds! :o It’s an interesting talk, by the way, and if you guys or anyone else is interested here is the direct MP3 link to that episode. It’s about 27 minutes.

While listening I thought of another question from the radio show that related to the movie. The host asked Dr. De Souza if More was really the one who wrote Defense of the Seven Sacraments. De Souza said that even the Pope has ghost writers but he is the final one who signs off, so the work is properly his. The same goes for Henry. What do you guys think? Was More the chief writer of Defense of the Seven Sacraments?
 
Salvatore123 said:
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),
Click to expand...
Can you provide a link?
 
MarcoPolo said:
Maybe it’s ok to wish him a good spank in Purgatory? 😉

But here’s a funny story showing how God has worked to put this incident in front of me. I mentioned how I heard someone on Catholic radio a few weeks back praise this movie, so I bought a copy and finally watched it the other night. So independently from that, I was looking for MP3s to listen to on the iPod. One of my favorite speakers/radio guests is Dr. Raymond De Souza. So maybe a week ago (a few days before watching A Man for All Seasons), I downloaded several EWTN shows featuring Dr. De Souza. There’s so much on my iPod that those downloads got lost in the shuffle. But last night I saw and had no recollection that I had downloaded Dr. De Souza’s guest appearance discussing the book he edited on King Henry VIII’s Defense of the Seven Sacraments! I thought what are the odds! :o It’s an interesting talk, by the way, and if you guys or anyone else is interested here is the direct MP3 link to that episode. It’s about 27 minutes.

While listening I thought of another question from the radio show that related to the movie. The host asked Dr. De Souza if More was really the one who wrote Defense of the Seven Sacraments. De Souza said that even the Pope has ghost writers but he is the final one who signs off, so the work is properly his. The same goes for Henry. What do you guys think? Was More the chief writer of Defense of the Seven Sacraments?
Click to expand...
It is an historical puzzle. Henry was likely the author of the first chapter, at least. The rest was a committee work, and various names have been suggested. More referred to the “Makers” of the book; some think he was the final editor.

And, as I said, the* Assertio Septem Sacramentorum* was only the proximate impetus to Henry getting his new title.

I’ll try to listen to that link. All info is useful.

GKC
 
As someone who memorized that play as “Sir Thomas More” in high school, let me add my two farthings’ . . . 🙂

Cardinal Wolsey was a great friend of More’s and was offended that More wouldn’t “come with him” on the matter of the King’s divorce. That Wolsey found More’s piety ridiculous is an historical fact. Wolsey later acknowledged More being “in the right” when, no matter how hard he tried, Wolsey could not placate the king or else satisfy him.

The movie (and let’s remember it was written by a former communist who was first attracted to More’s “Utopia” that many socialists saw as a harbinger for communism!) exaggerates the conflict between More, Cranmer and Cromwell.

In fact, if Cromwell was More’s “enemy,” his family never knew it. After More’ execution, the family actually asked Cromwell to stand as a godparent to one of More’s grandchildren. Cromwell, in fact, did everything in his power to save More, as did Archbishop Cranmer. More was on record as saying how he envisioned the pope’s authority - the pope could act alone in defining dogma, or else the pope and a “General Council” together etc. Cranmer himself found nothing in More’s ecclesiology that would earn him the axe. It was only later that Cranmer becamed a hardened Protestant.

Also, while More and Luther sparred, both agreed that Henry VIII was wrong to want to divorce Queen Catherine of Aragon. It was because of Luther’s opposition that Henry likewise hated Luther . . .

More was full of life, he loved a good wine, feasting and merry-making, and he was dead serious about his spirituality. He was a learned man who also wrote many of his own prayers and would walk along the alleys and laneways of London to inquire about anyone in particular material needs. If he found out about a woman who was in labour, he would pray for her until she delivered. He was intolerant of heresy as a social/legal entity since it disturbed the peace of a theocratic/monarchical society. In fact, Protestant countries were likewise intolerant of Catholicism - that was the way of the world then.

Henry VIII saw himself as head of the Church of England and remained a Catholic sans papacy throughout his life. In fact, he made a number of efforts to retore unity with Rome and was always concerned about the idea. He was in favour of clerical celibacy, carried his rosary and psalter with him everywhere and attacked the monasteries to rob them of their money. He opposed and crushed the Pilgrimage of Grace because of sedition, not religion. His “reformation” had very little of the Protestant in it.

(BTW, there is a Catholic institution in London somewhere that was built by Henry VIII when he was still on good terms with Rome. The religious order for which it was built is still around. The only thing Henry asked for his largesse in this regard was that the order would say a daily Rosary for him in perpetuity. Every night after six, the nuns STILL get together in the chapel to say a rosary for King Henry VIII!).

More gave his executioner a bag of some money which gentlemen sentenced to die on the scaffold often did - payment for the “service” rendered. The executioner knelt to ask his forgiveness which More readily gave and did tell him, “You send me to God.” Cranmer had been rebuffed by More a few moments before as he approached the Martyr to administer last rites - More would have none of them from him. This is why Cranmer blurted out to More, “Are you so sure of that, Sir Thomas?” To which More replied, “He will not refuse one so blythe/carefree to come to him.”

In his letter to the king after his death, More told the king that he forgave him and that he hoped that one day the two of them could meet in heaven to enjoy eternity together etc.

The king happened to be playing cards or chess with Anne Boleyn at the time - he was said to have become perturbed and then told Anne that, “Mores’ death is your fault!”

Three of Anne Boleyn’s relatives were jurors at the trial of Thomas More . . .

English Protestants would later honour Anne Boleyn as one of their martyrs. But, in fact, Anne Boleyn actually asked to have the Eucharist enshrined in her cell so that she might adore it while in prison awaiting trial and execution . . .

Very difficult to draw lines anywhere, especially when it comes to that period of history.

(I always wanted to be an historian, but there was no future in it . . .).

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
As someone who memorized that play as “Sir Thomas More” in high school, let me add my two farthings’ . . . 🙂

Cardinal Wolsey was a great friend of More’s and was offended that More wouldn’t “come with him” on the matter of the King’s divorce. That Wolsey found More’s piety ridiculous is an historical fact. Wolsey later acknowledged More being “in the right” when, no matter how hard he tried, Wolsey could not placate the king or else satisfy him.

The movie (and let’s remember it was written by a former communist who was first attracted to More’s “Utopia” that many socialists saw as a harbinger for communism!) exaggerates the conflict between More, Cranmer and Cromwell.

In fact, if Cromwell was More’s “enemy,” his family never knew it. After More’ execution, the family actually asked Cromwell to stand as a godparent to one of More’s grandchildren. Cromwell, in fact, did everything in his power to save More, as did Archbishop Cranmer. More was on record as saying how he envisioned the pope’s authority - the pope could act alone in defining dogma, or else the pope and a “General Council” together etc. Cranmer himself found nothing in More’s ecclesiology that would earn him the axe. It was only later that Cranmer becamed a hardened Protestant.

Also, while More and Luther sparred, both agreed that Henry VIII was wrong to want to divorce Queen Catherine of Aragon. It was because of Luther’s opposition that Henry likewise hated Luther . . .

More was full of life, he loved a good wine, feasting and merry-making, and he was dead serious about his spirituality. He was a learned man who also wrote many of his own prayers and would walk along the alleys and laneways of London to inquire about anyone in particular material needs. If he found out about a woman who was in labour, he would pray for her until she delivered. He was intolerant of heresy as a social/legal entity since it disturbed the peace of a theocratic/monarchical society. In fact, Protestant countries were likewise intolerant of Catholicism - that was the way of the world then.

Henry VIII saw himself as head of the Church of England and remained a Catholic sans papacy throughout his life. In fact, he made a number of efforts to retore unity with Rome and was always concerned about the idea. He was in favour of clerical celibacy, carried his rosary and psalter with him everywhere and attacked the monasteries to rob them of their money. He opposed and crushed the Pilgrimage of Grace because of sedition, not religion. His “reformation” had very little of the Protestant in it.

(BTW, there is a Catholic institution in London somewhere that was built by Henry VIII when he was still on good terms with Rome. The religious order for which it was built is still around. The only thing Henry asked for his largesse in this regard was that the order would say a daily Rosary for him in perpetuity. Every night after six, the nuns STILL get together in the chapel to say a rosary for King Henry VIII!).

More gave his executioner a bag of some money which gentlemen sentenced to die on the scaffold often did - payment for the “service” rendered. The executioner knelt to ask his forgiveness which More readily gave and did tell him, “You send me to God.” Cranmer had been rebuffed by More a few moments before as he approached the Martyr to administer last rites - More would have none of them from him. This is why Cranmer blurted out to More, “Are you so sure of that, Sir Thomas?” To which More replied, “He will not refuse one so blythe/carefree to come to him.”

In his letter to the king after his death, More told the king that he forgave him and that he hoped that one day the two of them could meet in heaven to enjoy eternity together etc.

The king happened to be playing cards or chess with Anne Boleyn at the time - he was said to have become perturbed and then told Anne that, “Mores’ death is your fault!”

Three of Anne Boleyn’s relatives were jurors at the trial of Thomas More . . .

English Protestants would later honour Anne Boleyn as one of their martyrs. But, in fact, Anne Boleyn actually asked to have the Eucharist enshrined in her cell so that she might adore it while in prison awaiting trial and execution . . .

Very difficult to draw lines anywhere, especially when it comes to that period of history.

(I always wanted to be an historian, but there was no future in it . . .).

Alex
Click to expand...
Good post. Can you give a reference to the the Boleyn/Eucharist point? Not that it’s unlikely, but I don’t recall it, in my reading.

As I mentioned above, John Guy, in his bio of More, critiques MAN FOR ALL SEASONS on a point or two, including its portrayal of More’s concept of conscience. Good book.

GKC
 
Marco,

Regarding More “ghost writing” for Henry, I have never found a biographical entry (nor would I expect one, given More’s genuine piety and modesty) indicating that More really wrote the tome for which Henry was deemed “Defender”. In the movie (which, again, is based on Bolt’s play - and I don’t know the source of his material for his play; Bolt was, by the way, protestant - go figure 🙂 ), More specifically responds to Cromwell that he ONLY answered certain theological questions put to him by Henry, but in the end, the book was first and foremost the king’s own work.

Long,

You can find his work at any online bookstore or Christendom Press.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Marco,

Regarding More “ghost writing” for Henry, I have never found a biographical entry (nor would I expect one, given More’s genuine piety and modesty) indicating that More really wrote the tome for which Henry was deemed “Defender”. In the movie (which, again, is based on Bolt’s play - and I don’t know the source of his material for his play; Bolt was, by the way, protestant - go figure 🙂 ), More specifically responds to Cromwell that he ONLY answered certain theological questions put to him by Henry, but in the end, the book was first and foremost the king’s own work.

Long,

You can find his work at any online bookstore or Christendom Press.
Click to expand...
A quick look at a half dozen bios of Henry finds a range of opinion. None think the book purely More’s work, none, save possibly L.B. Smith (HENRY VIII: THE MASK OF ROYALTY) conclude that he had no constructive part in it, whatever that might have been.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Good post. Can you give a reference to the the Boleyn/Eucharist point? Not that it’s unlikely, but I don’t recall it, in my reading.

As I mentioned above, John Guy, in his bio of More, critiques MAN FOR ALL SEASONS on a point or two, including its portrayal of More’s concept of conscience. Good book.

GKC
Click to expand...
Added: Found a reference, in one place, at least. Erickson;s MISTRESS ANNE, p. 251.

GKC
 
There was a rumor I read somewhere that the pope had offered Henry a dispensation to marry a second wife without divorcing Catherine. This might make some sense, since St. Thomas speculated that bigamy was subject to papal dispensation.

Of course after St. Thomas the Council of Trent said that the idea of “several” wives at the same time was against divine law, which would make a dispensation for that impossible.

But several means “more than two”. So a question that interests me is whether putting all this together means that a dispensation would be possible for bigamy, but not polygamy? That is, under extraordinary circumstances a person could have a second spouse but never a third?

Of course, divorce of a sacramental marriage is an impossibility. I understand that. I’d just be interested in hearing people’s thoughts on the subject.
 
Even though this is an old thread it is still very interesting. I had understood from biographies of the wives of HenryVII, that Anne Boleyn was educated in France as a Protestant, and that her influential relatives were also devote Protestants. This is not true or did she come around to the Catholic faith when she was staring death in the face? Who was it who said something to the effect that Protestantism was the best faith to live in, but Catholicism was the best faith to die in?
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Do you know that Thomas More’s head lies in the Roper vault in St Dustan’s Church in Canterbury? It’s a beautiful 1,000 year old parish church.

machadoink.com/St%20Dunstans.htm
Click to expand...
I knew St Thomas’ daughter, Margaret Roper, somehow got a hold of and kept St Thomas’ head after his death, so it makes sense if it was going to be anywhere it might be in her family vault.

I wonder what happened to the rest of him? Presumably not buried with any ceremony or gravestone or anything, given he suffered a traitor’s death. Anne Boleyn was buried with ceremony, however she had been crowned Queen.
 
LilyM said:
I knew St Thomas’ daughter, Margaret Roper, somehow got a hold of and kept St Thomas’ head after his death, so it makes sense if it was going to be anywhere it might be in her family vault.

I wonder what happened to the rest of him? Presumably not buried with any ceremony or gravestone or anything, given he suffered a traitor’s death. Anne Boleyn was buried with ceremony, however she had been crowned Queen.
Click to expand...
His body is in the undercroft of the Royal Peculiar of Saint Peter ad Vincula, within Her Majesty’s Tower of London.

catholicherald.co.uk/content/uploads/2013/04/P8-More-NEW.jpg
 
Don_Ruggero said:
His body is in the undercroft of the Royal Peculiar of Saint Peter ad Vincula, within Her Majesty’s Tower of London.

catholicherald.co.uk/content/uploads/2013/04/P8-More-NEW.jpg
Click to expand...
Wow - Anne Boleyn, the woman whose marriage to Henry led to More’s martyrdom, is also buried in St Peter ad Vincula. Who’d a thunk!

More said to one of his enemies that he trusted they would be making merry together in the afterlife - it’d be nice to think More and Anne doing the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top