The Fall of Anne Boleyn: Day -13

McCullough conveys the events in an interesting way, through the writing of Alexander Aleius who put the blame on Cromwell, but he does in fact point out that Cromwell was the primary mover and Cromwell his servant, yet it was Cromwell who wrote to Chapuys afterwards that he had gone home to put the entire thing together, or as he put it, he made and thought the whole thing up. This is the curious thing and its this rather thin piece of evidence that historians have pounced. McCullough is stating his own opinion that Cromwell was going to destroy Anne, his words, not mine, but he is conveying the intentions of Cromwell as contained in those few words. However, there is more, because the line before this stated that he did so on Henry’s instigation. Taken together the two lines have caused a huge debate on the entire conspiracy as to who brought Anne down and why. Esther is correct, Henry wanted Anne gone, out of the way, most opinions agree with that, but the debate is how and whether Cromwell was the brains behind everything or whether Henry was heavily involved and Cromwell a mere yes man. It has emerged as a theory which states that Cromwell began the whole process because of a series of disputes with Anne that had put him in danger and in order to get rid of a perceived threat and historians have ran with variations on that theme. The question is did Henry or Cromwell instigate the fall of Anne Boleyn? The question itself is too simple, as is the theory. It was a more complicated set of events that led to Anne’s fall. No one theory or conspiracy fits everything which we know of what happened and as McCullough says much is hidden from us as it was from Anne and the courtiers. Cromwell had joined a wider faction supporting both Mary and a future Queen and the potential shift in domestic and foreign policies. Historians have interpreted the fallout around Anne as her being in the way of all that and therefore she had to go because she was a liability. Others have interpreted her fall in a more straightforward way, Henry was fed up, Anne had to go and Cromwell found the way out. There are many others, but really life isn’t like that and a combination of the King and Secretary working together, the rumours about the Queen and the nonsense the investigation revealed, the determination to be rid of Anne permanently and the fact that the crown found a basic case to build on after Smeaton confessed, all of these were factors. Cromwell may well have taken advantage of the opportunities and he was rewarded well for his reward, he may well have had good reasons to turn the case into a horrendous treason conspiracy, he may well have convinced Henry to go down a judicial path, because there is enough uncertainty around which way things would pan out after 18th April to suggest an annulment was still being considered, by Cromwell at least. I don’t know when that changed but within the next two weeks it had and everything was in place for judicial procedures to be pursued against the Queen, although no evidence had as yet been found. It was a stroke of luck that gave Cromwell the break he needed and Henry ordered him to investigate further. That fatal conversation between Henry Norris and Anne was the pretext for the first arrest, the confession for the next and so on. Henry was in charge, he wanted his wife out of the way, but at first its not entirely clear what his intentions were and that was left up to Cromwell. Why the fatal conspiracy? It was cleaner, quicker, more convenient. Who instigated it has been the subject of much of the debate on how Anne fell ever since, but as you can see, much of the actual evidence is only bits and pieces.

I am getting to your question but thought I would restate the arguments around the role Cromwell played. Cromwell was blamed for a number of things by various factions because he was the chief minister if you like, the man who did the work, who put the details of legislation together and carried out a number of high-profile and unpopular changes to political and religious policies. He was one of the people blamed in the Catholic strongholds in the Midlands, that is Lincolnshire and the Northern counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire for the closure of the Monasteries and their destruction and yes he was partly to blame as he put the details together, alongside Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, but it was Henry’s policy because the process would make him wealthy. Cromwell is blamed in some quarters for the reforms, the treason laws, the legislation which supported Henry and Anne’s marriage, but he was only one of a number of legal experts and administration involved and these all went through Parliament. Not only that, the Supremacy was Henry’s baby and he wanted the new laws to prevent any more opposition to his marriage. It is unfair to blame Cromwell for these changes but he was one of a number of Counsellors attacked at the time and criticism was contemporary. So the answer is yes, yes, part of what is projected onto Cromwell, who at the end of the day, no matter what his motivation was, followed the King’s orders or acted with his full knowledge and consent and was doing his job well, is because his reputation is of the bad guy who manipulated Henry Viii into all kinds of horrible decisions and caused many unnecessary deaths. In some cases that criticism may well be deserved, but the new heresy laws continued to be enforced even more strongly after his death, the heads on spikes continued to be put up there, treason trials continued and three women, Kathryn Howard, Jane Boleyn and the elderly Margaret Pole were executed on someone else’s watch. It is possible that had Cromwell not found himself serving King Henry after Cardinal Wolsey died that listening to a different way of doing things, Henry may not have passed such harsh draconian laws. However, Henry didn’t particularly like Cromwell when he first came to his attention, he was sceptical about how he could be of service. It was the realisation that here was a man with the ability and the courage to take on the unpleasant tasks ahead, to pass those laws, to take on those who opposed them and who had the ideas which would achieve what Henry wanted, which led to his appointment. Cromwell could handle the nobles, the older families, the clergy and he was effectively efficient. Cromwell was the right man for the job. I am not saying he and Henry were exactly of one mind, but Cromwell wasn’t afraid to carry out the King’s dirty work or to suggest ways in which his power and prestige could be increased. For that Cromwell has been seen in a negative light. Ignoring his many positive achievements and talents, his character has been reflected in the popular imagination as being such a person who would bring down two Queens and he has been blamed for much of Henry’s tyrannical decisions of his latter years. In the same way it’s easier to project blame for the downfall and execution of Anne and her co accused and to absolve Henry from any blame, because his personal reputation makes it believable. I can’t but think with something of a shiver about the words of Alison Weir on the Last Days of Henry and Anne Boleyn when she described the so called conspiracy of Thomas Cromwell v Anne as a audacious plot.

From what we actually know of the case, which is surprisingly little, one would be more likely to say Henry was concerned about the rumours he had learned about, was getting itchy feet and needed to end his marriage without too much fuss. The man to organise that was Cromwell. Without caring about how that was achieved Henry allowed Cromwell a free hand in the investigation and full powers to act appropriately. Cromwell and others conducted an investigation which eventually led to arrests, a dubious confession and Cromwell made up the details of the indictments because the crown had a weak case. Cromwell may or may not have had personal and political reasons for the sake of self preservation to either persuade Henry that there was more to the gossip around the Court and to seek permission for a legal investigation to be prepared against Anne or he may or may not have persuaded Henry that an annulment wasn’t the way to go and that he had concerns about the Queen which may involve criminal charges. In other words Cromwell could have told Henry certain lies and Henry ordered the investigation. We don’t know for certain, but some of the bits and pieces we find point to this possibility. What we definitely know is that the legislation and legal mechanisms were set up in advance and that Cromwell would not have acted without the King’s orders and consent. What we also know more or less is that a number of fatal conversations took place between Anne and some of the courtiers, accusations were brought to Cromwell by Sir Anthony Browne and a series of arguments ensued. We also know that Cromwell interrogated Mark Smeaton, most likely on the King’s authority and Smeaton confessed. We also know that Cromwell and others were left to arrange the case and gather evidence and testimony and Henry let them get on with it. Into the bits and pieces of what we do know a number of different motivations have been woven, making Cromwell chief protagonist and mastermind of the entire tragic and terrible affair. Cromwell has the kind of reputation and character which to the general public makes him the ideal candidate for conspiracy to bring down Anne and other innocent people. Some even see Henry as a victim of the duplicity of Cromwell, who is duped into believing his wife has betrayed him with his friends. I think we can agree that that interpretation isn’t possible. To people who have really studied Thomas Cromwell, his role isn’t that straightforward or is that of a man who is doing what his master needs and freeing him from an unwanted wife. They see another side to Cromwell, the great statesman, the fine administrator, the founder of the modern state, the capable minister, the fixer, the interceder, the man who helped people and who got things done, the reformer and the self made man. They would show a man who was efficient, who cared about unemployment, who cared about social problems, who helped widows get what was legally theirs by right, to whom people could turn and who had a number of excellent talents. They would also admit that he could see which way the wind was blowing and turn his coat accordingly for survival. They would tell you he was ruthless and he knew how to apply terror when required, but he did so in the service of an ever more paranoid master. They would tell you he was more than capable of cooking up this case against Anne, but would express doubts of him being at the head of a great conspiracy to deliberately have her tried and executed and put out of the way. Some would agree, however, that yes, if Henry wanted Anne put away quickly that Cromwell was ruthless enough to find the means to do it, coldly and permanently. Others might argue he had no choice in the matter, but that doesn’t stop him from acting without mercy. It might also be argued that as his own power was increased alongside that of Henry Viii that Cromwell would stop at nothing to further Henry’s will. Cromwell has galvanised opinion for many years and continues to do so, just as Anne herself has and indeed King Henry.

Pick up any book on him and you get everything. You get the Machiavelli statesman, which isn’t an insult, it’s more to do with his ruthless efficiencies. You get the Cromwell with the terrifying personality and reputation, Cromwell the religious reformer and modern statesman, Cromwell the persecutor, those who present a fair and balanced evaluation and those who clearly dislike him as a historic figure. For example Robert Hutchinson presented a totally different Cromwell to the more sympathetic and potentially better understood Cromwell by John Schofield and Tracy Borman has uncovered a sympathetic and diverse man who came from humble beginnings but worked hard to get into the positions of trust he occupied on merit. We meet a more colourful and human Cromwell here and understand his family background and childhood through her research.

I am sorry to ramble but your question for me raised a number of complex issues with analytical study of a man and his motivation through the role he played in a famous and terrible piece of human history, the execution of a woman and Queen and five innocent men. I believe we see his role through both lenses, his reputation and the day to day actions during what we know or think we know of this important case.