(1) Cranmer's busy digesting Fisher's volume on Luther in the 1520s. (2) Cranmer has a minor diplomatic trip to Spain in summary 1527, as Charles V is bottling up the Pope in his Castle in Rome. Upon Cranmer's return, he may have met Henry in London briefly, but the Cambridge don returns home. (3) Meanwhile, the "great divorce" question roils. (4) Below, we get new vistas of another "player," that old Cardinal of York, Thomas Wolsey. Old Wolsey will fall on Henry's sword later. (5) We're still reviewing the 160-page intro by Mr. Lewis (1877) to Mr. (Rev.) Sander's 350-pages (1585). The volume at hand is over 500 pages. So, what follows is the intro to Sander's Papal Roman (version 1.0) Anglican attack on the "Anglican Schism." Here we go again...with notes and musings.
On Mr. Lewis' strong insinuation, a “secret impediment” was allegedly learned by Sir Thomas More, to wit, that Henry VIII had "relations" with Lady Elizabeth Boleyn and her eldest daughter, Mary Boleyn. As a result of the illicit affair with the mother, a daughter was born: Anne Boleyn. Ergo, Ms. Ann Boleyn is Henry’s “secret love child” by Lady Elizabeth Boleyn. If all this is true, Mr. Tudor has cuckholded his chief diplomat off on a French mission, Sir Boleyn, by having his wife and his eldest daughter. And then, old Harry commits incest with his [Henry's] daughter, the offspring of his liaison with Lady Elizabeth. This is Mr. Lewis' take, big-time "Sex in the City" of London.
By 1533, Mr. Cranmer is styling himself “Legate of the Apostolic See.”
Mr. Cranmer “pronounced the marriage of Henry and Catherine a nullity” and “five days later, pronounced the marriage of Henry and Anne Boleyn, contracted before the divorce, to be lawful and good” (xxxvii). It's hard to infer otherwise than that Mr. Canterbury is in Henry's bag, "owned and kept." A lackey and time-server.
By 1536, Cranmer is “in the palace of Lambeth, May 17” and decrees/says that Henry’s and Ms. Boleyn’s marriage “was and always had been a nullity” (xxxviii).
Mr. Cranmer cryptically, enigmatically, and darkly [our terms] claims this [the newly discovered nullity] was due to “true, just, and lawful reasons lately brought to his knowledge” (xxxviii). What the heck does that mean? "...lately brought to his knowledge?" Tell us, Mr. Canterbury. What does that mean? Mr. Lewis's argument is incest.
Even Lord Herbert, another weighty and scholarly voice in the larger discussion, says:
"The causes [of the dissolution of Anne’s marriage] being not yet set down otherwise than they were declared, just, true and lawful impediments of marriage: I know not how to satisfy the reader therein."
He's confused. So are we. Mr. Lewis is not.
Cranner had seen Ms. Boleyn in the Tower on May 16, 1536. He issued his claim at Lambeth on May 17, 1536, allegedly without any trial.
Parliament, the Lord and Commons, "broke the silence" along with the king in statute 28 Henry VIII c.7, but no further details emerged other than to rearrange projections for any future dynastic issue [issue = "offspring;" ergo, Mary and Elizabeth are now bastards and not in dynastic succession].
Here's the Parliament's equally obscure comment on the newly found impediment for old Harry's marriage to Anne:
"Albeit, most dread sovereign lord [sic], that the said acts were then made, as it was then thought by your majesty’s nobles and commons, upon a pure, perfect, and clean foundation, thinking the said marriage then had between your highness and the said lady Anne in their consciences to have been pure, sincere, perfect, and good and so was reputed, accepted, and taken in the realm till now of late that God of His infinite goodness, from whom no secret things can be hid, hath cause to be of certain, just, true, and lawful impediments, unknown at the making of the said acts, and sithen that time confessed by the said lady Anne before the most reverend father in God, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, metropolitan and primate of all England, sitting judicially for the same, by the which plainly appeareth that the said marriage between your grace and the said lady Anne was never good nor consonant to the laws, but utterly void and of none effect” (emphasis added, xli).
There there. That’s that. Bye, bye Anne. But, what was that--what Parliament or Cranmer said--all about?
Mr. Lewis, in this prologue to Mr. Sanders, tells us that “everyone,” including Henry’s ministers, “kept silent” about this alleged impediment.
A new angle, at least for us, is developed.
That is, Cardinal Wolsey’s end-game for—essentially—the Papacy. If not in Europe more widely, then at least in England. From Mr. Lewis' angle, we get a picture of a scheming Prelate. Hear! Hear, Sir Machiavelli! (One needs to constantly update the "scorecard" in these games.)
“The divorce of Henry VIII has always been regarded as the work of Cardinal Wolsey” (xlvii). The King’s Confessor, Mr. (bp.) Longland, may have--early on--broached the subject of the nullity of Henry’s relationship to Catherine. Shakespeare knew of this report. Shakespeare wrote of it in his Henry VIII. Aside from Mr. (bp.) Longland's name, Mr. Lewis throws additional names into the line-up backing the report that it was Wolsey’s gig and game: William Tyndale, William Roye (early Protestant), the Queen herself, and Emperor Charles V all pinned the issue on Wolsey, the ambitious Cardinal of York.
We interrupt again. It is interesting to see two early Protestants brought into the discussion: Tyndale and Roye. Also, that the Queen herself sees Wolsey's fingerprints all over this. But where is Mr. (Canterbury) Warham? In these early years, especially 1527, what does Mr. Cranmer know about the "King's great matter?" Of course, by 1529, the game changes for Mr. Cranmer.
In the 1520s, we hear much about Wolsey, but little of Canterbury. We insert this. Where was Mr. (Canterbury) Warham? A story needing exposition, we would add, but we return to Wolsey’s alleged shenanigans as reported by Mr. Lewis.
Wolsey, on Mr. Lewis’ view, was/did:
• The “tempter” to Henry.
• “…advised the King to put away his lawful wife…”
• Convened ex officio proceedings in May 1527, in his own house, to annul Henry’s marriage due to the “impediment.”
• (In the meanwhile, Charles V sacks Rome and Clement VII is bottled up in his Castile d’ San Angelo, about a 1000 yards east of St. Peter’s…a “cry of indignation” goes up about a “Catholic Emperor” over “the shepherd who was struck.”)
• On July 1527: “It is reported that the Cardinal of York has arrived at Calais, and was the meet the most Christian king at Amiens. The imperial councilors of Valladolid say in secret that the Cardinal intends to separate the Church of England and of France from that of Rome, making himself the head of it, saying that as the Pope is not at liberty, he is not to be obeyed in any way; and that even were the emperor to release him, he could not be considered free, unless all his fortresses and the whole of his territory, now in the emperor’s hands, were restored to him. I cannot affirm whether this is true or is reported with a view to alienate the Pope from the two kings” (Andrea Navagero, Venetian Ambassador in Spain. Brown, Rawdon. Venetian Calendar of State Papers, iv., 142). We insert here that Concilarism, Gallican independency, and the Papal split in Avignon Papacy were never afar off. Disrespect to Popes was not new. Even Charles V said that the Pope was experiencing the "just judgment of God" and that "lands and fiefdoms" were the source of Papal woes. Old Wolsey was eyeing, perhaps, bigger prizes of land, wealth and power. It is suggested by other biographers that Henry VIII tired of Wolsey's lust for power, but remained attached to the far-less scheming Cranmer.
• On July 3, 1527, Wolsey is at Calais signing three treaties with the French king (hold your sides on this one, this power-grab by old Wolsey). Here's the upshot:
“…no Bull or Brief of the Pope should be received in France and England during the Captivity of the Pope. That during said Captivity of the Pope, whatsoever by the Cardinal of York [Wolsey] assisted by the prelates of England assembled and called together by the authority of the said king, should be determined concerning the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, in the said kingdom of England and other countries, being in the dominion of the said Henry, should—the consent of the said king being first had—be decreed and observed” (liii).
• A letter on July 29, 1527 from Wolsey to Henry, to wit, that he [Wolsey] has “daily and hourly musings on the great and secret affair…that it may come to good effect and the desired end.” Just on this letter alone, Henry had "predetermined" or pre-decided things before 1527. Old Cranmer will get called into service in 1529 and will issue Canterbury's decree of nullity in 1533. Ergo, this issue is at least in the cooker for 7 years.
• Francis 1 of France followed Cardinal Wolsey in the matter, that is, no bull or Brief will have force in France while the Pope is in Captivity. There there, Mr. Pope.
• Wolsey asked/wrote the Pope asking if he [Wolsey] could be appointed the Vicar-General “so long as the Captivity lasted…”
• Mr. Lewis calls it “…an attempted usurpation of the Papal jurisdiction.”
• “Here certainly began the taste of our king took of governing in chief the clergy…first arguments and impressions were derived from the Cardinal” (liii).
• 4 other Cardinals join Wolsey in the plot according to a letter by Wolsey and the 4 Cardinals to the Pope. Date: September 16, 1527. Mr. Lewis summarizes it: “…the whole authority [of the Pope] was put into the keeping of him [Cardinal Wolsey]. Omnem potestatis et ordinarriae et extraordinariae plenitudinem. This is a bald and raw power-grab.
• The above letter also required that the Pope could “never undo any acts of the Cardinal as long as” he was a prisoner.
• According to Mr. Lewis, Wolsey had “contempt of justice,” “deep-rooted immorality,” “want of reverence for holy things,” and a “meanness of mind” (liv).
• Wolsey kept Henry in the loop that he was “deterring any appeal to Rome for his [Wolsey’s anticipated] sentence.” Henry had good reasons for success.
• Wolsey was “insolent to the Pope” and “contemptuous of the Cardinals, his brethren.”
Time for a shower.
