Talk:Thomas Wolsey

Length
This article seems to me far too long. I think a previous editor has introduced a lot of their research on Wolsey, which would make a good essay but is too partisan for an encylopedia. There is a lot here which relates to Wolsey only indirectly. I have edited the first third, but still feel this section isn't neutral enough. I will continue to edit this.Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is great to see you here. I just began an overhaul of this mess. I want to trim, add, and cite all the way to GA. Will join me? -- Secisek (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. You've done a great job on some of the other Tudor articles, there's no reason why this page can't get up to a good standard.Boleyn (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've continued tinkering with this. Some sections are referenced well, but others desperately need backing up. There are still judgmental statements in here, but they are in line with historical opinion. Nevertheless, without referencing I don't think they could be said to be neutral.Does anyone have books on Wolsey and can add references? Does anyone think it is neutral enough yet?Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your recent work has reduced this factor, but there's a distinct feeling I get when reading this that someone came along and edited it based on the TV show "The Tudors". Just a feeling I get. SamBC(talk) 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisions May 2008
I have all my books on Wolsey out today and am editing the article. I hope other users think it improves it, my main aim is to cite the sources for the information. Where the information that was there conflicts with my sources and isn't referenced, I've deleted it - if you have a source and think anything I've taken out is valuable to the article, please add it back in. There are some statements which I believe to be historically accurate, but I can't find a reference for in my sources. I've left these in, but it would be helpful if anyone thinks they can back the statements up to add in a citation. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've finished this article for the moment, and have taken the liberty of removing the request for further references - if you feel this needs to be put back in, then please do so. If there is anywhere else you think needs references, please flag this up and I will try to find them. Particularly with regards to his work on legal matters, I cannot back the information up, although it looks sound. I think it's now in a state where it can be easily edited.Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New rating!!!
So we've gone from start class to B class! That's great. The problem is trying to get it any higher. There are still a number of statements which I feel need a reference. If anyone has any books on Wolsey, please add some in. Otherwise large sections of writing that may be sound will have to be deleted. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Down to C - This was a very low end B at best. The new C is more realistic. -- Secisek (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Main legacy
"His main legacy is from his interest in architecture, in particular his old home of Hampton Court Palace, which stands today."

Errrr, really? If so, then the article should probably be reworked substantially, replacing English history with English architecture. At the very least, I would expect there to be a section, or even a few sentences somewhere, in which his architectural interests and legacy are mentioned.

Feel free to educate me. --GeePawHill (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is the first time I've read this article and that stuck out as a sore (and unreferenced) thumb - it's gone. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to be a bit more critical of the Church of the time. While its senior clergy found high political office in most of Europe, these clergy remained loyal to Rome rather than their respective countries. The Church failed to accept the rise of countries as independent political entities, and saw Rome as the controller of the Empire. The Church also levied its own taxes on the population and so they built such extravagances as Hampton Court. Governments eventually saw the church as a power and appropriation competitor. (The killing of Beckett was the first Church-State argument in England.) The article adopts the sentiment that Hampton was 'stolen' from the Church, but it was all theft from the populace anyway. Meanwhile, monks were advocating simple lives to the populace based on prayer and the rejection of materialism, while getting at their kids!220.240.251.56 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wolsey's Gate
Right now this is mentioned only in the external links section. It really deserves a treatment in the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved the annulment from 'downfall' to 'forein policy' - comments?
I moved the whole annulment business from 'downfall' to 'forein policy'. Do you think it's the right call? I'm not a 100% certain. On the one hand, the annulment process was a major international issue and it increasingly dominated Wolsey's own agenda; on the other hand, the downfall section now looks a bit patchy.

Bazuz (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of portrait
I changed the date of the portrait in the infobox to 1610, which is documented: I could add a reference if others think it's needed, but the date isn't controversial. Sampson was active in Oxford 1596-1610, died 1611, and this is one of his last works (he specialised in portraits of dead founders, like this one). And rew D alby 11:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Breach of celibacy laws"
I have removed two sentences reproaching to Wolsey the breach of celibacy laws of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Wolsey didn't breach anything, since he was a Lay Cardinal, like many others in the history of RCC. These cardinals were given secular duties: mangement of finances of the Papal Court, diplomacy, support of different kings of Europe in their state administration duties. So, when you see movies depicting Catholic cardinals sunk in debauchery, that's in most cases a pure manipulation. Mazarin07 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier in the article it says: "On 10 March 1498, he was ordained a priest in Marlborough, Wiltshire and remained in Oxford, first as the Master of Magdalen College School before quickly being appointed the dean of divinity." which suggests he would not be a lay cardinal.

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lay Cardinal article doesn't even support this claim. The name itself explains that one cannot be a priest and a "lay" cardinal.  The Lay Cardinal article says only those not in major orders--which would include the diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate--may be made Lay Cardinals.  If Wolsey was a priest, or even a deacon, he wasn't, by definition, a LAY cardinal.  And, in any event, it would be inappropriate to speak in terms of "dispensing" or "relieving" a lay cardinal from the celibacy requirement, since laymen are under no requirement of celibacy to begin with.  I think this whole section needs reworking.  If Wolsey was a cad, there's no use trying to squeeze him under some inapplicable rubric to make him seem less so.  The Catholic Church is under no guarantee that her members are impeccable.  38.104.61.22 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)jasoncpetty

I am removing the sentence "The edict that priests, regardless of their functions or the character of their work, should remain celibate had not been wholeheartedly accepted in England" as it is simply an opinion not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Naked to mine enemies"
Sounds like an editor was trying to be dramatic. It's a nice turn of phrase because the quote is actually from Shakespeare, Henry VIII, Act III, Scene ii. Oddly enough, if you follow the reference linking to d'Aubigné (page 515) it almost exactly quotes Cavendish, a first-hand witness: "if I had served God as diligently as I have done the king, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs." (d'Aubigné uses the word "served" again instead of "done".) We should switch to the Cavendish quote, but I wonder if we should also mention Shakespeare since that version is so well-known Ferguson even used it as the title of his book. (But his account inside the book properly quotes Cavendish.) Opusaug (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thomas Wolsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903192642/http://www.wolseyinipswich.co.uk:80/index.html to http://www.wolseyinipswich.co.uk/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Artistic Patronage
Is this sentence really in the right place, right after the story of Wolseys tomb?

"Henry often receives credit for artistic patronage that properly belongs to Wolsey."

And if so (which I doubt) which artists for example? Right now this sentence is a little bit of a lose end. 178.24.154.192 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Wolsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018114340/http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/visiting/history/coat-of-arms to http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/visiting/history/coat-of-arms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Abuses in the Church?
I have added a "clarify" tag to the sentence at the start of the Church reforms section. It says, "Although it would be difficult to find a better example of abuses in the Church than the Cardinal himself...", but at that point there has not been any instance given of Wolsey abusing his authority in church matters, nor is there any mention of abuses in the "Downfall and death" section. In fact, the article refers to "his intelligence, administrative ability, industriousness, ambition for power, and rapport with the King", none of which qualifies as abuse. Some concrete examples of abuse should be found, or the content should be removed. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:2494:B3C5:1B29:F896 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As of February 2020, this section has been retitled "Failures with the Church." I would like to suggest that we include the following points:

- What would have been acceptable behavior in continental Europe was not acceptable in England at the time.

- Laypeople did not appreciate the pluralism - that is, Wolsey holding so many clerical offices it was impossible for him to do all the jobs properly.

Thoughts welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFineClaret (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe since the behavior and pluralism issues were topics that were not specific to Wolsey perhaps brief mentions with links to articles about those topics would be better than whole detailed additions to the article. 3ez r4ay (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Domestic achievements -> Justice
"He also established the Court of Requests (although this court was only given this name later on)" He apparently didn't - he only settled it at Westminster. See Court of Requests -> "Under Thomas Wolsey the court became fixed in Westminster, hearing cases from poor people and from the servants of the king". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.59.5 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)