Henry VIII's most notorious minister? (Rating 4 of 5)
» Rachel
Thomas Cromwell is a fascinating, though often seriously scary, figure, who generally appears as a bit player in studies of Henry VIII and/or his Queens; therefore I was ridiculously excited to find a study focusing on his life. Robert Hutchinson's biography of, as the subtitle puts it, "Henry VIII's most notorious minister" does not really break much new ground historically, but is written in an entertaining, accessible style and generally quite well researched.
Much of this study focuses on Cromwell's role in the dissolution of the monasteries during the mid-1530s. These sections are fascinating and detailed: my primary interest being in Anne Boleyn's years as Queen, I didn't know as much about the process of the dissolution as I probably should.
His early life and rise to power is dealt with in relatively short compass, but Hutchinson conveys his subject's ruthlessness, ambition, intelligence and ability to manipulate people and events for his own benefit well.
Rather disappointingly, the coup that brought down Anne Boleyn - arguably Cromwell's most audacious, if not most significant, political "achievement" - is dealt with in a comparatively cursory way. The events of April-May 1536 cover a mere handful of pages, which surprised me: this was an unprecedented strike against a reigning Queen Consort, who herself wielded more political power than most, if not all, previous Queens of England. It would have been more satisfying if Hutchinson had explored Cromwell's and Anne Boleyn's relationship - which went from one of allies to bitter enmity - in more detail, and engaged in greater analysis of Cromwell's orchestration of her fall, and perhaps, why Henry VIII allowed it to happen. The common assumption that he had just tired of her and was looking for a replacement is too superficial an analysis.
I found some of Hutchinson's conclusions a bit simplistic, and there are some lapses into clichι and hyperbole, not to mention the odd bit of disconcerting purple prose: for example, Cromwell's legislation "transformed [England] into a totalitarian, Stalinist state"? Good grief. Also, there was far more to Anne Boleyn than her exercising "sensual feminine power over a doting Henry" (this is a biography, not a Mills and Boon or Harlequin novel!) and the (unreferenced) comment that she "mercilessly taunted Henry over his prospects of ever marrying her" was a bit much.
Further, I was irritated by the following description of Mark Smeaton, the musician from whom Cromwell forced, or at least induced, a bogus confession: "a groom of the chamber and a musician and dancer who was probably a covert homosexual." There is absolutely no evidence for the latter portion of this statement, which also is unreferenced, and I was at a loss to see what this man's sexual preference had to do with the fact of his arrest, coerced confession and execution. Hutchinson is not the first historian to make such a throwaway comment with respect to Smeaton, and I suspect that he will not be the last: Retha Warnicke propounded a theory that the five men accused with Anne Boleyn may have been part of some "homosexual circle" and therefore more vulnerable, and while most other historians (eg. Ives, Starkey, Weir, among others) do not accept this, it nonetheless still resurfaces every now and then - for instance, a similar off the cuff, unreferenced suggestion appears in Derek Wilson's "In the Lion's Court" YAWN. Frankly, I could not care less about what the sexual preferences of Anne Boleyn's co-accused might have been; my objection is to a historian stating this as fact, or probable fact, on the basis of no evidence, and failing to establish the relevance of (usually) Smeaton's purported sexual preference to the events being examined. Please, biographers - give it a rest. Write fiction about it by all means - I admit upfront I'd almost certainly read it! - but I don't think unsupported, irrelevant asides like that belong in a scholarly work.
Overall, however, this was an interesting and readable study, though I would have liked to have seen more detail in certain areas as noted above, and a little less superficiality in some of the conclusions reached. I would recommend it more to those who already have an interest in and some knowledge of the major events and personalities of the era. Unfortunately the five-star system is a bit of a blunt instrument: it's not quite a 4-star book, but falls somewhere between that and 3.5. Not the definitive biography, but worth a read
(Rating 4 of 5)
