Transcription
It was an execution that was supposedly particularly grizzly, even by Tudor standards, and which was made all the more notable because it was carried out on a man who, until a few weeks prior, had been one of Henry VII's most trusted advisers. This is the story of the final weeks, days, and hours of Thomas Cromwell, including the desperate letter he wrote to the King from his prison in the Tower of London, the apparently gruesome fate he met on the 28th of July, 1540, how much truth there is in the story that the execution was botched, and what was done with his mangled remains.
[Music]
Afterwards, Thomas Cromwell was born in around 1485 in Putney, London, to a blacksmith named Walter Cromwell and his wife, whose name is unknown. Very little is recorded about his youth, but he traveled on mainland Europe, probably working as a soldier during his teens and/or early 20s, and later as a cloth merchant in the Netherlands. He was back in England in the later 1510s, however, where he married and had one surviving son named Gregory before his wife's death in 1527. He did several jobs, including working in the cloth trade and as a lawyer, and he became an MP in 1523.
Soon, he came to the attention of one of King Henry VII's main ministers, Thomas Wolsey, for whom he began working in 1524. And by the time of Wolsey's fall from grace in 1529, Cromwell was one of his principal legal and financial advisers and assistants. He managed to avoid being dragged down with his former master and mentor and instead continued to rise up the ranks at Henry's court, acquiring offices such as, to name but a few, Master of the Jewels in April 1532, Chancellor of the Exchequer in April 1533, and Vicegerent in 1535.
Along the way, he gained a reputation for ruthless efficiency and avarice. By the mid to late 1530s, he was at the pinnacle of his power. He had helped to get Henry out of his first marriage to Katherine of Aragon, helped to legitimize the second to Anne Boleyn in 1533, and become the King's Principal Secretary and Chief Minister in 1534. He had also assisted in England's split from Rome, the dissolution of the realm's monasteries, and the transfer of much of their wealth to the King.
In his efforts to make sure that all of Henry's subjects accepted the Boleyn marriage and the Act of Succession of 1534, he crushed resistance to the new religious policies, in part by being instrumental in the gruesome execution of the mystic Elizabeth Barton and some of her followers. Two years later, he would turn on Queen Anne as well. After they fell out over the way in which the funds from the monasteries were being used, Anne wanted them to go to charity and had had her almoner denounce Cromwell from the pulpit. Probably to save himself, he contributed to her arrest, fall, and execution in May 1536. Then, he appointed his own man to some of the positions in the Royal household left vacant by the executions of Anne's co-accused. In July that year, he obtained the office of Lord Privy Seal once Anne's father had surrendered it, and days later, he was created Baron Cromwell.
In my opinion, he was therefore not the relatively benign presence he is often presented as in the book series *Wolf Hall* and the TV adaptation of the same, but rather an excellent strategist who enjoyed acquiring a great deal of power and money, and who could be very dangerous to those who got in his way. Of course, his lowly background, steep rise, and association with unpopular policies, especially the religious reform and destruction of the monasteries, had made him despised by many at court and beyond. But as long as he had the King's favor, he was secure.
This favor started to cool, though, as Henry began to rethink some of his more extreme religious reforms. The King actually remained a Catholic at heart; he just didn't want to have to answer to the Pope. But Cromwell was still safe enough until the debacle of the monarch's fourth marriage fully undermined Henry's confidence in him. This would prove to be the ultimate nail in Thomas's coffin, though actually, he probably didn't have a coffin, but we'll get to that later.
Before we discuss his fall, though, I wanted to let you know that my book, *Find Your Irish Ancestors Online*, is now available for pre-order as an ebook on Amazon, and there's a link in the description box. It's a directory of hundreds of websites which provide certificates, transcripts, photographs, and other information that can help you build out your Irish family tree, learn your family stories, so that your ancestors feel like three-dimensional people, and feel better connected to your past. The websites are graded on a simple star system to tell you which ones are the best, and the book will also share with you which ones are free, and a huge number are, plus provide tips on how best to use them. It covers all the major genealogical topics like births, marriages, and deaths, burials and headstones, census returns, wills, immigration records, and military history. You can also download a free guide to help you interview your relations about your family tree by signing up to my mailing list on my website, historycallingofficial.com.
Henry's third wife, Jane Seymour, who he had married soon after Anne Boleyn's execution in 1536, had died after giving birth to their son, Prince Edward, in October 1537. A hunt was then launched for a new Queen of England to replace her. If you see my video on Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan and Lorraine, you can hear all about one of the ladies upon whom Henry's eye fell, but who managed to dodge marrying him. I'll leave it linked on screen and below for you. Ultimately, it was Anne of Cleves whom Henry decided to wed, having seen this portrait of her by Hans Holbein the Younger. Again, I have a video on this which I'll leave linked for you.
Cromwell was a strong supporter of the marriage, but when Henry met Anne in person for the first time in January 1540, he took an instant dislike to her. He tried and failed to get out of the union, never consummated it, and soon began an affair with one of Anne's ladies, Catherine Howard. Within months, he was looking for a way to get out of the Cleves marriage in order to wed this teenage girl, and Cromwell was taking the blame for the disastrous alliance with Anne.
Smelling blood in the water, his political opponents now began to move against him. Some of those evangelicals Cromwell had patronized were accused of heresy in April, and by the 10th of that month, the French Ambassador, Charles de Marillac, wrote that Cromwell was tottering. Yet, Henry hadn't abandoned him yet, and on the 18th of April, Baron Cromwell became the Earl of Essex and the Lord Great Chamberlain. He tried to fend off some of his opponents too, and even the King's illegitimate half-uncle, Lord Lyle, was arrested and sent to the Tower for supposed treason.
On the 1st of June, de Marillac wrote that things are brought to such a pass that either Cromwell's party or that of the Bishop of Winchester must succumb. No prizes for guessing which party it was that fell. On the afternoon of the 10th of June, the new Earl of Essex arrived to a meeting of the Privy Council, only to find himself under arrest on charges of treason and heresy.
We have a contemporary account of what happened from de Marillac. As French Ambassador, he wouldn't have actually been present, so this isn't a firsthand statement, but his letter is dated the 23rd of June, and we can assume that he used his excellent court contacts to find out the details in the intervening 13 days. He wrote: "As soon as the Captain of the Guard declared his charge to make him prisoner, Cromwell, in a rage, cast his bonnet on the ground, saying to the Duke of Norfolk and others of the Privy Council assembled there that this was the reward of his services, and that he appealed to their consciences as to whether he was a traitor. But since he was treated thus, he renounced all pardon, as he had never thought to have offended, and only asked the King not to make him languish long. Thereupon, some said he was a traitor; others that he should be judged according to the laws he had made, which were so sanguinary that often words spoken inadvertently with good intention had been constituted high treason. The Duke of Norfolk, having reproached him with some villainies done by him, snatched off the Order of St. George which he bore on his neck, and the Admiral, to show himself as great an enemy in adversity as he had been thought a friend in prosperity, untied the garter. Then, by a door which opens upon the water, he was put in a boat and taken to the Tower."
Without the people of this time suspecting it, until they saw all the King's archers under Mr. Cheney at the door of the prisoner's house, where they made an inventory of his goods, which were not of such value as people thought, although too much for a commoner to tell. His stuff, this basically means someone of his background, the money was 7,000 sterling, equal to 28,000 crowns, and the silver plate, including crosses, chalices, and other spoils of the church, might be as much more. These movables were before night taken to the King's treasury, a sign that they will not be restored.
De Marillac was correct. Cromwell's house and goods were not going to be restored to him, and the viciousness of his arrest, with his Order of the Garter being practically ripped off him, shows the hatred he had engendered in some of his colleagues. Their comments about the laws he had passed, which they hoped would now be used against him, and the fact that his wealth was thought to be too much for someone of his background, highlight just some of their grievances with him.
News of the arrest rippled through the court extremely fast. It was announced to a stunned and silent House of Lords later that afternoon. Bear in mind, Cromwell was only arrested a little after 3:00 p.m., and although the letter I just read out was dated the 23rd of June, it was not the first that de Marillac had sent on the subject. He was actually writing about the incident within 60 minutes of it happening, telling King Francis I that he had just heard that "Thomas Cromwell, Keeper of the Privy Seal and Vicar-General of the Spirituality, who since the Cardinal's death [meaning Wolsey] had the principal management of the affairs of this kingdom, and had been newly made Grand Chamberlain, was an hour ago led prisoner to the Tower, and all his goods attached. Although this might be thought a private matter and of little importance, inasmuch as they have only reduced thus a personage to the state from which they raised him, and treated him as hitherto everyone said he deserved, yet considering that public affairs thereby entirely changed their course, especially as regards the innovations in religion, of which Cromwell was principal author, the news seems of such importance that it ought to be written forthwith."
There was more. Just as de Marillac finished this letter, a messenger came from King Henry, who told him that Marillac should not be astonished because Cromwell was sent to the Tower, and that as the common ignorant people spoke of it variously, he, the King, wished Marillac to know the truth. The substance was that the King, wishing by all possible means to lead back religion to the way of truth, Cromwell, as attached to the German Lutheran, had always favored the doctors who preached such erroneous opinions and hindered those who preached the contrary. And that recently, warned by some of his principal servants to reflect that he was working against the intention of the King and of the Acts of Parliament, he had betrayed himself and said he hoped to suppress the old preachers and have only the new, adding that the affair would soon be brought to such a pass that the King, with all his power, could not prevent it, but rather his own party would be so strong that he would make the King descend to the new doctrines, even if he had to take arms against him. These plots were told the King by those who heard them and who esteemed their loyalty more than the favor of their master. The King also sent word that when he spoke with Marillac, he would tell things which would show how great was the guilt of the said Cromwell.
So, Henry was officially blaming Cromwell's religious policies for the arrest of his former favorite, with no mention made of the Cleves marriage. Three days later, the reply came from France, in which Francis I expressed his "pleasure at news which has been to me not only agreeable, but such as for the perfect amity I have always borne towards my good brother, I have thanked God for." De Marillac was to tell Henry that he has an occasion to thank God for having let him know the faults and malversations of such an unhappy person as Cromwell, who alone has been the cause of all the suspicions conceived against not only his friends, but his best servants. He shall know how much the getting rid of this wicked and unhappy instrument will tranquilize his kingdom to the common welfare of church, nobles, and people.
A slightly later chronicle, written by Edward Hall, confirms the widespread unpopularity of Cromwell and the degree to which he was associated with the hated religious reforms. Hall was living in London at the time, and his chronicle was published posthumously just 8 years later. He died in 1547, having been finished by the publisher, Richard Grafton. The section relating to Cromwell's downfall and death must have been written up by Grafton, as he says that Hall did not write up anything for events after 1532 before dying, but he had Hall's notes to work from, plus his own knowledge of recent historical events. The chronicle tells us that when the arrest came, "many lamented, but more rejoiced, and especially such as either had been religious men or favored religious persons, for they banqueted and triumphed together that night, many wishing that that day had been seven years before, and some fearing lest he should escape, although he were imprisoned, could not be merry."
Not everyone hated him, though. For Hall continues that "other who knew nothing but truth by him both lamented him and hardly prayed for him. But this is true that of certain of the clergy he was detestably hated, and especially of such as had borne swing." I haven't come across this phrase before, but Wikipedia, which I'm always loath to use as a source, says it means "beaten hard," and "his by his means was put from it." For indeed, he was a man that in all his doings seemed not to favor any kind of popery, nor could not abide the snuffing pride of some priests, which undoubtedly, whatsoever else was the cause of his death, did shorten his life.
Cromwell was now a prisoner in the Tower of London, and whilst there, he was interrogated about what he knew of the King's fourth marriage, in order to gather up evidence to help Henry have it annulled. He was allowed to write to Henry, telling him on the 12th of June that: "Where I have been accused of treason, I never in all my life thought to displease your majesty, much less to do or say that thing which of itself is so high and abominable offense. Your grace knows my accusers, God forgive them. If it were in my power to make you live forever, God knows I would, or to make you so rich that you should enrich all men, or so powerful that all the world should obey you, for your majesty has been most bountiful to me, and more like a father than a master. I ask you mercy where I have offended."
Henry was also angry that Cromwell had apparently revealed a matter of great secrecy, which was likely the King's inability to consummate his latest marriage, though Cromwell denied having told anyone this. He went on to say that: "I have committed my soul to God, my body and goods to your pleasure."
By the 23rd of June, the French Ambassador believed that "in a week at latest the said prisoner is expected to be executed and treated as he deserves," and he was listing those who had succeeded to Cromwell's offices. Things didn't move quite that fast, but the man himself knew how dire his situation was too, and three weeks into his imprisonment, he again wrote to the monarch in a letter which has become famous for its closing lines. Having spent most of this long document discussing the marriage to Anne, he finished by writing that: "I am beseeching most humbly your grace to pardon this my rude writing, and to consider that I am a most woeful prisoner, ready to take the death when it shall please God and your majesty. Yet the flesh incites me continually to call to your grace for mercy and pardon for my offenses, and in this Christ seeth. Preserve and keep you. Written in the Tower this wedding day, the last of June, with the heavy heart and trembling hand of your highness' most heavy and most most miserable prisoner and poor. Leave most gracious prince, I cry for mercy, mercy, mercy. Thomas Cromwell."
There would be no mercy. De Marillac told Francis I on the 6th of July that "Cromwell's execution will take place immediately after Parliament closes, and his end will be the most ignominious in use in this country." There was no trial. Instead, having been accused of treason, heresy, corruption, and even of planning to marry the King's eldest daughter, Princess Mary, Cromwell was quickly found guilty and sentenced to death by Parliament.
On the 28th of July, the sentence was carried out on Tower Hill, outside the walls of the Tower of London. Hall's Chronicle tells us that having been led out to the scaffold, Cromwell made this speech: "I am come hither to die, and not to purge myself, as may happen some think that I will, for if I should so do, I were a very wretched and miserable man. I am by the law condemned to die, and thank my Lord God that hath appointed me this death for mine offense, for since the time that I have had years of discretion, I have lived as a sinner and offended my Lord God, for the which I ask him hearty forgiveness. And it is not unknown to many of you that I have been a great traveler in this world, and being but of a mean degree was called to high estate, and since the time I came thereunto I have offended my prince, for the which I ask him hearty forgiveness, and beseech you all to pray to God with me that he will forgive me. Oh Father, forgive me! Oh Son, forgive me! Oh Holy Ghost, forgive me! Oh three persons in one God, forgive me!"
So far, so good. This speech is very normal, given the expectations of the time, and if you watch my video on the death of Anne Boleyn, you'll notice some of the same sentiments in her final words. The next part, though, given Cromwell's enthusiastic involvement in the church reforms in England during the preceding decade, seems rather unexpected, for he said: "And I pray you that be here to bear me record, I die in the Catholic faith, not doubting in any article of my faith, no, nor doubting in any sacrament of the church. Many hath slandered me and reported that I have been a bearer of such as hath maintained evil opinions, which is untrue. But I confess that like as God by his holy spirit doth instruct us in the truth, so the devil is ready to seduce us, and I have been seduced. But bear me witness that I die in the Catholic faith of the holy church. And I heartily desire you to pray for the King's Grace, that he may long live with you in health and prosperity, and after him, that his son Prince Edward, that goodly imp, may long reign over you. And once again, I desire you to pray for me, that so long as life remaineth in this flesh I waver nothing in my faith."
There are a couple of ways to interpret this. The first is that Cromwell ended his life as he would have begun it, as a Roman Catholic. In this scenario, in the moments before his death, he made a complete volte-face from the religious policies he had been espousing for years and condemning other people to death for objecting to. This interpretation would seem to be supported by the fact that he made a point of saying he did not support those with evil opinions, which could be an oblique reference to the burgeoning Protestant faith. On the other hand, he might have used the word "Catholic" to mean the worldwide Christian Church. This meaning of the word is still used today, for example, in the Apostles' Creed, which Protestants will say. There is a line which reads: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church." It doesn't mean that the reciters are saying they are Roman Catholics. A lot of people just don't realize that the word has multiple meanings. And we should note that Cromwell did not actually mention any allegiance to the Pope, so it may well be that he was using the word Catholic in its broader sense.
Whatever he meant, this was to be his final speech, and Hall tells us what happened next. Having made his last prayers, which were relatively long and involved committing his soul to God, Cromwell placed his head on the block. The hope in such cases was always for a quick end with one swing of the axe, but unfortunately, it didn't always happen that way. And according to Hall, Cromwell may have suffered a terrible death. He tells us that "the one time Lord Essex patiently suffered the stroke of the axe by a ragged and butcherly miser, which very ungoodly performed the office."
At first glance, this would seem to suggest that the execution was on a par with that of Mary Queen of Scots, who would later suffer multiple blows of the axe as her inept executioner tried to do away with her. But did Cromwell really suffer like this? Let's drill down into Hall's comments a bit more. He mentions only one stroke of the axe, and his dissatisfaction with the "ragged and butcherly miser" may be down to snobbery at the man's appearance and day job. Perhaps he was literally a butcher by trade, or at a push, it could be that the single stroke didn't hit the desired mark, perhaps it went into Cromwell's lower head instead of his neck. As for his use of the word "ungoodly" to describe the death, I read a very good blog entry by John Schofield on the website The History Press. I'll leave a link below for you, in which he notes that "in Hall's time, ungoodly did not mean ineptly or inefficiently, but beastly, shamefully, badly, in a moral sense." So Hall may not have been trying to insinuate that the execution was performed particularly badly, only that it was not justified.
The idea that the execution was performed badly becomes even more suspect if we look at the other contemporary sources, for none say that there was anything remarkable about it. De Marillac wrote only that "Mr. Thomas Cromwell, hereto for condemned by Parliament, this morning was beheaded in the usual place for such executions. Grace was made to him upon the method of his death, for his condemnation was to a more painful and ignominious penalty." There is no mention of anything out of the ordinary, and in fact, de Marillac specifically says that Cromwell was given a kinder execution than he might otherwise have suffered, meaning he wasn't hung, drawn, and quartered or burnt to death, suggesting that had there been anything odd about his dispatch, the ambassador would have reported it.
Next, we have the contemporary herald, Charles Wriothesley, who was a member of Henry's court and very well placed to know what had happened. He wrote that: "This year, the 28th day of July, Sir Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, was beheaded at the Tower Hill, and Walter Lord Hungerford was beheaded with him. Their heads set on London Bridge, and their bodies were buried within the Tower of London." Again, there is no mention of anything unusually grotesque about the deaths, and the account of Cromwell's head being put on a spike on London Bridge indicates that it must have been in a tolerably good condition. Incidentally, though Wriothesley doesn't specify where in the Tower the body was buried, it was almost certainly in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula, within which is a plaque commemorating those buried there that bears Cromwell's name, though I will say that this plaque is not a perfect source, as Jane Boleyn, by Courtenay's Rocheford, is not listed on it, though it is generally accepted that this is where she was buried after she was executed alongside Queen Catherine Howard less than 18 months later.
Back to the manner of the Earl of Essex's death, though. Other 16th-century sources are as silent as Wriothesley on the matter of the supposedly botched execution. A man named Richard Hill, who the Oxford DNB describes as a religious activist and who had had contact with Cromwell in the past when seeking Cromwell's support for his religious views after they got Hills into trouble with his employer, wrote a letter shortly after the execution in which he said only that "Cromwell was beheaded." Given how recently the events he was describing had occurred, and the fact that his letter is dated from London, he was in an excellent position to know if the execution had been botched, but he said nothing about it, though he did note rumors that Cromwell had been threatened with burning. So I think had the actual execution seemed unusually cruel, he would have noted that fact.
The Venetian Ambassador, meanwhile, who was called Francesco Contarini, was arguably even better placed to get good information and wrote on the 10th of August, 1540, that "the most serene King of England has caused Cromwell to be beheaded. He moreover made a better end than the evil of which he had been in great part the cause deserved." Here is a Catholic ambassador who was no fan of Cromwell's, was quite happy that the man was dead, and who would surely have delighted in describing any problems with the execution, making no mention of any such issues and actually saying that Cromwell had made a better end than he deserved.
It is only decades later that we even start to see a hint that something had gone wrong. The author John Stow mentions there being multiple blows of the axe in his *Annals of England*, first published in 1600. However, he basically plagiarized the work of Edward Hall in that section, and it seems entirely possible that this is just a typo where the word "strokes" has been written instead of the word "stroke." Speaking of plagiarism, by the way, in the course of researching this video, I came across a pretty shocking case of apparent plagiarism by a very well-known modern historian who's written on Cromwell and seems to have lifted quite a few bits of text from the Oxford DNB and dropped them into their book with no quote marks or references. I'll be discussing the case on my Patreon site this week with my historical figure and time traveler patrons and providing excerpts out of the two sources so that they can see where the copying has apparently happened. So if you'd like to learn more about that, do consider joining up. The link is in the description box below, and if you're watching this video long after it goes live, don't worry, as long as my Patreon account is still active, you should still be able to join and look up that little podcast.
In 1695, an anonymous author calling themselves R.B. published a book about the ill-fated court favorites of English history, in which Cromwell was given a chapter. R.B. said that after making his final prayers (which R.B. quotes at length, though he or she offers no source), "the condemned man quietly laid down his head on the block, which was cut off at three or four strokes by the hand of an unskillful and butly executioner." This account was written 155 years after Cromwell's death, however, and just like the final prayers, the author gives no source for their information. Though I can tell you that a little earlier in their account, R.B. had clearly plagiarized Hall's work when giving Cromwell's final speech. This additional information about the execution may therefore be nothing more than artistic license, an embellishment of Hall and Stow's comments to make for a better story, because unfortunately, people like gruesome details. I certainly don't see any reason to take such a late source at face value. It's not like R.B. was a witness to the execution or able to speak to witnesses in the way that contemporary ambassadors and chroniclers were.
Once an anecdote like this gets going, though, it often takes on a life of its own, even when supported by only the slanderous of evidence. See my video about the fake story of Catherine Howard haunting Hampton Court Palace for a good example of this phenomenon. That widely repeated tale, which is understandably used by the palace as a means of attracting more tourists, was actually invented over 300 years after the fact by a Victorian. And it is in the Victorian period that we also find the story of Cromwell's appalling death really gaining traction too. In a largely unreferenced and error-riddled book by the churchman and writer Arthur Garton (again, thank you to the Schofield blog for bringing this source to my attention), we find a ludicrous account of Cromwell's head and neck being hacked at for nearly half an hour by two executioners. It's plainly ridiculous, and although Garton claimed he was providing a quote from a primary source, he didn't offer any reference, and no such source has ever been seen and quoted by anyone else. Even the most useless executioner wouldn't need that long to get the job done, and there's no reason to believe Garton. No other source even mentions a second executioner. And while it may be feasible that more than one blow was needed, or that the one and only blow missed the mark a little, something being feasible doesn't mean it happened. No contemporary actually said that either of those things occurred, and from what they did say, it doesn't seem to have been a protracted death. Plus, as I've already noted, the head was in good enough condition to be put on a spike.
Unfortunately, though, the TV show *The Tudors* went to town with this fantasy story, showing a beefeater having to step in to finish the job after the incompetent executioner messes up in front of a horrified crowd, and so it has gained more credence in recent years, as people so often just swallow whatever a TV show or film feeds them. At the time of recording this, I've yet to see what the series *Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light* does with this scene, but fingers crossed it's more realistic, although Hilary Mantel's book, upon which it is based, does say that the executioner was drunk, which I haven't seen any evidence for.
So, to sum up, I personally believe that Cromwell was executed by a single blow from an axe that more likely than not killed him instantly and left his head in good enough condition for display. I don't find the stories of a horribly botched execution to be persuasive, and they don't come from contemporary accounts.
As for how Henry VIII reacted to the demise of his once favorite servant, on the day that Cromwell was killed, this ever unsentimental, unremorseful King married his fifth wife, Catherine Howard, at Oatlands Palace in Surrey, only to have her judicially murdered in February 1542. Long before that, though, he had expressed regret, or at least what passed for regret in his mind, at the death of the Earl of Essex. In fact, by March 1541, this fickle, cruel, immature brat was heard to say that "under pretext of some slight offenses which he had committed, they [meaning some other advisers, because dear forbid Henry take responsibility for his own actions like a big boy] had brought several accusations against him [Cromwell], on the strength of which he had put to death the most faithful servant he ever had." So all that misery, suffering, and death, and Henry couldn't even stand by the decision to kill Cromwell less than 8 months later.
I hope you've enjoyed this video. Please remember to give it a like and subscribe to the channel with the notification bell switched on so that you never miss one of my uploads. You can also become one of my YouTube members and get perks like badges next to your name in comments and members-only community posts by clicking the join button under videos and following the on-screen instructions. Let me know below if you think Cromwell's execution was botched and why. And if you'd like to learn more about famous Tudor era executions, try one of these videos next. Whatever you choose, please enjoy, and until next time, keep learning.