Talk:Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire

Year of death

Did he die in 1538 or 1539? If the 1538 refers to the old system of starting the new year on 25th March, then we should get rid of it and just put 1539 as this is the modern convention and using the outdated convention is just unnecessarily confusing.--212.219.117.66 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

wrong photo

perhaps the photo of Thomas is actually of James Butler - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Butler,_9th_Earl_of_Ormond 24.233.127.160 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the photo of on the article for James Butler, 9th Earl of Ormond seems very convincing. Clearly, the same photo cannot be used for both people. Until the dispute is resolved, best to take it down for both people. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Collection lists the portrait as belonging to 1530-35 (http://www.elizabethan-portraits.com/Various_2.htm). Taking the maximum year (1535), this means that James Butler (b. 1496) would have been 39 years old while Thomas Boleyn (b. 1477) would have been 57 years old. By 1539 he was dead. Look at the portrait: does it really lok like a man about to die in 4 years time? Or is it more like a man of 39? You know the answer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

See "Holbein portrait drawings: 44 plates By Hans Holbein, Dover Publications, Inc" under Google Books. It lists the doubt about the sitter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitive proof. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/880241 "Holbein's Irish Sitter" by David Starkey. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Laurel, I'm curious what someone is supposed to look like four years before his or her death? Looking at photographs of the grinning John F. Kennedy minutes before his assassination in Elm Street, Dallas; did he look like someone who was just about to have the back of his head blown out?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the analogy stands up Jeanne. Are you suggesting that Thomas fell to the assassin's knife? In the absence of a grassy knoll incident, and bearing in mind the low expected life span of the late 16th century, I think it is entirely appropriate to say that a man, who by modern standards would be expected to have 20 years on top of his 57 years, would already be visibly in the grip of death. A portrait would show that. At 57, he was already a comparatively old man. Old men look old. Anyway, feel free to answer the original question: is the portrait closer to a man of 57 years than to a man of 39 years? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, bearing in mind the age difference between the two men, not to mention the comparison with the portraits of Thomas' daughter, Anne Boleyn, I think you are right and it was probably James Butler. There is also his ruddy beard, and his father was known as "Piers the Red". But my opinion doesn't count, it's the consensus of academics and historians that matters here at Wikipedia. Readers aren't interested in what you and I think, only what professionals decide. And also recall the Golden Rule here at Wikipedia: Verifiability comes before the Truth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest assessment Jeanne. I accept the Wiki Verifiability rule. For that reason, I invite you to read the article that I posted above. "Definitive proof. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/880241 "Holbein's Irish Sitter" by David Starkey.". This replaces "it has long been supposed" with serious academic rersearch. This article is itself sufficient verifiable proof I suggest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 2010-05-15

May I suggest a straw pole. Who believes that David Starkey has proven to a reasonable degree, that the portrait is not that of Thomas Boleyn? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Starkey is right. It is more reasonable that the man in the portrait was James Butler rather than Thomas Boleyn. There is the age difference; also would Holbein not have written Wiltshire instead of Ormond? I support the straw poll.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn

This pages claims that Mary Boleyn is proven to be the eldest daughter of Thomas Boleyn, but lacks any source for this information other than a reference to a website. I'm not sure if I buy it, since I know for a fact that the idea that Mary was the eldest daughter of Thomas Boleyn is hotly debated. The page claims that Mary's grandson Lord Hunsdon's petitioning to receive the Earldom of Ormonde by right of inheritance from his great-grandfather is proof of Mary being the eldest daughter as it would lend him superior rights of inheritance. However, it must be remembered that, according to Allison Weir, Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII was annulled right before her execution and her daughter was declared a bastard. Thus, because she was illegitimate in the eyes of the law, Elizabeth would have been considered ineligible to succeed to the Earldom of her grandfather anyway, no matter which one of Thomas Boleyn's daughters was the eldest. This, along with the fact that Elizabeth was female and thus probably less likely to be awarded the Earldom anyway, and also that her mother had been attainted by act of Parliament and thus she could not have inherited any of her claims even if she had been legitimate I think is enough proof that the article's statement about Mary being the elder daughter is unprovable. Also, if at the time the suite was made Elizabeth had acceded to the throne, then her rights would have already been merged with the Crown and she would have been able to recreate the title a new anyway, and that is only IF all of the above had not been true (which it is, and I cite Allison Weir's Six Wives as my source). Therefore, I propose that we remove at once the statement "The author of Threads' site and book proves that Mary was the elder sister. Mary's grandson Lord Hunsdon petitioned to receive the title Earl of Ormonde by her right; a title which would have been Elizabeth I's by right had Anne been the elder sister." Just thought I'd bring that to everyone's attention, since the debate about Mary or Anne being the elder daughter is one that has yet to be solved and is hotly debated (to the extent of my knowledge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.231.17 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The point about legitimacy would make sense - except for the fact that Elizabeth I would have been Queen at the time. Lord Hundson would have been a very foolish man if he had risked offending her by implying that she was illegitimate. If Mary was the eldest, he would have had a claim to the title through her. If Anne was the eldest, then a man with any sense would have known better than to try to lay claim to the title ahead of Elizabeth.

If Elizabeth had wanted to award herself the earldom, her being female wouldn't necessarily have been a barrier; she was already Queen, after all, and there had been precedents for women holding noble titles in their own right. Margaret Pole held the title of Countess of Salisbury in her own right, and Elizabeth's own mother had been created Marquess of Pembroke. 193.95.162.29 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)S.C.

Second creation

The brackets were removed around the two references in the lead line that referred to both of the Earldoms as being of the second creation. I agree that this simplification makes it more readable. But is this at the expense of the truth? does it not lead the reader into believing that he was the first and only such earl? I'm sure that that impression ought not to be created. The edit that removed them said that they could be mentioned elsewhere. The "Styles" section would seem appropriate, yet the editor did not insert the qualification there. Would such valuable information not be lost in the morass of data elsewhere? By omitting it entirely, would we not be commiting an injustice to the Butlers of Ormond? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Our first consideration has to be the readers of Wikipedia, then we have to consider verifiability and the Manual of Style; and only after those three things are taken care of, then perhaps we can consider the deceased Butlers of Ormond. Remember though, that this is an encyclopedia, not a Butler fan site. The part about the earldoms being of the second creation can be added to the succession boxes or styles section, but not in the leading sentence. I had already taken out a lot of round brackets from the article itself as it was beginning to resemble a bracket and dash farm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

=Titles bestowed

Some of this section needs to be rewritten to show a more NPOV. At the moment, Thomas Boleyn is depicted as a high-class pimp, when he was in fact, an able diplomat. The Tudors always chose ability over nobility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When you're the richest man in England, you don't have to worry about money. When you're the king, you don't have to worry about nobility. So to say that the Tudors were not motivated by nobility in their appointments, is not such a great commendation. They didn't have to be. They could concentrate on those who were use to their needs - or ability as you phrase it. Thet's not the same thing however for those whom they appointed. They may very well have been star-struck by titles of nobility. And in the case of the Boleyn family, this was certainly true. Did the Tudors care about such baubles - probably not. Did the Boleyns - definitely. So why not curry their favour by throwing them a few baubles if it flatters their vanity and you are in need of their services? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember the Tudors created a new nobility made up of landed gentry and the merchant class, such as the Boleyns, Brandons, Seymours, and Dudleys. These men astutely married the impoverished daughters of the old nobility whose men were killed or attainted after Bosworth. Lady Elizabeth Howard was one of these women. This gave the Johnny Come Latelys an entree into the aristocratic circles and they had plenty of money. Then there's the example of Thomas Wolsey, the butcher's son who rose to be the second most powerful man in England! The Tudors themselves were all too aware that their own claim to the throne was slim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For David Finnegan, (‘Butler, Piers , first earl of Ossory and eighth earl of Ormond (b. in or after 1467, d. 1539)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004), Boleyn is created 9th Earl in 1529. In fact, Piers Butler was de facto the 8th Earl since he was in possession of the Ormond lordship from years before the 7th earl death. Henry VIII granted those estates (with the English and Welch ones) to the seventh earl's daughters and heirs general, but with no effect, thanks to Butler's brother-in-Law, the 9th Earl of Kildare. In 1428, there was a compromise. Butler renounced to his claims to the title, was made Earl of Ossory, and received the irish estates for a 30 years lease. Then Finnegan writes : "Sir Thomas Boleyn, one of the heirs general, was elevated as ninth earl of Ormond on 8 December 1529 and retained the English estates."

The "Ninth Earl" statement is contradicted by Jonathan Hughes (‘Boleyn, Thomas, earl of Wiltshire and earl of Ormond (1476/7–1539)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2007) and David Edwards (‘Butler , James, ninth earl of Ormond and second earl of Ossory (b. in or after 1496, d. 1546)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2006). So as I understand it, it was a second creation while the first was in abeyance. Maybe the Complete Peerage would proove usefull in the matter.

I made changes in the article to follow those sources. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does! Boleyn's "right" via any form of descent s see to the earldom of Wiltshire has nothing to do with the 4th Earl of Ormonde, other than his role as the father of the 5th, who WAS created Earl of Wiltshire, but who was beheaded in 1461, when that creation became extinct. Horatio the Younger (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User ME EL posted the following on 05:28, 14 May 2019‎ (but at the head of this section rather than the end, so I have moved it to the proper place): "Thomas Boleyn could not have received the Honour of the Order of Bath as it wasn't created until 1725. All information relating to KB needs to be removed as it is incorrect information."

In answer, Knights of the Bath were created long before it was officially created as an order of chivalry by George I in 1725. This is actually explained in the article on the Order of the Bath; in fact, there is a whole section in that article about the Knights of the Bath pre-1725. Since this article states Thomas Boleyn was created a Knight of the Bath (and not that he received the Order of the Bath, the article is quite correct. History Lunatic (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic

Protestant?

According to Joanna Denny, Thomas is Evangelist(i.e. Protestant). And maybe he smuggle English Bible to England. Because of his influence, his children Anne and Gorge become devout Protestant.--K84 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither Thomas nor any of his children were evangelists. Before Henry VIII established the Anglican Church, the only Protestants were Lutherans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I chose wrong word. Start again. Reading Bible in English is dose not count?--K84 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe he swore the anti-Catholic oath. Someone should check that fact. Also, the article needs a copyedit. "He" is used at the beginning of one paragraph to refer to Thomas, and one sentence later, to George - very confusing.69.108.25.101 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Swearing the Act of Supremacy did not render him an Evangelist, nor indicate that he was a "devout Protestant". Evangelism is completely different from both Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Only fools seeking to lose their heads opposed Henry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Portrait Identification

Just thought people should know that this is identified as James Butler, 9th Earl of Ormonde and that the source being used (David Starkey) comes to the conclusion that it is most likely Butler. The official identification was made by the Royal Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II -- which can be seen here -- James Butler, later 9th Earl of Ormond and 2nd earl of Ossory

Description from the Royal Collection: "A portrait drawing of James Bulter (c.1496-1546), who became the 9th Earl of Ormond and the 2nd Earl of Ossory after this drawing was made. A half length portrait facing three-quarters to the right. He is shown wearing a red cap and slashed gown. Inscribed in an eighteenth-century hand at upper centre: Ormond. This drawing was previously identified as Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire, the father of Anne Boleyn." There is no portrait of Thomas Boleyn and most people use his brass from the church where he is buried as a "portrait" or "photo."

I agree that this portrait of James Butler should be replaced with the brass effigy.--Jeanne Boleyn

(talk) 07:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, 3 years on and the picture is still here with the caption reading

"The image is disputed; while it is traditionally held to be a likeness of Thomas Boleyn, historian David Starkey believes it is actually that of his cousin, James Butler, 9th Earl of Ormond. This has since been confirmed."

So right now the caption says this is disputed but confirmed? A bit confusing! History Lunatic (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

Progeny

The children listed in the summary box are:

    -Mary
    - Anne
    - George
    - Rochford

The body of the article lists the children as:

    -Mary
    -Thomas
    -Anne
    -Henry
    -George

Can someone figure out the truth please. -Michigan User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.105.176 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why damned Sir William Boleyn

Why is it "damned" Sir William Boleyn? Is this a nickname for him, because it not mentioned in the article on him. Or is it simply vandalism? Chrisweber21 (talk)

“Lady”

I took out the title of “Lady” for Elizabeth Howard and Margaret Butler. In Tudor times, “Lady Elizabeth Howard” would have been the title of the wife of Thomas Howard, Knt., after he was knighted. She was born Elizabeth Tilney. As for “Lady Margaret Butler” that would have been used for a woman who married a knight with the surname Butler. Lady Meg (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)