WOLSEY, THOMAS. — English cardinal and statesman, born at Ipswich probably in 1472–73, died at Leicester Abbey on 29 November 1530.
He studied at Oxford until 1500; in 1507 he came to court. Shortly after his accession, Henry VIII chose him as almoner, listened to his advice, and gave him continual proofs of his favor, including the bishoprics of Tournai (in commendam) and Lincoln, and then the archbishopric of York (1514). After he had arranged the marriage of Henry’s sister Mary to Louis XII of France, these were followed by the cardinalate (title of S. Cecilia in Trastevere; 10 September 1515) and the office of lord chancellor (24 December 1515). Appointed papal legate together with Card. Campeggio (1518), he was confirmed several times, finally (1524) for life, with the broadest powers.
W.’s actions have been interpreted in various ways. He is said to have been responsible for the first conscious formulation of England’s traditional foreign policy, which sought to make England the decisive factor in maintaining the European balance by preventing the formation of a continental hegemony. This aim is said to have led W. to follow the very lines of papal policy, in order to uphold England’s prestige in the curia and prevent the influence of one of the great continental powers from prevailing there; hence his solicitation of support and votes in conclaves and his attempt to obtain the powers of general vicar of Clement VII, who was a prisoner after the sack of Rome (1527). But there is no doubt that he was also guided by enormous personal ambition, and perhaps by vague intentions of Catholic reform, as well as by the hope—which he kept alive in the King, perhaps in order to avert the catastrophe—of obtaining the annulment of the marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The failure of this illusion caused his disgrace (1529), although at first the King still gave him signs of favor; his efforts to regain power led to an accusation of high treason and his arrest. During the journey to London, death overtook him.
He seems to have regretted that he had not served God with the same diligence as the King; God, he thought, would not have abandoned him. English historians acknowledge his merits as an administrator. His concentration in his own hands of ecclesiastical jurisdiction together with civil jurisdiction, although it may have served to restrain the anticlerical tendencies that were already strong, constituted a dangerous example, as was seen immediately after his death.