This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Thomas More is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universal Basic Income, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Universal Basic IncomeWikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeTemplate:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeUniversal Basic Income
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Text and/or other creative content from Thomas More was copied or moved into Beaufort House (Chelsea). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
I was surprised that Thomas More's theological work is described as "amateur" in the opening paragraph (".. social philosopher, author, statesman, amateur theologian, and noted Renaissance humanist"). This may be technically correct, but it is not clear why his theological work is singled out as if there is some significant distinction between the amateur and professional theologians of the 16th century. Could the sentence be improved by leaving out "amateur"? Mnjuckes (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that source has different content to the current article text and doesn't mention Psalm 51? That psalm is quite long, so not sure if we can assume he recited it in its entirely or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expect he said or chanted it all but not loud enough for the crowd to hear, as he as not allowed to address them. And 19 verses is not so long: they had phenomenal memorization then. It would be the Latin, which More was fluent in. Reciting 51 was often given as the penance after Confession by priests, and he would have been well familiar with it. More's Palter (Gallican) is now in the possession of Yale University. Psalm 51 (in the old numbering, 50) was one of Penitential Psalms in his Book of Hours, so he would have recited it often.
Thanks. I see that Gallican Psalter is explained at Latin Psalters. Yes, I expect he would have known large chunks of the Bible in Latin. So what about "Pick up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office; My neck is very short, take heed therefore thou strike not awry for having thine honesty."? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a famous thing he is reported to have said. If you think it is interesting, put it in the article with attribution: I don't think it is very enlightening myself, but have no strong opinion.
It was the convention for the condemned to forgive their executioner in advance, and to encourage them, even to tip them, to do a good job. Having a clean strike was important, as having to take several hacks was upsetting for all involved (including the executioner), could mutilate the head, and risked an awareness of pain by the condemned. The high risk of something going wrong with the manual axe stroke was what lead to Dr Guillotin's invention. (When the execution sentence was particularly gruesome and spectacular, executioners would sometimes try to make sure the person was at least unconscious as soon as possible, as their job was to execute not torture. Horrible.)
"Gallows humour" (like his comment on not needing help to come down) is a real thing: the most famous was Saint Laurence when being grilled, supposedly saying: "Turn me over, I am done on that side!"
On the issue of different accounts: that is to be expected: someone in the crowd will not hear what happens on the platform. And hagiographers and opponents (like Foxe) are prone to making things up, or to present paraphrases into quotations. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I imagine a great many of these "famous last words" have been invented. The source you suggested for "My neck is very short... " is a blog. I was wondering if there were any other, more convincing sources, for that quote. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roper is interesting because he perhaps allows a nuance about More's views that is often missed: More actually tolerated a partial Lutheran (Roper) living in his own home. (So much for the Wolf Hall fanatic...) As far as I can work out, More (and Erasmus') thing was that sedition and public heresy were evil, but that no-one should be blamed for having their own private doubts about religious things: in fact, that is one of the functions of friends as people you could express and work through your doubts and difficulties. (For example, Erasmus clearly never felt that transubstantiation made sense as as explanation of the real presence, which he certainly believed, and even made a joke about it to More after not returning a horse he had "borrowed" from his fiend.) More tried to rely on this private/public distinction in his silence about his opinion on the Royal Supremacy etc. of course.
I suspect you can see this same thing at work in More's raid of the German cloth merchants of the Steelyard district: Wolsey wanted it to be a coordinated lightening raid, but More left a full day between showing up with his posse and starting to search for banned books, giving plenty of time for merchants to rid themselves of incriminating material: it was the public performance of spreading heresy that should be criminal, not that the merchants were sympathetic to the Lutheran views 'per se' (which should be dealt with outside the criminal system.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't judge the sources because I don't read English history or histories of the Reformation. However, the Legacy section is written in this glowing, heroic air rather than a dispassionate list of achievements and boils down to other Catholics singing his praises. In fact, I wrote a Unitarian's feelings on More's canonisation that someone undid almost immediately. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the sections do read somewhat as hagiographies, but including lists of non-Catholics with an opposing point of view, as in your edit here, doesn't seem the way to go about fixing it—the point it's making wouldn't be obvious.
Just for interest: in response to your [Which university?] tag, AFAICS only University of Cambridge sent a delegate to Rome, and they actually publicly disowned him afterwards (according to the London Times), so the list of institutions that didn't go would be a long one. The tag requesting this isn't appropriate. AntientNestor (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
