A hero fell this week. I had an idealized view of Queen Elizabeth as a woman, a survivor, a creative genius who reinvented herself as necessary.
Our ancestor Henry Wyatt served Henry VII and Henry VIII; his son Sir Thomas Wyatt the Poet served Henry VIII as ambassador, and in fact died prematurely while zealously conducting the king’s business. And his warrior son, Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger, served Edward VI (Henry’s short-lived male heir) and sought to prevent his older sister Queen Mary from marrying Felipe of Spain. (These three men and their times within the Tudor era are the focus of my book; I may stop with Sir Thomas Wyatt the Poet as I find the circumstances of his son’s life unsettling.)
The actions of Henry’s grandson against Queen Mary cost the family dearly. Elizabeth could have … should have … made it right, because his ultimate sacrifice was on her behalf.
Last night I was “visiting” with Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger via “The Works of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey and of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder” edited by Geo. Fred. Nott in 1815. The poet’s son was a somewhat wild and reckless young man, but Nott tells us he transformed that aggression into a successful military career.
Towards the end of King Edward’s short reign, Thomas’ zeal for protestant causes led to “intrigues which aimed at placing the Lady Jane Gray on the throne.” It’s even said that he appeared in arms in her favour. The short lived attempt failed; “his offence being either pardoned or overlooked, he was permitted to retire unmolested to Allington.”
In 1554 Mary’s Spanish match upset the nation so much that “a powerful party was secretly formed every where to oppose it, and nothing was wanted but a leader.” Wyatt had the right credentials, but his timing was off. “The measures he proposed, and concerted with the Duke of Suffolk, were those of wisdom, caution and prudence: but some unforeseen events compelled him to take arms before the general plans were ripe, and this ultimately proved his ruin.”
Imagine this day … “He had on a shirt of mail, with sleeves very fair; thereon a velvet cassock, and a yellow lace, with the windlace of his dag hanging thereon, and a pair of boots on his legs, and on his head a fair hat of velvet, with a broad bone-work lace about it.”
His forces penetrated as far as London, but was forced to surrender and fling himself on the Queen’s mercy.
“As he passed through the gate, Sir John Bridges took him by the collar and said, ‘O! thou villain, and unhappy traitor! How couldst though find in thy heart to work such detestable treason to the Queen’s Majesty, who gave thee thy life and living once already, although thou didst before this time bear arms in the field against her? And now to yield her battle! If it were not that the law must pass upon thee, I would strike thee through with my dagger.’ To the which Wyatt, holding his arms under his side, and looking grievously, with a grim look upon the lieutenant, said ‘It is no mastery now!’ and so passed on.”
He was committed to the Tower February 7, tried and condemned March 15 and executed April 11 because it was hoped he would incriminate the Lady Elizabeth and the Earl of Devonshire.
While pleading his case he told the judges “I was persuaded that by the marriage of the Prince of Spain, the second person in this realm, and the next heir to the Crown, the Lady Elizabeth, would have been in danger; and that I, being a free-born man, should with my country have been brought into the bondage and servitude of aliens and strangers.”
Nott quotes Wyatt’s speech from his trial. “I confess that my crime is great; for nothing can excuse the rebellion of the subject against the lawfully constituted authority of the Prince. It is a great relief to my conscience that the motive which led me to the fatal measure was zeal, however misguided, for my country, and not private ambition. Still I do not on that account hold myself absolved. My life is justly forfeit to the law. If it be spared, I shall receive it as a free gift of mercy from the Queen; of that mercy, which is, as he strongly expresses it, the greatest treasure that may be given to any Prince from God.”
Of course that gift was not forthcoming. He died a vicious traitor’s death wherein he was hung, drawn and quartered.
“He was considered by the nation at large as one who had voluntarily sacrificed himself for the Protestant cause.”
“With Sir Thomas Wyatt fell the hopes and the fortunes of his family. All his great possessions were resumed by the Crown, with the exception of the estate at Boxley, which Mary granted in small parcels to Lady Wyatt for the support of herself and her numerous family.”
Nott states that “It might have naturally been expected that Elizabeth, upon her accession to the throne, would have immediately removed the stigma of attainder and poverty from a family which had dared so greatly, and suffered so much from zeal in the general cause. But whether it was that she gave credit to the report of her having been accused by Wyatt in the Tower, or that she was influenced by motives of a personal nature, certain it is, that it was not until the thirteenth year of her reign that she reversed the attainder, and restored George Wyatt, the eldest son in blood. She does not seem, however, even then to have acted with that generosity which the occasion called for.”
This site has a much more detailed overview of Wyatt’s Rebellion:
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/Wyatt%20Rebellion.htm
Sir Thomas Wyatt the Poet 
Thank you Micki for this blog. I found your blog just by accident. I really want a copy of your book when it comes out. I have read some about Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger,but you presented alot more then I ever new. I understand why you may want to stop the book with his father, but I sure would like to know about his son George. Apparently he wrote alot about his grandfather’s relationship with Anne Boelyn and had also written some military strategy books as well. Any thoughts?
Hi Rena
I have “The Papers of George Wyatt, The Camden Fourth Series 5, Royal Historical Society 1968” and every now and then I try to force myself to read it. I almost always fall asleep. This is what I jokingly refer to as “the time before paragraphs.” It is also from the time before logical organization of information. (It bounces around a lot.) I will force myself through when I start writing more about Sir Thomas and Anne.
I have yet to read anything about Anne that inspires affection or respect; that may be because Catherine of Aragon was … well, everything a queen should have been. Henry VIII’s treatment of her may have been part of the reason why Sir Henry Wyatt retired. I think it’s possible he had seen enough. (I also read Sir Henry was a friend of Sir Thomas More. I can’t remember who predeceased who – but these things need to be checked out because so much may be wishful thinking.)
It’s very clear Sir Tom the Poet was sick of the treachery at court; although he remained faithful to his king to the death.
The book talks a lot about military strategy (written by STW the Younger, who was quite the warrior), the protestant cause, Wyatt properties, Sir Francis Wyatt trying to secure payment for money owed by the crown, zzz, that sort of thing. You might be able to snag a copy on eBay or any of the other sites dedicated to older books.
Allison Weir (in her index of The Six Wives of Henry VIII) references George Wyatt eight times. So there must be something of value.
There may also be other books by George Wyatt or containing his work; I haven’t gone down that path yet because there are such interesting works written by other people who lived during or shortly after the time of our ancestors. Their perspectives are a little more honest and less sanitized than some of the others.
About stopping with Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder/Poet … chances are good I’m going to want to wrap it all up and you can’t wrap it all without talking about his son. It’s just SUCH a sad, violent end. It’s hard to go there. You can’t spend this much time with them without getting seriously attached.
If you haven’t watched The Tudors yet, it’s pretty amazing eye candy and it nearly follows Allison Weir’s Six Wives to the word. Note that they do twist history to make it fit production time-frames and budgets. Also they make Sir Thomas Wyatt look like a flaky love-sick fool; that he was NOT.
(By the way – I am a.k.a. Sir Thomas Wyatt the Poet on Facebook:-)
Cousin Micki
I’ve just found out that my grandmother is a direct descendent of the Wyatts, and I find these three generations so interesting! Her maiden name was Waite, which I had always thought was German, before I turned to ancestry.com.
What shocked me the most is just how much my father, grandmother, and I look like the Wyatts, especially Thomas the Elder. It’s the nose and the face shape, even the hair and eye color! I didn’t know that people could look like their ancestors from so long ago. When I found out about it, I was VERY happy to look like a Waite instead of a Kelley, like my sister does.
I watched the Tudors JUST to see the Wyatts, but was disappointed with how they portrayed Thomas, he just seemed like such a fool, wallowing in his sadness and just letting Anne slip away! The Wyatts were such a strong family, that’s one of the traits that I’ve noticed went from one generation from the next.
The only thing that bothers me is the amount of children that Thomas the Younger had, and who they were! This is the path that I have in my family tree, going back in time:
1. John Hosmer Waite (1860)
2. Gilmer Waite (1831)
3. Joseph Waite (1794)
4. Joseph Waite (1754)
5. Josiah Waite (1715)
6. Amos Waite (1680)
7. John Waite (1639)
8. Richard Waite (1609)
9. William Waite (1566)
10. Roger Wyatt (1540) <—————
11. Sir Thomas Wyatt (1522)
12. Sir Thomas Wyatt (1503)
There! It's Roger Wyatt that's causing me so much trouble, because I can't find a connection between him, his 'wife', Joan Fisher (according to ancestry.com), and his 'son' William Waite/Wyatt. Ancestry.com told me that I was related to the Wyatts, but when I looked up Roger as the son of Thomas the Younger, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. How could so many people have the wrong family tree? There were so many recommendations, all saying that Thomas the younger was his father.
Do you know if Thomas had a few "secret" children? He does seem to be wild enough to have done it, but…it bothers me!
Hopefully someone will see this and be able to help you figure it out! Micki
The book “Graven With Diamonds” makes a very good case for Thomas Wyatt having “cut a deal” which led to Anne’s death and his own release from prison. I’ve often thought that lingering anger from Elizabeth against the Wyatt’s for the death of her mother might have kept her from restoring to them everything she might have to another family. What do you think?
Alison Weir wrote that Anne was in danger the second Catherine of Aragon died. Henry knew he could destroy his unpopular second queen without his people expecting him to return to “his true wife.”
Henry had plenty of reasons to get rid of Anne. He liked his mistresses fiesty, but his wives submissive. He was very tired of her shi*.
The public hated her, she raised an uproar about his sexual affairs and – worst of all – she failed to produce a male heir. He wasn’t getting any younger, he already had another bride – a nice passive little thing – waiting in the wings.
I believe he was already positioning his next queen’s family within the court and announced their engagement the day after (?) Anne was beheaded.
Sir Thomas had been up front in warning Henry about Anne’s questionable past. I think he could foresee the potential disaster, but Henry wasn’t listening. He was in love.
If memory serves, Tom’s trip to the tower had to do with a spat; Sir Thomas did not get along with Charles Brandon. I think there’s also a chance Henry and Cromwell were sending a warning to Boleyn supporters.
Anne was more than (possibly) Sir Thomas’s lover – she was a childhood friend (since their castles were fairly close), his wife’s second cousin and one of his sister Margaret’s dearest friends. Margaret – Lady Lee – was on the scaffold with Anne when she was beheaded.
Also Thomas had a close relationship with George Boleyn. The violent deaths of Anne and George changed him for all time – a difference that has been noted by historians and poets.
One more fact that makes me doubt the Wyatt/Boleyn plot scenario is the fact that two generations of Wyatts continued pleading Anne’s innocence ad nauseam.
If Thomas had been involved in her end, the family’s inner circle would have known and would not have gone to such lengths to try to clear her name.
As for Elizabeth holding a grudge – restoring the family would have been the same as confessing she HAD been behind Wyatt’s Rebellion. That whole thing is SUCH an ugly piece of history.
One more thing Beth – Anne as queen was so far out of Tom’s league he had no negotiating power on any level. If Henry could kill his dearest and most loyal friend Thomas More without blinking, he could have killed Thomas without so much as a second thought.
Henry just about used Thomas to death; he thought nothing of putting him in dangerous and unpleasant situations. Thomas nearly begged to come home; Henry ignored him.
In my opinion, Henry and Cromwell were ALWAYS all that was needed to work things out to the king’s satisfaction. Not that Cromwell would have minded being part of Anne’s bloody end.
She could be pretty beastly. (She reminds me of that scripture “pride comes before a fall.”)