by Gwyn, Peter
53LP, i, 157.
54 See pp.159-72.
55LP, iii, 1293.
56LP, iii, 1284 [3].
57 James states that the case involved another abducted heiress, but none of his references appear to support this view; see BP, 30, p.26.
58 BL Lansdowne 639, fos.45v-6; Vespasian C xiv (pt.2), fo.266v; Guy, Cardinals’ Court, pp.27, 31 though he sheds no light on what the charges were.
59LP, ii, 3209, 3278. Fonblanque, i, p.350 quotes the relevant letters in full. It should be said that Northumberland showed himself very reluctant to perform this duty.
60 Russell, Field of Cloth of Gold, pp.51-4.
61LP, iii, 2412.
62LP, iv, 1431.
63 Reid, pp.103 ff.
64 Cavendish, pp.29-34 is the main source for the 6th earl’s presence in Wolsey’s household, but though it is confirmed by other references such as LP, iv, 4082, 4093 nothing gives us a precise date.
65 Again this date is conjectural, but Anne really only appeared at court in 1522 and by September 1523 Percy was engaged to be married to Mary Talbot.
66LP, iii, 3563. Fonblanque, i, pp.357-8 quotes the relevant passage in full.
67LP, iv, 2729.
68Clifford Letters, pp.105-7. It predates Wolsey’s good word, which was in December, and was perhaps a consequence of it.
69 Ibid for crucial evidence of the quarrel; also Cavendish, pp.29-34.
70 See pp.172-3 above.
71 Fonblanque, i, p.379: ‘Before Ambrose came unto me I was coming unto my house at Topcliffe towards the funeral of my late lord and father, whose soul J’hu pardon; … but seeing I know my lord grace’s [Wolsey’s] pleasure contrary, I will not come to the funeral to Beverly, the which to have been at I would have been very glad.’ The fact that he would have liked to have been at the funeral may suggest rather better relations between the two than I have suggested, but it could equally well indicate remorse or perhaps even pleasure at his father’s death!
72 Hall states that in 1523 the 5th earl turned down an offer of a wardenship, as a result of which he ‘was not regarded of his tenants, which disdained him and his blood, and much lamented his folly’; see Hall, pp.651-2. If Hall was correct, our puzzle would be solved: the 5th earl never received high office because he did not want it. But it seems unlikely, while no hint of such an offer has survived, and the documentation for Northern concerns in 1522 and 1523 is quite extensive.
73 D.R. Starkey, ‘King’s privy chamber’, pp.80 ff. but the detail needs checking in Gunn, Charles Brandon, pp.6-11, 66-71.
74 Bean, pp.135-43.
75LP, iii, 2328.
76LP, iii, 3240 for this analysis, but all Surrey’s letters in 1523 and 1524 should be consulted.
77 Hodgson, pp.31 ff.
78 Hodgson, pp.31 ff.
79LP, iii, 3544; iv, 22. Though Dacre defends himself in these letters, he also admits difficulties and not just on account of his gout!
80St. P, iv, pp.153-6 (LP, iv, 701).
81 See p.219, n.7 above.
82LP, iii, 3240.
83LP, iv, 133, 220, 279, 332, 404.
84LP, iv, 405.
85LP, iv, 497.
86LP, iii, 3365, 3384, 3509, 3515.
87LP, xvii, 940.
88 For even a Clifford doubting his influence in the West March see Cumberland’s letter to Wolsey in November 1525 (LP, iv, 1762). One of the points that an unknown writer made about holding office in the North, was that he must be ‘enabled to support a plenteous and liberal home of meat and drink; otherwise I shall not be regarded amongst them, but shall be held in [approby] and derision’, this because he lacked land in the area; see LP, iv, 1764. The unknown man may have been Ralph Neville earl of Westmorland, appointed vice-warden of the East and Middle Marches in 1525. For the general problem of ever more ‘foreign noblemen’ see Bush, NH, 6, pp.59 ff.
89 Bernard, ‘Fourth and fifth earls of Shrewsbury’, pp.164 ff.
90LP, iv, 1431, 1510 his appointments in the North were dated 22 July 1525.
91 Reid, pp.103-5.
92 R.B. Smith, pp.154-6.
93 Virtually no one was deliberately dropped. Reid’s list of councillors suggests that Frankleyn may have been, but the evidence for this is not altogether convincing and he was certainly restored to it; see Reid, pp.113 ff.
94 See pp.125 ff.
95 Guy, Cardinal’s Court, pp.123-4; Reid, pp.102 ff.
96LP, iv, 1727, 1762, 1764, 2003, 2176, 2401-2, 2729, 3230, 3370, 3404, 3421, 3477, 3501.
97 That it was perceived to be cheaper at the time, see especially Surrey’s letter to Wolsey in Nov. 1523: ‘Also if my Lord Dacre be well written to by the king’s highness, and your grace … I doubt not he will occupy as warden for 40s. a day; and I having of the king’s highness £5 a day, £3 may be saved.’ (St. P, iv, p.55 LP, iii, 3515). In a marginal note Wolsey accepted this. See also LP, iv, 2004.
98 For all matters relating to Richmond, including transcripts of most of the relevant documents, see Nichols, Henry Fitzroy Duke of Richmond.
99 Ross, pp.198-203.
100 See Chrimes, Henry VII, pp.249-51 for the Welsh precedents; the bishops acted as presidents of the council in the Marches of Wales under the titular leadership of the prince of Wales.
101 James, BP, 30, pp.10 ff.
102LP, iv, 2402.
103LP, iv, 3552.
104LP, iv, 3230, 3244.
105LP, iv, 3383, 3404, 3421.
106LP, iv, 3421, 3501, 3521, 3552.
107 James BP, pp.10 ff; Hodgson, pp.244 ff.
108LP, iii, 3506, 3531.
109LP, iv, 2402.
110LP, iv, 2450.
111LP, iv, 2450, 3231.
112 Wolsey was informed of their break-out in a letter from Magnus dated 4 July 1527 while on his way to Amiens, but he knew of their activity well before that; see LP, iv, 2450, 3230, 3244. It would appear that Wolsey was on the point of releasing Lisle, in return for good sureties, when he broke out of prison.
113 On 8 July Wolsey suggested to Henry an approach to Scotland (LP, iv, 3244), and from at least 12 Aug. Henry wrote either to James or to Angus at regular intervals until the Lisles surrendered.
114LP, iv, 3628, 3629; Fonblanque, i, pp.556-8.
115LP, iv, 3849, 3850.
116 This the essence of James’s argument in BP, 30, pp.13-14.
117 Ibid, p.14 for the view that the 6th earl sought Sir William’s pardon. That it was only the two sons’ pardon is clear from (1) Tuke’s letter to Wolsey (LP, iv, 4204) in which he refers only to the younger son aged about 13; (2) Wolsey’s letter to the 6th earl (LP, iv, 4082) in which he refers only to the request for the pardon of the eldest son and ‘for the sparing of putting to execution of Sir William Lisle’s elder son’; (3) the 6th earl’s letter to Wolsey (LP, iv, 4093) in which he wrote: ‘I sent unto my Lord of London and wrote to Mr.Tuke to move your Grace and move others to save some of their lives.’ There is nowhere any reference to a pardon for Sir William, which, given his record, is surely not at all surprising.
118LP, iv, 4093; quoted in James, BP, 30, p.14.
119LP, iv, 3914.
120LP, iv, 3924, 4105, 4116.
121LP, iv, 3704, 3705, 3773-6, 3778, 3791, 3794.
122 For Anglo-Scottish relations at this time and Angus’s attitude towards Sir William Lisle, see Rae, pp.157 ff.
123LP, iv, 3689, 3816.
124LP, iv, 3629 [2], 3816.
125LP, iv, 4133.
126 As suggested by James; see his BP, 30, pp.12-4, 30-2.
127 The animus against the sheriff, Sir William Ellerker, emerges very clearly in Humphrey Lisle’s confession; see LP, iv, 4336.
128 The easiest source for the 6th earl’s character is Fonblanque, i, pp.378 ff., where many of his letters are quoted at some length.
129LP, xii, 548; for a modern assessment of his character and its effect on the Percys’ financial affairs see Bean, pp.145ff.
130 Bernard, HJ, 25, pp.671-85 is go
od on this.
131LP, iv, 4082; for a transcript see Fonblanque, i, pp.390-2.
132LP, iv, 4082.
133 Fonblanque, i, p.404.
134St. P, iv, p.155 (LP, iv, 701).
135St. P, i, p.548 (LP, xii [1], 1118); quoted in Bush, NH, 6, p.40.
136 Reid, p.286.
137LP, iv, 220, 279; Hodgson, iv, pp.35-40.
138LP, xii(2), 186 the essential point being that he had not been put on the Council.
139LP, iv, 4186.
140LP, iv, 5070.
141LP, iv, 5289.
142 This account relies heavily on two important articles: S.G. Ellis, IHS, xx, pp.235-71; Quinn, pp.318-44. Since I wrote this both have produced important reworkings of their original research; see Quinn’s chapters in Cosgrove, pp.638-87 and S.G. Ellis, Tudor Ireland and Reform and Revival.
143 Lydon, passim; Otway-Ruthven, p.174.
144 Lydon, p.132.
145 Ellis, IHS, xx, 239, n.12.
146St. P, ii, p.9. The dating is tentative.
147 Lydon, pp.260ff.
148LP, iv, 5501 [2] a paper prepared by Desmond for Charles and carried to him by the Imperial envoy.
149LP, iii, 670.
150St. P, ii, p.6.
151LP, iv, 5501 [1].
152St. P, ii, pp.1-7.
153St. P, ii, p.5. For an agreement between a ‘chief-captain’ and ‘petty captain’ see O’Faolain, pp.23-4.
154 Taken from the four Irish Reform programmes of about the period; see Carew MSS, 1-2; LP, iv, 2405; St. P,ii, pp.1-31. For a detailed discussion see Bradshaw, pp.32 ff. My own view is that Bradshaw exaggerates their importance while minimizing the difficulties in governing Ireland.
155 For contemporary comment see inter alia St. P, ii, pp.9-10, 14.
156St. P, ii, p.9.
157St. P, ii, pp.127, 129.
158 For black rents paid to Kildare see Lydon, pp.275-6.
159St. P, ii, p.11.
160Libelle of Englyshe Polycye, pp.34-40; also Lydon, p.242.
161Inter alia Lydon, pp.272 ff.
162 S.G. Ellis, IHS, p.240, n.14.
163 Bush, NH, 6, pp.40 ff; James, BP, 27, pp.26 ff.
164St. Pii, p.13. The average income of the nobility was £1,000; Buckingham’s was in excess of £5,000 and Northumberland’s £3,900.
165 Ellis, IHS, xx, pp.246-8.
166 Ibid.
167 Ibid, p.248.
168Carew MSS, i, p.6.
169 Quinn, p.322.
170Carew MSS, i, 126.
171 For this sequence of events see Quinn, pp.333 ff.
172St. P, ii, pp.66-70 (LP, iii, 1252).
173St. P, ii, pp.135-6. In the same letter he advised that money should be given to the Butlers to help them in their fight with Desmond, while two months earlier he had urged Wolsey not to abolish coyne and livery in the diocese of Cashel on the grounds that this would seriously weaken the Butler’s military strength (LP, iv, 4277. Quinn’s suggestion (Quinn, pp.333-5) that Norfolk switched from support of Ormond to support of Kildare to further his factional struggles at the English court does not seem convincing. There is no evidence that he was ever anti-Butler. His reasons for preferring Kildare as deputy were entirely pragmatic.
174St. P, ii, pp.136-40 (LP, iv.4541).
175St. P, ii, p.138 (LP, iv, 454).
176 Vergil, p.265.
177 Quinn, pp.324-5.
178 Holinshed, iv, pp.280ff. quoted extensively in Fitzgerald, pp.176-9 where Stonyhurst’s account seems to be accepted. Both Ellis and Quinn are more sceptical.
179St. P, i, p.73 (LP, iii, 1675).
180St. P, ii, pp-136-40 (LP, iv, 4541). For Butler being in Wolsey’s household see St. P, ii, pp.49-51 (LP, iii, 1011, 1628); also Ives, Anne Boleyn, p.44, who makes no qualification. For the Butlers being preferred see inter alia LP, iii, 1011, 1628; iv, 81, 4422, 4562.
181 Quinn, pp.329-30.
182St. P, ii, p.101 (LP, 111, 3049).
183St. P, ii, pp.69-70 (LP, iii, 1252).
184St. P, ii, p.140, n.1 (LP, iv, 4502).
185 This was Surrey’s own view of his task; see St. P, ii, p.73 (LP, iii, 1377); also St. P, ii, p.37 LP, iii, 924.
186St. P, ii, pp.72-5 (LP, iii, 1377) Surrey to Henry, 30 June 1521.
187 This is Bradshaw’s view; see Bradshaw, p.64. But since most people shared Surrey’s pessimism, I am not convinced.
188St. P, ii, pp.66-8 (LP, iii, 1252).
189St. P, ii pp.77-82 (LP iii, 1447).
190 Surrey first asked for his recall in June 1521; see St. P, ii, p.74 (LP, iii, 1377). For the events leading up to his final recall see St. P, ii, pp.84-93.
191St. P, i, pp.72-3 (LP, iii, 1675).
192St. P, iii, pp.66-68 (LP, iii, 1252).
193 There is no direct evidence for this, but the circumstantial evidence seems convincing: Ireland was included amongst a number of other matters that the king intended to tackle in an undated memorandum placed at the end of 1519, that has the appearance of a programme for the new era of peace; see LP, iii, 576.
194St. P, ii, p.34 (LP, iii, 860).
195St. P, ii, p.52 (LP, iii, 1004).
196St. P, ii, pp.52 ff. (LP, iii, 1004).
197St. P, ii, p.54 (LP, iii, 1004).
198 Bradshaw, pp.78-9; Quinn, p.329.
199LP, iii, 670 [2].
200LP, iv, 4277.
201St. P, i, pp.69-70 (LP, iii, 1646).
202St. P, i, pp.72-3, 76-7; ii, pp.88-91 (LP, iii, 1675, 1709, 1718).
203Inter alia St. P, ii, p.58 (LP, iii, 1037).
204 This was well understood by all those involved; see inter alia St. P, ii, pp.129, 136 (LP, iv, 4265, 4541); LP, iv, 8193.
205St. P, ii, pp.104-8 (LP, iv, 537).
206LP, iv, 81 [2].
207LP,, iv, 4556, 4562, 4609.
208LP, iv, 4459, 4540-1.
209St. P, ii, pp.135-6 (LP, iv, 4459).
210St. P,i, pp.91-2 (LP, iii, 1762).
211LP, iv, 2405 (3).
212LP, iv, 4878, 4911, 4919, 5002, 5322, 5501, 5620, 5756, 5938; Carew MSS, i, 126. Most of the evidence derives from 1528-9, but the historian of seventeenth-century Ireland, Sir James Ware, says that Desmond began his plotting in 1524; see Ware, p.77.
213Carew MSS, 126; Holinshed, vi, pp.281; Quinn, IHS, xii, pp.333-4.
214LP, v, 398; Quinn, IHS, xxi, pp.336-7.
215St. P, ii, pp.147-50 (LP, iv, 5903).
216Ormond Deeds, iv, 149.
217St. P, ii, p.137 (LP, iv, 4541).
218 Quinn, pp.330-6.
219St. P, i, pp.72-3 (LP, iii, 1675).
220St. P, ii, pp.136-40 (LP, iv, 4541).
221LP, iii,670.
222St. P, ii, pp.102-4 a letter to Wolsey 1 June [1524] by an unknown John, sometimes thought to be John Allen, but more likely to be John Rawson, prior of Kilmain.
223St. P, ii, 102-4.
224LP, iv, 80; Taunton, pp.123-4; LP, iv, p.1077.
225 The rebellion, led in the 9th earl’s son, ‘Silken Thomas’, broke out in autumn 1534 on the death of his father in the Tower, and took almost a year to put down.
226LP, xii [2], 1237.
227 By the Welsh chronicler Ellis Griffith; see HMC, Wales, i, pp.ix-x. For Griffith see Thomas Jones.
228 R.R. Davies, p.3.
229 Ibid, pp.67 ff.
230 Owen Glendower’s rebellion had broken out in 1400 and was to last for about ten years. The exceptional circumstances arose from Henry IV’s usurpation.
231 Griffiths, Principality of Wales, pp.27 ff.
232Glamorgan County History, p.275; Owen, p.27-8.
233Wales and Monmouthshire, app.3 for Holt’s memorandum.
234Glamorgan County History, p.308.