by David Loades
In a way the Church had been another success story. This fact has been concealed partly by high-profile stories of the persecution, and partly by the fact that its achievement was largely dismantled after Mary’s death. There was insufficient time for Pole to do much about improving the quality of the existing clergy, but the universities were overhauled, seminaries decreed (although never established), and several effective manuals of pastoral guidance published.[469] There was strong emphasis upon discipline and the sacraments, but neither preaching nor instruction were neglected. Traditional lay piety recovered strongly, but allegiance to the papacy remained weak, and restored English Catholicism continued to show several idiosyncratic traits derived from its Henrician and Edwardian past rather than the Counter-Reformation. Pole and his Spanish helpers were keenly aware of the new devotional fashions and theological emphases that were sweeping the Continent, but transmitted these ideas to the English Church only very incompletely.[470] What English Catholics yearned for was an ‘English face’ to the Church, but circumstances largely conspired to deprive them of this. As a result, the majority slipped easily into the new conformity when it was offered to them after 1559, and the main legacy of Pole’s strenuous efforts lay in the large number of dedicated Catholic intellectuals who abandoned Oxford and Cambridge for the Continent in the early 1560s. For many years Catholic survivalism continued to haunt the Elizabethan Church, as conservative clergy and laity conspired to circumvent the law, but it was not from that quarter that the dangerous challenge began to come after 1570. The seminary and Jesuit missions that then began were theologically sophisticated, pastorally committed, and politically subversive. They were also the result of the intellectual exodus, and hence of Pole’s rigorous policies. At the end of the day, their political nature brought about their failure because most Englishmen, however conservative their views, preferred to give their allegiance to their own crown rather than to a distant Italian, even if he did claim to be the Vicar of Christ.
If Mary’s failure can be attributed to a single factor, it was that she and her regime were seen as insufficiently English. This was ironic, as she had never set foot outside England, but the combination of a Spanish mother, a Spanish husband, a cardinal archbishop who had spent twenty years in Italy, the allegiance to a foreign pope and dependence upon an Imperial protector was all simply too much for her insular subjects. They were accustomed to rulers who had defied Europe, in arms or in faith, and had no desire for the safety of a Habsburg embrace and a Universal Church. Elizabeth, it soon transpired, was much more to their taste, and she was so concerned to distance herself from Mary that there has been a general failure to recognise how much she owed to her predecessor. It is time that England’s first queen was better appreciated.
PICTURE SECTION
46. Henry VII, Mary’s grandfather, from the cartoon by Holbein in the National Portrait Gallery.
47. Henry VIII. A statue in the great gate at Trinity College, Cambridge (a royal foundation), showing a mature Henry. About 1541.
48. Catherine of Aragon, Mary’s mother, showing her as a mature woman, about 1520. By an unknown artist.
49. Anne Boleyn, Henry’s second wife and Mary’s bête noire. She was reckoned to be ‘no great beauty’. By an unknown artist.
50. Jane Seymour, Henry’s third wife and the mother of his son, Edward. Painted in 1537 by an unknown artist.
51. Funeral effigy of Elizabeth Blount, Lady Tailboys, Henry’s mistress and the mother of his son Henry Fitzroy.
52. A lady, supposed to be Mary at the age of about seventeen. By Hans Holbein, in the Royal Collection.
53. Henry VIII’s will, dated 30 December 1546. It was signed with stamp rather than the sign manual, which was to cause problems in the future.
54. Lady Anne Shelton, Anne Boleyn’s aunt, and the governess of the household for the two princesses in 1533–4. From a stained glass window in Shelton church.
55. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots. Mary came to the throne of Scotland at just over a week old, in December 1542. Her claim to the English succession was ignored in Henry VIII’s final Succession Act of 1544.
56. Edward VI as a child, playing with a pet monkey. A painting by Holbein in the Kunstmuseum at Basle.
57. Wolsey dismissed by Henry VIII. An imaginative Victorian reconstruction.
58. A view of Greenwich Palace, from a drawing by Anthony van Wyngaerde (c.1550), in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.
59. A page from a book of hours (prayer book) once owned by Mary.
NOTES
Full author names and publication dates are given for the first citation of a book or article; thereafter, short references are used.
Abbreviations used in these Notes:
APC Acts of the Privy Council.
BL British Library.
Cal. Span. Calendar of State Papers, Spanish.
Cal. Ven. Calendar of State Papers, Venetian.
L &P Letters and Papers … of the Reign of Henry VIII.
ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
SP State Papers (at the National Archives).
TNA The National Archives.
Introduction
1. Andrea C. Gasten, ‘The Kingship of Philip and Mary’, in Wim de Groot (ed.) The Seventh Window (2005), pp. 215-25.
1 The Child
1. They had married in 1468, when they were the heirs to their respective kingdoms. J. H. Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms, 1250–1516 (2 Vols, 1978).
2. For a full discussion of these celebrations and their significance, see Sydney Anglo, Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy (1969), pp. 98-103.
3. It was the consummation that created the blood relationship, not the ceremony of marriage, which constituted only a bar of ‘public honesty’. Perhaps by oversight, this lesser impediment was not dispensed.
4. Garrett Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon (1942), pp. 57-9. In spite of its age, this is still the best biography of Catherine.
5. Edward Hall, The Union of the two noble and Illustre families Yorke and Lancaster, ed. Henry Ellis (1809), [Chronicle] p. 519.
6. Cal. Span., ii, 164. J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (1968), p. 51.
7. BL Harleian MS 3504, f. 232.
8. This treaty was finally concluded in August 1521. BL Cotton MS Galba B VII, f 102. L&P, iii, 1508.
9. L&P, ii, 3802. D. Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (1989), pp. 346-7.
10. L&P, iii, 970.
11. Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, pp. 140-1.
12. De institutione foeminae christinae contained a preface clarifying Vives’s intentions. ‘Let her be given pleasure in stories which teach the art of life … stories which tend to some commendation of virtue and detestation of vice.’ Maria Dowling, Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII (1987), p. 225.
13. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 20-1.
14. G. R. Elton, The Tudor Constitution (1982), pp. 202-3. S. J. Gunn, Early Tudor Government, 1485–1558 (1995).
15. Although Mary is referred to as princess, there was no official creation for Wales between 1504 (Henry) and 1610 (Henry Stuart). A creation was planned for Edward in 1547, but was overtaken by Henry VIII’s death.
16. W. R. B. Robinson, ‘Princess Mary’s Itinerary in the Marches of Wales, 1525–1527: A Provisional Record’, Historical Research, 71 (1998), pp. 233-52.
17. Ibid, pp. 248-9.
18. A parliamentary subsidy had been granted in 1523, and resistance to this new imposition proved unbreakable. Henry’s confidence in Wolsey was severely shaken in consequence. G. W. Bernard, War, Taxation, and Rebellion in Early Tudor England (1986).
19. Robert Wakefield is the scholar who is alleged to have convinced the king of this important interpretation. E. Surtz and V Murphy (eds), The Divorce Tracts of Henry VIII (1988), p. xiii.
20. Andre Chastel (trans. Beth Archer), The Sack of Rome, 1527 (1983).
21. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 45.
2 Disruption
1. This was the so-called ‘Levirate’, whi
ch required a man to take the widow of his deceased brother in marriage in order to protect her. Henry claimed that this was ‘ambiguous’. Surtz and Murphy, The Divorce Tracts of Henry VIII, p. xiii.
2. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp. 198-240.
3. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 55.
4. For a full discussion of the pros and (mostly) cons of Wolsey’s dismissal, see Peter Gwynn, The King’s Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (1990, pp. 587-98.
5. An account of some of these sharp exchanges is given in Eric Ives, Anne Boleyn (1986), pp. 154-5, drawing mainly on Cal. Ven., 1527–33.
6. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 61. Augustino Scarpellino to the Duke of Milan, 16 December 1530. Cal. Ven., 1527–33, p. 642.
7. Beverley Murphy, The Bastard Prince (2001), pp. 107-8.
8. N. H. Nicolas, The Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII (1827), p.146.
9. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 78-9. Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, pp. 292-3.
10. The implications of this claim, and its rejection, are discussed by Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp. 261-73.
11. L&P, VII, 296. Ives, Anne Boleyn, pp. 246-8.
12. These charges were based on the fiction that Wolsey had exercised his jurisdiction without royal licence. The convocations paid the king £118,000 for their discharge. TNA KB29/162, r.12. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp. 274-5.
13. In order to secure a settlement in England, Henry had to be sure of his control over his own clergy. Scarisbrick, ‘The Pardon of the Clergy, 1531’, Cambridge Historical Journal, XII (1956) pp. 25 ff.
14. The Manner of the Triumph at Calais and Boulogne (1532), printed in A. F. Pollard, Tudor Tracts (1903), pp. 1-8. This describes ‘My Lady Mary’ as following ‘My Lady Marquess of Pembroke’ in one of the dances. Pollard identifies this lady as Mary Boleyn – but the intention was obviously to give the impression that the king’s daughter had been present.
15. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (1996), pp. 69-76.
16. The Noble Triumphant Coronation of Queen Anne (1533). Pollard, Tudor Tracts, pp. 11-35.
17. Letters and Papers, VII, 1208.
18. Giustinian to the Signory,13 March 1533, Cal. Ven., 1527–33, p. 863.
19. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 72.
20. BL Harleian MS 6807, f. 7.
21. L&P, VI, 1186. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 74-5.
22. BL Arundel MS 151, f 194. L&P, VI, 1126.
23. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 78.
3 Trauma
1. L&P, VII, 296. Ives, Anne Boleyn, pp. 247-8.
2. For a more detailed account of some of these abrasive encounters see Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (2004), pp. 197-9.
3. Expenses of the Princess Elizabeth’s Household, 25 March 1535. L&P, VIII, 440.
4. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 82-3.
5. L&P, VII, 1206 and 1336. Despatches of 30 September and 31 October 1534.
6. Ibid., IX, 596.
7. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 86-7.
8. Statute 25 Henry VIII, cap. 22. Statutes of the Realm, III, pp. 471-4.
9. She claimed that Mary’s ‘ennuy’ had cleared up completely after a visit from her father as early as 1529 – which is directly contradicted by the evidence of the accounts. Marillac to Francis I, 12 October 1541. L&P, XVI, 1253.
10. Ives, Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, pp. 194-5.
11. Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, p. 309.
12. David Loades, Henry VIII and His Queens (1997) pp. 90-1.
13. Ives, Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, pp. 296-8.
14. For a full account of this thesis, see Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn (1989), and for a refutation, Ives, Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, pp. 296-7.
15. Cal. Span.,1536–38, p.137.
16. Ives, Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, pp. 326-7.
17. For a full list of the sources describing Anne’s execution, see ibid., pp. 419-20.
18. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 98. Even Chapuys admitted that there were murmurings in London about the manner (and speed) of Anne’s despatch.
19. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp.158-9.
20. There is a portrait of Jane by Hans Holbein in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, which has been frequently reproduced.
21. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 98-9.
22. Ibid., p. 99.
23. L&P, X, 968.
24. BL Cotton MS Otho C.X, f. 278. L&P, X, 1022.
25. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 101.
26. Ibid. None of the documents surviving from this crisis are precisely dated, so the timetable is reconstructed.
27. Chapuys to the Emperor, 1 July 1536. L&P, XI, 7.
28. Mary to Cromwell, probably 30 June 1536. L&P, X, 1186. For Susan Clarencius see ODNB.
29. BL Cotton MS Vespasian C. XIV, f. 246. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 106.
30. Ibid., p.104.
4 Restitution
1. L&P, XI, 132. Ives, Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, p. 198.
2. There are many discussions of the Pilgrimage of Grace, and of the Pilgrims’ attitude towards Mary. The most recent is R. W. Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s (2001), especially p. 347.
3. Thomas F. Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet (2000), pp. 62-78.
4. When asked to adjudicate the rival claims of the Duke of York and Prince Edward in 1460, the House of Lords had declared that they had no competence ‘in so high a mystery’.
5. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 110. L&P, XII, 445.
6. The Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, ed. F. E. Madden (1831), p.1.
7. L&P, XII, 637, 1314.
8. The State Papers of King Henry VIII, (1830–52), I, pt. ii, p. 551.
9. Edward Hall, Chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809), p. 825.
10. L&P, XIV, 655. Loades, Mary Tudor, p.115.
11. Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne of Cleves (2000), p. 174.
12. Hazel Pierce, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, 1473–1541. Loyalty, Lineage and Leadership (2003), pp. 115-40. Dr Pierce concludes that the evidence against the Poles and the Courtenays, although not strong enough for any modern court, was sufficient to force the king to act.
13. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 116.
14. Ibid.
15. Chapuys to the Queen of Hungary, 17 December 1542. L&P, XVII, 1212.
16. There is a portrait attributed to Wilhelm Scrots in London’s National Portrait Gallery, which is the only authentic likeness. Loades, Henry VIII and His Queens (2000), pp. 137-8.
17. Catherine’s Lamentations of a Sinner, which was not published until 1548, is unambiguously Protestant in places. However, nothing so revealing was published in Henry’s lifetime. By the time that it appeared, Mary had left the queen dowager’s household.
18. Nicholas Udall, Paraphrases of Erasmus (London, 1548); preface to Luke.
19. The only source for the story of the conspiracy against Catherine is John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (edition 1583), pp. 1,242-4. For a discussion of its provenance, and of the possible role of Stephen Gardiner, see G. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic. The Life of Stephen Gardiner (1990), pp. 232-7.
20. Statute 35 Henry VIII, c.1.
21. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 448.
22. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 123-5.
23. Marillac to Francis I, 27 December 1539 L&P, XIV, 744.
24. L&P, XVII, 371.
25. For a full discussion of Pole’s views, and of his role in the Council of Trent, see Mayer, Reginald Pole.
26. L&P, XXI, 802.
5 The King’s Sister
1. L&P, XXI, 675, 684. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 495. Neither Catherine nor Mary had been admitted to his chamber since Christmas.
2. T. Rymer, Foedera (1704-35), XV, p. 117.
3. W. K. Jordan, Edward VI: The Young King (1968), pp. 52-3.
4. Charles returned the greetings that were sent to him in the name of the new king, without acknowledging his title, writing to Van der Delft: ‘We went no further than this with regard to
the young king, in order to avoid saying anything which might prejudice the right that our cousin the Princess might advance to the throne.’ Cal. Span., IX, p. 38.
5. The Act of Succession (35 Henry VIII, c.1) had specified that the king’s will should be ‘signed with his most gracious hand’, whereas in fact it had been stamped. This was a fully recognised method of authenticating documents when the king was incapacitated, but it was challenged by Maitland of Lethington in 1566 in the interest of Mary Queen of Scots. G. Burnet, The Historie of the Reformation of the Church of England (1679), I, p. 267. See also E. W. Ives, ‘Henry VIII’s Will: A Forensic Conundrum’, Historical Journal, 35 (1992), pp. 779-804.
6. College of Arms MSS, I, 7, f. 29. J. G. Nichols (ed.), The Literary Remains of King Edward VI (1857), I, p. lxxvii.
7. APC, II, p. 16.
8. TNA SP10 /1, no. 11. This is a rough draft, with proposed grants of land also inserted.
9. TNA SP10/6, no. 14. Deposition of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton, January 1549.