by David Loades
[79] 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’.
[80] Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 110. L&P, XII, 445.
[81] The Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, ed. F. E. Madden (1831), p.1.
[82] L&P, XII, 637, 1314.
[83] The State Papers of King Henry VIII, (1830–52), I, pt. ii, p. 551.
[84] Edward Hall, Chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809), p. 825.
[85] L&P, XIV, 655. Loades, Mary Tudor, p.115.
[86] Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne of Cleves (2000), p. 174.
[87] 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.
[88] Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 116.
[89] Ibid.
[90] Chapuys to the Queen of Hungary, 17 December 1542. L&P, XVII, 1212.
[91] 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.
[92] 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.
[93] Nicholas Udall, Paraphrases of Erasmus (London, 1548); preface to Luke.
[94] 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.
[95] Statute 35 Henry VIII, c.1.
[96] Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 448.
[97] Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 123-5.
[98] Marillac to Francis I, 27 December 1539 L&P, XIV, 744.
[99] L&P, XVII, 371.
[100] For a full discussion of Pole’s views, and of his role in the Council of Trent, see Mayer, Reginald Pole.
[101] L&P, XXI, 802.
[102] L&P, XXI, 675, 684. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 495. Neither Catherine nor Mary had been admitted to his chamber since Christmas.
[103] T. Rymer, Foedera (1704-35), XV, p. 117.
[104] W. K. Jordan, Edward VI: The Young King (1968), pp. 52-3.
[105] 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.
[106] 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.
[107] College of Arms MSS, I, 7, f. 29. J. G. Nichols (ed.), The Literary Remains of King Edward VI (1857), I, p. lxxvii.
[108] APC, II, p. 16.
[109] TNA SP10 /1, no. 11. This is a rough draft, with proposed grants of land also inserted.
[110] TNA SP10/6, no. 14. Deposition of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton, January 1549.
[111] Van der Delft to the Emperor, to July 1547. Cal. Span., IX, p. 123.
[112] Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Edward VI, II, p. 20.
[113] TNA SP10/6, no. 10. Deposition of John Fowler, January 1549.
[114] APC, II, pp. 84, 86, 92, 100, 120, 122, 141. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 138-9.
[115] APC, II, pp. 63-4,13 March 1547. Jordan, Edward VI, pp. 72-3.
[116] A J. Slavin, ‘The Fall of Lord Chancellor Wriothesley: A Study in the Politics of Conspiracy’, Albion, 7 (1975) pp. 265-85. Loades, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (1996) pp. 92-5.
[117] Burnet, Historie of the Reformation, II, p. 115, reproduces the text of the protector’s letter.
[118] Ibid. Gardiner’s views on the same subject can be seen in letters that he wrote from the Fleet Prison between 14 October and 4 December 1547. J. A. Muller (ed.), The Letters of Stephen Gardiner (1933), pp. 379-428.
[119] Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 144-5.
[120] Van der Delft to the Emperor, 16 June 1547. Cal. Span., IX, p. 100.
[121] For a full discussion of the failure of the protector’s policy in Scotland, see M. L. Bush, The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (1975), pp. 32-40.
[122] TNA SP10/6, no. 21.
[123] TNA SP10/6, nos. 7-22. Depositions taken relating to the charges against the lord admiral.
[124] G. W. Bernard, ‘The Downfall of Sir Thomas Seymour’, in G. W. Bernard (ed.), The Tudor Nobility (1992), pp. 212-40.
[125] He had been sent to the Tower in June 1548, having preached before the king on the 29th. He remained there until released by Mary in August 1553, having been deprived of his bishopric in 1552. J. A. Muller, Letters, p. 439. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, pp. 285-90.
[126] APC, II, p. 291.
[127] Mary to the council, 22 June 1549. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 146. She did not claim that her conscience was superior to the law, but that the law was defective owing to some (fictitious) pressure that had been applied to Parliament.
[128] Emperor to Van der Delft, to May 1549. Cal. Span., IX, p. 375.
[129] Jordan, Edward VI, pp. 206-9. Cal. Span., IX, pp. 406-8, 19 July 1549.
[130] Bush, Government Policy of Protector Somerset, pp. 73-83. Ethan Shagan, ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: New Sources and New Perspectives’, English Historical Review, 114 (1999) pp. 34-63. Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation (2003), pp. 270-305.
[131] Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 149.
[132] For a full discussion of the circumstances of Somerset’s fall in October 1549, see Loades, John Dudley, pp. 130-39.
[133] Dale Hoak, The King’s Council in the Reign of Edward VI (1976), pp. 54-61.
[134] BL Add. MS 48126, ff. 15-16. H. James ‘The Aftermath of the 1549 Coup, and the Earl of Warwick’s Intentions’, Historical Research, 62 (1989), pp. 91-7.
[135] BL Add. MS 48126, f 16. Loades, John Dudley, p. 145. There has always been some doubt about the reality of this ‘plot’, which rests upon the evidence of a single source, but Van der Delft, writing on 19 December, noticed the change of atmosphere in the council. Cal. Span., IX, p. 489.
[136] Van der Delft to the Emperor, 14 January and 18 March 1550. Cal. Span., X, pp. 6, 40.
[137] W. K. Jordan, Edward VI: The Threshold of Power (1970), pp. 120-22.
[138] Van der Delft to the Emperor, 2 May 1550. Cal. Span., X, 80.
[139] Cal. Span., X, pp. 124-35. Charles had approved the plan on 21 June.
[140] Dubois report, ibid., p. 127.
[141] Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 156-7. Rochester had, apparently, been consulting astrologers who had told him that the king would die within the next year – hence his anxiety about the succession.
[142] W. K. Jordan (ed.), The Chronicle and Political Papers of King Edward VI (1966), p. 40.
[143] Conversation between Bassefontaine and St Mauris, 28 July 1550. Cal. Span., X, p. 145. This appears to be the first mention of a marriage between Philip and Mary. At this point he was twenty-three and she was thirty-four.
[144] APC, III, p. 171.
[145] John Foxe, Acts and Monuments of the English Martyrs (1583), pp. 1,335-7.
[146
] Scheyfve to Mary, January/February 1551. Cal. Span., X, p. 428.
[147] Jordan, Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI, p. 55.
[148] Loades, Mary Tudor, p.163.
[149] Dudley did not take the title of protector, partly because it was discredited by Somerset’s incumbency, but more, it would seem, because he was anxious to promote the view that the king himself was making decisions. This can be seen not only in his dealings with Mary, but also in the ‘political papers’ that Edward was encouraged to prepare. It is still uncertain whether there was any reality behind this façade. Loades, John Dudley, pp. 180-229.
[150] APC, III, p. 336.
[151] ‘… my father made the more part of you almost from nothing.’ This was true, but not really relevant. APC, III, p. 347.
[152] Ibid. To the modern observer Mary’s flamboyant obstinacy, together with her behaviour under pressure, suggests a degree of mental instability – but no one suggested that at the time.
[153] Cal. Span., X, p. 377.
[154] Ibid.
[155] Jordan, Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI, pp. 89-91. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 168-9.
[156] Fourteen was the minimum age of co-habitation within marriage (for a boy), and kings of France came of age at fourteen. The age had no particular significance in English law.
[157] When he was himself under sentence of death in 1553, Northumberland confessed that many of the charges against his rival had been fabricated. BL Harley MS 787, f. 61.
[158] Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 169.
[159] Statute 5 & 6 Edward VI, c.1. Statutes of the Realm, IV, pp. 130-31. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, p. 286.
[160] Inner Temple, Petyt MS xlvii, f. 316. Printed and edited in J. G. Nichols, Literary Remains of King Edward V1 (1857), ii, pp. 571-2. Jane was the eldest granddaughter of Henry’s younger sister, Mary – known as ‘the French Queen’.
[161] Cal. Span., XI, pp. 8-9, 17 February 1553 Henry Machyn, The Diary of Henry Machyn, ed. J. G. Nichols (1848), pp. 30-31.
[162] BL Lansdowne MS 3, no. 23.
[163] Loades, John Dudley, p. 239.
[164] E.g. Cal. Span., XI, p. 50. ‘… the sputum which he brings up is livid, black fetid and full of carbon; it smells beyond measure …’
[165] Inner Temple, Petyt MS xlvii, f. 316.
[166] The Emperor’s instructions to messieurs de Courrieres, de Tholouse and Simon Renard (his special envoys) are calendared in Cal. Span., XI, pp. 60-5.
[167] Ibid.
[168] Noailles to Henry II, 28 June 1553. Cited by E. H. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary (1940), p. 43. A recent and highly detailed account of the events of this crisis, makes a case for the legitimacy of Jane’s claim, but admits that few outside the council accepted it at the time. Eric Ives, Lady Jane Grey: a Tudor Mystery (2009).
[169] Ambassadors to the Emperor, 13 July 1553. Cal. Span., XI, pp. 72-80.
[170] ‘The Vita Mariae Reginae of Robert Wingfield of Brantham’, ed. D. MacCulloch, Camden Miscellany, 28 (1984), pp. 203/251. Loades, John Dudley, p. 259.
[171] ‘Vita Mariae’, pp. 203/252.
[172] Ibid., pp. 205/253.
[173] Loades, John Dudley, p. 259. This information was given out in the general letter announcing Jane’s accession.
[174] Historical Manuscripts Commission, Molyneux MSS, p. 609. Ives, Lady Jane Grey, pp. 191-2.
[175] Machyn, Diary, pp. 35-6.
[176] ‘Vita Mariae’, pp. 206/254-5.
[177] Ibid., pp. 210/259.
[178] Cal. Span., XI, pp. 84-6. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors, pp. 49-50.
[179] ‘Vita Mariae’, pp. 206/255. There are several discussions of the formation of Mary’s council: Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor (1991), pp. 18-24; A. Weikel, ‘The Marian Council Revisited’, in J. Loach and R. Tittler (eds), The Mid-Tudor Polity, 1540–1560 (1980), pp. 52-73; D. E. Hoak, ‘Two Revolutions in Tudor Government: The Formation and Organization of Mary I’s Privy Council’, in C. Coleman and D. Starkey (eds), Revolution Reassessed (1987), pp. 87-116.
[180] Arundel had been dismissed from office and from the council following the supposed plot against the Earl of Warwick (as Dudley then was) in December 1549. He had been harassed again, imprisoned and fined for his supposed involvement in Somerset’s ‘treason’ in 1552. His fine was remitted and he was recalled to the council only in early June 1553. Loades, John Dudley, p. 262.
[181] J. G. Nichols (ed.), The Chronicle of Queen Jane (Camden Society, 1850), p. 10. Machyn, Diary, p. 37.
[182] BL Lansdowne MS 3, f. 26. The story of large scale desertions from Northumberland’s force before his final arrival in Cambridge is rejected by Ives, who claims that they only took place after the Duke had given up his campaign. Ives, Lady Jane Grey, p. 205.
[183] Loades, John Dudley, pp. 264-5. R. Tittler and S. L. Battey, ‘The Local Community and the Crown in 1553: The Accession of Mary Tudor Revisited’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 136 (1984), pp. 131-40.
[184] None of these men had ever served on the council before, or occupied anything more than local offices. Loades, Reign of Mary, pp. 18-24.
[185] Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 14.
[186] Ambassadors to the Emperor, 16 August 1553. Cal. Span., XI, p. 172.
[187] Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 193-4.
[188] Chronicle of Queen Jane, pp. 53-6.
[189] Ambassadors to the Emperor, 2 August, 8 August, 31 August (Cal. Span., XI, pp. 129-34, 155-8, 374-5), etc.
[190] Renard to the Bishop of Arras, 9 September 15S3. Cal. Span., XI, pp. 227-8.
[191] P. L. Hughes and J. F Larkin (eds), Tudor Royal Proclamations, II (1969), pp. 5-8.
[192] 1 Mary, sess. 2, c.1. J. Loach, Parliament and the Crown in the Reign of Mary Tudor (1986), pp. 78-9.
[193] Pole to Mary, 2 October 1553. Cal. Ven., V p. 419. Loades, Reign of Mary, p. 69.
[194] Cal. Span., XI, p. 60.
[195] Cardinal Reginald Pole was also mentioned as a possibility in some quarters, as he was only in deacon’s orders, and could therefore have been dispensed to marry. This would have been to resurrect an old idea, but in 1553 neither Pole nor Mary showed any interest in it. Loades, Reign of Mary, pp. 59-60.
[196] Renard to the Emperor, 31 October 1553. Cal. Span., XI, p. 328. She felt, she said, ‘inspired by God’.
[197] M. J. Rodriguez-Salgado, The Changing Face of Empire (1988), pp. 82-5, considers Imperial attitudes to the marriage.
[198] Loach, Parliament and the Crown, pp. 79-80.
[199] David Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies (1965), pp. 12-24.
[200] M. R. Thorpe, ‘Religion and the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt’, Church History, 47 (1978), pp. 363-80.