by Roger Powell
On the accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1558, Knollys was admitted to her Privy Council and made Vice-Chamberlain of her Household, whilst his wife was made a woman of the Queen’s Privy Chamber. Unlike his brother-in-law however, he was not offered a peerage but he was made Governor of Portsmouth and employed on numerous diplomatic missions. However, his chief claim to fame came when he was asked to take charge of Mary, Queen of Scots when she fled to England in May 1568. She remained in his charge for just one year but during that time his attempts to instruct her in the tenets and doctrines of Geneva aroused the suspicions of Queen Elizabeth and he was ordered to desist Another reason why the Queen wished to remove Mary from his care was his proposal that young George Carey, Lord Hunsdon’s eldest son, would be a suitable husband for the Queen of Scots. Such a proposal was almost as ridiculous as the one that she should marry Lord Robert Dudley or one of the sons of Sir Geoffrey Poole, although the latter was at least of royal blood, being a grandson of George, Duke of Clarence.
His position as husband of the Queen’s cousin/half sister enabled him to voice his views on matters of religion with some freedom. A situation that was not always to Elizabeth’s liking. Nevertheless they were generally on good terms but that never stopped him from concealing his distrust for her lack of statesmanship on occasions. The situation was complicated further by the relationship that developed between his daughter Lettice and the Queen’s favourite Lord Robert Dudley, which resulted in their eventual marriage. By his daughter’s first marriage to Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, he became the grandfather of Robert, Earl of Essex, Queen Elizabeth’s last favourite.
Sir John Perrott, PC (ca 1528–1592)
By his own admission, at his trial for High Treason in 1592, Sir John Perrott ‘boasted that he was King Henry’s son and has great alliance in Wales’. True or false, the statement deserves to be examined in detail in order to determine if there is any merit to his assertion. In order to do this we must first establish the basic facts surrounding his birth and then explore the truth or otherwise of his claim.
According to Thomas Perrott’s inquisition post mortem dated 26 September 1531, his son and heir (sic) John was two years old on ‘the morrow of the feast of St Leonard’ ie 7 November 1531, thus giving him a birthdate of 7 November 1529. However, additional documentation points to an alternative date of birth. An inquisition held on 14 April 1549 terminating the young man’s minority, claimed that Sir John had attained his majority at the Feast of St Martin, 10/11 November previous, thus giving him a birthdate of 10/11 November 1528. In support of this alternative date was the award of a knighthood on 17 November 1549, which could only happen on reaching ones majority. Such inconsistencies in the recording of ages in inquisitions post mortem were not uncommon. Nevertheless the inclination to accept the evidence given in contemporary documents is still strong. However, the argument and documentation supporting a birthdate of November 1528, is clearly superior to a date of November 1529. As a result it is possible to postulate that he was conceived around the end of January/beginning of February 1528.
Thomas Perrott, John’s putative father, was the son of Sir Owen Perrott upon whose death he became a ward of the Crown. However shortly before September 1523, Thomas’s wardship and marriage was purchased from the Crown by Maurice, 14th Lord Berkeley, the uncle of Mary Berkeley, his future bride and fellow ward; Mary’s wardship and marriage was purchased in 1521 by Lord Berkeley following the death of Mary’s mother. Mary, was the daughter of James Berkeley, of Thornbury, Gloucestershire, the 14th Lord Berkeley’s younger brother, and Susan Veill and she appears to have been born about 1510. As Thomas Perrott did not come of age until August 1526, we can safely assume that his marriage to Mary probably took place after that date. As wards of Lord Berkeley, Thomas and Mary must have lived in his household until their marriage, but subsequent to that, they lived at Haroldston in Pembrokeshire, Thomas’s ancestral home.
In addition to John, Mary Perrott, bore two daughters Elizabeth and Jane. Which was the elder is unknown as is the sequence of their births; Elizabeth married John Price, of Cogerthan, Cardiganshire and Jane married William Philips, of Pilston, Pembrokeshire. However, they were both clearly born between August 1526 and 1532, when their widowed mother married in the latter year (Sir) Thomas Jones, of Abermarlais, Carmarthenshire. The first thing that Thomas did on marrying Mary was to purchase the wardship and marriage of her son, John, in September 1533 thereby acquiring the yearly value of all the Manors, Lands and hereditiaments of her late husband until John’s majority. Either in consequence of his marriage or shortly afterwards, Thomas Jones was appointed a Gentleman Usher to King Henry VIII, which honour was followed by a knighthood in 1542. Interestingly Sir Thomas was well past his majority at the time. On his death in 1558/9 his widow Mary married again to Sir Robert Whitney, who died in 1567, and she was still known to be alive in 1586, when her son Sir John was Deputy Lieutenant of Ireland. Among her descendants was the infamous Lucy Walters, mistress of King Charles II and mother of the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth.
Sir John’s belief that he was a bastard son of Henry VIII is difficult to prove because, apart from his own declaration, there appears to be no other contemporary evidence. Henry certainly did not shower gifts and lands upon Mary Berkeley or her husbands but that does not appear to have been his style. One historian claims that Sir Robert Naunton, who married Penelope Perrott, Sir John’s granddaughter, was the author of the rumour that Sir John was King Henry’s son. However, Sir John’s own statement made at his trial in 1592 would seem to be the correct source. Although there is no record of Mary Berkeley/Perrott ever having been a Lady of the Bedchamber to Catherine of Aragon, that does not rule out the possibility of her appearing at court as a ward of Lord Berkeley. On the latter’s death in 1523, Mary and her future husband may have been returned to the custody of the Crown until her marriage in or shortly after 1526, but positive proof is lacking on this point. If his mother was indeed briefly a mistress of the King, we have established that it would have been around the end of 1527 or beginning of 1528.
Sir John’s conception and birth occurred at a very important time in the life of Henry VIII. 1528 was the year in which the ‘King’s Great Matter’, his divorce from his Queen Catherine of Aragon, was finally to be resolved. The King’s infatuation with Anne Boleyn had begun in the spring/summer of 1526 shortly before, it is assumed, Mary’s marriage and about the time that he ceased intimate relations with his wife. It was not the best of times to begin another affair but if Henry was frustrated in his pursuit of Mistress Boleyn, it would not be beyond the realms of disbelief for him to turn to more willing prey. If he did, there is no obvious proof that either Mary or her first two husbands benefited. All we know is that Sir Thomas Jones, Mary’s 2nd husband, was made Constable of Emlyn Castle in 1532 and also Steward of Haverfordwest and Laugharne in the same year. Thereafter there was a gap of 7–8 years before he received any major preferment, becoming Sheriff of Pembroke in 1540/1 followed by a knighthood in 1542. Would he have received these honours automatically anyway, or were they a belated reward for his wife’s affair with the King? If Sir John was the King’s son, public recognition would have been the most obvious course of action, but this did not happen. To flaunt the result of any indiscretion on his part before Mistress Boleyn would have been unwise. Of his supposed likeness to the King we can only quote the words of Sir Robert Naunton:
‘…compare his picture, his qualities, gesture and yoyce, with that of the King’s, which memory retains yet amongst us, they will plead strongly, that he was a subrepticious child of the bloud Royall.’
In the words of his 18th century biographer he:
‘was a man in stature very tall and bigg, exceeding the ordinary stature of men by much, and almost equal to the mightiest men that lived in his time … so did he in strength of body’. His hair was alborne … His countenance full of majestie, his eye marvelous percing and carrying a commanding aspect.’
The
same source tells us that he had a very sharp wit and a good understanding of French, Spanish and Italian, but that his greatest defect was that by nature he was hot tempered and could not abide being contradicted. His great height and hot temper were characteristics he shared with King Henry and the latter’s grandfather King Edward IV. But is this conclusive proof that he was King Henry’s son? As we have argued elsewhere, many royal bastards bore no discernable resemblance to their either of their parents. The transmission of family characteristics is a lottery where heredity is concerned therefore the knowledge that Sir John bore a passing resemblance to King Henry must count in his favour.
Master Perrott’s introduction to the Court appears to have been as a direct result of his placement in the household of Sir William Paulet, Baron St John, subsequently Earl of Wiltshire and Marquess of Winchester. This gentleman, for that is what he was until he won the favour and trust of King Henry, was appointed Comptroller of the Royal Household in 1532, Treasurer of the Royal Household in 1537 and Master of the Court of Wards in 1542 before becoming in succession Lord Chamberlain in 1543 and Lord Treasurer in 1550, a post he held for more than twenty years. His uncle (?), Robert Perrott, reader in Greek to the young King Edward, may also have been instrumental in bringing him to the attention of the young King. He cannot have joined the household of Sir William prior to his eighth birthday ie 1536, when the former was Comptroller of the Royal Household. Short of an appointment as one of the King’s pages, Master Perrott could not get a better placement at Court.
Why Sir Thomas Jones decided that his stepson should be placed in the household of Sir William and not remain in Pembrokeshire to live the life of a country gentleman, is unclear. But he certainly benefited from the arrangement. Whilst there, he made the acquaintance of the young Princess Elizabeth and her brother Prince Edward, thus laying the foundations of his later career. By Edward he was knighted at his Coronation in 1547, whilst Elizabeth appointed him one of the gentlemen to carry the Canopy of State at her Coronation. Small marks of favour admittedly, but in the latter case proof surely of Elizabeth’s regard for him.
Master Perrott began his political career in 1547, before reaching his majority, when he became a Member of Parliament for Carmarthenshire in the first Parliament of King Edward. The opportunity arose as a result of the sudden death of Sir Richard Devereux and his candidacy was almost certainly supported by his patron Sir William Paulet, as President of the Council of Wales. He also became Sheriff of Pembrokeshire in 1552 and MP for Sandwich in 1553, whilst his half brother Henry Jones became MP for Carmarthenshire. But it was Queen Elizabeth who gave Perrott the opportunity to display his political and administrative skills by appointing him President of Munster in 1570 and then Lord Deputy of Ireland in 1584.
His first foray into Irish politics was not an unqualified success, and he returned to England without the Queen’s permission on the grounds of ill health. However, his plan ‘for the suppressing of rebellion and the well-governing of Ireland’ submitted to the Queen in 1581, impressed the latter sufficiently for him to be appointed as Lord Deputy. However, Perrott’s language towards his Council and his treatment of them ensured that within four years he was recalled by the Queen. As he departed, one of his sternest critics, Sir Henry Wallop, remarked that he left behind him ‘a memory of so hard usage and haughty demeanour amongst his associates, especially of the English nation, as I think never any before him in this place have done’.
Despite this, Elizabeth saw fit to make him a Privy Councillor on his return, but within a few years he was charged with treasonable correspondence with the King of Spain and and Prince of Parma and amongst other things making disparaging remarks about the Queen. Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s chief minister, was sympathetic to Perrott’s situation, but he was eventually brought to trial mainly due to the efforts of Sir Christopher Hatton, one of the Queen’s favourites, whose daughter Perrott had seduced. At his trial he was found guilty, despite boasting of the fact that he was King Henry’s son and exclaiming ‘God’s death! Will the Queen suffer her brother to be offered up a sacrifice to the envy of his frisking adversary?’ Fortunately, Elizabeth never signed the death warrant and Perrott died suddenly in the Tower from the effects of his confinement and his continual ill health.
Chapter XIII
Stuart Loose Ends
King Charles II (1630–85): Mary Walter, later Sarsfield and Fanshaw (1655–1693)
According to the Dictionary of National Biography, Mary Walter, the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Walter, and sister of James Duke of Monmouth (see page 36), was born 6 May 1651 at The Hague. However, when the authors checked the sources quoted in the article on Lucy Walter, none contained any record of Mary’s date of birth.
As her date of birth is such a vital factor in determining if she was indeed a royal bastard, fresh research was carried out by the authors to discover, if possible, exactly when and where she was born. The result was very interesting and revealed that she was in fact born 1655/6 and not 1651. The documentary evidence in support of this revised date of birth came from two sources; firstly, a Chancery Proceeding of 1684 in the Public Record Office at Kew; and secondly, a contemporary letter/deposition in the Vesey/Sarsfield collection in the National Archives in Dublin. The first established that Mary had married for the first time in the year 1670 and the second that she was just fifteen years old when William Sarsfield ‘privately stole her away’ and married her ‘without the consent of her guardian’.
With the knowledge that Mary was fifteen years old in 1670, it is clear that she must have been born between 1 January 1654/5 and 31 Dec 1655. As a result it is possible to calculate that she almost certainly conceived between 1 April 1654 and 1 April 1655. In view of the uncertainty about her parentage it is worth examining the itineraries of the principal characters in the life of her mother Lucy Walters in the 1650’s: Charles II, Lord Taaffe, Tom Howard (all alleged lovers of Lucy) and Sir Henry de Vic.
Charles II’s itinerary at that time is fairly well documented; until 18 July 1654 he was based in Paris. If he was Mary’s father, then she must have been conceived between 1 April 1654 and 18 July 1654, whilst he was still based there, unless, of course, Lucy accompanied him to Germany; for in August 1654 she was reported to be in Leige. On 5 November 1654 Charles arrived at Cologne in Germany, where he remained until February 1655/6.
Lucy Walter’s movements are much less well documented. However, we do know that in August 1654 she was at Leige, but from November 1654, after Charles had arrived at Cologne, she was living at the Hague. In December 1654 she suddenly arrived in Cologne, with Sir Henry de Vic, seeking Charles’s permission to marry Sir Henry, after which she returned once more to the Hague. Prior to that, in October 1654, Lord Hatton reported to Sir Edward Nicholas from Paris that he had heard of ‘scurrilous stuff about Lord Taff and Mrs Barlow’. However, her alleged presence at The Hague at the end of 1654 and throughout 1655 is seemingly attested by letters written by Mary, the Princess Royal, to her brother Charles where she is intriguingly referred to as ‘your wife’; she was probably using this term as a code name for Lucy.
The itineraries of the other parties involved – Lord Taaffe, a good friend of the King’s, and Colonel Tom Howard – can be documented as follows: in October 1654 Lord Taaffe was probably in Paris when Lucy was almost certainly living in The Hague. At the end of the year he was at Cologne, as indeed were Charles and Lucy, but was in Paris again at the beginning of 1654/5. In April and July of 1655 he and Lucy were at The Hague; at the end of March 1655 he was at Dort and then Gertrudenberge. Tom Howard, who was a brother of the Earl of Suffolk and Master of the Horse to Princess Mary, Charles’s sister, was also at Dort in March 1655, but before that, he was at The Hague, to which he had returned by August 1655 and was frequently seen in Lucy’s company.
In summary it would seem that from November 1654 and throughout the whole of 1655 Charles II was based at Cologne. However, this did not prevent him from making impromptu visits to
other cities; in October 1654 he was at Dusseldorf, in March 1655 Middleburg and September the Frankfurt Fair. Lucy Walter appears to have visited Paris at the end of 1654 and possibly the beginning of 1655, before settling at The Hague for the rest of 1655, as did Lord Taaffe and Tom Howard.
As previously mentioned, in December 1654 Lucy with Sir Henry Vic, Charles’s representative at Brussels, suddenly arrived in Cologne to seek, it is alleged, his permission for their marriage. This totally unexpected event caused considerable concern to Charles, who refused to countenance such a union, and poor Sir Henry was reprimanded for leaving his post. The sudden appearance of Sir Henry in Lucy’s life is curious and can best be explained as perhaps the infatuation of an older man for a younger woman. Such an act on her part illustrates perhaps that she was to all intents and purposes no longer Charles’s mistress and she was attempting to stablize her financial situation by an advantageous marriage. What is unclear at this juncture is whether she was carrying the King’s child. No mention is made in surviving contemporary letters of her being in an advanced state of pregnancy; therefore an approximate conception date of April–July 1654, with Charles the father, is highly unlikely. An advanced state of pregnancy – ie nine months – would also have made travelling very difficult and indeed dangerous for her. If with child, she is more likely to have been in the early stages of pregnancy perhaps three to four months, thus making a conception date of August 1654 or even October 1654 more probable. If this was indeed the case, it raises the question of whether Sir Henry was aware of her condition and whether Charles was indeed the father of her child.