7. Cranmer, Misc. Writings, pp. 377–9. For full details and analysis of the letters between Henry and the Germans, see J. Schofield, Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation (Aldershot, 2006), chapter 7. What follows here is a summary.
8. English Historical Documents, vol. 5, 1485–1558, ed. C.H. Williams (London, 1967), pp. 811–14. For Cromwell’s previous Injunctions, see chap. 10.
9. MBW 2, no. 2111 = CR 3, col. 601; LP 13 (2), nos 328, 367, 401, 674, 860, 1049. For some government backed historical revisionism on Becket, see Elton, Policy, p. 257, fn. 1.
10. TRP 1, no. 186, pp. 270–76; no. 188, pp. 278–80; J. Strype, Memorial of … Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (Oxford, 1812 ), vol. 2, p. 691; LP 13 (2), nos 427, 498; Elton, Policy, pp. 256–60; McEntegart, Henry VIII, pp. 138–9.
11. Foxe 5, pp. 3–15; LP 5, nos 1432, 1458; Cranmer, Misc. Writings, p. 246; Brecht 3, pp. 56–7.
12. Foxe 5, pp. 230–36.
13. Merriman 2, p. 162; Foxe 5, p. 236.
14. Foxe 5, p. 236.
15. LP 13 (2), p. xlvi.
16. M.H and R. Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Exeter Conspiracy (2 vols, Cambridge, 1915), 2, pp. 277–334.
17. Merriman 2, p. 161; LP 14 (1), nos 233, 280; Ribier 1, p. 350 = LP 13 (2) no. 1163, p. 483; LP 14 (1) no. 37, pp. 15, 18–19; Dodds, Exeter Conspiracy 2, pp. 319–20.
18. CSP Span., 1534–5, no. 109, p. 325; no. 201, p. 538; no. 213, p. 550.
19. LP 13 (2), no. 804, p. 317.
20. LP 13 (2), no. 800, p. 313.
21. LP 13 (2) nos 955 (8), 979, pp. 418 (7.3), 419 (11).
22. Dodds, Exeter Conspiracy 2, pp. 289–90; LP 13 (2), nos 765, 957.
23. LP 13 (2), nos 827, p. 334; 829 (2), pp. 337–8; 830, p. 341 (2.1); 856, p. 397, 875, p. 363; 954, 961.
24. Ribier 1, p. 247 = LP 13 (2), no. 753.
25. On the Court of Augmentations and its work, see J. Youings, The Dissolution of the Monasteries (London, 1971), chapter 4. The fish: Wright, pp. 152–4.
26. E. Hallam, ‘Henry VIII’s refoundations of 1536–37 and the course of the dissolution’, BIHR 51 (1978): 124–31; Wright, pp. 156–7.
27. Ellis 11, pp. 158–61; Youings, Dissolution, pp. 67, 69; Merriman 2, pp. 131–2.
28. Hallam, ‘Henry’s refoundations’, p. 131; D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, vol. 3: The Tudor Age (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 350–51, 360–66; Wright, p. 254; Youings, Dissolution, p. 78.
29. Wright, pp. 203–4; 244–5; LP 13 (2) 650.
30. Wright, p. 197.
31. Cranmer, Misc Writings, pp. 375–6.
32. Wright, pp. 248–9.
33. Merriman 2, p. 159; Wright, p. 250; LP 13 (2), nos 887, 1092; LP 14 (1), nos 145, 269.
34. LP 14 (1), nos 1006, 1025; LP 14 (2) App. 5, p. 359, App. 18, p. 363, App. 25, p. 365.
35. LP 12 (1), nos 508 (3), 1147 (2.1); Latimer, Remains, pp. 386–7, 406–9.
36. LP 13 (1), no. 347; Ellis 12, pp. 223–4; Wright, pp. 236–8; Latimer, Remains, pp. 407–8, 410–11.
37. LP 11, no. 570; LP 13 (1), nos 441, 492, 1262; Wright, pp. 227–31.
38. Ellis 11, pp. 233–4.
39. Ellis 11, pp. 236–8.
40. S. Lehmberg, The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII: 1536–1547 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 62–3; G.R. Elton, England under the Tudors (Routledge, 2001), pp. 148–9; Youings, Dissolution, p. 23.
41. Wright, p. 227.
42. Wright, pp. 238–9; LP 13 (2), nos 677, 866; LP 14 (1), no. 1191; LP 14 (2), no. 787.
43. Kaulek, p. 99 = LP 14 (1), no. 988; 31 Henry VIII, c. 9; LJ 1, p. 112; Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, pp. 66–7.
44. ET, p. 209 = OL 1, p. 316; ET, p. 398 = OL 2, p. 614; LP 15, no. 379.
45. See discussions in Youings, Dissolution, pp. 86–7; G.R. Elton Reform and Reformation (London, 1977), pp. 242–4; A. Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry VIII: Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 161–4.
46. S. Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible (3 vols, Cambridge, 1987), vol. 3, pp. 148–51; Mozley, Coverdale, pp. 7, 171–2, 201–3; Foxe 5, p. 411; LP 13 (2), no. 973.
47. SP 1, pp. 575–6, 578–9, 589; SP 8, p. 62; Coverdale, Remains ed. G. Pearson (Cambridge, 1846), pp. 492–7.
48. Mozley, Coverdale, p. 206; LP 13 (2) 1085; Foxe 5, pp. 411–12.
49. LP 13 (2), no. 1136 (2); Mozley, Coverdale, 210–11.
50. LP 13 (2), nos 148, 1110, 1087–8; 1136 (1).
51. LP 13 (2), no. 1163, p. 483; Mozley, Coverdale, pp. 207–9, 320–21.
52. Kaulek, pp. 97, 100, 108 = LP 14 (1), nos 934, 989, 1208; A. Slavin, ‘The Rochepot Affair’, SCJ 10 (1979): 3–19; Foxe 5, pp. 411–12.
53. LP 14 (1), no. 37, p. 19.
54. TRP 1, no. 192, pp. 286–7; Elton: Policy, pp. 247–8; Elton, Tudor Const., pp. 223, 368; Merriman 2, pp. 111–12.
55. Cranmer, Misc Writings, p. 336.
56. Ibid., pp. 371–2
57. Ibid., p. 380.
58. Ibid., p. 380.
59. Ibid., pp. 381–5.
60. Ibid., pp. 386–7.
61. LP 14 (2), no. 75.
62. D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (London, 1996), pp. 221–6.
63. Williams (ed.), English Historical Documents 5, p. 609.
64. Elton, Policy, pp. 258–9.
65. LP 14 (1), nos 295, 839.
66. Coverdale, Remains, pp. 498–9; LP 13 (2), no. 571; LP 14 (1), nos 1052–3.
67. LP 13 (2), no. 953; LP 14 (1), no. 334.
15
The Affairs of Kings
The ‘displeasure and sorrow’ of Queen Jane’s death in October 1537 was reported to English ambassadors abroad by Cromwell. The official announcement added that although Henry was not minded to marry again, the council had urged him to re-consider for the sake of the realm. Ambassadors were soon being asked to make discreet enquiries about eligible ladies on the continent. Cromwell also sounded out John Hutton, governor of the Merchant Adventures in Antwerp, who was also an English agent in Flanders. Hutton praised the duchess of Milan, who had just arrived there – ‘a goodly personage of body and competent of beauty, of favour excellent, soft of speech and very gentle on countenance’. He also mentioned the daughter of the duke of Cleves; he had not seen her, but he had heard ‘no great praise neither of her personage nor beauty’.1
Christina, duchess of Milan, was the second daughter of the deposed King Christian II of Denmark. She was a niece of Charles V, and, though only sixteen years old, already a widow. The duchy of Milan, prized by both Francis and Charles, could have given Henry enviable diplomatic leverage in European power politics. Cromwell was soon involved in the marriage talks, and he raised with Chapuys the possibility of a multiple alliance: Henry to the duchess, Edward to the emperor’s daughter, Maria, and Elizabeth to the son of the duke of Savoy or the son of the king of the Romans. Chapuys was cautious. Probably rightly, he suspected that Henry was coveting Milan mainly to ‘sow suspicion’ between Charles and Francis, who were now on more amicable terms.2
According to the French ambassador, Castillon, Cromwell must have carried his traditionally pro-Imperialist preferences a little too far. For this he received a royal ticking off from Henry, who told him that whilst he was a good secretary he had no right to interfere in the affairs of kings (Il estoit bon pour le mesnaige [sic], main non pour entremettre des affaires des roys.) Le ménage usually means ‘housework’, but it is unlikely that Cromwell was being assigned household chores from now on. The Letters and Papers translates it as ‘manager’, but I have rendered it as ‘secretary’ because it seems that Henry was reminding Cromwell that he was the king’s Principal Secretary, appointed to run the government administration, and not get ideas above his station. It was nothing serious – just an example of Henry getting testy.3
Cromwell’s enthusiasm for the duchess may have irr
itated Henry because at this stage the king was rather keen on a French marriage. His interest focussed on Madame de Longueville until, to his intense annoyance, he found himself in competition with King James of Scotland. Madame’s ample figure had appealed to Henry – ‘we are big in person and would like a big wife’, he informed bemused French envoys. With some difficulty the French tried to persuade Henry that whilst they would be delighted to oblige him wherever they could, Madame was already promised to the Scottish king and the promise could not be broken. Trying to be helpful, the French suggested other names that might be suitable, though they were less than enamoured with Henry’s idea that these titled Gallic ladies should present themselves to him at Calais for inspection. Why, French envoys asked diplomatically, could Henry not send a dependable representative to see the ladies and report back? ‘By God’, replied Henry, ‘I trust none but myself, for the thing touches me too dear’. Though Henry did relent a little, these words are crucial to understanding the later, ill-matched Cleves marriage correctly: Henry, not Cromwell or anyone else, would choose the new queen of England, and Cromwell was not so stupid as to imagine that the king could be forced against his will.4
In summer 1538, Chapuys heard that a painter would be sent to Germany, and he was probing Cromwell for more news. Cromwell assured him that Henry was ‘not one to marry without having first seen and known’ the lady. Chapuys suspected a German marriage alliance was being considered, but he wasn’t sure of the details. His despatches mention the young duke of Cleves for Mary, and a relative of Cleves’ for Henry. Castillon has a similar report of Mary being considered for young Cleves. The name Anne of Cleves now began to appear in diplomatic despatches; but Castillon, like the English, expected her to marry the son of the duke of Lorraine because a pre-contract was believed to exist between them. In August Cromwell put forward the possibility of a marriage between Mary and young Cleves to the German delegation in England. The response was encouraging, and Elector John Frederick subsequently wrote to Cromwell about it.5
The Cleves connection, almost certainly Cromwell’s idea, was entirely safe and timely. The Cleves family was a bit like Henry – neither wholly Catholic nor wholly Lutheran – but they were related by marriage to the Lutheran Elector John Frederick of Saxony. The Lutherans had come to England at Henry’s invitation, and, although Henry disagreed with them over private masses and priestly marriage, he would have preferred to negotiate further on these points and not end the Lutheran dialogue completely. So an indirect connection with the German princes, one which would not bind Henry to the Augsburg Confession, easily commended itself to the king.
According to ambassadors’ letters from October to December 1538, however, the duchess of Milan was still the government’s preferred choice, and negotiations were proceeding accordingly. Nevertheless, it must have been during this period that Anne of Cleves was first considered as well, maybe in case the Milan talks failed.6
On 10 January, 1539 Christopher Mont was sent to Germany to press John Frederick for replies regarding the theological discussions of the previous summer; but he also took with him quite specific instructions from Cromwell regarding the Cleves ladies. Besides a match between Mary and young Cleves, Mont was to – ‘diligently but secretly’ make enquiries about the ‘beauty and quality’ of Anne, including her ‘shape, stature, proportion and complexion … her learning, activity, behaviour and honest qualities’. If Mont was satisfied that she was ‘such as might be likened unto his majesty’, then Mont should assure the Germans that Cromwell was ‘much tendering the king’s alliance in Germany … and would be glad to employ himself earnestly to induce and persuade the king’s highness, his sovereign lord, rather to join with them than otherwise’. Cromwell did not yet know whether any conclusion had been reached regarding the prospective French or Milan marriages, but he stressed that ‘his grace is not of light proceeding in a matter of such importance’. If the Germans were willing, and if Anne was suitable, ‘he thinketh that it should be most expedient they should send her picture hither, so that his lordship might the better persuade his Majesty thereby’. (Here, ‘he thinketh’ refers to Cromwell – he refers to himself in the third person throughout the letter.) What is not absolutely clear from this letter, however, is whether Cromwell had discussed the idea with Henry. The probability must be that he had, because it would be uncharacteristically indiscreet to ask for a picture of Anne to be sent to Henry without talking the matter over with Henry first, especially when a marriage to the duchess of Milan or a French lady was still a possibility. Then, to Cromwell’s satisfaction, Mont replied quickly; he had seen John Frederick, who was supportive.7
Sometime in late 1538, therefore, Cromwell had floated the suggestion that Henry might consider Anne as well as the duchess of Milan. Nothing was decided on, but Cromwell was willing to promote a marriage to Anne provided the emissaries considered her a suitable candidate. Cromwell’s idea was to forge an Anglo-German bond that did not require Henry to formally accept the Augsburg Confession. This was entirely in accord with the king’s own wishes, a point that popular accounts of Henry and his wives miss completely. There was absolutely nothing reckless or foolhardy in it.
Prospects for the Cleves marriage then received a boost. Because the duchess of Milan was a niece of Charles V, she was also great-niece of Catherine of Aragon, so a relation of affinity, albeit a distant one, existed between her and Henry. A papal dispensation might therefore be needed to sanction this marriage. The English had known about this potential sticking point all along, but negotiations had continued in the hope that somehow they might be able to resolve it amicably. At Toledo in February 1539, however, Charles told the English that he would insist on a papal dispensation. He rejected outright any suggestion that Henry, just because he had made himself Head of the Church in England, could issue a dispensation on his own authority; from this it sounds as though Charles was never especially keen on this marriage. Then on 10 March, Henry sent a message to Charles via Ambassador Wyatt: Henry, it stated bluntly, would never accept papal interference or ruling in his affairs.8
So the Milan marriage was moribund, and not because Cromwell had lured Henry away from the duchess against his will. It was Henry who ruled it out by refusing even to consider any involvement on the part of the pope. The door was now open to Anne of Cleves. On the same day – 10 March, 1539 – Henry sent emissaries Carne, Wotton and Birde to the duke of Cleves, promising his good will and inquiring about the possibility of a treaty by marriage. Carne and his companions were to ask to see the Lady Anne and obtain permission for a portrait. Cromwell separately instructed Christopher Mont to ask what ‘contribution and aid’ might be available from Cleves and the Germans if England were threatened with attack from either Francis or Charles. Cromwell was also pressing for another Lutheran embassy to England.9
On 18 March, Cromwell was able to report to Henry that John Frederick might support a marriage with Anne, and that a portrait of her could be ready soon. Cromwell then gave a very glowing description of Anne: ‘Every man praiseth the beauty of the same lady as well for the face as for the whole body above all other ladies excellent’. According to one witness, she ‘excelleth as far the duchess [of Milan] as the golden sun excelleth the silver moon’. These are Cromwell’s words based on a letter he had received from Mont, now frustratingly lost, so the theory that Cromwell was exaggerating is pure guesswork. Cromwell added that John Frederick, despite being pressed by Mont to continue talks on theology, had not yet made any firm promise.10
We will leave Mont and his companions on the continent for now, because while romantic affairs were being conducted abroad, at home England was virtually on a war footing. King Francis and Charles V had made peace, a dangerous peace for England, and Rome renewed her determination to bring Henry to his knees. Cardinal Pole and the pope were urging Franco-Imperial action against England, beginning with a trade embargo in the hope of stirring up unrest and possibly a rising against Henry.11
Crom
well began England’s diplomatic counter-offensive in Italy, the land he knew well and still loved. He instructed Edmund Harvell, a merchant friend and agent in Venice, to open exploratory talks with the duke of Urbino and other Italian states in dispute with Rome, to see if any alliance with England might be made. He may have heard reports of Lutheranism penetrating Italy, so he decided to sponsor some undercover evangelising there. Harvell was to seek out ‘notable and honest persons … that like to have a sincere zeal for the truth’, and who oppose the bishop of Rome. He should then ‘employ his wit to power in some smack of the pure learning of Christ’s doctrine among them’, and wean them away from the ‘abuses of pardons, relics and other superstitions of the bishop of Rome’s see, contrary to the Gospel’. If Harvell found any willing hearers, then let him ‘proceed from step to step, further and further … if he shall find any inclined to the Protestant religion or averse to the pope, he shall soberly explain to them the vanity of the Romish doctrine’.12
This was the year (1539) of Reginald Pole’s Apologia to Charles V, in which he cast aside his former reasonableness towards Cromwell. Pole’s work begins with a savage attack on Henry for the dissolution of the monasteries, the executions of More, Fisher and the Carthusians, the destruction of Becket’s shrine and the Exeters. Pole then urged Charles to fight Henry rather than Turk, for the English king had sunk so low that he was worse even than the ‘infidel’. The Apologia recalled the early days of Henry’s first divorce, how Henry expected Rome would approve, and when she did not, the king at first decided to proceed no further. But then ‘a messenger of Satan’ approached Henry to make him suspect the wisdom of his loyal councillors. This messenger, Pole continued, beguiled the king, flattering him that he was ‘above all law’, and that all who opposed him deserved death. If, therefore, the pope refused to grant his divorce, then Henry should renounce Rome and make himself Head of the Church in England. The messenger led Henry to the ‘pinnacle of the temple’, from whence he showed him all the alluring riches that the king would gain by seizing the possessions of the church and commanding the clergy’s submission. All opposition would be made treason. Pole then revealed the identity of this satanic envoy – Cromwell – a creature ‘more like the demons in the tombs than a man, without conscience or any sense of right’. Pole described Cromwell lecturing him one day on a minister’s duty to his prince. Cromwell told Pole he should forsake the insipid scholastic theologians and learn the practical, if brutal, art of government. He promised to send Pole a book on the subject. The book was Machiavelli’s The Prince, in Pole’s view a ‘satanic work’.13
The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell Page 39