Elizabeth

by John Guy

  24 Camden, p. 433.

  25 Wotton, A Parallel, p. 3.

  26 BL, Harleian MS 6845, fo. 100, is the key document, but it does not seem to me to prove that Ralegh sailed with Drake and Norris, as opposed to contributing ships and men; C. E. Mounts, ‘The Ralegh–Essex Rivalry and Mother Hubberd’s Tale’, Modern Language Notes, 65 (1950), pp. 509–13.

  27 Mounts, ‘The Ralegh–Essex Rivalry’, pp. 509–13.

  28 Birch, Memoirs, I, p. 56.

  29 The Letters of Sir Walter Ralegh, ed. A. Latham and J. Youings (Exeter, 1999), no. 33.

  30 Letters of Sir Walter Ralegh, ed. Latham and Youings, no. 33.

  31 Birch, Memoirs, I, p. 57.

  32 Lodge, II, p. 352.

  33 Lodge, II, p. 386.

  34 Lodge, II, pp. 417, 422.

  35 Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 95–6, 319–20.

  36 SP 12/240, no. 17.

  37 Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 95–6.

  38 BL, Cotton MS, Galba D.I, fo. 248; CSPSM, 1586–8, no. 434.

  39 BL, Harleian MS 6994, fo. 189.

  40 SP 12/231, no. 62.

  41 PROB 11/75, fo. 262v; BL, Lansdowne MS 96, fo. 69.

  42 SP 12/239, no. 70.

  43 Murdin, pp. 636–40; Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 91–2.

  44 ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton, 1590–1591’, ed. P. E. J. Hammer, Camden Society, 5th Series, 22 (2003), pp. 210–11; Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 101–2.

  45 LASPF, 1589–90, pp. 245–55, 320–27; Camden, p. 436; Birch, Hist. View, p. 2; Wernham, After the Armada, pp. 131–57.

  46 LASPF, 1589–90, pp. 257–78; Camden, pp. 436–7; Wernham, After the Armada, pp. 159–80.

  47 LASPF, 1590–91, pp. 232–58, 297–311; Lodge, II, p. 423; Camden, pp. 442–4; Wernham, After the Armada, pp. 181–206.

  48 Recueil des lettres missives de Henri IV, ed. B. de Xivrey, 9 vols. (Paris, 1843–58), II, p. 390.

  49 LASPF, 1590–91, p. 296.

  50 Lodge, II, p. 422; E 351/542 (entries from Mich. 1590–91); Wernham, After the Armada, pp. 265–6.

  51 Lodge, II, pp. 419–20; Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 96–7.

  52 Lodge, II, pp. 419–20; W. Segar, Honor, Military and Civill, Contained in Four Books (London, 1602), p. 197.

  53 The Poems of Sir Walter Ralegh, ed. A. Latham (London, 1951), p. 11; R. Strong, ‘Elizabethan Pageantry as Propaganda’, Courtauld Institute Ph.D. (1962), pp. 122–4.

  54 Lodge, II, pp. 418–19.

  55 Lodge, II, p. 422–3; Devereux, I, pp. 211–12.

  56 Lodge, II, p. 422.

  57 Lodge, II, p. 433.

  58 LASPF, 1590–91, pp. 297–316; Wernham, After the Armada, pp. 262–91.

  59 LASPF, 1590–91, pp. 323–5.

  60 LASPF, 1590–91, pp. 327–9; Camden, pp. 448–9, where the initiative is wrongly attributed to Henry IV. Henry made a similar proposal in September 1590, but it was not then pursued. See H. A. Lloyd, The Rouen Campaign (Oxford, 1973), pp. 37–8, 63–77.

  61 The essential work here has been done by Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 97–104, to whom I am much indebted.

  62 LASPF, 1591–2, p. 324.

  63 Harrison, Life and Death of Robert Devereux, p. 47; Devereux, I, p. 215.

  64 Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, pp. 98–9, 102–4.

  65 Murdin, p. 796; Devereux, I, pp. 215–17.

  66 SP 78/25, fos. 81–4; Unton, pp. 1–4.

  67 Murdin, p. 797; SP 78/25, fos. 70–74.

  68 SP 78/25, fo. 94; LASPF, 1591–2, p. 327; LQE, pp. 209–10.

  69 SP 78/25, fo. 105.

  70 SP 78/26, fo. 278.

  Chapter 8: The Visible Queen

  1 R. Strong, ‘Elizabethan Pageantry as Propaganda’, Courtauld Institute Ph.D. (1962), p. 123.

  2 The description of the ‘Ditchley Portrait’ is from R. Strong, Artists of the Tudor Court (London, 1983), p. 124.

  3 Strong, ‘Elizabethan Pageantry’, pp. 125–30; H. Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen (London, 1995), pp. 144–54.

  4 R. Strong, Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I (London, 1963), pp. 17, 66–9, and plates 9–10; F. A. Yates, Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1975), pp. 112–17; Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England, 1530–1630, ed. K. Hearn (London, 1995), nos. 40, 100.

  5 W. Segar, Honor, Military and Civill, Contained in Four Books (London, 1602), pp. 197–200; G. Peele, Polyhymnia (London, 1590), sig. B3v–B4v; Strong, ‘Elizabethan Pageantry’, p. 126.

  6 Strong, ‘Elizabethan Pageantry’, pp. 125–30.

  7 According to the Duke of Newcastle’s advice to Charles II after the Restoration in 1660, the purpose of Elizabethan-style progresses was so that ‘Your Majesty will do all you can to please your people both great and small, and to caress the great that hath power in their several counties.’ ‘Caress’, however, also had an ironic meaning: to cajole or even perhaps intimidate, as well as to treat affectionately. See A Catalogue of Letters and Other Historical Documents Exhibited in the Library at Welbeck, ed. S. A. Strong (London, 1903), p. 226.

  8 Some relevant detail can be found in M. H. Cole, The Portable Queen: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Ceremony (Amherst, MA, 1999), pp. 40–46. But the book is riddled with confusion about the nature and purpose of royal progresses.

  9 H. Nicolas, Memoirs of the Life and Times of Christopher Hatton, K.G. (London, 1847), pp. 125–6, 155–6, 333–4.

  10 J. Smyth, The Berkeley Manuscripts: The Lives of the Berkeleys . . . in the County of Gloucester from 1066 to 1618, ed. J. MacLean (3 vols., Gloucester, 1883–5), II, pp. 337–8, 378–9; L. Stone, Family and Fortune: Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford, 1973), p. 248. In Elizabeth’s favour is that, on being afterwards informed of Dudley’s malice towards him, she sent Lord Berkeley ‘a secret, friendly advertisement’, the closest thing to an apology to which she ever put her name.

  11 J. Summerson, ‘The Building of Theobalds, 1564–1585’, Archaeologia, 97 (1959), pp. 107–26; S. Alford, Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I (London, 2008), pp. 300–302.

  12 T. Martyn, Elizabeth in the Garden (London, 2008), pp. 154–84.

  13 Summerson, ‘The Building of Theobalds’, pp. 122–3. Further details of the pageant may be found in Bond, I, pp. 417–19; B. R. Smith, ‘Landscape with Figures: The Three Realms of Queen Elizabeth’s Country-House Revels’, in Renaissance Drama, New Series, 8 (1977), pp. 78–9; G. Heaton, ‘Elizabethan Entertainments in Manuscript: The Harefield Festivities (1602) and the Dynamics of Exchange’, in The Progresses, Pageants and Entertainments of Queen Elizabeth I, ed. J. E. Archer, E. Goldring and S. Knight (Oxford, 2007), pp. 229–31.

  14 J. Clapham, Certain Observations Concerning the Life and Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. E. P. Read and C. Read (Philadelphia, 1951), p. 81.

  15 Nichols, III, p. 19. Brooke’s mother was another veteran of the Court. Attending Elizabeth at regular intervals from 1558 until 1592, and with special responsibilities for the queen’s choice of clothes, she was one of only a handful of confidantes known to be able to speak frankly to her: she had offered to intercede with the queen when Elizabeth had shut out Burghley in the anxious weeks after the execution of Mary Queen of Scots. See BL, Lansdowne MS 18, fo. 73; BL, Lansdowne MS 29, fo. 161; BL, Lansdowne MS 34, fo. 76; BL, Lansdowne MS 59, fo. 43; J. Arnold, Queen Elizabeth’s Wardrobe Unlock’d (Leeds, 1988), p. 104; Alford, Burghley, pp. 311–13.

  16 BL, Egerton MS 2623, fos. 15–16; J. P. Collier, The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare (3 vols., London, 1879), I, pp. 276–8; Nichols, III, pp. 74–5; J. M. Sutton, ‘The Retiring Patron: William Cecil and the C
ultivation of Retirement, 1590–98’, in Patronage, Culture and Power: The Early Cecils, ed. P. Croft (London, 2002), pp. 159–79; Alford, Burghley, pp. 312–13.

  17 Annals of the Reformation, ed. J. Strype (4 vols., London, 1824), IV, pp. 108–109; SP 12/238, no. 159.

  18 Nichols, III, pp. 76–8.

  19 Nichols, III, pp. 81–4.

  20 Murdin, p. 797; ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton, 1590–1591’, ed. P. E. J. Hammer, Camden Society, 5th Series, 22 (2003), p. 204.

  21 Unton, p. 16; P. E. J. Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 102.

  22 M. C. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c.1550–1640 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 117–23; T. J. McCann, ‘The Parliamentary Speech of Viscount Montague against the Act of Supremacy, 1559’, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 108 (1970), pp. 50–57.

  23 C. C. Breight, ‘Caressing the Great: Viscount Montague’s Entertainment of Elizabeth at Cowdray, 1591’, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 127 (1989), pp. 147–66; Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp. 162–78, 196–9.

  24 Bond, I, pp. 422–3; Breight, ‘Caressing the Great’, pp. 150–51. I have used the texts in Bond in preference to the confusingly presented versions in Entertainments for Elizabeth I, ed. J. Wilson (Woodbridge, 1980).

  25 Bond, I, pp. 423–4.

  26 A more complex reading is suggested by E. Heale, ‘Contesting Terms: Loyal Catholicism and Lord Montague’s Entertainment at Cowdray, 1591’, in Progresses, Pageants and Entertainments of Queen Elizabeth I, ed. Archer, Goldring and Knight, pp. 188–206.

  27 Nichols, III, p. 95.

  28 Bond, I, pp. 427–9; Nichols, III, pp. 95–6. Heale maintains that the second ‘fisherman’ is ambiguously both a fisherman and a Catholic priest, and that the purpose of his dialogue with the ‘angler’ is to assert the loyalty of Catholics and the dangers of the real traitors: the ‘privy carpers, ambitious climbers and immoral exploiters who operate unchecked within the Protestant state’. See Heale, ‘Contesting Terms’, pp. 203–4.

  29 Bond, I, p. 429.

  30 Breight, ‘Caressing the Great’, pp. 157–9.

  31 TRP, III, nos. 738–9; Stow, 1592 edn, pp. 1290–91.

  32 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p. 176.

  33 BL, Lansdowne MS 99, fo. 163; SP 12/240, nos. 42–3; Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp. 177–8.

  34 HMC, Hatfield MSS, IV, pp. 132–3; LASPF, 1591–2, p. 331; ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton’, ed. Hammer, pp. 236, 245.

  35 ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton’, ed. Hammer, pp. 209, 238, 246.

  36 C. C. Breight, ‘Realpolitik and Elizabethan Ceremony: The Earl of Hertford’s Entertainment of Elizabeth at Elvetham, 1591’, RQ, 45 (1992), pp. 20–49; H. H. Boyle, ‘Elizabeth’s Entertainment at Elvetham: War Policy in Pageantry’, Studies in Philology, 68 (1971), pp. 146–66; Robert Cecil confirmed that the ‘gestes’ (i.e. itinerary for the queen’s return journey to London in the form of a list of stops along the route) were still being revised and adjusted shortly before 4 September 1591: see ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton’, ed. Hammer, pp. 245–6.

  37 Bond, I, p. 432; Breight, ‘Realpolitik and Elizabethan Ceremony’, p. 26; S. Adams, ‘“The Queenes Majestie . . . is now become a great huntress”: Elizabeth I and the Chase’, Court Historian, 18 (2013), p. 163.

  38 SP 46/10; BL, Additional MS 33749; HEH, Ellesmere MS 2652, fo. 7; Haynes, p. 378.

  39 HMC, Bath MSS, IV, p. 158.

  40 Bond, I, p. 432; Boyle, ‘Elizabeth’s Entertainment at Elvetham’, p. 147.

  41 The Honorable Entertainement Gieven to the Queenes Majestie in Progresse, at Elvetham in Hampshire, by the Right Honorable the Earle of Hertforde (London, 1591); Bond, I, p. 433.

  42 Bond, I, pp. 446–7.

  43 H. Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen (London, 1995), pp. 141–2, 174–8.

  44 Bond, I, pp. 442–3.

  45 Bond, I, pp. 443–4; Smith, ‘Landscape with Figures’, pp. 90–92; Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen, pp. 139–40.

  46 Breight, ‘Realpolitik and Elizabethan Ceremony’, pp. 31–2; Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen, pp. 107–8, 139–42, 165.

  47 Bond, I, pp. 447–9.

  48 Bond, I, pp. 449–50.

  49 Bond, I, p. 451.

  50 Martyn, Elizabeth in the Garden, pp. 62–85.

  51 Bond, I, p. 452.

  52 Collins, I, pp. 358–60; HMC, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS, II, pp. 177, 183–4, 192, 197; HMC, Hatfield MSS, V, pp. 273–4; Breight, ‘Elizabeth’s Entertainment at Elvetham’, pp. 37–40.

  53 SP 12/254, no. 54.

  Chapter 9: The Enemy Within

  1 SP 52/46, fo. 5. This document is a copy, but the information about the queen’s hand comes from the endorsement.

  2 Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, ed. W. H. Frere and W. M. Kennedy, 3 vols. (London, 1910), III, pp. 9, 16, 20; CSPSM, 1547–63, pp. 257, 289; The Zurich Letters, ed. H. Robinson (Cambridge, 1846; 2nd edn), p. 98; P. Collinson, Archbishop Grindal, 1519–1583: The Struggle for a Reformed Church (London, 1979), pp. 97–102; P. Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994), pp. 87–118; D. Crankshaw and A. Gillespie, ODNB, s.v. ‘Matthew Parker’.

  3 P. Lake, ‘A Tale of Two Episcopal Surveys: The Strange Fates of Edmund Grindal and Cuthbert Mayne Revisited’, TRHS, 6th Series, 18 (2008), pp. 129–63.

  4 Northamptonshire RO, Fitzwilliam of Milton MSS, Political MS 70.c (reference kindly supplied by Patrick Collinson); Collinson, Archbishop Grindal, pp. 233–52.

  5 BL, Lansdowne MS 23, fos. 24–9v; The Remains of Archbishop Grindal, D.D., ed. W. Nicholson (Cambridge, 1843), pp. 376–90.

  6 BL, Lansdowne MS 25, fos. 94–5.

  7 This paragraph is, necessarily, a highly simplified summary of P. Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London, 1988).

  8 P. Collinson, Richard Bancroft and Elizabethan Anti-Puritanism (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 39–59. For the Scottish dimension, see J. Wormald, ‘Ecclesiastical Vitriol: The Kirk, the Puritans and the Future King of England’, in The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade, ed. J. Guy (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 171–91.

  9 Chief among them was Richard Bancroft, who doubled as Hatton’s chaplain and Whitgift’s inquisitor-general. Playing second fiddle was Dr Richard Cosin, who had been Whitgift’s pupil at Trinity College, Cambridge. See Collinson, Richard Bancroft, pp. 83–147; J. E. Hampson, ‘Richard Cosin and the Rehabilitation of the Clerical Estate in Late-Elizabethan England’, University of St Andrews Ph.D. (1997), pp. 73–168.

  10 SP 12/172, no. 1.

  11 G. Donaldson, Scotland: James V–James VII (Edinburgh, 1971), p. 192.

  12 SP 52/46, fo. 5.

  13 L. H. Carlson, Martin Marprelate, Gentleman: Master Job Throckmorton Laid Open in His Colors (San Marino, CA, 1981), pp. 8–52, 178–209; Collinson, Richard Bancroft, pp. 60–82; P. Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, 1990), pp. 391–402; P. Collinson, ‘Ecclesiastical Vitriol: Religious Satire in the 1590s and the Invention of Puritanism’, in Reign of Elizabeth I, ed. Guy, pp. 150–70. Modern editions of the Marprelate Tracts are The Marprelate Tracts 1588, 1589, ed. W. Pierce (London, 1911) and The Martin Marprelate Tracts: A Modernized and Annotated Edition, ed. J. L. Black (Cambridge, 2008).

  14 Theses Martinianae ([Coventry], 1589), sig. C1r–v.

  15 Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, p. 295.

  16 For the arguments on both sides, see The defense of the aunsvvere to the Admonition against the replie of T.C. By Iohn Whitgift Doctor of Diuinitie (London, 1574),
pp. 180–83, 645–50.

  17 SP 12/226, no. 4 (memo in Hatton’s hand, headed ‘From her Ma[jest]tie’). The plan evolved following disclosures from three of the printers of the Marprelate Tracts, trapped in August 1589 in a rented house near Manchester in Lancashire during a raid by the Earl of Derby’s men, who were tortured on the rack in the hope that they would disclose the identity of the pseudonymous ‘Martin’. See Carlson, Martin Marprelate, pp. 38–41. Neither Hatton nor Elizabeth was averse to the use of torture.

  18 Hartley, II, pp. 414–24.

  19 Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, pp. 409–18. Relying on a letter of Sir Francis Knollys, Collinson argued that the Star Chamber proceedings began on 13 May, but in 1591 that was Ascension Day, when the courts did not usually sit. It is more likely that the case itself began earlier the same week, although the conference in the judges’ dining-chamber to which Knollys refers could well have taken place on Ascension Day. See BL, Lansdowne MS 68, fo. 190.

  20 BL, Lansdowne MS 68, fos. 98–101; BL, Lansdowne MS 120, fos. 84–8. A much fuller account of the prosecution than can be given here may be found in Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, pp. 418–31.

  21 J. Guy, A Daughter’s Love: Thomas and Margaret More (London, 2008), pp. 259–63.

  22 BL, Lansdowne MS 68, fos. 98–101; BL, Lansdowne MS 120, fos. 84–8.

  23 ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton, 1590–1591’, ed. P. E. J. Hammer, Camden Society, 5th Series, 22 (2003), pp. 238, 246.

  24 ‘Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir Christopher Hatton’, ed. Hammer, pp. 206–9, 213–14.

  25 Camden, p. 458 (where the date is wrongly stated to be 20 September); H. Nicolas, Memoirs of the Life and Times of Christopher Hatton, K.G. (London, 1847), pp. 495–8.

  26 BL, Lansdowne MS 68, fo. 43; Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, p. 427 (where the date is mistakenly given as the 12th). Knollys spoke metaphorically: Star Chamber could not impose the death penalty, only hefty fines, life imprisonment, flogging, the pillory, branding or banishment.

  27 BL, Lansdowne MS 66, fo. 150; Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, p. 427.

  28 For an insight into Knollys’s state of mind during the case, see BL, Lansdowne MS 68, fo. 190.