Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – F

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – F

The fall of Anne Boleyn will never be fully understood or explained. Her descent  appears to have happened so quickly as to baffle scholars and lay-people alike.  Most likely it was the result of many factors that came to head all at once: the revenge of Cromwell for past slights, the political situation — both domestic and international — the religious circumstances and the disillusionment of King Henry.

Henry’s role in Anne’s demise, often described as that of an innocent victim–a righteous man who, when presented with the facts of his adulterous wife, follows the letter of the law and allows officialdom to prosecute her as appropriate. Rumors spread that there were spies in her household and that “the King hates the Queen, because she has not presented him with an heir to the realm, nor was there any prospect of her so doing” (Stevenson 1312).  Henry, frustrated by a politically active, argumentative wife, saw Anne’s demise as the only way out.  Divorce was not enough, nor was execution.  Henry’s rage required both punishments inflicted on Anne along with the defamation of her character.

henry viii younger
King Henry VIII

No rumor was considered too fanciful to believe.  Stories circulated that the honor Anne had acquired to join the royal court in France stemmed from the fact that at “fifteen she sinned first with her father’s butler, and then with his chaplain, and forthwith was sent to France” (Sander 25).  While in France, Anne was supposed to have been the lover of many couriers and “her conversation hath been so loose and base” (Harpsfield 253) and her behavior “so rank and common” (Friedmann 298) that understandably she was “audacious and licentious in the prosecution of her detestable and abominable vices” (Gairdner X 54).

There was no end to the implied and declared evils of Anne by the Spanish Ambassador, Eustace Chapuys.  He claimed her to be a seductress and murderess, “whose importunate and malignant cravings are well known” (de Gayangos 1133).  Convinced that Anne would try to poison Queen Katherine and Princess Mary, Chapuys reported that although the “Queen has no fears, but is marvelously concerned for the Princess” (Gairdner VI 351). Added to the speculation that Anne tried to murder members of the royal family, there was laid the charge of her role in the deaths of public figures.  Bishop Fisher of Rochester and Sir Thomas More were “both inscribed on the black-list of the revengeful mistress, who never rested from her ill offices toward them, until their heads had fallen” (Herbert, Henry 171).

“Yet did not our King love her at first”(Herbert, Edward 285).  Although Henry was touted as a hero of the Protestant cause and liberator of the English peoples, he also was blamed for how he “stained the purity of his action by intermingling with it a weak passion for a foolish and bad woman, and bitterly he had to suffer for his mistake” (Froude 324).  “A long catalog of misdeeds had been registered…”  It was puzzling to many that Henry did not realize Anne had “worn a mask so long” and never gave Henry “occasion for dissatisfaction.  Incidents must have occurred in the details of daily life, if not to rouse his suspicions, yet to have let him see that the woman for whom he had fought so fierce a battle had never been worthy what she had cost him”  (Froude 402).

Anne Boleyn Hever
Anne Boleyn 

These sentiments are very different from when Anne was at her heyday; yet, all was not as it seemed as observed by Jean du Bellay, Bishop of Bayonne, Ambassador from France on December 9, 1528.  “I see they mean to accustom the people by degrees to endure her, so that when the great blow comes it may not be thought strange. However, the people remain quite hardened, and I think they would do more if they had more power; but great order is continually taken” (Brewer IV 5016).

Hence a severe ordinance was issued “against any that spoke ill of her; which shut people’s mouths when they knew what ought not to be concealed.”  Anne could do as she pleased and “if perhaps taken with the love of some favored person, she could treat her friends according to her pleasure, owing to the ordinance. But that law could not secure to her lasting friendships, and the King daily cooled in his affection” (Gairdner X 1036).  Therefore, with the King’s new policies and his actions, such as the execution of More, causing so much hostility toward Anne Boleyn, the Crown’s agents were kept busy trying to preserve public order and ensure the people would accept the new edicts.  Records show several examples of the investigations into many reported violations.  Although the punishments are not always documented, below are brief summaries of some of the charges against those of all stations of life.

In April of 1532 Charles Brandon’s kinsman, William Peninthum was assaulted and killed by the men in the service of the Duke of Norfolk.  When Thomas Cromwell investigated it came to light that the root of the trouble came from “opprobrious language uttered against Madam Anne by his Majesty’s sister, the Duchess of Suffolk, Queen Dowager of France” (Brown IV 761).

Suffolks
Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk and Mary, Dowager Queen of France, Duchess of Suffolk.

Edward Earl of Derby and Sir Henry Farington wrote a letter to Henry VIII concerning the widespread discontent over his marriage to Anne Boleyn.  The men informed Henry that they felt compelled to send a letter of the examinations they had made of various witnesses because of “the discharge of our duties” (Ellis 42).  Sir Edward and Sir Farington “perceyve your graces pleasor is that a lewde and noghty priest inhabytyng in thise partyes, who hathe of late reported and spoken befor and in the audyence of certeyn persons sundry and diverse unfyttyng and sklaunderous words, aswell by your Highnes as by the Quenes grace” (Ellis 42).  They assured Henry that they “have called befor us suche persons whose names and dsposicions hereafter do enue; and the same persons did examyn upon ther othes at Ley in the Countie of Lancaster” (Ellis 43).

In 1533 a Warwickshire priest called Anne “a harlot and maintainer of heretics” and expressed the hope that “she would be burned at Smithfield” (Haigh 141).

Evidently, in Lancashire, when Sir Richard Clerke, a vicar at Leigh, read out the proclamation declaring Katherine of Aragon as Princess Dowager, “Sir Jamys Harrison priest hering the said proclamacion, said that Quene Katharyn was Quene, And that Nan Bullen whuld not be Quene, nor the King to be no King but on his bering” (Ellis 43).  Substantiated by many witnesses, a more strongly worded exclamation was related that “Sir Jamys said I will take non for Quene but Quene Katharin; who the devell made Nan Bullen that hoore Quene, for I will never take her for Quene, and the King on his bering” (Ellis 44).

Katherine-of-aragon
Katharine of Aragon 

A scuffle between an ostler of the White Horse in Cambridge with a customer, Henry Kilby, in May of 1534 did not go unnoticed by the authorities.  During a discussion over the religious changes occurring in the country, the inn worker declared that “this business had never been if the king had not married Anne Boleyn” (Wilson).  He was duly reported after blows were exchanged between the two men.

Sir Walter Stonor described, in a letter to Master Secretary Cromwell, the affidavit presented by John Dawson of Watlyngton in June of 1534.  Dawson and a William Goode, the constable, documented a conversation which took place between Mrs. Burgyn of Watlington in Oxfordshire and her midwife, Joan Hammulden.  It was alleged that while in labor Burgyn praised Hammulden by saying that “for her honesty and cunning … she might be midwife to the Queen of England, if it were Queen Catherine, and if it were Queen Anne she was too good to be her midwife, for she was a whore and a harlot for her living” (Elton 279).  Mrs. Burgyn counter claimed that Joan replied that “it was never merry in England since there was three queens in it and …there would be fewer shortly” (Gairdner VII 840).

On 20 August 1535, the high constable of South Brent, John Gillinge, and John Buckett informed Thomas Clerk and William Vowell that “David Leonard, hooper, an Irishman, had said, ‘God save king Henry and queen Katharine his wedded wife, and Anne at his pleasure, for whom all England shall rue” (Gairdner IX 136).

In 1535, Margaret Chaunseler (of Suffolk) earned notoriety by calling Queen Anne “a goggle-eyed whore” (Elton 137) and a lay brother of Roche Abbey thought that Anne was not the queen but ‘Anne the bawd’ (Haigh 141).

roche abbey
Roche Abbey Ruins

No slander was deemed too outrageous to be believed. As Chapuys succinctly said to his emperor, “These things are monstrous and difficult to believe yet, the obstinacy of the King and malice of this cursed woman everything may be apprehended” (Gairdner VII 726).  While not prosecuted in any way, Eustace Chapuys continued his diplomatic campaigned against Anne.  In May 1536, he wrote to Monseigneur de Granvelle describing Anne as “the English Messalina, or Agrippina” (Gairdner X 54). For an interesting article on Agrippina see Romm, James. “The Woman Who Would Rule Rome.” History Today 64.4 (2014): 10-16. Print.  Meanwhile, all the time Anne was being protected against these raucous mutterings, her descent was in progress.  Many at Court were watching and waiting.

For References, please refer to the blog entry, Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part I

 

Advertisements

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part V–B

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula:  Part V–B

In Henry’s mind, the person thwarting him was Anne. Although she had successfully delivered a daughter and had at least two miscarriages—one in 1534 and one in 1536 that attest to her ability to conceive, Anne’s future and her strength lay in providing Henry with a male heir.  Yet, suddenly, Anne who was used to accompanying Henry wherever he went, remained at Greenwich “while he spent with his courtiers a merry shrove-tide in London” (Friedmann 203).  Henry’s actions were a surprise to many:  that he could leave Anne at this time “when formerly he could not leave her for an hour” (Gairdner X 351).  A man who could not bear leaving his wife for even short increments, was amidst reports that said he was considering leaving her for another woman.  Although earlier in the year of 1536 Chapuys confessed the idea that Henry would replace Anne was “very difficult …to believe”, he would “watch to see if there are any indications of its probability” (Gairdner X 199).
Anne Boleyn Hever
Queen Anne Boleyn

In Transactions of the Royal Historical Society: Volume 5, Steve Gunn succinctly discussed in the introduction to a chapter, “The Structures of Politics in Early Tudor England” the recent historiography of the state of Henry and Anne’s marriage, her miscarriage and her fall.  Astoundingly, a great deal has been written, conjectured and surmised based on the scant surviving records and the conclusions have altered through the years. Here is what Gunn has to say:

Three scholars have recently set out and defended against one another divergent explanations of her fall.  Professor Ives and Professor Warnicke can agree that Dr. Bernard is wrong: Anne cannot possibly have been destroyed by a masterful and jealous king who may reasonably have believed her guilty of multiple adultery as charged.  Dr. Bernard and Professor Ives can agree that Professor Warnicke is wrong:  Anne’s fall cannot be attributed to her miscarriage of a deformed foetus, awakening the king’s fears of witchcraft and its sixteenth-century stablemates, sodomy and incest.  Professor Warnicke and Dr. Bernard can agree that Professor Ives is wrong:  Anne cannot have been ousted by a factional plot at court, coordinated by Thomas Cromwell and cynically using fabricated charges of adultery to hustle the king into destroying the queen and her partisans at a single blow” (Davies 59).

For discussions on the theory of Anne’s trial and court factions, see the blog entries Path to St. Peter ad Vincula:  Part IV and Part VI.  As for the miscarriage, this blogger does not agree with the theory that Anne’s last pregnancy ended in anything other than a miscarriage. If there had been a deformity in the fetus, contemporary sources would have mentioned it and Anne’s enemies would have latched on to it as evidence of her wickedness.  Perhaps the idea of a deformity stems from the phrase by Nicholas Sander “a shapeless mass of flesh” (Sander 132) as contemporary sources claim otherwise.
KingsCollegeChapelHA
Surviving example of Henry’s devotion to Anne, their intertwined initials at King’s College Chapel, Cambridge. 

A poem, Epistre Contenant le Procès Criminel Faict a l’Encontre de la Royne Anne Boullant d’Angleterre (A Letter Containing the Criminal Charges Laid Against Queen Anne Boleyn of England), was summarized in dispatch papers 2 June 1536.  Referred to as a “poem descriptive of the life of Anne Boleyn, composed at London”, it was written by Lancelot de Carle (also spelled Carles) while serving as secretary to the French Ambassador in England, Antoine de Castelnau (Gairdner X 1036).

Published in Lyon in 1545 for Dauphin Charles, the poem had been in circulation prior to that.  In fact, it was mentioned in a correspondence by Henry VIII to his Ambassador to France, Stephen Gardiner, 12 June 1537, after de Carle returned to his native country.  Gardiner was told that Henry, “on having first knowledge of the book and the malice of it” which was “written in form of a tragedy,” was grieved “as sundry copies and impressions of it have got abroad.” Henry urged “that all copies be taken in and suppressed” (Gairdner XII ii 78).

Certainly this could be a different work, as a year interval from the time it was mentioned in dispatches to the time Henry made attempts to restrict its circulation appears a bit long.  Yet, it is feasible that the king was not made aware of it until after Carle completed his diplomatic mission.  With the author being identified as Carle—writing during the time he was “attendant upon the French ambassador” it seems to indicate it was the same poem (Gairdner XII ii 78).

Lancelot Anne Boullantmmmm
Title page of the poem by Lancelot de Carle

The poem was brought to this blogger’s attention as a footnote in G. W. Bernard’s biography, Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, under “Chapter 8:  Anne’s Miscarriage.”  Although one cannot be too trusting of the poem’s historical accuracy, a portion of it –the part summarized in dispatch papers as “Anne met with divers ominous occurrences … the King had a fall from horseback which it was thought would prove fatal, and caused her to give premature birth to a dead son” will be where we direct our attention (Gairdner X 1036). In the poem, lines 324-326 refer to the ‘beautiful boy’ that was born before term.  A translation follows:

Her flat belly brought forth its fruit
and gave birth to a beautiful boy before term
whose stillbirth gave birth to many tears
Lancelot Poem

The stressful conditions that Anne was under not only to provide a son but to literally survive due to the factions at Court had her “worn out by constant exertion and anxiety” and were enough to jeopardize any pregnancy (Friedmann II 138).  Add in the equation the simple fact that the successful birthrate in the 16th century was not high plus the possible medical conditions of Anne and Henry (the Rh factor for her and diabetes for him) and the loss of an infant does not seem implausible.  Whatever the cause of the tragedy, the outcome was felt on the familial level, on the national level and on the international level.

For References please refer to the blog entry Path to St. Peter ad Vincula- Part I

Elizabeth Regina: Her Mother’s Memory

Elizabeth:  Her Mother’s Memory

Elizabeth at the age of two years and eight months upon the death of her mother, probably never had concrete recollections of her mother Anne Boleyn.  There is no evidence that Anne Boleyn was mentioned by any of Elizabeth’s household members during her childhood.  It is pure speculation as to which adults told the youngster about her mother and when she would have possibly learned about Anne’s execution and the scandalous reasons for it.  There are plenty of assumptions that Henry had placed a moratorium on the subject of Anne Boleyn which would not be implausible, but what is conjecture is based on the fact that Elizabeth was confined to her estate because Henry could not bear the sight of her and wanted no remembrance of her or her mother.  We know Sir John Shelton assured Cromwell on Wednesday 16 August 1536 from Hunsdon that he would ensure “the King’s pleasure that my lady Elizabeth shall keep her chamber and not come abroad, and that I shall provide for her as I did for my lady Mary when she kept her chamber” (Gairdner XI 312).  We know Elizabeth remained secluded at Hunsdon; we just do not know why—it could have been Henry trying to protect her from court gossip.

thomas cromwell
Thomas Cromwell

Lady Bryan, in August 1536, had already questioned Cromwell on the status of her charge.  “Now, as my lady Elizabeth is put for that degree she was in, and what degree she is at now, I know not but by hearsay, I know not how to order her or myself, or her women or grooms” (Gairdner XI 203).  Obviously, there was some confusion in her household.  Even Elizabeth was confused; when a gentleman of her household, often identified as either Sir John Shelton or Sir Thomas Bryan, referred to her by the demoted title of Lady Elizabeth, she responded “how haps it, Governor, yesterday my Lady Princess, and today but my Lady Elizabeth?” (Hibbert 20).  An astute child such as this would have understood the danger of asking questions about her mother or even mentioning her.

There are only two recorded times when Elizabeth mentioned her mother in public.  One was when she was 20 and hinted to the Spanish ambassador that she was disliked by Mary because of the distress her mother had caused. The second was when she informed the Venetian ambassador that her mother would never have cohabitated with the king without the ties of matrimony (Weir The Children of Henry VIII 7).  Is this anemic display evidence that she did not have any feelings for her mother or that she did not want to be associated with Anne?  Probably not.  It would not have been politically wise for Elizabeth to be linked too often and too closely with Anne Boleyn so one can understand the lack of mention by an aware and intelligent child.  This did not mean complete elimination of connections and when she was more secure as queen, several examples are in evidence of her identification with her mother although the earliest example comes when she was about ten.

elizabeth 1 by scrouts
Princess Elizabeth 

This early example was when she wore the ‘A’ necklace in the painting,The Family of Henry VIII.”  Supposedly this was “one of Anne Boleyn’s initial pendants” that was inherited from Elizabeth’s mother (Weir Lady in the Tower 306).

Jewelry was one way that Elizabeth showed her relationship with her mother.
Anne Boleyn was said to have three pendants of initials; an “A”, a “B”, and an “AB”. The “B” necklace is the most famous and is in portraits displayed at the National Portrait Gallery and Hever Castle more readily validated as representative of Anne. The “AB” is perhaps in a less famous painting; one not completely authenticated as Anne, and is referred to as the Nidd Hall portrait.

Anne Boleyn B necklace
Anne Boleyn, National Portrait Gallery

Anne Boleyn Hever
Anne Boleyn, ‘Hever Castle Portrait’ a copy of the lost original painted in 1534
AnneBoleynAB
Anne Boleyn, ‘Nidd Hall Portrait’ with the pendent of ‘AB’ hanging upon her gown
It is claimed that Elizabeth was wearing the “A” necklace in “The Family of Henry VIII” painting that hung in Hampton Court. (Weir Henry VIII: The King and His Court 187).  This blogger must disagree with some reports that she was wearing the necklace in defiance of her father.  He had full control of all of his public imagery.  I cannot imagine the artist risking his life, quite literally, by painting in the “A” if it was not sanctioned by Henry.   It is hard to imagine that Elizabeth would so blatantly wear this piece of jewelry without Henry’s permission.  This blogger could start an unsupported theory that this could be the cause of Elizabeth’s exile from 1543 to 1544 (see blog entry “The Fourth Step-Mother of Elizabeth, Katherine Parr” at https://elizregina.com/2013/06/04/the-fourth-step-mother-of-elizabeth-katherine-parr/).  This is clearly on a weak foundation considering the painting, according to Roy Strong, was completed between 1543 -1547. If Henry became incensed enough to banish his daughter for wearing an inherited item of jewelry from her disgraced mother, surely he would have ordered it painted out of the completed picture.  Perhaps allowing Elizabeth to display this necklace was a kind gesture on the king’s part or it was a tactic wanting everyone to associate the girl with her mother and her illegitimacy, in contrast to the legitimate heir next to him.
H8 Family
The Family of Henry VIII
BLow up M and E try this one
An enlargement obtained by Flickr of the princesses 

Apart from the wearing of one of Anne Boleyn’s necklaces, another piece of jewelry associated with Elizabeth and her mother is the Chequers ring.  Dated to around 1575 the Chequers Ring, thus named as it is now in the possession of that estate, clearly has a diamond encrusted ‘E’ and ‘R’ on the face. The locket opens to reveal a portrait of Elizabeth and an unidentified woman, usually and logically identified as Anne Boleyn; although, speculation ranges from it being a younger Elizabeth to Katherine Parr.  The history of the ring is too sketchy for this blogger to comfortably say that Elizabeth commissioned it as opposed to a courtier.  It is also difficult to agree with Weir, and many other writers who claim the ring “was only removed from her finger at her death, when it was taken to her successor, James VI of Scotland, as proof of her demise” (Weir Lady in the Tower 306). There is no definitive proof that Elizabeth constantly wore the ring or that it was the particular jewel taken to Scotland by Robert Carey.

Chequers ring to use
Chequers ring–this blogger was fortunate to see this locket ring at “Elizabeth:  The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum” in Greenwich on August 8, 2003.

Another way Elizabeth linked to her mother was the use of her mother’s heraldic badge the crowned falcon upon a tree stump, surrounded by Tudor roses.  Although this was not implemented consistently as Elizabeth’s badge, there are several places it is displayed and on several items such as her virginal. The spinet “bears the royal coat of arms and the falcon holding a scepter, the private emblem of her mother, Anne Boleyn” (“The Queen Elizabeth Virginal”).  It is also speculated that Elizabeth adopted one of Anne’s mottoes, Semper eadem.  This is discussed on the blog “Said it, Believed it, Lived it” at https://elizregina.com/2013/06/25/said-it-believed-it-lived-it/.

virginals w falcon
Virginal of Elizabeth I, the Boleyn badge is on the left.

Elizabeth continued her links with her mother by promoting members of Anne’s household staff, Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury and relatives; notably the Careys, Knollyse, Sackvilles and even Howards until their alliance to Catholicism made it politically impossible.  Anne was also commemorated in a biography by William Latymer and in an unfinished treatise by George Wyatt (Weir, The Lady in the Tower 307-308).

A way in which Elizabeth kept her mother’s influence alive was in her understanding of the benefits and necessity of display. “Between Anne and Elizabeth there was an uncanny similarity of attitude towards the projection of monarchy, and of themselves as chosen by God to rule” (Ives 218).  It is estimated Anne spent £40* a month mostly on clothes for herself and Elizabeth (Ives 217).  Had Anne lived, her wardrobe would have “rivalled the 2000 costumes which tradition assigns to that most fashion-conscious of monarchs, her daughter Elizabeth” (Ives 253).  Catholic chronicler, Nicholas Sander, no friend of Anne’s, conceded that she “was always well dressed, and every day made some change in the fashion of her garments” (Sander 25).

Anne has been criticized for having such an active interest in her daughter’s wardrobe; one wonders if this was an area in which she could direct her wishes and so she did.  Taking an inordinate amount of care in the purchase of materials and the ordering of garments for her child was perhaps the method of bestowing attention that was socially and politically acceptable for Anne.

We have a dispatch that Sir William Loke, mercer and merchant adventurer who supplied the king with clothes of gold, silver and other luxurious fabrics and performed diplomatic missions on his buying trips abroad, wrote personally to the king in February 1534:  “The sale of cloths by your subjects has been good, but money is scarce.  I trust I have done my best to provide such things as the Queen gave me commission for” (Gairdner VIII 197). Loke kept extensive account records (published in the text, An Account of Materials Furnished for Use of Queen Anne Boleyn and the Princess Elizabeth, by William Loke ‘the King’s Mercer’ Between the 20th January 1535 [27th year of Henry VIII], and the 27th April 1536.  Communicated by J. B. Heath) which reveal clothing being sent to the princess.  It was  obvious that the “king’s heir, who was not yet three years old, was quite properly to be dressed in fashionable and expensive clothing”  (Warnicke 170).

armada
An example of elaborate clothing worn by Elizabeth in the ‘Armada Portrait’.

In Anne’s account books of May 19, 1536, are entries for payment for “boat-hire form Greenwich to London and back to take measure of caps for my lady Princess, and again to fetch the Princess’s purple satin cap to mend it.”  Anne, apparently, was especially fussy about her daughter’s caps: this particular one required at least three journeys to Greenwich to get it right” (Ives 253). Included in the accounts was “an ell of ‘tuke’ and crimson fringe for the Princess’s cradle head.”  Added to this finery was “a fringe of Venice gold and silver for the little bed.” Included were more assorted caps, white, crimson, purple and a “cap of taffeta covered with a caul of damask gold for the Princess” (Gairdner X 913).

Queen Anne Boleyn never had a full say in her child’s upbringing. That was the business of the king and his council. Famously, when it came to decide if Elizabeth should be weaned, her governess wrote to Thomas Cromwell for permission (Warnicke 170).  We do know from William Latymer, chaplain to Anne Boleyn who wrote Chronickille of Anne Bulleyne during the reign of Elizabeth, reported that Anne “had wanted her child, as her elder half-sister had been, trained in classical languages” (Warnicke 171).  When Anne realized that she was in serious danger of losing her life she gave unto Matthew Parker, her devoted chaplain and later Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Elizabeth, the care of her child.  This move can be seen as her wish for Elizabeth to have not only a classical education but also a more evangelical religious upbringing.

Matthew_Parker
Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Elizabeth 

Besides directing Elizabeth’s wardrobe and directing her education, how else did Anne bestow attention on her daughter?  This is impossible to know. Following standards of the day, Elizabeth was removed from her parents’ household when she was three months old.  She was sent to her own residence, Hatfield, with a wet-nurse and her governess, Margaret Bourchier, Lady Bryan.  “Here and at Hunsdon in Hertfordshire the princess spent much of her childhood although, like her parents, she traveled from house to house, staying in such places as Richmond, Eltham, Langley,and the More” (Warnicke 170).  Contemporary records indicate that Anne did visit regularly as we see from a letter written by Sir William Kyngston, courtier and Constable of the Tower of London, to Lord Lisle, Arthur Plantagenet on 18 April 1534.  “To day the King and Queen were at Eltham, and saw my lady Princess, as goodly a child as hath been seen and her grace is much in the King’s favour as goodly child should be, God save her”  (Gairdner VII 509).

The visits were not always private, as we would assume between a mother and her child as Eustace Chapuys mentions in a dispatch to Charles V on 24 October 1534. “On Thursday, the day before yesterday, being at Richmond with the little lass (garce) the Lady came to see her said daughter, accompanied by the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk and others, including some of the ladies, which was a novelty” (Gairdner VII 1297).  Besides these visits, Anne was in contact with Lady Bryan through letters concerning the care of Elizabeth (Ives 256).  A response to a request from Elizabeth’s household officers to the Council was sent in a packet with “letters to them, and one from the Queen to lady Brian” (Gairdner IX 568).

Richmond 1562
Richmond Palace, 1562

Speculation is futile regarding the feelings both mother and daughter felt for each other; no written records exist.  Anne, following the social dictates and court etiquette of the day, rarely saw her daughter.  Not only was Elizabeth reared by people other than her parents, she was physically removed from them, as was her siblings so some people placing emphasis on the fact she was taken to Hatfield at the age of three months was proof her mother was as disappointed as her father in her birth.  Henry’s treasured heir, Edward, was also reared in a separate household.  Evaluation of those persons surrounding the infant Elizabeth does lend itself to assume a strong influence of Anne.  Many had Boleyn connections: Lady Margaret Bryan was not only Princess Mary’s former governess but related to Anne as they shared a maternal grandmother; Lady Shelton, also from Princess Mary’s household and given charge of the combined establishment of Mary and Elizabeth was Anne’s Aunt; and Kat Ashley nee Champernowne was married to Anne’s cousin. After Anne Boleyn’s execution, Henry did not alter the positions of these people closest to Elizabeth.  He too must have trusted them and was not worried about how Anne would be portrayed to their daughter by ‘Boleyn’ servants.  Elizabeth would later comment that “we are more bound to them that bringeth us up well than to our parents… our bringers-up are a cause to make us live well in [the world]” (Marcus 34).

*£40 from 1535 would be £19,000.00 using the retail price index or£266,000.00 using average earnings based on calcualtions from the “Measuring Worth” website.

References:

Brewer, J. S. (editor). “Henry VIII: November 1517.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 2: 1515-1518 (1864): 1183-1198. British History Online. Web. 29 June 2013.

Burnet, Gilbert. The History of the Reformation of the Church of England. Vol.I Part I. London:  W. Baynes and Son, 1825.  Google Books.  Web.  3 July 2013.

Gairdner, James. (editor). “Henry VIII: April 1534, 16-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 7: 1534 (1883): 199-210. British History Online. Web. 29 June 2013. 

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: February 1535, 11-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 8: January-July 1535 (1885): 75-98. British History Online. Web. 29 June 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: October 1535, 6-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 9: August-December 1535 (1886): 181-195. British History Online. Web. 29 June 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: February 1536, 1-5.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 82-98. British History Online. Web. 01 July 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: August 1536, 16-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 11: July-December 1536 (1888): 130-138. British History Online. Web. 28 June 2013.

Hibbert, Christopher.  The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age.  New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1991.  Print.

Ives, Eric.  The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: The Most Happy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print.

Marcus, Leah S. et al., eds. Elizabeth I: The Collected Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Print.

“The Queen Elizabeth Virginal.” V&A Images Collection. Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d. Web. 03 July 2013.

Ridgway, Claire.  The Fall of Anne Boleyn:  A Countdown.  UK:  MadeGlobal Publishing, 2012. Print.

Sander, Nicholas, and Edward Rishton. Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism. Trans. David Lewis. London: Burns & Oates, 1877. Google Books. Web. 28 June 2013.

Somerset, Anne. Elizabeth I.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991. Print.

Warnicke, Retha.  The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1989.  Print.

Weir, Alison. The Children of Henry VIII.  New York:  Ballantine Books, 1996. Print

Weir, Alison.  Henry VIII:  The King and His Court.  New York:  Ballatine Books, 2001. Google Books. Web. 30 June 2013.

Weir, Alison.  The Lady in the Tower:  The Fall of Anne Boleyn.  London:  Jonathan Cape, 2009.  Print.

Edward VI Coronation Procession

Edward VI Coronation Procession

The topic of this entry stemmed from a visit to Cowdray Park in the summer of 2012 which sparked my interest in the property (more on that in a future blog entry).  Sensing my fascination, my husband purchased a book for me as a gift titled, Cowdray: the history of a great English House …With illustrations, etc. by Julia Roundell.  While reading the book, there was a brief mention of Anthony Browne, 7th Viscount Montague giving permission for several of the murals that adorned the “parlour” to be copied.  Specific mention was of the one depicting the coronation of Edward VI.*  That triggered a connection to the painted screen of that very subject that was at Kentwell Castle—another property visited in the summer of 2012.  The quest began to discover whether they were one and the same.  I contacted Kentwell and heard from Patrick Phillips.  The emails are recreated below.

On 19 Dec 2012, at 18:23

I recently read a book about Cowdray by J. Roundell in which it was stated >that permission had been granted for an artist to duplicate the piece of art >of Edward VI coronation.  Was wondering if that was the basis for the >lovely screens at Kentwell.  Not sure if the Cowdray piece was a framed >art work or a mural but it did get me wondering. Any information would be >appreciated. Thank you.

Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 10:12 PM

>Yes our screens came from Cowdray Park.Originally there were six early >murals in the main hall in Tudor Cowdray Park. The then owner of the >Hall allowed engravings of one of the six, namely the Coronation >Procession of Edward VI, to be engraved from tracings made by >S.H.Grimm and the engraving was published in 1788.  It is this engraving that you may find illustrated in books on Edward VI’s reign.
>Unfortunately,  Cowdray Park itself was destroyed by fire in 1793 and all >trace of the original murals was lost. These painted leather screens derive >from the engraving and (possibly) also the tracings. >Regards >PP

Talk about serendipity!  Not much more was needed to influence me to investigate the coronation procession of Edward VI and the other events associated with the celebrations.

 274

The coronation procession of Edward VI depicted on screens displayed at Kentwell.  Copies of the murals from Cowdray were reproduced luckily before fire destroyed the originals.

There are varied claims as to where Edward and Elizabeth were at the time their father’s death was announced to them.  Two things are consistently shown:  the children were together and their reaction was sorrowful. Hayward poetically relayed that “Never was sorrow more sweetly set forth, their faces seeming rather to beautify their sorrow, than their sorrow to cloud the beauty of their faces” (Tytler 17).

Although this blogger agrees that Edward was most likely at Hertford Castle and moved to Enfield where Elizabeth was staying, below is a sampling of accounts of the children’s whereabouts.

Linda Porter claims that Edward was living with Elizabeth at the time of Henry’s death at Hertford Castle and they both heard the news together three days after the king’s death.  The next day, February 1st, after the reading of the will to the Privy Council on 31 January, Edward VI returned to The Tower of London prior to his coronation” (Porter 278).

Sir James Mackintosh reported that the “young prince, who was at the royal mansion of Hatfield at the time of his father’s death, was brought thence in regal state, and proclaimed king of England.  His proclamation took place when he was nine years and about three months old” (Mackintosh 136).

Jasper Ridley says that Edward was taken from Hertford, the Lord Protector’s house, to Hatfield where Elizabeth was to tell them both at once.          hertford

Hertford Castle

Christopher Hibbert says that Edward was at Ashridge at the time and they thought it would be easier to tell him if he was with his sister so they took him to Enfield to break the news to the two of them in the Presence Chamber there (Hibbert 28).

Patrick Tytler confirms contemporary sources reporting that Edward Seymour and Anthony Brown (of Cowdray), went to Hertford to convey the boy to Enfield, “and there they first declared to him and the Lady Elizabeth the death of Henry their father” (Tytler 56).

David Starkey claims that Edward was at Hertford Castle when his uncle, Edward Seymour, arrived.  Instead of telling him of his father’s death, he was told he was going to London for his investiture as Prince of Wales and they would stop at Enfield where Elizabeth was staying.  They were told of their father’s death there” (Starkey 59).

  enfield

Drawing of Enfield Palace

In a letter to the Council on 30 January Edward Seymour relays, “We intend the King’s majesty shall be a-horse-back tomorrow by xi of the clock, so that by iii we trust his Grace shall be at the Tower…. “From Enwild [Enfield] this Sunday night, at xi of the clock” (Tytler 18).

Edward VI reveals in his diary that he and his sister Elizabeth learnt of their father Henry VIII’s death from his uncle Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, at Elizabeth’s Enfield residence on 30 January 1547 (Edward VI). His diary describes the grief experienced in London at the news of the death of Henry VIII but does not reveal his own feelings.  He describes the Privy Council’s choice of Edward Seymour as Protector and Governor of the King’s Person and mentions how his father’s officers broke their staffs and threw them into Henry’s grave at his burial.

It is difficult to tell from the diary if these are Edward’s own thoughts.  He may have written the diary at the urging of one of his tutors and the entries from 1547 – 1549 are simply a chronology of events that refers to Edward in the third person.  Many historians wonder if the entries were even completed by Edward. From March 1550 until November 1552, when it ends, it is more like a diary, with entries for individual days.

Historian James Mackintosh was less impressed with Edward’s scholarship as he proclaimed that his essays and letters, “might have been corrected or dictated by his preceptors” But he does acknowledge that “perhaps, somewhat brief and dry for so young an author; but the adoption of such a plan, and the accuracy with which it is written, bear marks of a pure taste and of a considerate mind” (Mackintosh 138).

edwarddiary

A page from the diary of Edward VI.  Below is a transcription of the entry.

After the death of King Henry th’eight his son Edward prince of Wales was come to at Hartford by th’erle of Hartford and S[ir] Anthony Brown Master of t’horse for whom befor was made great preparation that he might be created Prince of Wales, and after ward was brought to Enfield whear the death of his Father was first shewed him, and the same day the death of his father was shewed in London, wher was great lamentation and weping and sodenly he proclaimed King. The next day, being the _ of _ he was brought to the Towre of London whear he taried the space of three wikes… (Edward VI).  Those three weeks were spent in preparation for Henry VII’s funeral and Edward’s coronation. 57197_764549

Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth Regina, 1597, Art Institute of Chicago  The procession left the Tower of London for the Palace of Westminster about one o’clock in the afternoon of 19 February.  This was the chance for his subjects to see the new king. Edward was on horseback dressed in a gown of gold cloth with a sable-lined cloak. The clothing he wore underneath was embellished with “rubies, diamonds, and pearls arranged in lovers’ knots” (Loach 32).

Along the route near the Tower “stood members of the craftsmen’s guilds, and, on the other side of the road, priests and clerks in holy orders” stood. Houses were decked out in tapestries and banners “as Richely as might be Devysed” (Loach 33).

Making up the procession preceding the King were his messengers, gentlemen, servants of foreign ambassadors and heralds.  There followed chaplains, knights, the sons of various nobles and barons arranged by their degree. The bishops, the sons of earls, marquesses and dukes were followed by their fathers the earls, marquesses and dukes.  Those closest to the king were his Household Officers. Riding literally beside the king were the Lord Protector, the Duke of Somerset, Edward Seymour, the Lord Admiral, John Dudley and the King’s Master of the Horse, Sir Anthony Browne (of Cowdray).  The entire scene was depicted in a mural at Cowdray House, Sir Anthony’s home.  “Surviving only now as an eighteenth-century drawing, the procession makes its way through the winding narrow streets, stretching out across the entire length of the city”  (Skidmore 57).  Bringing up the rear were the servants of the noblemen and gentlemen. ed coronation procesisonb

Coronation procession of Edward VI in watercolor.  A copy of the original that is now lost

The pageants performed along the route were not rehearsed enough to run smoothly but that did not matter.  Their purpose was to present the imagery that “reflected a world of allegorical meaning closely pondered upon by Tudor contemporaries” (Skidmore 58). Sources tell us that Edward favored the tight rope walker and when at one stop along the route, he was presented with £1,000** in gold coins he asked, “Why do they give me this?” (Skidmore 58). A charming story and one that reiterates how very young Edward was. edward coronation processione flip it

Close-up picture of the coronation procession.

By the time Edward had reached Westminster it was six o’clock and the procession had lasted about four hours. No elaborate ceremonies or celebrations were held that evening and notice was given to all noblemen to “be at Westminster in their best array by seven the next morning” (Skidmore 59).

On 20 February, Edward entered Westminster Abbey to be crowned.  Some concessions were made to the ceremony to the age of the king so it would not make him “weary and be a hurtsome peradventure to the Kinges Majestie being yet of tender age fully to endure and bide owte” (Loach 35).  There were points within the ceremony in which he could rest and he was carried in a chair for part of the procession within the Abbey.  The ceremony itself was shrunk to accommodate the King’s young age.  The celebrations for Edward lasted seven hours when typically they lasted about twelve.

The consecration was not curtailed much though and followed the Liber Regalis*** a “formula that had been used on every such occasion since 1375” and was conducted by Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer (Meyer 328).  For the first time, an English king would not pledge allegiance to Rome as he would become the head of the Church within the framework of the Protestant service.   Dale Hoak has pointed out the revisions made by Cranmer to the coronation service were for the “unprecedented advent of a protestant supremacy” (Hunt 84). The changes shifted the relationship between of the king and his people and the king and his nobles.

liber regaliac

Illustrated page of the Liber Regalis

After the nobles pledged allegiance to Edward, the events moved to Westminster for the celebratory banquet in Westminster Hall.  When the Champion, Edward Dymoke, threw down the gauntlet challenging combat to anyone questioning Edward’s right to rule, it certainly pleased the king as this episode is “described in more detail than anything else in Edward’s own account of the dinner” (Loach 38).  The rituals surrounding the banquet may not have been too appealing for a young boy. Edward’s entry in his diary is bare-boned.  He recorded that he sat with his uncle and the Archbishop “with the crown on his head” (Skidmore 63).

Liber Regalisa

liber regaliaB

Liber Regalis showing the crowning of a king and a queen.

Edward’s half-sister did not participate in any of the coronation celebrations.  Elizabeth was away from Court under the care of Katherine Parr. We are told she was “subdued and depressed, remained with her stepmother” (Perry 40).  The closeness the siblings had shared at one time could not be recreated. At one point Edward wrote to Elizabeth when their households were separated that “change of place did not vex me so much, dearest sister, as your going from me. “Now there is nothing pleasanter than a letter from you … It is some comfort in my grief that my chamberlain tells me I may hope to visit you soon (if nothing happens to either of us in the meantime).  Farewell dearest sister” (Hibbert 28).

Now not only was the age difference more than likely beginning to make a difference, Edward’s new responsibilities and the deference due to him as king altered their relationship.  We do have the charming story of them exchanging portraits shortly before their father’s death. Elizabeth wrote a letter to accompany the delivery of the painting.  “I most humbly beseech your Majestry that when you shall look on my picture you will vouchsafe to think that you may have but the outward shadow of the body before you, so my inward mind wischeth that the body itself were oftener in your presence…” (Perry 43).

elizabeth 1 by scrouts

This famous painting of Elizabeth is attributed to Guillim Scrots and identified as the painting mentioned in the above letter–both statements are in dispute. 

download Edward as Prince of Wales attributed to Guillim Scrots.  Karen Hearn states that dendrochronological evidence shows that these two paintings may have been done on panels from the same tree (Hearn 50).  The background shows Hunsdon House where Edward and Elizabeth spent much time together as children.  When Elizabeth Regina inherited the house on her accession she made her cousin, Henry Carey, First Baron of Hunsdon and gave him the property.

 Notes

*Brussels, 9th September 1785,

Mr. Newman,–Mr. Astle of the Socieity of Antiquaries will write you a Letter by a Person I have given leave to take a Copy of the procession of Edward the Sixth in the parlour at Cowdray, and I desire you will let hime have every Convenience for that purpose, but he is not to take any other Copies of paintings in the House without applying to me: in haste.—Yours, &c.,

MONTAGUE (Roundell, 97).

**The equivalent of £1,000 in 1547 would be worth £455,000 in 2010 currency of the retail price index. This was calculated using the website, Measuring Worth.com.

***The essential elements of the coronation service used in modern times can be traced back to the crowning of King Edgar at Bath in 973. That tenth-century liturgy, drawn up by St Dunstan, underwent various adaptations in the early middle ages. Around 1382, probably in preparation for the crowning of Anne of Bohemia (Richard II’s consort), a new fine copy of the order of service was made. This illuminated manuscript, known as the Liber Regalis, is one of the great treasures of the Abbey’s library. It provided the order of service for all subsequent coronations up to, and including, that of Elizabeth I. For the coronation of James I the liturgy was translated into English. Nevertheless, with occasional adaptations to suit the political and religious circumstances of the time, the Liber Regalis remained the basis for all later coronation liturgies (“History”).

References

Edward VI. “Edward VI’s Diary.” Edward VI’s Diary. British Library, Learning Timelines:  Sources from History, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

Frye, Susan.  Elizabeth I:  The Competition for Representation. Oxford:  Oxford Univseity Press. 1993. Print.

Hearn, Karen. ed.  Dynasties:  Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630.  New York: Rizzoli. 1995. Print.

Hibbert, Christopher.  The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age.  New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1991.  Print.

“History.” Guide to the Coronation Service at Westminster Abbey. The Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

Hunt, Alice. The Drama of Coronation: Medieval Ceremony in Early Modern England. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2008. Google Books. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

Levin, Carole.  The Heart and Stomach of a King:  Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power.  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1994. Print.

Loach, Jennifer, Penry Williams, and George Bernard. Edward VI. New Haven: Yale UP, 1999. Google Books. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

Mackintosh, James, and R. J. Mackintosh. The History of England: From the Earliest times to the Final Establishment of the Reformation. Vol. 2. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1853. Google Books. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

Meyer, G. J. The Tudors: The Complete Story of England’s Most Notorious Dynasty.  New York:  Delacorte Press. 2010. Print.

Perry, Maria.  The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth from Contemporary Documents.  Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1990.  Print.

Porter, Linda.  Katherine the Queen:  The Remarkable Life of Katherine Parr.  London:  McMillian, 2010. Print.

Ridley, Jasper. Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virtue.  New York: Fromm International Publishing Corporation, 1989.  Print.

Roundel, Julia. Cowdray: the history of a great English House …With illustrations, etc.  London: ballantyne, Hanson and Co., 1884. Print.

Skidmore, Chris. Edward VI: The Lost King of England. New York: St. Martin’s, 2007. Google Books. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

Starkey, David.  Elizabeth:  The Struggle for the Throne. New York:  HarperCollins Publishers. 2001. Print

Tytler, Patrick Fraser. England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary: With the Contemporary History of Europe, Illustrated in a Series of Original Letters Never before Printed; with Historical Introductions and Biographical and Critical Notes. London: Bentley, 1839. Google Books. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.