Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part IV

Posted on October 27, 2013 by jodmcp

Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part IV

The diplomatic accounts sent to Philip II by his Spanish Ambassador to England, Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, Count de Feria, will be quoted at length as they give such clear and vivid pictures of the events from spring of 1558 until the autumn. Philip, convinced that if his wife Mary I died the preferred successor would be Princess Elizabeth, tried to preserve close ties with the princess while maintaining the upper hand. He had quite a job for himself.

Philip Turns His Attention to Elizabeth—1558

As everyone at Court, except for Queen Mary, realized her pregnancy was a delusion, Philip turned his attention to Elizabeth. He did not have an easy task in convincing his wife to accept her sister as heir. Ambassador Michiel wrote to the Doge of Venice on October 29, 1558, that King Philip had sent over his envoy, Count de Feria to visit the Queen and to convince her that it was better to arrange the marriage of Elizabeth now while they could “prevent the evils which might occur were Lady Elizabeth, seeing herself slighted, to choose after Her Majesty’s death, or perhaps even during her lifetime, to take for her husband some individual who might convulse the whole kingdom into confusion. For many days during which the confessor treated this business, he found the Queen utterly averse to give Lady Elizabeth any hope of the succession, obstinately maintaining that she was neither her sister nor the daughter of the Queen’s father, King Henry, nor would she hear of favouring her, as she was born of an infamous woman, who had so greatly outraged the Queen her mother and herself” (Queen Elizabeth I 242-243).

This was to be done in utmost secrecy for Elizabeth could not be slighted if the Queen would not agree to it. There was also the fear if the French found out it could jeopardize any marriage schemes as the “greater part of England is opposed to the Queen, and most hostile to King Philip and his dependants, and much inclined towards Miladi Elizabeth, who has always shown greater liking for the French faction than for this other” (Queen Elizabeth I 243). As seen in a previous blog, “Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part III” Mary and Elizabeth were both against a marriage for Elizabeth, albeit for different reasons. Philip may have seen the writing on the wall concerning the Savoy and Swedish marriage proposals but he was not without schemes. He knew he needed to keep Elizabeth in his favor.

When Charles V died in September, Philip wrote to Elizabeth himself to tell her about it. She in turn wrote a reply to him. “Sire and dearest cousin, The honour which your Majesty has done me by sending a gentleman to advertise me of the death of the august Emperor, your father of most glorious memory, agreeably reminds me that your Majesty continues to honour me with that generous good-will which you have been pleased ever to bestow on me, and from which I have felt so much advantage that, in calling to mind these Graces and favours, I can find no other fit means of evincing my gratitude than by earnestly remembering that the life I enjoy is equally the fruit of the Queen my sister’s goodness and of your Majesty’s magnanimous protection” (Queen Elizabeth I 239-240).

Charles V by Titian

Elizabeth went on to tell Philip that she was “employed at present in reading the history of his warlike actions, and his great feats of courage and valour, in order to redouble, by the glorious memory of the father, the veneration and esteem which I have for the son.

“I pray God that amidst the afflictions which such a loss causes you, he may load your life with prosperity and happiness; so shall I ever, with great satisfaction, assure you that I am your Majesty’s very humble servant and sister-in-law, Elizabeth” (Queen Elizabeth I 240).

Mary’s View of Elizabeth

Venetian Ambassador Michiel, who described Mary as “a very great and rare example of virtue and magnanimity, a real portrait of patience and humility,” also was aware of “her evil disposition towards her sister my Lady Elizabeth, which although dissembled, it cannot be denied that she displays in many ways the scorn and ill will she bears her.”

Michiel perceived that “what disquiets her most of all is to see the eyes and hearts of the nation already fixed on this lady as successor to the Crown, from despair of descent from the Queen, to see the illegitimate child of a criminal who was punished as a public strumpet, on the point of inheriting the throne with better fortune than herself, whose descent is rightful, legitimate, and regal. Besides this the Queen’s hatred is increased by knowing her to be averse to the present religion, that she has recanted, she is nevertheless supposed to dissemble, and to hold to it more than ever internally” (Brown VI May 1557 884).

Philip was up against a strong force. Mary truly wanted to be a loving and obedient wife, which would have meant following in with Philip’s plans of complete reconciliation with Elizabeth and, more importantly, announcing her as heir. Mary preferred to wait and let events unravel. She still held hope that she would have her own child or, if that would not be the case, then “referring the matter after her death to those whom it concerns either by right or by force” (Brown VI May 1557 884). This was at complete variance with Philip who “it cannot be supposed will choose to delay until then, nor remain at the mercy of the English and their divisions, he would therefore wish to secure himself immediately and proclaim the heir” (Brown VI May 1557 884). Yet, where Elizabeth was concerned there was too much anger, jealousy and distrust on Mary’s side to overcome.

Why were these feelings of Mary’s so difficult to submerge? Let us return to Ambassador Michiel’s report. Elizabeth is described physically as very attractive and as “a young woman, whose mind is considered no less excellent than her person; and her intellect and understanding are wonderful, as she showed very plainly by her conduct when in danger and under suspicion.” It is of Michiel’s opinion that “as a linguist she excels the Queen” speaking Latin, Greek, and Italian. Perhaps Mary would not feel overshadowed by these skills, except as the Ambassador shrewdly related that everybody believed Elizabeth resembled King Henry VIII “more than the Queen” and “he therefore always liked her and had her brought up in the same way as the Queen.” This perhaps could have been easier to swallow for Mary, but she was aware “that she [Elizabeth] was born of such a mother,” and that Elizabeth believed she was no less legitimate than Mary was (Brown VI May 1557 884).

Elizabeth by Steven van der Meulen, 1563

Added to Elizabeth’s faults, was the fact that Mary had to be aware that as the years passed, “there is not a lord or gentleman in the kingdom who has failed, and continues endeavouring, to enter her service himself or to place one of his sons or brothers in it, such being the love and affection borne her” (Brown VI May 1557 884). Michiel explained that Elizabeth was always in need of money “and would be much more so did she not steadily restrain herself to avoid any increase of the Queen’s hatred and anger”; therefore, she did not increase the number of servants or add expenditures of any kind.

When requested to take on household members, Elizabeth would decline pleading her relative state of poverty and “by this astute and judicious apology she adroitly incites a tacit compassion for herself and consequently yet greater affection, as it seems strange and vexatious to everybody that being the daughter of a King she should be treated and acknowledged so sparingly” (Brown VI May 1557 884).

An example of Mary’s anger we have seen in her frustration in having to give way to the daughter of Anne Boleyn and her jealousy showed in her annoyance of Elizabeth’s skills and popularity. An example of her distrust is perfectly illustrated over Elizabeth’s professed religious convictions. Ambassador Michiel, recognized the danger to Catholicism if Elizabeth succeeded as she would “reverse of what the Queen has done, this seeming to her a sort of revenge. Besides this, she would think that nothing could render her more popular, independently of her own interest through the restitution to herself and to the Crown of all those revenues amounting to upwards of 60,000l., of which the Queen has deprived it. And “and above all she would withdraw the obedience to the Pope, were it solely for the sake of not seeing money go out of the kingdom” (Brown VI May 1557 884).

Perhaps Mary’s policy should have been to remove Elizabeth from her realm. The Queen’s reluctance to acknowledge Elizabeth’s legitimacy via a diplomatic marriage kept her sister in the kingdom. Maybe a reversal of her decision would have eased many of her concerns. Below is a lengthy extract from a diplomatic dispatch between Count Feria, the Spanish Ambassador to England and Philip II explaining the events of May 1558.

May 1, 1558, de Feria to King Philip II
“An ambassador of the King of Sweden came here recently. He appears to be a learned man. Several days passed without his having audience of the Queen or even demanding it. His mission appears to consist of two parts: one about commercial affairs between England and Sweden, and the other to negotiate a match between the Lady Elizabeth and the King of Sweden’s son, for which purpose he brought a letter from the young man accrediting him to the Lady. Before he had been received by the Queen, he went to present his letter to the Lady Elizabeth. The Queen is writing to you on the subject; and as I have heard from her all I know about it I need say no more. She fancies herself very much where this matter is concerned. She was angry with me the other day when she knew that I was sending a servant of mine to Antwerp on my own business, thinking that I meant to write to your Majesty before she had done so about this matrimonial affair. She spoke to me very severely.

Eric XIV of Sweden by Steven van der Meulen, 1561

“When this ambassador first arrived, the Queen was greatly distressed, thinking that your Majesty would blame her because the match proposed a year ago [to Philip’s choice, Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy] had not come off. Now that the Lady Elizabeth has answered that she does not wish to marry, the Queen has calmed down; but she takes a most passionate interest in the affair. She now realises that her pregnancy has come to nothing, and seems afraid your Majesty will urge her to take a decision (about marrying off Elizabeth). Figueroa and I think your Majesty ought to do this, grasping the occasion supplied by this ambassador and the pregnancy matter, but it must not be raised at the same time as the military affair, for that might spoil everything. I do not think the Queen will wish to prevent Elizabeth from succeeding, in case God grants no issue to your Majesties” (Tyler XIII May 1558 425).

Official Response to Swedish Proposals
While in Brussels, Philip wrote a response to de Feria on May 7, 1558.
“I am answering your letter in my own hand, as you will see. You will also see that I am writing to the Privy Council about the four points raised by the Swedish ambassador on behalf of his King concerning trade between England and Sweden. As the terms he proposes are harsh and impracticable, you will try to get them to temporise, keeping me informed of anything they may intend to do so that I may signify my pleasure to them” (Tyler XIII May 1558 429) .

On May 18, 1558, Ambassador Feria, ever the conscientious diplomat, informed his king of the merry-go-round of events in England. “They tell me that with this courier they are sending a report to your Majesty, with the reply they think of making to the Swedish Ambassador. What the Swede is trying to do will come to nothing.

“I have already written to your Majesty that I did not see the Lady Elizabeth when she was here. As my principal support in negotiating the matters I was sent here for was the Queen’s goodwill, I thought I had better avoid upsetting her, especially as your Majesty had not given me any special instructions” (Tyler XIII May 1558 435).

Feria clarified that he had sent word to Elizabeth that he had permission from the king to visit her and asked another courtier, referred to as Paget and it is assumed to be Charles Paget, to offer his excuses for not meeting her earlier. It appears that Paget rather fumbled the job. Feria explained that he had asked one of the women close to Elizabeth if Paget had done so and she told him “that he asked the Lady Elizabeth whether I had been to see her, and that when she said I had not, he expressed great surprise and said nothing further.” Now in a bit of a tricky situation Feria decided, “I do not think that things ought to be left there, but that it would be well that I should go and see her before I leave the country; she lives twenty miles from here. As your Majesty is fully informed, you will send me instructions. If I am to see her, you must write about it to the Queen” (Tyler XIII May 1558 435).

Since Count de Feria appeared to be anxious about Mary’s reception to the news that he had gone to visit Elizabeth. It is obvious his commission dealt with the sensitive topics of either the succession or a possible marriage for Elizabeth. Regardless, Philip did agree to Feria’s perception that Mary had to be informed of his actions with the unwritten idea that Mary would be angry at such an overture. Several days later Feria received word from Philip saying “I approve of your intention not to leave England without visiting the Lady Elizabeth. I am writing to the Queen that I have instructed you to do so, and that she is to speak to you in the same sense. Thus I hope that the Queen will take it well.

“The Council have written to me how they intend to answer the Swedish Ambassador. Their reply seems to me satisfactory, except that I should like to have them add that they were not pleased with his going to make a proposal to the Lady Elizabeth without the Queen’s knowledge, and that in future neither he nor anyone else on his master’s behalf should come to negotiate such matters without informing the Queen in advance, for if they did, the Queen would greatly resent it and could not fail to show her resentment in some appropriate manner” (Tyler XIII May 1558 440).

Elizabeth, in the ‘Gripsholm Portrait’ –a painting done specifically for Erik of Sweden.

Obviously, Philip had written Count Feria on May 27, 1558, and quickly sent off the missive. On the same day, he received the message that Feria had written on the 18^th. Therefore, Philip wrote again on the 27^th praising Feria that he was “glad to hear that you had gone to see the Lady Elizabeth. When you come, you will report what happened between her and you” (Tyler XIII May 441). Again, the topic of conversation between Count Feria and Elizabeth had been too sensitive to commit to paper; the communiqué would be done in person to the King. If the discussion concerned the Swedish marriage proposal, the diplomatic course laid down by Philip was followed by his faithful envoy. Several months later Feria had the satisfaction to write, “The Swedish Ambassador was satisfied with the answer he received from the Council, and said that he wished to report to his master and wait here for an answer. When the Queen reproved him in presence of the Councillors and Petre for having made a proposal to the Lady Elizabeth without her knowledge, he put up a feeble defence, but then repeated his request. Her Majesty answered that she did not intend to proceed further in this matter. I believe she intends to write to your Majesty about what happened between her and the ambassador” (Tyler XIII July 1558 457).

King Philip II by Titian, 1554

Regardless of what Philip and his envoy publically proclaimed, another meeting between the Spanish Ambassador and Elizabeth took place sometime in June of 1558 at Hatfield. He kept Philip informed of the arrangements, letting him know “I am going to see the Lady Elizabeth on Friday, 16 miles from here, as your Majesty has ordered me to do. (Tyler XIII June 1558 444). After the meeting, Feria continued with King Philip’s instructions for filling him in on the details in person and kept to a bare bones account that he wrote on 23 June: “I went to visit the Lady Elizabeth, as your Majesty instructed me to do. She was very much pleased; and I was also, for reasons I will tell your Majesty when I arrive over there. (Tyler XIII June 1558 451). It appears that when Count Feria returned to Brussels he had information to share that would apparently satisfy Hapsburg interests.

The marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots and the future Francis II had taken place in the spring of 1558. Philip understood the dangers of Mary’s claim to the English throne to his country. Elizabeth herself must have been feeling more confident of her position as these international developments strengthened her case at home among not only the English, but also the Hapsburgs. Philip needed Elizabeth, as she was well aware.

Count de Feria Meets His Match
Count Feria had returned to his master in Brussels and was sent back to England relatively quickly as news of the Queen’s ill-health reached her husband. The meeting between Elizabeth and Feria will be relayed extensively below due to the insightful nature not only of the event but also of Feria’s interpretation of Elizabeth’s character. The basis for the bulk of the communiqué derives from David Loades’ materials with extended passages from various sources to emphasis other points.

14 November 1558
“I arrived here on Wednesday, the ninth of this month, at lunchtime and found the Queen our lady’s health to be just as Dr. Nunez* describes in his letter to your Majesty. There is, therefore, no hope of her life, but on the contrary each hour I think that they will come to inform me of her death, so rapidly does her condition deteriorate from one day to the next. She was happy to see me, since I brought her news of your Majesty, and to receive the letter, although she was unable to read it. In view of this I felt that there was not time to waste on other matters and sent word to the council to assemble as I wished to talk to them on your Majesty’s behalf. This I preceded to do ….I also declared your Majesty’s will on the question of the succession to the kingdom, and told them how pleased your Majesty would be to hear of their good offices with Madame Elizabeth on this matter, reminding them how your Majesty had sought to have this done much earlier, as they all well knew. These councilors are extremely frightened of what Madame Elizabeth will do with them. They have received me well, but somewhat as they would a man who came with bulls from a dead pope.

“The day after I arrived, I went to a house belonging to a gentleman some twenty three miles from there, where Madame Elizabeth is staying.** She received me well but not as joyfully as she did last time. She asked me to dine with her and the wife of Admiral Clinton who was there when I arrived was also invited. After dinner she rose and told me that should I desire to speak with her I might now do so, for she was giving orders that only two or three women who could speak no other language than English should remain in the room… I gave her to understand that it was your Majesty who had procured her recent recognition as the queen’s sister and successor, and not the Queen or the council, and that this was something your Majesty had been trying to secure for some time, as she no doubt realized, for it was common knowledge in the whole kingdom; and I condemned the Queen and the council severely… She was very open with me on many points, much more than I would have expected, and although it is difficult to judge a person one has known for a short a time as I have known this woman, I shall tell your Majesty what I have been able to gather. She is a very vain and clever woman. She must have been thoroughly schooled in the manner in which her father conducted his affairs, and I am very much afraid that she will not be well disposed in matters of religion, for I see her inclined to govern through men who are believed to be heretics, and I am told that all the women around her definitely are. Apart from this it is evident that she is highly indignant about what has been done to her during the Queen’s lifetime. She puts great store by the people, and is very confident that they are all on her side—which is certainly true…

Brockett Hall

“I have been told for certain that Cecil, who was King Edward’s secretary, will also be secretary to Madame Elizabeth. He is said to be an able and virtuous man, but a heretic…

“Last night they administered extreme unction to the queen or lady and today she is better, although there is little hope of her life. Our Lord etc., From London, 14^th November 1558” (Loades Mary Tudor 200-202).

Mary I by Hans Eworth, 1555-1558.

If the Ambassador thought his advice would be listened to meekly, let alone followed, he had another think coming. When the discussion emerged about the Privy Council members, Feria counseled Elizabeth to show restraint and not seek revenge. Elizabeth told him that she wanted to make the “councillors who had wronged her admit they had done so” (Perry 126). She acknowledged Philip’s support when she was detained by her sister and how Philip “had shown her favour and helped her to obtain her release. She felt that it was not dishonourable to admit that she had been a prisoner; on the contrary, it was those who had put her there who were dishonoured because she had never been guilty of having acted or said anything against the queen, nor would she ever confess otherwise” (Porter 405).

What a gal! Faced still with a tremendous amount of uncertainty and with no true internship in the halls of power, Elizabeth’s courage and sangfroid are astounding. A baffled Feria shared with Philip, the person who Feria felt was solely responsible for obtaining the throne for Elizabeth, that she “puts great store by the people who put her in her present position, and she will not acknowledge that your Majesty or the nobility of this realm had any part in it, although, as she herself, says, they have all sent her assurances of their loyalty…. There is not a heretic or traitor in all the kingdom, who has not joyfully raised himself from the grave to come to her side. She is determined to be governed by no one” (Perry 125).

Feria claimed that Elizabeth had not received him as ‘joyfully’ as before— the change could be easily explained. Her position as future queen was much more secure; her sister had recently acknowledged the succession which was linked back to her father’s actions. The Third Act of Succession of 1544 gave the act of law to the last will and testament of Henry VIII. In 1546, Henry spelled out exactly how the succession should proceed if his son Edward died childless and if his daughter Mary did as well. Mary used that Act as her claim to the succession over Lady Jane Grey yet was loath to enact it for her half-sister. In the autumn of 1558 Mary acknowledged the fact that she might die without issue and so on 28 October she added a codicil to her will—written in March of that same year. She left the “government, order and rule” of the kingdom to her “next heir and successor, according to the laws and statues of this realm” (Alford 28). Mary consciously did not mention Elizabeth by name nor did she accept her as her heir willingly. Christophe d’Assonleville, the Imperial envoy from Brussels, wrote to Philip that the Privy Council had persuaded Mary to “make certain declarations in favour of the Lady Elizabeth concerning the succession. Her Majesty consented; and the Comptroller and the Master of the Rolls are being sent to-day on her behalf and that of the Council to visit the Lady Elizabeth and inform her that the Queen is willing that she succeed in the event of her own death” (Tyler XIII November 1558 498). Good news for Philip as he was in full support of Elizabeth as heir— there really was no choice in his eyes—and Feria had the delicate task of dealing with Elizabeth as the soon-to-be-Queen while diplomatically presenting the belief that Mary would recover. This interview could not have been easy for the Count.

While giving praise for Philip’s support, Elizabeth did not hesitate to imply that Mary had hurt her realm by “sending large sums of money and jewels out of the country to her husband” (Porter 405). “She then went on to discomfort him further by observing that her sister had lost her subjects’ affection by marrying a foreigner, to which he had relied, punctiliously but untruthfully, that on the contrary Philip had been much loved. She was grateful for Philip’s support but set no particular store by it, placing all her confidence in the English people, who were she was convinced, ‘all on her side’. This, Feria concluded ruefully, ‘is undoubtedly true’” (Loades Mary Tudor 199).

Joanna, Regent of Spain

*Luis Nunez was a Portuguese physician practicing in the Netherlands, sent over with de Feria.

**Most likely Brockett Hall, home of Sir John Brockett, who was one of her Hatfield tenants.

For references, please refer to the blog entry “Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part I.”

Friend, Cousin, Brother? Part I

Posted on July 2, 2013 by jodmcp

Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon Part I

Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon was born 4 March 1526 to Mary Boleyn and William Carey who married on 4 February 1520. Mary was the eldest daughter of Thomas Boleyn, 1^st Earl of Wiltshire and Lady Elizabeth Howard, eldest daughter of Thomas Howard, 2^nd Duke of Norfolk. Mary was the sister to Anne Boleyn, second wife to Henry VIII.

Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon

Mary Boleyn, was born most likely at Blickling Hall and reared at Hever Castle; with no evidence of an exact date for her birth most historians place it in the year 1499. Mary, tutored at home along with her siblings George and Anne, received a conventional education until 1514. Her father arranged for her to become a maid-of-honor to Mary Tudor, sister to Henry VIII, who was soon to become the bride of King Louis XII of France. Mary Tudor was widowed shortly after her wedding and returned home. Mary Boleyn’s reputation through generations has implied affairs with French courtiers and even the new King of France Francis I. Mary Boleyn became a maid-of-honor to Catherine of Aragon and shortly after wed Sir William Carey. It was believed that she began an affair with King Henry around this time. This was not a publicized liaison but the evidence is difficult to shift through. Was the relationship not well-known at the time or was it suppressed later? After Henry VIII had discarded Catherine due to the rise in his conscience of marrying the wife of his brother (against scripture Leviticus 20:21), could he have destroyed all evidence of an affair once he became determined to marry Anne? If he had fathered children by Mary, would he also have repressed those facts?

Blickling Hall June 2012

Hever Castle 2007

Evidence is strong that Henry VIII did have an affair with Mary Boleyn. Paul Friedmann relays that Dr. Ortiz, the Spanish theologian sent to Rome to assist the cause of Catherine of Aragon, “wrote to the empress, ‘that some time ago he [Henry] sent to ask his holiness for a dispensation to marry her, notwithstanding the affinity between them on account of his having committed adultery with her sister.’ In 1529 Charles V had already heard of the matter. Charles declared that Henry’s conscientious scruples did not seem to be justified, especially ‘if it were true, as his said Majesty had heard (although he himself would not positively affirm it), that the said king had kept company with the sister of her whom he now, it was stated, wanted to marry.’ In 1532, Eustache Chapuis speaks of the former adultery of Henry with Mary Boleyn as a well-known fact of which there can be no doubt. ‘Even if,’ he writes, ‘he could separate from the queen, he could not have her [Anne], for he has had to do with her sister.’ Such, in the main, are the arguments for the opinion that Mary Carey had been the mistress of Henry” (Friedmann 325-327).

Mary Boleyn Carey William Carey

Of course, there is the famous incident of Sir George Throgmorton speaking to the king of the rumor that Henry had improper relations with Anne’s mother and sister, and “Henry replied, ‘Never with the mother;’ and Cromwell, who was present, added, ‘Nor with the sister either.’” (Friedman 326). Could even Henry VIII have been such a hypocrite to justify marriage to Anne Boleyn after he had discarded Catherine of Aragon for being the wife of his brother? One must remember, Henry desperately wanted to marry Anne.

Another rumor passed down through the centuries is that Henry Carey was the natural son of Henry VIII. If this were true, would the king have recognized the boy as such? After all, Henry had acknowledged Henry FitzRoy, the child he had with Elizabeth Blount, and rewarded him accordingly. The difference is the king did not want to marry Elizabeth Blount’s sister. Would measures have been taken at the time to suppress the truth? Even if Henry had acknowledged Mary’s child, would he have disposed of all official records two to three years later when he became infatuated with Anne?

Henry FitzRoy

Allison Weir is adamant that Henry did not father Mary Boleyn Carey’s child (Weir Lady in the Tower 309-310). This blogger also wonders if Anne would have obligingly taken the wardship of Henry Carey when William Carey died if she thought he could be a threat to her own children as an illegitimate son to the king? Very few contemporary sources mention this possibility. John Haile*, vicar of Isleworth, wrote on April 20, 1535, that “Morever, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that he was our suffren Lord the Kynge’s son by our suffren Lady the Qwyen’s syster, whom the Qwyen’s grace might not suffer to be yn the Cowrte” (Hoskins).

John Haile

Mary’s disgrace came in 1534 when she secretly married a soldier, William Stafford. As a second son of a modestly wealthy landowner, William’s prospects were not great. Queen Anne was furious and banished her sister from Court. After her siblings were executed in 1536, her parents died within a short time period. As sole heir Mary then inherited some family property. She lived comfortably and quietly until her death in July of 1543.

Thomas Boleyn Believed to be Elizabeth Boleyn

When William Carey died of the sweating sickness 23 June 1528, Anne Bolyen was granted Henry’s wardship. He benefited enormously as Anne had him educated by “Nicholas Bourbon, a French humanist and other prominent educators” (Warnicke 148). This patronage came to an end when Anne was executed in May of 1536; Henry was ten years old.

Anne Morgan, the daughter of Sir Thomas Morgan and Anne Whitney, was his bride on 21 May 1545. The couple would eventually have 12 children. In 1547, Henry was elected as a member of Parliament for Buckingham where he served for many years. During the reign of Edward VI, he received several manors to provide a living for him and his family. Soon after the accession of Elizabeth Regina, Henry received a knighthood (his wife was appointed as a Lady of the Privy Chamber) and was elevated to the peerage by letters patent, as Baron Hunsdon. Along with the peerage was a grant of the estate of Hunsdon in Hertfordshire and a pension of £4,000 a year “(according to the valuation in that age) in fair desmesnes, parks, and lands lying about it” (Fuller 47).

Anne Morgan, Lady Hunsdon, portrait is displayed at Hatfield House

*John Haile was one of the first priests to die as a result of the Act of Supremacy (not acknowledging Henry VIII as Head of the Church). He, along with several others, was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn on 4 May 1535. Haile was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886.

Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon Part II will follow as the next published blog entry.

Said it, Believed it, Lived it

Posted on June 25, 2013 by jodmcp

Said it, Believed it, Lived it: Mottoes of Elizabeth Regina

A motto is a short sentence or phrase used to formally summarize or encapsulate the beliefs, motivations, intentions or ideals of an individual, group or institution. Often the motto can become a rule by which someone lives her or his life. Although a motto can be in any language, Latin is the one mostly used in the Western world.

William Camden, an Officer of Arms under Queen Elizabeth who wrote a history of her reign at the suggestion of Lord Burghley, William Cecil, has become an excellent source for emblems and heraldic arms of the Tudor era although he does not always quote the motto nor offer explanations (Daly 5). Camden has given his ideal of a motto accompanying heraldry. He assures us that the picture is the body “and the Motto, which as the soul giveth it life. That is, the body must be of fair representation, and the word in some different language, witty, short, and answerable thereunto; neither too obscure, nor too plain, and most commended when it is an Hemistich, or parcel of a verse” (Camden Remaines 366-367).

Coat of Arms of Henry VIII

An official definition of motto is as follows: “A sentence added to a device (Ital. –L) L. muttium, mutter, a grunt, a muttered sound; cf. mutire, muttire, to mutter, mumble” (Skeat 387). Therefore, in heraldry, a motto is shown on a shield as part of a coat of arms. In English heraldry in particular, the motto is not granted with the armorial bearings and can be changed.

Members of Tudor upper society certainly embraced the custom of using mottoes and “subjects adopted them as expressions of loyalty” (Cannon 253). Below are briefly the mottoes of Henry VIII, his wives and his children with expanded explanations on the mottoes of Elizabeth and her mother, Anne Boleyn to follow.

Tudor Mottoes

Henry VIII Dieu et mon droit —God and my right

Katherine of Aragon Humble and loyal

Anne Boleyn The Most Happy
Jane Seymour Bound to Obey and Serve

Anne of Cleves God send me well to keep

Catherine Howard Non aultrevolontè que le sinne —No other will than his

Katherine Parr To be useful in all I do

Edward VI Dieu et mon droit —God and my right
Modus et Ordo —Method and Order

Mary I Veritas filia temporis —Truth, daughter of time

Elizabeth Regina Semper Eadem — Always the Same
Video et taceo —I see and say nothing

Royal British mottoes can be a bit confusing. All Knights of the Garter may use the motto, Honi soit qui mal y pense, [Shamed be he who thinks evil of it] added to their heraldry. Also, the sovereign will use, Dieu et mon droit, [God and my right] on a scroll beneath the shield of the royal coat of arms. This motto has been attributed to Richard I Lionheart as a battle cry and has been used officially since the time of Henry V. Obviously, this refers to the monarchs’ divine right to rule.

Clock given to Anne Boleyn by Henry VIII at the time of their marriage. The weights are engraved with the initials ‘H’ and ‘A’ and also the mottoes “Dieu et Mon Droit” and “The Most Happy”.

Alternatively, the Royal Arms may depict a monarch’s or consort’s personal motto and may appear on many buildings, possessions, documents, and in more modern times on products—those purveyors who have earned the Royal Warrant. More on that topic in another blog entry. Often its use is done for dynastic glorification as illustrated in the cup Henry VIII commissioned by Hans Holbein as a wedding gift to Jane Seymour. Jane’s motto “Bound to obey and serve” is repeated on the lid and on the base. The bridal pair’s initials adorned the cup. “Its submissive tone was fairly typical for queen consorts, but it also reflects Jane’s personality and helps explain why she was so attractive to Henry” (Doran Man & Monarch 189).

Cup designed by Hans Holbein for Jane Seymour with her motto on the lid and base

Reigning between queens with mottoes conveying humility and obedience-Katherine of Aragon’s “Humble and loyal” and Jane’s “Bound to obey and serve”-comes Anne Boleyn whose motto was the bold “The most happy”. Anne adopted this motto as her coronation approached. She had reason to be “the moost happi”: she had married a supportive and affectionate Henry, she was expecting his child (convinced it was the longed-for male heir), and she had managed to institute several religious changes in the country.

Anne Boleyn’s medal inscribed around with THE MOOST HAPPI ANNO 1534 and A.R. for Anne Regina next to her portrait

Although some sources attribute the motto “Me and mine” to Anne, this blogger never found true evidence of it. One motto she adopted in 1530 before she was queen, Aisi sera groigne qui groigne meaning “Let them grumble; that is how it is going to be!” (Ives 141). This motto had quite a story attached to it.

Paul Friedman was quoting Pascual de Gayangos’ Calendar of State Papers, Spain Vol. 4, Part 2, page 41, which stated that Anne, to show her “contempt for those who opposed her, chose a device which she had heard in France, but which she only partially remembered, Ainsi sera, groigne qui groign! was embroidered on the liveries of her servants” (Friedman 128). Her arrogance and defiance did not last long.
To her mortification, and to Eustace Chapuys’ glee, she learned that she had “adopted the motto of her bitter enemies, the princes of the house of Burgundy. ‘Groigne qui groigne’, she heard it repeated, “et vive Bourgoigne!’ The liveries had to be laid aside, and Anne’s servants on Christmas Day appeared in their old doublets” (Friedman 128).

Such a blatant alteration of an Imperialist motto was hardly the way to win supporters at Court and gain Anne acceptance as the replacement of a highly-respected Habsburg queen (Ives 142-143).

The Boleyn cup 1535-36 in St. John the Baptist Church in Cirencester with motto “The Most Happy.” Elizabeth inherited this beautiful from her mother and in turn gave it to her physician Richard Master who presented it to the church.

Another motto, Semper eadem, [Always the same], was said to be used by Anne (Weir 324). This blogger could not find primary source evidence to support Anne’s use of this maxim. It was a well-known motto adopted by Anne’s daughter, Elizabeth, when she became queen. This particular motto appears to be associated with the quality of constancy. Elizabeth’s constancy can be shown in her willingness to maintain a steadfast government during the transition between her reign and her sister’s. See the blog entry https://elizregina.com/2013/04/09/reigned-with-your-loves/ for a list of Marian councilors retained by Elizabeth. Perhaps Elizabeth adopted it for simply sentimental reasons to form a link to her mother. Another view of this motto reveals it to be a pledge that Elizabeth would not change her religious faith (Collinson 1549).

Coat of Arms of Elizabeth Regina with motto, Semper eadem.

With the childhood fraught with uncertainty and constant change perhaps this motto was a rule in which Elizabeth preferred to live. It does imply an avoidance of any surprise, uncertainty or disruption. Could a sovereign associated with such changes that supported exploration, encouraged the Arts and introduced religious reform prefer the status quo?

William Camden deemed Elizabeth’s main care upholding the Protestant faith and her “second care was, to hold an even course in her whole life, and all her actions: whereupon she tooke for her Motto, Semper eadem, that is, Alwayes the same. The rest of her counsels consisted in these points” (Camden Annales 20). There is some disconnect between this motto and her well-known impulsiveness, indecision and secrecy.

Shield and motto of Queen Elizabeth I by Simon de Passe in the NPG Collection

Elizabeth I–obverse of shield and motto line engraving in the NPG collection

Elizabeth’s habit of covering her actions and motives was admired by Camden. When explaining her second motto, Camden discussed her methods “Which notwithstanding Queene Elizabeth dissembled and concealed with silence, according to that motto which she used, video et taceo, that is, I see and say nothing” (Camden Annales 307).

“I see and say nothing” has been termed a political motto used by Elizabeth. With her impressive humanist education, this motto could be of ancient historical significance or it could be a practical methodology employed by Elizabeth. No sources that this blogger has discovered definitively explain Elizabeth’s selection of this motto. An examination of them suggests a link to the equation of Elizabeth’s style with Cicero’s, an acquired maxim from Lady Tyrwhitt, a reflection of her moderate religious policy or a connection to Francis Walsingham’s spy network. More recent authors have interpreted that the use of Elizabeth’s mottoes, Video et taceo, and Semper eadem “alludes to an important feature of prudence, which is that it encompasses the knowledge of when to speak and when to keep quiet” (Broad 34).

The Plimpton “Sieve” Portrait of Elizabeth I, by George Gower, 1579. The sieve alludes to the myth of Tuccia, a roman Vestal Virgin who proved her virginity and prudence by carrying water with a sieve. The coat of arms and the motto in the top right Honi soit qui mal y pense / Semper eadem [Shamed be he who thinks evil of it / Always the same] are the motto of the Order of the Garter and the personal motto of Elizabeth Regina.

What does come to mind to this blogger is the ‘Rainbow’ portrait of Elizabeth with the eyes and ears embroidered on her gown. The poet John Davies refers to the ears and eyes as how the Queen uses her servants for a sketch he wrote during the Queen’s visit to William Cecil’s house, Theobalds, in 1591. When asked what use Elizabeth makes of her servants the reply was “She makes the same use of them as the mynde makes of the sences. Many things she sees and heares through them; but the judgment and election is her owne” (Nichols 77). Elizabeth clarified her right to rule and have good counsel early in her reign, “I shall desire you all, my lords, (chiefly you the nobility, everyone in his degree and power) to be assistant to me that I, with my ruling, and you with your service, may make a good account to Almighty God and leave some comfort to our posterity on earth. I mean to direct all my actions by good advice and councel” (Marcus 52). Through further research I discovered this idea of Elizabeth’s relationship with her advisors and her motto was further explored by Mary Thomas Crane.

The “Rainbow” portrait attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, 1600-1603.

Professor Crane begins her article “Although one of her mottoes, ‘semper eadem,’ seems to claim a fundamental unity of character, Queen Elizabeth I nevertheless presents us with an array of poses and personae” (Crane 1). How true. Students of Elizabeth Regina are familiar with her paradoxically presenting an image of absolute patriarchal power and one of a ‘weak and feeble woman’. How did Elizabeth maneuver within the Privy Council composed of men whose views were the by-products of a time period when authority and advice-giving were the realm of males? This was an era that considered “Kings were creatures defined by ancient custom; but queens, however loved and admired, were unpredictable” (Loades 318).

The use of the term ‘video’ assures that Elizabeth will listen and evaluate the advice to make up her own mind, as opposed to ‘audio’ that implies she will “accept blindly her advisors’ spoken counsel” (Crane 2). In an era when women were to remain silent and obedient, ‘taceo’ insinuates that “as queen, she will maintain the silence thought suitable for a woman …” (Crane 2). The motto encapsulates the fine line Elizabeth struck between asserting her authority and accepting advice from her Council.

She could be silent and allow her statesmen such as Burghley the role of respected advisor and she could be vocal and affirm her authority. Crane sees Elizabeth’s motto, Video et taceo, as more of the way she uses the political system and her “use of the paradigm of advice-giving reveals a woman who was less completely bound by male structures than some critics have argued” (Crane 2). Elizabeth “despite her motto, did not always remain silent…. Her skillful use of the humanist rhetoric of authoritative counsel allowed her to break silence and speak the language of authority as a uniquely powerful woman in a man’s world” (Crane 12).

One can suppose she did not believe her own contradiction to her motto when she teasingly responded to the French Ambassador after he had praised her linguistic skills, “There is no marvel in a woman learning to speak, but there would be in teaching her to hold her tongue.”

References

Allison, Ronald and Sarah Riddell, editors. The Royal Encyclopedia. London: Macmillian Press, 1991. Print.

“Arms of Tudors; Arms of Henry VIII; Arms of Edward VI.” Victoria and Albert Museum Collections. Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d. Web. 17 June 2013.

Broad, Jacqueline and Karen Green. Virtue, Liberty, and Toleration: Political Ideas of European Women, 1400-1800. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007. Google Books. Web 21 Jun 2013.

Camden, William, Robert Norton, Nicholas Hillard, and Francis Delaram. Annales or the History of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princesse Elizabeth Late Queen of England, Containing All the Important and Remarkable Passages of State, Both at Home and Abroad, during Her Long Ans Prosperous Reigne. Trans. R. N. Gent. 3rd ed. London: Harper, 1635. Google Books. Web. 21 June 2013.

Camden, William. Remaines concerning Brittaine: But Especially England, and the Inhabitants Thereof: Their Languages, Names, Syrnames, Allusions, Anagrammes, Armories, Moneys, Empresses, Apparell, Artillerie, Wise Speeches, Prouerbes, Poesies, Epitaphs. London,: Simon Waterson, 1605. Google Books. Web. 21 June 2013.

Cannon, John and Ralph Griffiths. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Collinson, Patrick. Elizabeth I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Google Books. Web. 16 June 2013.

Crane, Mary Thomas. “Video Et Taceo”: Elizabeth I and the Rhetoric of Counsel.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 28.1 (1988): 1-15. GeoCities, 2001. Web. 20 June 2013.

Daly, Peter, Leslie Duer, Anthony Raspa. The English emblem tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Google Books. Web. 21 June 2013.

“Death Could Not Separate Them: How Elizabeth I Connected to Her Deceased Mother.” Web log comment. Being Bess. Ed. Ashlie Jensen. N.p., 5 Aug. 2012. Web. 20 June 2013.

Doran, Susan. Henry VIII: Man & Monarch. London: British Library, 2009. Print.

Doran, Susan. The Tudor Chronicles 1485-1603. New York: Metro Books, 2008. Print.

Eakins, Laura. “Elizabeth I’s other motto.” TudorHistory. Google+Page, 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 June 2013.

Eakins, Laura. “Meaning of Anne Boleyn’s motto.” TudorHistory. Google+Page, 31 Dec. 2009. Web. 19 June 2013.

Friedmann, Paul. Anne Boleyn: A Chapter of English History 1527-1536. London: Macmillian and Co., 1884. Internet Archive. Web. 21 Jun 2013.

de Gayangos, Pascual (editor). “Spain: January 1531, 21-31.” Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 4 Part 2: 1531-1533 (1882): 31-47. British History Online. Web. 22 June 2013.

Isaacs, Alan and Jennifer Monk, editors. The Illustrated Dictionary of British Heritage. London: Promotional reprint Company, 1993. Print.

Skeat, Walter W. An etymological dictionary of the English language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Print.

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

Loades, D. M. Elizabeth I. London: Palgrave Macmillilan, 2003. Google Books. Web. 16 June 2013.

Lloyd, Christopher and Simon Thurley. Henry VIII: Images of a Tudor King. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1990. Print.

“Medallion: Arms of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour” Victoria and Albert Museum Collections. Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d. Web. 17 June 2013.

Nichols, John. The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. Among Which Are Interspersed Other Solemnities, Public Expenditures, and Remarkable Events during the Reign of That Illustrious Princess. Collected from Original MSS., Scarce Pamphlets, Corporation Records, Parochial Registers, &c., &c.: Illustrated with Historical Notes. New York: B. Franklin, Vol 3, 1823. Google Books. Web. 19 Jan. 2013.

Ross, Josephine. The Tudors, England’s Golden Age. London: Artus, 1994. Print.

Starkey, David. Henry VIII: A European Court in England. New York: Cross River Press, 1991. Print.

Strong, Roy C. Gloriana: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. London: Pimlico, 2003. Print.

Wagner, John. Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World: Britain, Ireland, Europe, and America. New York: Checkmark Books, 2002. Print.

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

Reigned With Your Loves

Posted on April 9, 2013 by jodmcp

Reigned with Your Loves

Connections and service, be they within personal or formal relationships, create loyalty. Loyalty which can be demonstrated in many ways. Both Henry VII and Elizabeth Regina developed heightened abilities in sensing gifted allies to serve them. Perhaps the skills were honed during their times of confinement (Henry in Brittany and Elizabeth at Hatfield) or they were innate. Regardless, each surrounded themselves with talented, loyal councilors.

Henry knew that if England was to recover and the throne was to become stable, the War of the Roses would have to end and healing would have to take place. What was required now was for the king to be resolute and to act with “judicious mercy, the mercy of head not heart.” Henry VII was to display clemency and firmness by his “reluctance to proceed to extremes and his readiness to accept old enemies into the fold.” Actions which “display his determination to show that the wars were over” (Elton 16).

Henry not only utilized Lancastrian loyalists, gentry from his native Wales, and fellow exiles, he also incorporated the Yorkist faction in his new government. He knew he must not further antagonize the opposition. Therefore, he pardoned men who had fought at Bosworth against him, and allowed them to enter government positions, even granting them property, if they took the oath of allegiance. He approached the many Woodville Yorkists cautiously as he did not want to be indebted to them nor to give the impression he reigned in any name but his own– meaning he did not want to appear to have need of Elizabeth of York’s family ties to strengthen his claim. “As a new man, Henry had to secure his place. He did this by a compromsing approach” (Bacon and Weinberger 238).

Henry had little knowledge of England and its government workings as he had been in exile for so many of his formative years. He was even unprepared for the responsibilities and life of a king. He thus relied heavily on the associates of his youth and those men who had joined him in exile along with many advisors from his mother’s household.

Margaret Beaufort

Henry and his mother, Margaret Beaufort, recognized the need for experienced men to provide council. Therefore, her household became a basis for Henry to draw officials from such as Christopher Urswick and Reginald Bray. Many of his contemporaries recognized that service his mother could easily lead to a royal appointment. Henry viewed service to his mother almost as those who served him “during his period of exile, as a debt of honour” (Jones 80).

Needing men of experience also meant he had to appoint those who had been in England and not exiled—people familiar with the ways of England. Therefore, a mix of noblemen, gentry, lawyers and clerics were used to comprise Henry VII’s Council (Loades 30). Henry did not want to give too much power to the men with governmental experience. He kept the nobles contained and “chose rather to advance clergymen and lawyers, which were more obsequious to him…” (Bacon and Lumby 217). These men recognized for their talents were more grateful to the king.

Henry was adamant about allegiance and service. The men he appointed were “loyal and ardent servants of an exacting but worthy master” (Elton 17). Despite his harshness, “Henry showed himself capable of attracting men to his side and retaining their loyalty…” (Griffiths 168).

Henry VII, seated in the Star Chamber

“Like all his family he had an uncanny gift for picking men to serve him, and not even the great Elizabeth surrounded herself with a brighter galaxy of first-rate ministers than did her grandfather” (Elton 17). It is not the purpose here to list every member of Henry’s Privy Council, the focus will be on those he relied upon early in his reign. Below, in chart form, are listed the pertinent advisors and servants.

Councilors Serving Henry VII

Councilor / Servant	Role	Miscellaneous
Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford	Military advisor and commander	paternal uncle to Henry, took him into exile
John de Vere, 13^th Earl of Oxford	Military advisor and commander	shared exile and influntial as nobleman
Sir Giles Daubeney	Chancellor	shared exile and very influential
Cardinal John Morton—Archbishop of Canterbury	Lord Chancellor	financial advisor/innovator dare we say exploiter
Bishop Richard Fox	Lord Privy Seal	shared exile, very influencial after Morton’s death
Bishop Peter Courtenay	Keeper of the Privy Seal	shared exile
Bishop William Warham	Master of the Rolls and later Lord Chancellor	performed many diplomatic missions
Sir Reginald Bray	Courtier	acquired from Margaret Beaufort’s advisors,very influential and architect of Henry VII’s Chapel at Westminster Abbey and St. George’s Chapel, Windsor
Christopher Urswick	Courtier	acquired from Margaret Beaufort’s advisors
Sir John Heron	Treasurer of the Chamber	shared exile and one of the most trusted advisors
Sir Edward Belknap	Surveyor of the King’s Prerogative	could confiscate anyone’s land that overtook the King’s prerogative
Richard Empson	Carried out Cardinal Morton’s financial policies	arrested under Henry VIII for unpopular financial activities
Edmund Dudley	Carried out Cardinal Morton’s financial policies	executed under Henry VII for unpopular financial activitiesGrandfather to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester
Sir Thomas Lovell	Treasurer of the Chamber	shared exile and one of the most trusted advisors
Sir Richard Guildford	Chamberlain of the Receipt	shared exile and one of the most trusted advisors
Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York	Lord Chancellor	experience in previous reigns, did not serve Henry very long
John Alcock, Bishop of Worcester	Lord Chancellor	experience in previous reigns, bridge between Edward IV, Richard III and Henry’s rule
Sir Thomas Stanley, 1^st Earl of Derby	High Constable of England	Henry’s step-father
Sir Edward Woodville	Courtier	brother to the Queen Dowager, military leader
Sir William Stanley,	Lord Chamberlain	brother to Henry’s step-father, executed for treason over Perkin Warbeck

Jasper Tudor Giles Daubeney

John Morton Richard Fox

Peter Couetenay William Warham

Christopher Urswick Thomas Lovell

Thomas Rotherham John Alcock

Thomas Stanley

“Henry became practiced in awarding empty honours and rewards to the deserving, which gratified the receivers and heightened their loyalty to him without increasing their actual strength” (Ross 19). Minor merchants or officials who had helped him in one way or another were rewarded as well—prudently. Henry was not a man to throw money around and, although he was generous, it was not beyond his means or beyond what was suitable. e rewarded people who had served his father and other Welsh followers, had helped his mother and even those who had served his revered uncle, Henry VI. (Griffiths 175).

Machiavelli wrote that a prince should be feared over loved although it would be ideal to be able to be both. In Henry VII’s case it appears as if he did not manage fear and love. Down the ages we have Edmund Dudley’s treatise, Tree of the Common Wealth, written in defense of absolute monarchy as applied to Henry VI. Dudley defended Henry’s actions (and maybe reflecting Henry’s views) by stating that if the King was lenient to his subjects “in all cases let them … psume to take it of theire owne authoritie, for then it will surelie choke them” (Dudley 28).

Henry did set the path for his administration although Bacon proclaimed that Cardinal Morton and Sir Reginald Bray not only reflected Henry’s views but “did temper them” (Bacon 214). Whereas Empson and Dudley, middle-ranking servants who rose to prominence by being men who “best content the king” (Penn 33), did not moderate his policies, especially financial, “but shaped his way to those extremities, for which himself was touched with remorse at his death….” (Bacon 214).

It is well-known that many of Henry’s financial practices were disliked by his people. Bacon proclaimed that ” of the three affections which naturally tie the hearts of the subjects to their sovereigns, love, fear, and reverence; he had the last in height, the second in good measure, and so little of the first, as he was beholden to the other two” (Bacon and Lumby 218). Financial acts were not popular with anyone but the benefits of his stable rule, his courts of law and justice did benefit everyone and they knew it too.

Henry VII, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley

By implying to the people that civil war would happen if they lost him, Henry maintained stability. Another method he consciously employed to control his ministers was in the journal he kept of his thoughts. It included notes he wrote while in conversation with ministers, diplomats and advisors about whom to reward and whom to watch—this was similar to his granddaughter. Elizabeth Regina kept mental notes of conversations and events she engaged in with her ministers to utilize if necessary in future dealings.

Elizabeth “kept her advisers off balance and perpetually astonished them by the range and mutability of her passions. Beyond this, they came to know that, with Elizabeth, nothing was ever what it seemed. Beneath her surface emotions were layer upon calculating layer of secondary reactions, ploys and schemes” (Erickson 173). She enjoyed laying traps for her ministers, throwing back at them their own words. Yet, they were devoted to her, perhaps because of her political, intellectual and interpersonal skills. An example could be from the way she handled the ex-ministers of Mary’s reign. Elizabeth greatly reduced the number of advisors and assured those that had served Mary that they were not retained because she wanted a smaller group to make it more manageable and less open to faction, not because of any deficit on their part (Neale 55).

Battles for Court positions were based on “loosely structured groups focusing on family, household, and master-servant connections…” (Warnicke 135). Some men were ambitious seeking power and money, others were honored to serve. Or, as Mervyn James has shown, “the ties of blood were liable to assert themselves with a particular power” (James 325).

As Queen, Elizabeth did not forget those who were still alive and had served her mother, Anne Boleyn. William Barlow was created Bishop of Chichester; William Latymer, became Dean of Peterborough under Elizabeth and author of Chronickle of Anne Bulleyne; and Matthew Parker appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Parker had been chaplain to Anne Boleyn. Although he did not want to take the Archbishopric, he did so based on a promise he had made to Anne shortly before her death to watch out for the spiritual needs of her daughter.

Like her grandfather, Elizabeth kept her beloved servants of her childhood and youth. She knew the Privy Council, the body that held up the authority of the Crown and was key to forming royal policy, should be conciliatory to the previous reign and diverse. In respect to the first consideration, Elizabeth retained 10 ministers from Mary’s reign. Taking a page from her grandfather, she kept members of the opposing faction in her council. Whereas his were Lancaster and York, hers were Catholic (Marian) and Protestant (Elizabethan).

For diversity, as did Henry, she promoted gifted men of the professions, many who had never held high office before, while keeping a balance of nobles and clergy. Her main criteria appeared to be efficiency, talent and loyalty. She wanted advisors who would give good counsel and ones she could trust.

It is not the purpose here to list every member of Elizabeth’s Privy Council, the focus will be on those she relied upon early in her reign. Below, in chart form, are listed the pertinent advisors and servants.

Councilors Serving Elizabeth Regina

Councilor / Servant	Role	Miscellaneous
Edward Stanley, 3^rd Earl of Derby	High Chamberlain	served Mary, kept due to prominent role in nobility
Francis Talbot, 5^th Earl of Shrewbury	Courtier and Privy Council Member	served Mary, kept due to prominent role in nobility—died within 2 years, son George famously married Bess of Hardwick and was custodian of Mary, Queen of Scots as 6^th Earl
Henry FitzAlan, 19^th Earl of Arundel	High Constable and Lord Steward	served Mary, kept due to prominent role in nobility as relative to Woodvilles and Percys.
Henry Herbert, 2^nd Earl of Pembroke	Lord Lieutenant	served Mary, kept due to prominent role in nobility as husband to Lady Katherine Grey
William Howard, 1^st Baron Howard of Effingham	Lord Admiral and Lord Chamberlain	served Mary, Elizabeth’s great-uncle and defender in Marian court
William Paulet, Marquis of Winchester	Treasurer and Speaker of the House	served Mary, great administrator
Edward Clinton, later Earl of Lincoln	Lord Admiral andAmbassador to France	served Mary, he was Lord Admiral and capable
Sir John Mason	Diplomat and Chancellor of Oxford University	served Mary, was knighted as public servant
Sir William Petre	Secretary of State	served Mary, lawyer & tutor to George Boleyn rose rapidly and was knighted
Sir Nicholas Wotton	Diplomat	served Mary, commoner and cleric
Sir Thomas Parry	Comptroller of the Household	Elizabeth’s steward since childhood, relative to Cecil, in household at Hatfield and later knighted
Sir Richard Sackville	Chancellor of the Exchequer	Elizabeth’s relative as his mother was cousin to Anne Boleyn, had experience during Edward’s time
Sir Francis Knollys	Vice-Chamberlain of the Royal Household	Elizabeth’s relative as he married her cousin the daughter of Mary Boleyn, served Edward and a staunch Protestant
Sir Nicholas Bacon	Lord Keeper of the Great Seal	an attorney—very capable and had been in Edward’s Court, father to Francis
William Cecil, 1^st Baron Burghley	Secretary of State later Lord High Treasurer	served Elizabeth during Mary’s reign while maintaining a position at CourtBacon’s brother-in-law
Francis Russell, 2^nd Earl of Bedford	Diplomat	created into Peerage, staunch Protestant and collector—Armada Portrait at Woburn Abbey—godfather to Francis Drake
William Parr,1st Marquis of Northampton	Courtier	created into Peerage, brother to Katherine Parr
Sir Edward Rogers	Comptroller	served Edward and was in Elizabeth’s household at Hatfield
Sir Ambrose Cave		connection of Cecil’s, and was in Elizabeth’s household at Hatfield
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester	Master of the Horse later Privy Council Member	known to Elizabeth since childhood, held in Tower concurrently, became principle favorite
Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon	Courtier later Privy Council Member	Elizabeth’s cousin (son of aunt Mary Boleyn) given many positions
John Ashley	Courtier	husband of her governess, Kat Ashley
John Fortescue	Courtier	relative of Thomas Parry
Sir William St. Loe	Courtier	accused at time of Wyatt rebellion
Sir James Crofts	Courtier	accused at time of Wyatt rebellion, was a practicing Catholic
Edward de Vere, 17^th Earl of Oxford	Lord Great Chamberlain	at 12 his wardship was handed over to Cecil from Elizabeth, inclined toward Catholicism, some believe he is “Shakespeare”
Sir Francis Walsingham	Principal Secretary	known as ‘spy master,’ loyal, yet very out-spoken
Thomas Radclyffe, 3^rd Earl of Sussex	Courtier and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland	distantly related to Elizabeth, served Mary
Sir Christopher Hatton	Courtier later Privy Council Member	rose to prominence after Elizabeth saw him dance at Court, called “the Dancing Chancellor”, very devoted
Sir Thomas Wilson	Diplomat and Judge later Secretary of State	associate of the Dudleys, wrote Arte of Rhetorique which set English style

Edward Stanley Henry FitzAlan

Henry Herbert William Howard

William Paulet Edward Clinton

William Petre Nicholas Wotton

Thomas Parry Francis Knollys

Nicholas Bacon William Cecil

Francis Russell William Parr

Robert Dudley Henry Carey

John Fortesque Edward de Vere

Francis Walsingham Thomas Radclyffe

Christopher Hatton Thomas Wilson

At the beginning of her reign, Elizabeth proclaimed “I mean to direct all my actions by good advice and counsel” (Marcus 52). I believe this does not mean she meant to bend to the will of her ministers. She had received a humanist education similar to many of her advisors and she knew she ruled. In her speech to her councilors shortly before her Coronation she assured them she would take advice from them and knew what a good team they would all be: “I with my ruling and you with your service may make a good account to almighty God…” (Marcus 52).

Personal relationships between monarchs and their council members were a big part of the appointments more than just political views—thus the factions that could emerge and the debates. Lord Burghley helped set the tone for the Privy Council as reported by Francis Peck: “He would never deliver his opinion in council, but when he might freely debate it” (Peck 43).

Elizabeth did permit differences of opinion and allowed council members to make comments. She respected independent thought (look at the type of men she appointed). Her council became more fiery and diverse in later years (especially the final 15 years of her rule as many of the early advisors died) but this conciliatory, initial one proved effective and wise under the leadership of the experienced William Cecil. While teaching Elizabeth the art of statecraft, Cecil devoted himself to her, England and the Protestant cause. Once when he offered to resign after a disagreement, he requested that he be able to “serve her Majesty elsewhere, be it in kitchen or garden” (Brimacombe 63).

She did consult her advisors but she also knew her own mind. One has to give her credit for appointing such able councilors. Yet, how did she hold their loyalty? Similarly to her grandfather, she did not give excessive rewards, she was often harsh, she could be unkind, yet they were devoted to her. She had courage, subtlety, intelligence and charisma.

Elizabeth loved a crowd and performed well in front of one. She always had a rejoinder for the comments made by the people when she was out in public. She seemed friendly and approachable while still retaining her dignity. Throughout her entire reign, when she went on progress the countryside filled with people eager to catch a glimpse of her on the road. This was devotion above and beyond fear of majesty and her relatively tolerant rule. “When she smiles, it was a pure sunshine that everyone did choose to bask in if they could” said Sir John Harington (Hibbert 117).

John Harington

John Hayward, a contemporary, wrote of her entry into London and her first few weeks as queen that “if ever any persone had eyther the gift or the stile to winne the hearts of people, it was this Queene; and if ever shee did expresse the same, it was at that present, in coupling mildnesse with majesty as shee did, and in stately stouping to the meanest sort” (Hayward 6).

Elizabeth on Progress

The feeling was mutual. She commented to a French diplomat late in her reign concerning her people’s affection that “it seems incredible, and I love them no less, and I can say that I would rather die than see any diminution of it on one side or the other” (Sitwell 75). As she famously exclaimed in her Golden Speech, “…though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves” (Marcus 337).

References

Bacon, Francis. The Works of Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount of St. Albans, and Lord High Chancellor of England. Vol. 5. London: Printed for M. Jones, 1818. Google Books. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

Bacon, Francis, and J. Rawson Lumby. Bacon’s History of the Reign of King Henry VII,. Cambridge: University, 1902. Internet Archive. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.

Brimacombe, Peter. All the Queen’s Men: the World of Elizabeth I. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2000. Print.

Cecil, Lord Burghley, William, Sir. Queen Elizabeth and Her Times: A Series of Original Letters Selected from the Inedited Private Correspondence of the Lord Treasurer Burghley, the Earl of Leicester, the Secretaries Walsingham and Smith, Sir Christopher Hatton and Most of the Distinguished Persons of the Period : In Two Volumes. Ed. Thomas Wright. London: Colburn, 1838. Google Books. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Doran, Susan and Norman Jones. The Elizabethan World. London: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Doran, Susan. The Tudor Chronicles 1485-1603. New York: Metro Books, 2008. Print.

Dudley, Edmund. The Tree of Common Wealth: A Treatise. Manchester London: C. Simms & Co., 1859. Google Books. Web. 1 Apr. 2013.

Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. Third ed. London: Routledge, 1991. Print.

Griffiths, Ralph A. and Roger S. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Print.

Hayward, John, and John Bruce. Annals of the First Four Years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. London: Printed for the Camden Society by J.B. Nichols and Son, 1840. Google Books. Web. 19 Jan. 2013.

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

Hutchinson, Robert. Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011. Google Books. Web. 02 Dec. 2012.

James, Mervyn. Society, Politics, and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1986. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

Jones, Michael K. and Malcolm G. Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.

Loades, David, ed. The Tudor Chronicles: The Kings. New York: Grove Weidenfeld,1990. Print.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: E. Arnold. 1993. Print.

Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Print.

Nichols, John. Gentleman’s Magazine … Vol. 163. London: William Pickering; John Bowyer Nichols and Son, January to June Inclusive,1833. Google Books. Web. 2013.

Norton, Elizabeth. Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty. Stroud: Amberley, 2010. Print.

Peck, Francis. Desiderata Curiosa: Or, a collection of divers scarce and curious pieces relating chiefly to matters of English history; Consisting of Choice Tracts, Memoirs, Letters, Wills, Epitaphs, & Transcribed, Many of them, from the Originals Themselves, and the Rest from Divers Antient MS. Copies, or the MS. Collections of Sundry Famous Antiquaries and other Eminent Persons, both of the Last and Present Age: the whole, as Near as Possible, digested into an Order of Time, and Illustrated with Ample Notes, Contents, Additional Discourses, and a Complete Index. By Francis Peck, M..A. Rector of Godeby Near Melton in Leicestershire. Adorned with Cuts. A new edition, greatly corrected, with some memoirs of the life and writings of Mr. Peck. Vol. 1. London: Thomas Evans in the Strand, 1732. Google Books. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

Penn, Thomas. Winter King; the Dawn of Tudor England. New York: Penguin Books, 2012. Print.

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

Ross, Josephine. The Tudors, England’s Golden Age. London: Artus, 1994. Print.

Sitwell, Edith. The Queens and the Hive. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966. Print.

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

Warnicke, Retha M. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.

Wilson, A. N. The Elizabethans. London: Hutchinson, 2011. Print.

Heir Unapparent

Posted on April 2, 2013 by jodmcp

Heir Unapparent
Looked at with a cursory glance, the roads to succession for the heirs to Henry VII and Elizabeth I was without challenge and smooth. Looked at with greater scrutiny, those roads to succession were troubled with opposition and rough. Although many other royal houses had issues, the House of Tudor developed unique situations.

The Oxford Dictionary lists the earliest use of the identification of the House of Tudor as the “Tudor Dynasty” to 1779 with it becoming much more prevalent around 1906. According to C. S. L. Davis, the name “Tudor” was not widely used in the sixteenth century. Davis continued to explain that the contemporary publications did not use the surname until 1584, speculating that the monarchs wanted to distance themselves as descendents from non-royal, actually lowly-born, origins.

Until the Yorkist view of legitimacy based on primogeniture, the law of succession was not clear. The dynastic struggles of the War of the Roses had continued the beliefs that the ruling king was such by divine right (having won the victory to place him there) and was cemented through the oaths of allegiance. Obviously, legitimacy was not in Henry VII’s favor but it is a doctrine which he embraced once he became king (Elton 18-19). Henry had the succession registered in Parliament. His purpose was to get his dynasty clearly declared. He had parliament issue forth “that the inheritance of the crown of England, with every right and possession belonging to it, should remain and abide with our now sovereign lord king Henry and his heirs” (Elton 19-20).

Upon his death, Henry VII’s throne did not move automatically to his son. Power brokers concealed his death for two days while they consolidated their positions. Henry VIII was proclaimed, but not given full sovereignty under the guise of his being shy of 18 years of age. Despite this, it cannot be denied that it was a smooth transition with no elaborate power plays. Henry VII may have thought this impossible at various stages of his reign.

Edward Hall claimed in the title of his history, “The Union of the two Noble and Illustrious Families,” that the children born to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York brought this about. There were claimants to the throne that had to be dealt with in various degrees of severity. The remaining daughters of Edward IV were married to supporters. John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, was a nephew of Edward IV and had been nominated as successor by Richard III. His oath of allegiance to Henry VII mitigated his claim. Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, was handled less gently by being thrown in jail to dilute his dynastic claims. Henry realized “There had to be an end to dynastic war before any dynasty could set about rebuilding the kingdom” (Elton 10).

Heraldry of John de la Pole, Heraldry of Edward Plantagenet,
Earl of Lincoln Earl of Warwick

Also early in his reign Henry VII faced dangers to his less-than-stable throne in with not one but two pretenders as Duke of York. The first, Lambert Simnel, was quickly dealt with while the second, Perkin Warbeck, gained substantial support. William Stanley, brother to his own step-father, deserted the Tudor cause to support Warbeck as did the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy, Margaret of York. Her support proved so threatening that Henry was compelled to exclaim, “That stupid brazen woman hates my own family with such bitterness … she remains bent on destroying myself and my children” (Hutchinson 17).

Lambert Simnel Perkin Warbeck

Once the rebellions were stopped, Henry declared his second son Henry as Duke of York in order to claim the title and cement the succession of Lancaster and York. Preserving the Tudor succession continued to be in the forefront of Henry’s mind. Henry wanted to leave no inheritance pretenders to endanger his son’s position on the throne of England” (Ross 36). At the end of his reign he could know that the “threats of the dynasty had faded away; he could pass on a safe inheritance to his son” (Morrill 314). Although the throne was passed to the second son rather than the eldest (due to the early death of Prince Arthur) Henry VIII was the first sovereign in many years to inherit rather than win it by conquest. The crown that Henry VIII inherited was as strong as the one that James VI succeeded to from Elizabeth Regina.

Astoundingly it could be argued that the greatest issues of Elizabeth Regina’s reign, from Parliament’s perspective, were her marriage and the succession. Once Elizabeth passed the childbearing age, the question of her marriage took care of itself; and, obviously, affected the matter of the succession.

William Cecil tried to convince her that if she did not have children she would be in danger as people of “devilish means might be tempted to desire her end” as they tried to gain the throne and “she would have perpetual torment in life” (Froude 127).

Elizabeth’s perception was that settling the succession would not necessarily bring safety and stability. “I know that my people have no other cause for regret than that they know me to be but mortal, and therefore they have no certainty of a successor born of me to reign over them” (Sitwell 269). Debate would begin immediately, those slighted would be angry and it could still create a struggle for power upon her death. So, with her skill in statecraft, Elizabeth maintained her silence understanding the wisdom of this better than her advisors or her people.

Although in 1559 at her first Parliament Elizabeth assured the members that “the realm shall not remain destitute of an heir” she had no intention of clarifying who that person would be (Perry 100). She learned during her sister Mary’s reign that a monarch’s heir presumptive automatically becomes the center of dissent. “I have good experience of myself in my sister’s time, how desirous men were that I should be in place, and earnest to set me up. And if I would have consented, I know what enterprises would have been attempted to bring it to pass” (Marcus 66). Every person who had declared for her would have expected rewards when she became queen. They surely would have been disappointed in what had been meted out and would look around for someone else to put in place who would better reward them. “No prince’s revenues be so great that they are able to satisfy the insatiable cupidity of men” (Marcus 66).

Throughout her reign, various contenders took their turn leading the short list of possible heirs. Early on Katherine Grey held the prime spot. It was well-known that Elizabeth did not care for Katherine and when Katherine married in secret to Somerset’s heir, Elizabeth had no compunction about tossing her in the Tower. Katherine gave birth to two sons while confined who, despite their lineage, were never true contenders for the throne. Included in the list early in her reign would be Henry, Lord Hastings and Mary, Queen of Scots, who styled herself as Queen of England much to Elizabeth’s dismay, and never could be discredited as a true heir. Mary’s role will be discussed later.

Lady Katherine Grey Henry, Lord Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon

As Elizabeth grew older the attention focused on the following claimants: Lady Arbella Stuart; Isabella, the Infanta of Spain; Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex; and, James VI of Scotland. She never could escape the political pressures to name an heir although she assured Sir William Maitland, Lord Lethington, a Scottish politician that “When I am dead, they shall succeed that have most right” (Neale 110).

Lady Arbella Stuart Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain

Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex

King James VI of Scotland

Small pox, that feared scourge of the 16^th century became even more so when Elizabeth contracted it. She survived with minimal effects, but the fear instilled in her ministers of the possibility of her dying without an heir did not fade as quickly as her symptoms. During the 1563 Parliament petitions from both the House and the Lords were presented to her begging her to marry and to name an heir.

The House of Commons saw “the unspeakable miseries of civil wars, the perilous intermeddlings of foreign princes with seditious, ambitious and factious subjects at home, the waste of noble houses, the slaughter of people, subversion of towns … unsurety of all men’s possessions, lives and estates: if the sovereign were to die without a known heir, and pointed out that “from the Conquest to this present day the realm was never left as now it is without a certain heir, living and known” (Plowden Marriage with my Kingdom 130).

Elizabeth certainly gave a refined response on January 28, 1563. This short speech gave no concrete answer regarding the succession although she assured her listeners that she understood the gravity of the situation while letting them know that it was her concern for “I know that this matter toucheth me much nearer than it doth you all” (Marcus 71). She told them that it needed consideration, that she would let them know later and ‘so I assure you all that, though after my death you may have many stepdames, yet shall you never have a more natural mother than I mean to be unto you all” (Marcus 72).

The Lords sent an equally bloodcurdling petition about what would happen when Elizabeth died as they all knew that “upon the death of a prince, the law dieth” (Plowden Marriage with my Kingdom 131). Elizabeth’s response to the Lords was read out by Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper on April 10, 1563. As with the Commons she recognized that the succession was a grave matter and she would give it close attention. It was another brilliant example of an “answer, answerless” (Seaward).

1563

Draft of Elizabeth Regina’s Speech Given to Parliament in April 1563

Elizabeth was not pleased when in 1566 members of Parliament brought up her marriage and the succession again. She told them they could not discuss it and they replied that they had a right to do so. Once more they received an adamant ‘no’ and a comment that “it is monstrous that the feet should direct the head” (Marcus 98).

Wrapped up very eloquently and fancily, Elizabeth replied to both the Commons and the Lords and, although the style of each response differed, the message was clear: when it was convenient for her to determine a successor she would and not before.

Elizabeth assured the members that she would marry when it was convenient and they were not to be concerned about that. She explained: “I will never break the word of a prince spoken in public place for my honor sake” (Marcus 95). As for the succession in no uncertain terms she reminded them that it was her decision and hers alone. Parliament had no business even discussing it and if the issue was debated it would be useless as “some would speak for their master, some for their mistress and every man for his friend…” (Marcus 97). One can imagine how incensed Elizabeth was as she had spoken that the Parliamentarians did not understand nor concern themselves with the peril she placed herself in by naming an heir. She believed “nothing was said for my safety, but only for themselves” (Marcus 96).

Next she derisively questioned if the named heirs would be able to go above their own personal interests for the good of the country. Would they “be of such uprightness and so divine as in them shall be divinity itself. …they would have such piety in them that they would not seek where they are the second to be the first, and where the third to be the second, and so forth” (Marcus 96). She made it clear that “at this present, it is not convenient, nor never shall be without some peril unto you and certain danger unto me” to name a successor so she would not (Marcus 97).

These admonishments did not silence the members and she had to threaten any Parliamentarian who brought up the issue of the succession with examination by the Privy Council and possible punishment which in turn led Paul Wentworth, on behalf of the House, to assert the right of freedom of speech.

This power struggle did not end there. Guzman de Silva, the Spanish ambassador whom she liked, learned about Parliament’s attempt to blackmail Elizabeth into naming a successor by placing in the preamble of the subsidy bill the necessity of the Queen to name her heir. Elizabeth caught this request while reading the draft of the subsidy bill and let it be known via annotations to the document, that she would not have her word questioned by being put into law form. “Shall my princely consent be turned to strengthen my words that be not themselves substantives? Say no more at this time; but if these fellows were well answered, and paid with lawful coin, there would be fewer counterfeits among them” (Mueller 40).

Guzman de Silva, Spanish Ambassador

In her speech to dissolve Parliament on January 2, 1567, she let the members have it again about the inappropriateness of bringing up the succession question as it was a concern only for her. She did not cloak her pique with Parliament. She had replied that “not one of them that ever was a second person, as I have been, and have tasted of the practices against my sister… I stood in danger of my life, my sister was incensed against me. …and I was sought in divers ways. And so shall never be my successor” (Marcus 96).

1566

Draft of Elizabeth Regina’s Speech Given to Parliament on January 2, 1567

Mary, Queen of Scots plays a dominate role in the succession question under Elizabeth. At first it was as a thorn in the side of the English Queen because Mary, even when she was the Dauphine of France, styled herself “as heiress-presumptive to the English throne” (Fraser 118). Elizabeth was trying to establish herself as sovereign and Anglicanism as the Church and did not relish such threats to her country’s stability. Later, Mary conspired to overthrow Elizabeth and take over the crown of England—leading to her execution.

Mary, Queen of Scots as Dauphine of France

In between times, where does Mary fit? Many believed Mary was Elizabeth’s true choice as heir. It was reported by Sir William Maitland that Elizabeth compared the contenders to her throne alongside Mary. “You know them all, alas; what power or force has any of them, poor souls? It is true that some of them has made declaration to the world that they are more worthy of it than either she or I…” (Dunn 189). Yes, indeed. Elizabeth felt the succession question greatly, was concerned about the pool of contenders, and feared naming any one of them.

William Maitland, Lord Lethington

Maitland was certainly given every reason to believe that his Queen could obtain the throne of England as Elizabeth felt Mary had a legitimate right to it (even if she was angry at Mary for her self-declaration as heir and her use of Elizabeth’s arms in her heraldry) but she did couch her consideration in a warning. “For so long as I live there shall be no other queen in England but I, and failing thereof she cannot allege that ever I did anything which may hurt the right she may pretend” (Marcus 62).

Mary’s rights seemed to be overshadowed by all the reasons why she should not be heir: She was Catholic; Henry VIII’s will had excluded that branch of the family; and Scottish relations could deteriorate if the independent minded Scots felt threatened.

Yet, the greatest deterrent to actually naming Mary would be that as long as she thought she was in the running, she had to toe the line. Once declared, it would be harder for Elizabeth to control her. Elizabeth was convinced “it is hard to bind princes by any security where hope is offered of a kingdom” (Marcus 67). The risks of naming a successor were too great. Once Elizabeth gave the succession to someone, it was theirs. They had a right to keep it and it could not be taken back. One must see why the granting of it must be weighed so carefully.

The execution of Mary, Queen of Scots does not make this a moot point as the logical successor became Mary’s son, the Protestant James VI. For many years, Elizabeth maintained a correspondence with James which are available and well-worth checking out –one source, Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI of Scotland: Some of Them Printed from Originals… edited by John Bruce. Historians have interpreted these letters to be in the line of a mentor and mentee. Obviously, her intentions were for him to succeed although she never would declare that because “to have done otherwise would have been to invite all rivals and enemies to set about forestalling his succession, thus jeopardizing both his rights and her domestic peace” (Neale 403).

Elizabeth astuteness understood the reality as she asserted “I know the inconsistency of the people of England, how they ever mislike the present government and has their eyes fixed upon that person that is next to succeed; and naturally men be so disposed: ‘Plures adorant solem orientem quam occidentem’ [More do adore the rising than the setting sun]” (Dunn 187 or Marcus 66).

References

Auchter, Dorothy. Dictionary of Literary and Dramatic Censorship in Tudor and Stuart England. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001. Google Books. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Allen, William. Robert Parsons. A conference about the next succession to the crown of England: divided into two parts. The first containeth the discourse of a civil lawyer; how, and in what manner propinquity of bloud is to be preferred. The second containeth the speech of a temporal lawyer, about the particular titles of all such as do, or may pretend (within England or without) to the next succession. Whereunto is also added, a new and perfect arbor and genealogy of the descents of all the kings and princes of England, from the Conquest unto this day; whereby each mans pretence is made more plain. London: R. Doleman, 1594. Google Books. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Bacon, Francis, and J. Rawson Lumby. Bacon’s History of the Reign of King Henry VII,. Cambridge: University, 1902. Internet Archive. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.

Davis, C. S. L. “Tudor: What’s in a Name?” History Abstract 97.325 (2012): 24-44. Trove. Web.

Elizabeth I, James VI, and John Bruce. Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI of Scotland: Some of Them Printed from Originals in the Possession of the Rev. Edward Ryder, and Others from a Manuscript. Which Formerly Belonged to Sir Peter Thompson, Kt. Vol. 46. [London]: Printed for the Camden Society, 1849. Google Books. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. Third ed. London: Routledge, 1991 Print
Fraser, Antonio. Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Print.
Froude, James Anthony. History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada. London: Longman, Green, 1908. Google Books. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Hall, Edward, Henry Ellis, and Richard Grafton. Hall’s Chronicle; Containing the History of England, during the Reign of Henry the Fourth, and the Succeeding Monarchs, to the End of the Reign of Henry the Eighth, in Which Are Particularly Described the Manners and Customs of Those Periods. London: Printed for J. Johnson and J. Rivington; T. Payne; Wilkie and Robinson; Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme; Cadell and Davies; and J. Mawman, 1809. Archive.org. Web. 2 Jan. 2013.
[Original Title–The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancaster & Yorke…]

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

Hutchinson, Robert. Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicholson, 2011. Google Books. Web. 02 Dec. 2012.

Griffiths, Ralph A. and Roger S. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Print.

Gristwood, Sarah. Arbella: England’s Lost Queen. London: Bantam Press, 2003. Print.

Jones, Michael K. and Malcolm G. Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret
Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: E. Arnold. 1993. Print.

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

Morrill, John, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor & Stuart Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Print.

Mueller, Janel, ed. Elizabeth I: Autograph Compositions and Foreign Language Originals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003 Print.

Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Print.

Norrington, Ruth. In the Shadow of the Throne: The Lady Arbella Stuart. London: Peter Owen Publishers, 2002. Print.

Norton, Elizabeth. Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty. Stroud: Amberley, 2010. Print.

Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1991. Print

Penn, Thomas. Winter King; the Dawn of Tudor England. New York: Penguin Books, 2012. Print.

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

Plowden, Allison. Marriage with My Kingdom: The Courtships of Elizabeth I. New York: Stein and Day, 1977. Print.

Plowden, Allison. Two Queens in One Isle: The Deadly Relationship Between Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Print

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

Roberts, Peter R. “History Today.” History Today Jan. 1986: n. page. History Today. History Today. Web. 12 Dec. 2012.

Seaward, Paul. “History of Parliament Online.” On This Day, 24 November 1586: Parliament’s Intervention against Mary, Queen of Scots. The History of Parliament Trust 1964-2013, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.

Sitwell, Edith. The Queens and the Hive. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966. Print.

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

Why Do Today…?

Posted on March 19, 2013 by jodmcp

Why Do Today…?

Both Henry VII and Elizabeth I have had the word temporise used to describe their behavior. Will historians ever know positively if their irresolute actions were procrastination due to personal reasons or reluctance due to political reasons; oscillation or genius? As usual, it depends on who is writing the history.

“As a new man, Henry had to secure his place. He did this by a compromising approach: by marrying Elizabeth, but only belatedly…” (Bacon and Weinberger 238). In December 1483 he had pledged to marry Elizabeth of York and had obtained the papal dispensation needed. It was left to Parliament to encourage the marriage on December 10, 1485, by proclamation to the King “that he would please take the noble Lady Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward the IV, as his wife and consort” (Bacon and Lumby 239).

Parliamentary Directive for King Henry to marry Elizabeth of York, in Latin

On January 18, 1486, the greatly anticipated marriage took place to great joy on the part of the peoples of England. Henry had to realize that the ceremony “was thought by some to have been too long delayed, and historians have declaimed against Henry on this account” (Bacon and Lumby 239).

According to Jerry Weinberger, many of Henry’s early troubles stemmed from the fact that he slighted Elizabeth and the House of York. He postponed their marriage and delayed her coronation. The coronation occurred most likely, as with other things, because events forced his hand. Henry learned that by not crowning Elizabeth and “vouchsafing her the honour of a matrimonial crown” (Bacon and Lumby 22) it “did rankle and fester the affections of his people” and therefore, “he resolved at last to proceed” (Bacon and Lumby 39).

Elizabeth of York

When he returned to London after traveling north, “the Queen was with great solemnity crowned at Westminster, the twenty-fifth of November, in the third year of his reign, which was about two years after the marriage…” (Bacon and Vickers 37). His “strange and unusual distance of time made it subject to every man’s note, that it was an act against his stomach, and put upon him by necessity and reason of state” (Bacon and Lumby 40).

Francis Bacon

Although it is not the purpose here to relay the history of the country of Ireland, suffice to say that the issues were complicated and Henry was “obliged to temporize. After long hesitation …” the king instituted his policy in Ireland (Morris 24).

Map of Ireland in 1500

Other international situations, such as in France, “precipitated the kind of decision which Henry had striven to avoid since his accession…” (Griffiths 172). When dealing with Ferdinand of Aragon, the Hapsburg Empire and Burgundy “Henry hesitated, drew back…” (Mattingly 77). Likewise, it appears to be déjà vu all over again with his actions concerning events in Flanders where the “the King was obliged to temporise” (Fletcher 61). At least he was consistent as Raimondo di Soncino, the Milanese envoy to Ludirio Sforza, Duke of Milan, reported of Henry VII that “he well knows how to temproise…” (Pollard 160).

Was it personality? Was it policy?

Ten years into his reign, it was thought that policies and events that unfolded positively we accredited to his foresight and skill. The King would “cunningly put off…” decisions and revelations of his plans until favorable conditions arose (Bacon and Vickers 37). Amazingly, while Henry VII appears skillful in his vacillating, Elizabeth Regina was scoffed at as displaying womanly indecision. Historians, I believe, have not been able to remove the sexism of her time period in their interpretations. Understandably, the evidence which is left is the letters between her advisors or dispatches between diplomats and their home countries–written by men in that traditional time period. Can Elizabeth not be credited for having the wisdom to allow events to unfold, to await natural solutions and to weigh possible options?

In general Elizabeth had her secretaries “fuming by her time-wasting ploys” (Somerset 279). Once she had ordered letters to be written, she often would not sign them or allow the letters to be sent until she had thought things over some more. Sir Thomas Smith writing to Lord Burghley said, “I had somewhat ado to get to the Queene, and more to get anything signed” (Wright 448) and “the letter already signed, which your Lordship knoweth, permitted to be sent away, but day by day, and hour by hour, deferred till anoe, sone, and to-morrow” (Cecil 1).

Sir Thomas Smith William Cecil, Lord Burghley

The letters between these two men displayed “her peculiarities, her caution, her love of procrastination…her fondness for reiterated considerations of matters which every one thought to have been determined upon…” (Sylvanus 346). Elizabeth did temporize and she was notorious for ignoring decisions. Often these courses of action (or inaction) worked in her favor, as it did for her grandfather, because events would unfold and either resolve themselves or reveal a clearer path. Nevertheless, while Henry VII is touted as exuding cunning, she is condemned as exuding “weakness” (Carruthers).

“Her hesitation, indecision, petulance, emotionalism and petty-mindedness are vices which men throughout the ages have been pleased to regard as typically feminine” (Ridley 335). Yet, in 1569 the failure of the northern Earls’ rebellion was “due to the cautious and temporising policy for which Elizabeth has been so severely blamed by heated partisans” (Beesly).

Mary, Queen of Scots, had been a troubling issue for Elizabeth from the moment Mary returned to Scotland. After many years as a political prisoner in England, Elizabeth was still unsure of how to handle the situation. Once “proof” (many would interpret the evidence-gathering by Walsingham and his operatives as entrapment) had been collected to prove Mary was plotting with Catholics for the overthrow of Elizabeth, her conviction was a foregone conclusion.

Mary, Queen of Scots

Judgment was handed down in October of 1586 yet Elizabeth wavered until February of 1587 before signing the death warrant. The story is well-known of how William Davison, a privy councilor, bore the brunt of Elizabeth’s wrath once the execution was carried out. Elizabeth had given him the signed warrant with the intention, so she later said, that it would not be delivered. The seasoned Davison recognized the dangerous position he was in and “fearing she should lay the Fault upon me…” he had eventually taken the signed warrant to Cecil (The Life and Reign … 243). Burghley called a meeting of the Privy Council and all agreed to send the warrant off without delay (Froude, Hibbert, MacCaffrey, Neale, Ridley, Somerset).

Her vacillation and unclear directives can be interpreted as genuine indecision of putting a fellow monarch to death or as brilliant political maneuverings to avoid the blame and placate the French and Spanish. If one acknowledges the emotions Elizabeth was experiencing concerning the death of a fellow monarch and family member plus the pressures of domestic and international politics, it is easier to recognize her indecision.

As an interesting aside at his trial for disobeying his sovereign, William Davison testified that “I perceived that she wavered in her Resolution, I asked her whether she had changed her Mind? She answered, No: but another Course, said she, might have been devised…” (The Life and Reign …244). Like her grandfather, she held out waiting for another means; in this case it was her hope that Mary could be quietly done away with by some other method besides execution. This came to light when Mary’s custodian at the time, Sir Amyas Paulet, asserted in a letter to Walshingham that he would do much for his Queen but would not “make so foul a shipwreck of my conscience, or leave so great a blot to my poor posterity, to shed blood without law or warrant” (Paulet 362).

Sir Amyas Paulet Francis Walsingham

Determining the path to take concerning the Netherlands proved another area of discontent between Elizabeth and her advisors. Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Burghley that “…nothing resolved, and therefor, such number of things unanswered, whereupon her Majestie’s ministers lie still in suspense” (Cecil 1). Many of her councilors sided with Leicester very early to support William of Orange’s rebellion against the Spanish. Her view was different from her councilors as she did not relish supporting ‘rebels’ against their sovereign; even if in this case the sovereign was her adversary Philip II. “After long oscillation Elizabeth’s policy finally gravitated towards Philip and peace” (Froude 409).

This was not the policy that was eventually carried out. As the political situation changed, military intervention on behalf of the Prince of Orange would become the official policy. Secretary of State Sir Thomas Wilson stated “Temporising hath been thought heretofore good policy. There was never so dangerous a time as this is, and temporising will no longer serve” (Archer 136).

William of Orange Philip II

England’s neighbor, Scotland, proved another trouble spot for policy. Support for rebels against the state was never an easy path for Elizabeth. She would not give aid even though there were French troops landing on Scottish shores then agreed to do so because of the intervention of Spain. Was she irresolute or facing realpolitik?

Walsingham boldly wrote in January 1575 to the Queen concerning her procrastination over policy in Scotland, “For the love of God, madam, let not the cure of your diseased state hang any longer on deliberation. Diseased states are no more cured by consultation, when nothing resolved on is put into execution…” (Halser). Would he have done this if his sovereign had been Henry VII? Obviously, that is one of those unanswerable questions.

Elizabeth’s oscillating about marriage is so well-known there is no need to go into great detail. She changed her mind not only per candidate, but even to marry, many times based on the international situation of the balance of power in Europe and perhaps her thoughts of having a chance at romantic happiness. “The Queen skittishly shifted her ground, consistent only in her unwillingness to commit herself” (MacCaffrey 208).

Elizabeth came closest to marrying the Duke of Anjou (also referred to as the Duke of Alençon), even becoming ill at one point over her indecision. The lengthy negotiations could be interpreted solely to “gain time and to keep the peace” (Hibbert 202). Her purpose was served as she kept England out of the troubled Netherlands for longer, she lead Philip II to believe there was a chance for an Anglo-French alliance, and she dispensed Anjou out of the country on good terms.

Duke of Anjou

Perhaps diplomatic and romantic reasons were not enough and James Melville, the Scottish diplomat, found the most precise reason for Elizabeth never marrying when he declared “Ye think gene ye wer married, ye wald be bot Quen of England, and now ye ar King and Quen baith; ye may not suffer a commander” (Melville 122).

The hesitations and changes of policy were genuine, and often due to the change in political climates both domestic and international rather than due to a character flaw. Elizabeth herself wrote to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, on April 11, 1572, “Methinks that I am more beholding to the hinder part of my head than well dare trust the forwards side of the same …” (Marcus 131).

Throughout her reign, Elizabeth’s goals were consistent –to keep England at peace and prosperous. One can understand how hard it would be to make these decisions as there would be no way to see all eventualities.

Maybe in modern day parlance it would be that she had a fear of failure. Elizabeth wanted so much to make the right decisions that she was often incapable of making one. The issues discussed above were complex even if one did not include the factors of a monarch with obligations to her state and a woman with personal preferences.

Works Cited

Archer, Jayne Elizabeth et. al., ed. The Progresses, Pageants, & Entertainments of Queen Elizabeth I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Bacon, Francis, and J. Rawson Lumby. Bacon’s History of the Reign of King Henry VII,. Cambridge: University, 1902. Internet Archive. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.

Bacon, Francis. The Major Works. Ed. Brian Vickers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Books. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

Bacon, Francis. The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh a New Ed. with Introduction, Annotation and Interpretative Essay. Ed. Jerry Weinberger. Ithaca (N.Y): Cornell UP, 1996. Google Books. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.

Beesly, Edward Spencer. “Chapter V.” Queen Elizabeth. London: Macmillan and Co, 1892. EnglishHistory.net. Web. 3 Mar. 2013.

Campbell, William, ed. Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII. From Original Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office. Vol. I. London: Longman &: etc., 1873. Google Books. Web. 6 Mar. 2013.

Carruthers, Robert. “Queen Elizabeth I of England.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 10th ed. Edinburgh: Scotland. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1902. 1902 Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2005. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

Fletcher, C. R. L. An Introductory History of England from Henry VII to the Restoration. With Maps. Vol. II. New York: Dutton, 1908. Google Books. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

Froude, James Anthony. History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada. London: Longman, Green, 1908. Google Books. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Hasler, P. W. “WALSINGHAM, Francis (c.1532-90), of Scadbury and Foots Cray, Kent; Barn Elms, Surr. and Seething Lane, London.” The History of Parliament: British Political, Social and Local History. The History of Parliament Trust 1964-2013, Web. 10 Mar. 2013. .

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

The History of the Life and Reign of That Excellent Princess Queen Elizabeth from Her Birth to Her Death: As Also the Trial, Sufferings, and Death of Mary Queen of Scots. With the Whole Proceedings of the Divorce of King Henry VIII. from Queen Catherine; His Marriage with the Lady Anne Bullen, and the Cause of Her Unfortunate Death on the Scaffold. London: Printed, and Sold by the sellers in Town and Country, 1739. Google Books. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: E. Arnold. 1993. Print.

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

Melville, James. Memoirs of His Own Life: M.D.XLIX.-M.D.XCII : From the Original Manuscript. Ed. Thomas Thomson. Glasgow: G. Brookman, 1833. Google Books. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

Morris, William O’Connor. Ireland, 1494-1868, with Two Introductory Chapters.. Cambridge: University, 1898. Google Books. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Print.

Paulet, Amias Sir. The Letter Books of Sir Amias Paulet, Keeper of Mary, Queen of Scots. Ed John Morris. London: Burns and Gates, 1874. Internet Archive. Web 9 March 2013.

Pollard, Albert Frederick. “Full Text of “The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources”” Full Text of “The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources “Google Books, 1914. Internet Archive. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

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

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

Sylvanus, Urban, Gent. Gentleman’s Magazine … Vol. IX. London: William Pickering; John Bowyer Nichols and Son, January to June Inclusive 1838. Google Books. Web. 2013.

$afe and $ecure

Posted on March 5, 2013 by jodmcp

$afe and $ecure

Henry VII saw the need to expand the “crown’s fiscal authority….” He felt that political problems came “from the crown’s financial weaknesses. He saw stability resting on a solvent and secure king” (Jones 89). Perhaps he carried his avariciousness too far but “the very quality, the excess of which became a matter of severe and deserved reproach to him, added, at first, materially to secure him in the possession of the Crown” (Bergenroth 53).

Gaining the throne did not mean security and Henry became “obsessed by the equation of security and money” (Penn 155). He spent time checking accounting entries, acquiring a “conspicuous talent for heaping up wealth” (Perry Sisters 17). He personally wrote up sources of revenue and oversaw his financial administrators. Penn reveals that this was “…a king with a complex, all-consuming obsession with the control, influence and power that money represented, both at home and abroad” (Penn 156). Henry’s policies were to ensure that wealth was directed towards the Crown as much as possible.

Jewel Tower, London

“He valued money only for money’s worth; and to him a large reserve was a great guarantee for peace and security” (Gairdner 209). It was further reported that close to his death “he recommended his son and successor to pursue the same policy as himself. By preserving friendship with France and amassing money he told him that he would be best able to preserve his kingdom in peace and break the power of faction if it ever became dangerous” (Gairdner 215). Henry did pursue peace with France. He also dealt with faction successfully. As the envoy, Don Pedro de Ayala of Spain, said: “The King of England is less rich than generally said. He likes to be thought very rich because such a belief is advantageous to him in many respects. The King himself said to me that it is his intention to keep his subjects low, because riches would only make them haughty…” (Hutchinson 41).

Alas, his son did not follow these two policy suggestions as history reveals to us. Henry VIII conducted costly wars with France and rapidly used up the treasury. It was left to Henry VII’s granddaughter Elizabeth to act upon his advice.

Peace meant a great deal to Elizabeth. “She had no lust for glory at the cost of her own ruin, commercial and industrial stagnation, and social distress” (Neale 298). She lamented over the waste of war. “It is a sieve that spends as it receives to little purpose” (Crawford). Elizabeth kept finances into account when creating foreign policy. She knew too well that interventionist and expansionist policies cost too much money.

Elizabeth was notoriously frugal and her “stringent economies effected soon after her accession…” and her “prudent financial management” (Somerset 281) allowed for her to escape true money worries. Her parsimony was even defended by Burghley. “To spend in time convenient is wisdom; to continue charges without needful cause bringeth repentance” (Perry Words of a Prince 287).

William Cecil Nicholas Bacon

By 1571-72 her finances were in pretty good shape. Elizabeth was praised by her Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon who said that in the past there had been money wasted but in the twelve years of Elizabeth’s reign the expenditures were those:

“…that hath not been thought before convenient to be done for the Weal and profit of the Realm; so far her highness is from spending of Treasure in vain matters, and therefore the rather how can a man make any difficulty to contribute according to his Power?” (D’Ewes 139).

This is true as nothing was done for glory alone. She did it to preserve the realm. Any burden was from a policy that showed “an abstemious royal economy in domestic expenditure and a strictly defensive foreign policy” (McCaffrey 384).

Robert Cecil Sir Francis Walsingham

She tried hard to ensure that her people would not “groan under the burden of continual levies and impositions” (Somerset 547). Yet, near the end of her reign when expenses in defense were creating hardships, Robert Cecil warned a courtier seeking office, “Her majesty’s mind is not so apt to give as before her wars…” (Morrill 346). It is clear that keeping peace at home and engaging in foreign conflicts was not going to keep the coffers full. It is not the purpose here to go into the Essex rebellion, yet it can be used as an example of how the money situation had deteriorated so that the fabric of the Court was unraveling. The discontent was from the retrenchment that was taking place. Ironically, as Elizabeth was securing the country from external threats, it was internal security which was weakened. Despite [as reported by Philip Sydney] Walsingham’s, complaint that Elizabeth would not increase her expenditure on international intrigue as she “greatly presumeth on fortune which is but a very weak foundation to build upon” both domestically and internationally, Elizabeth prevailed (Worden ).

What Elizabeth achieved in maintaining solvency and concord was extraordinary. Applying the financial judiciousness and preference for peace she had inherited from Henry VII, Elizabeth ensured that England, not a great power with great wealth, was safe and secure.

Works Cited

Bergenroth, G. A., and, Pascual De. Gayangos. Calendar of Letters, Dispatches and State Papers, Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, Preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere: Published by the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury under the Direction of the Master of the Rolls. Henry VII 1485 – 1509. ed. Vol. 1. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1862. Google Books. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Crawford Lomas, Sophie, and Allen B. Hinds. Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, Volume 21, Part 2: June 1586-March 1587. N.p.: n.p., 1927.Elizabeth. British History Online. Web. 04 Jan. 2013.

D’Ewes, Simonds, and Paul Bowes. The Journals of All the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Both of the House of Lords and House of Commons.
London: Printed for John Starkey …, 1682. Google Books. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.

Gairdner, James. Henry the Seventh,. London: Macmillan, 1889. Google Books. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Hutchinson, Robert. Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011. Google Books. Web. 02 Dec. 2012.

Jones, Michael K. and Malcolm G. Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret
Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: E. Arnold. 1993. Print.

Morrill, John, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor & Stuart Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Print.

Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Print.

Penn, Thomas. Winter King; the Dawn of Tudor England. New York: Penguin Books, 2012. Print.

Perry, Maria. The Sisters of Henry VIII. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. Print.

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

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

Worden, Blair. The Sound of Virtue: Philip Sidney’s Arcadia and Elizabethan Politics. New Haven: Yale UP, 1996. Google Books. Web. 04 Jan. 2013.

Tight Purse Strings

Posted on February 26, 2013 by jodmcp

Tight Purse Strings

Henry VII was well-known for his miserliness. “The popular tradition respecting his avarice, which has descended to us, seems only too well founded. It is quite the characteristic of a usurer to have a fondness for gold. We are informed that whenever a gold coin entered the chest of Henry it never found its way out again” ( Bergenroth 69).

Don Pedro de Ayala, envoy to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, revealed that although Henry had many qualities that would have rendered him great, “he had but one characteristic which spoilt all the rest, his love of money” (Bergenroth 53).

It was claimed that when he was not with his council or in public he was “writing accounts of his expenses with his own hand” (Tremlett 95). “He also handled the cash himself. In his own handwriting, he itemised the moneys delivered in one day to … the treasurer of his chamber…all amounting to several thousands of pounds” (Hutchinson 41).

Ledger initialed by Henry VII from 1492 Accounts written in Henry’s handwriting

The king collected money from taxation, plus the obligations and fines he placed on his subjects (rich and poor). Out of the “sixty-two families in the English peerage that survived the butchery of the War of the Roses, forty-seven were at the king’s mercy, either by living under attainder or forfeiting substantial sums to the crown to guarantee their good behavior” (Hutchinson 42). These recognisances were imposed and collected by the able administrators, Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. The activities of these two men were known throughout the Court as Don Pedro de Ayala reported to Ferdinand and Isabella that Henry’s servants had “a wonderful dexterity in getting hold of other people’s money” (Bergenroth 207).

Henry VII’s priorities were revealed in the power and prestige granted to these two trusted advisors. The policies they implemented, in the king’s name, generated as much hatred and distrust as they did revenue. Although not everyone felt that way, courtiers who profited from Henry VII’s fiscal policies did worry when Henry VIII came to the throne that he would reverse “his father’s tight-fistedness…” (Jones 222), most resented Henry VII and his administration. In fact, one of Henry VIII’s first acts as king was the arrest of these two men, “greate counsaylers to the late kyng, were attached and brought to the Tower, not to the litle rejoysyng of many persones, whiche by them wer greved, whiche, attachement was thought to bee procured by malice of theim, that with their aucthoritie, in the late kynges daies wer offended, or els to shifte the noyse, of the straight execucion of penall statutes in the late kynges daies, by punishement of those persones, and other promoters, for to satisfie and appeace the people” (Hall).

For a discussion of the land revenues and prerogative feudal rights which Henry VII took advantage of to generate income, see Stanley Bertram Chrimes’ Henry VII. It is enough here to understand that Henry VII found a source of revenue which he pursued “with a zeal and relentless application which earned him and his agents an unpopularity and a measure of odium which became marked towards the end of the reign…” (Chrimes 209). Although other sovereigns had used these methods, none had “taken such a close personal part in wielding the whips and scorpions of financial pressures to attain their ends” (Chrimes 214). No wonder Henry VII emerges in the pages of history as miserly and avaricious. A study of the Calendar of Close Rolls for 1500-1509 by K. B. McFarlane led him to declare that by the end of his reign Henry VII “governed by recognizance” (Chrimes 214). It has been estimated that Henry extorted (hard to use any other word) close to £495 million in present-day monetary values from his subjects (Hutchinson 43).

Henry “made rebellions, like wars, pay their own expenses, and even yield him a mine of treasure, which was a source, in its turn, of stability to the country, giving him more ample power to put down future outbreaks. For the great majority of insurgents he had no other punishment than fines…. Violation, even of laws which were antiquated, was visited with fines which went to the king’s coffers” (Gairdner 215).

Despite the general belief that Henry had amassed a large surplus early in his reign (Chrimes 217), the Spanish envoy, Don Pedro de Ayala, remarked, “The King of England is less rich than generally said. He likes to be thought very rich because such a belief is advantageous to him in many respects. The King himself said to me that it is his intention to keep his subjects low, because riches would only make them haughty…” (Hutchinson 41). The viewpoint that Henry’s miserliness was a political rather than an avaricious motive is taken up further by Polydore Vergil. Writing under the patronage of the Tudors, Vergil did not ignore the fact that Henry VII gained money in dubious ways although he does offer explanations.

…id quod argumentum non dubium erat eum, sicut ipse aiebat, studio coercendi ferocem populi inter factiones nutriti animum, non item cupiditate cogendae pecuniae, ea coepisse uti severitate, quemadmodum supra demonstravimus, quanquam saucii ista non tam severitatis quam avaritiae tela esse clamabant. Sane modestus princeps non emungebat suos fortunis immodice qui regnum rebus omnibus longe locupletissimum reddidit reliquitque, quod planum praeter caetera fecit immanis auri pariter atque argenti copia quae in annos singulos in insulam importata est a mercatoribus ultro citroque commeantibus, quos ille saepenumero pecunia ad tempus data gratuito iuvabat, ut mercatura ars una omnium cunctis aeque mortalibus cum commoda, tum necessaria, in suo regno copiosior esset.

This was a sure sign that, just as he himself said, he resorted to this severity for the sake of curbing the fierce spirits of a people brought up amidst factionalism, not out of a lust for money-making, as I have shown above, although those who were wounded in this way exclaimed these were the darts of greed, not severity. Indeed, this modest sovereign did not despoil his subjects of their fortunes immoderately, for he left behind him a kingdom most wealthy in all respects. This is made plain, among other things, by the immense amount of gold and silver annually brought into the island by merchants plying to and fro, whom he very frequently helped with interest-free loans, so that the flow of commerce, both useful and necessary for all men, would be more abundant in his realm.

Thomas Penn brings forth the idea that Henry VII’s obsession with money was not the actions “of a miser, but of a sophisticated financial mind…” (Penn 156). This is an interesting point of view and one that was not held by many others, although Josephine Ross does admire Henry and his policies. She commented that Henry “…was a born accountant, who loved to spend hours closeted with lists of figures signing every entry with his own hand, those accounts revealed some attractive aspects of his personality” (Ross 22). His financial records do show expenditures to charitable causes, music, a variety of entertainments, architecture, sporting events, and gambling (Ross, Penn, and Chrimes). According to Ross, “There was nothing miserly about Henry VII; he was intensely careful with money, but he recognized the importance of spending freely to keep up a regal image” (Ross 22). This incongruity between miserliness and extravagance is something which was held in common between Henry VII and his granddaughter, Elizabeth Regina.

Elizabeth had inherited “…the financial prudence of her grandfather” (Neale 294) and the depleted coffers of her father. “A sense of economy was inbred as well as inborn in Elizabeth” (Neale 296). Prior to her accession her income had been small even after she received her inheritance from her father and acquired Hatfield. Elizabeth had learned to be careful with her monies. “Her financial affairs, which had been in a precarious state since her father’s death, assumed a more healthy aspect when she took over the book-keeping herself, maintaining meticulous records of her expenditure and personally signing each page of the accounts” (Somerset 28).

Even as Queen she was watchful and her “stringent economies effected soon after her accession…” plus her “prudent financial management” allowed her to escape true money worries while maintaining her Court (Somerset 281). What she managed to achieve with the limited resources available is astounding. It is “that financial sense of Elizabeth’s, her resolute, irritating parsimony that the secret of greatness lay” (Neale 101).

She was a penny-pincher, but she knew, like her grandfather, where and when to spend money for political reasons. “Balancing the books was to be her life-long preoccupation as Queen” and she understood there had to be revenue (Starkey 221). Elizabeth realized that, as money got tighter, she had to extract money at any possible source beyond the ordinary income from taxes, rates, etc.

It is well-known that privateering brought in some revenue for the Crown but never as much as hoped. Elizabeth had exclaimed that “she had known from the very first that everyone would make a fortune out of the business except herself” (Strachey 112).

One revenue source came from the requirement that Bishops give 10% of their revenue to the Crown and at their appointment the equivalent of a year’s income. Although it was claimed she did not exploit this, it was common knowledge that later in her reign, Elizabeth was able to tap into this income by moving her Bishops between dioceses (Somerset 86). She believed, by using “this judicious redistribution of the national wealth she was preserving her kingdom’s stability” (Somerset 88).

When the economy started to slip, she responded by selling some property, appropriating new funds and further reducing government expenditure. Yet, like her grandfather, Elizabeth had virtuous reasons for her miserliness. When England was at war late in her reign, she “practiced eternal vigilance over her own expenses, to the disgust of the greedy cormorants about her, everlastingly grumbling and gibing at her parsimony…” (Neale 346).

“Parsimony is not a popular virtue” (Neale 296). Elizabeth instituted “stringent economies that were often unpopular, but these measures kept England solvent at a time when most European countries were virtually bankrupt” (Weir 225). Keeping her debt to a minimum and balancing her expenditures with her ordinary income required her to never relax the tight purse strings. She performed wonders in keeping her creditors satisfied and shouldering most of the burden without “impairing the efficiency of government or casting the gloom of poverty over the Court, the splendor of which was the nation’s pride and the monarch’s dignity” (Neale 296).

To further complicate money issues was this paradox: Elizabeth was miserly for reasons of political capital and she was extravagant for the same purpose. Although careful with her money, Elizabeth never stinted on outward show. She knew that to attract the upper classes to her Court she had to impress the whole country with the visual aspects of power. Perception is reality. The queen wore costly gowns (she had over three thousand –a topic for a future blog) and owned a magnificent collection of jewelry knowing full-well the role she played. “Princes, you know, stand upon stages so that their actions are viewed and beheld of all men…” (Marcus, 189).

Therefore, clothing, court ceremonial, entertainments, even furnishings were extravagant with the intent to show majesty and impress all who came to the Court.
Many costs of these items could be defrayed by what would become a large, unavoidable expense for the noblemen–a lavish gift for the queen. She enjoyed receiving costly gifts throughout her reign. A contemporary explained that “She was very rich in jewels, which had been given her by her subjects; for in times of progress there was no person that entertained her in his house but (besides his extraordinary charge in feasting her and her train) he bestowed a jewel upon her; a custom in former times begun by some of her especial favorites that (having in great measure tasted of her bounty) did give her only of her own; though otherwise that kind of giving was not so pleasing to gentlemen of meaner quality” (Robinson 192). The Spanish envoy Count de Feria commented soon after her coronation that Elizabeth “is very fond of having things given to her” (Erickson 174).

Ship Pendant given to Elizabeth Gloves given to Elizabeth
by Sir Francis Drake by the University of Oxford

Elizabeth’s yearly progresses were another way to subsidize the living costs of Court. Being housed at others’ expense during her lengthy progresses was a sure way for her to be seen by her people, in all her majesty, and allow her to graciously accept the hospitality of many and not cost the Exchequer any money (Ridley 180).

As the decades progressed and expenses mounted, Elizabeth was less apt to reward her courtiers as in earlier days as she was led to “tightening up in the distribution of patronage” (Somerset 547). She reduced government expenditure, rewarding her administrators so sparingly with titles, lands and monopolies, especially monopolies, that corruption was inevitable as nobles tried to find ways to generate funds.

Corruption became rampant and she scolded Parliamentary members by exclaiming “…if these fellows were well answered and paid with lawful coin, there would be fewer counterfeits among them” (Perry Word of a Prince 199). She was genuinely surprised when courtiers seemed less than satisfied with the patronage that was handed out. She had learned “that neither gifts nor pensions were the foundation of loyalty” (Neale 101).

Through it all, the welfare of her people and her duty to them, was foremost in her mind. Addressing her people late in her reign, the Queen said that “though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my crown: that I have reigned with your loves” (Marcus 337).

Works Cited

Bergenroth, G. A., and, Pascual De. Gayangos. Calendar of Letters,
Dispatches and State Papers, Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, Preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere: Published by the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury under theDirection of the Master of the Rolls. Henry VII 1485 – 1509. ed. Vol. 1. London:

Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1862. Google Books. Web. 26 Nov.
2012.

Chrimes, S. B. Henry VII. Berkeley: University of California, 1972. Google Books. Web. 31 Dec. 2012.

Erickson, Carolly. The First Elizabeth. New York: Summit Books. 1983. Print.

Gairdner, James. Henry the Seventh,. London: Macmillan, 1889. Google Books. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Hall, Edward, and Charles Whibley. Henry VIII,. Vol. I. London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904. Google Books. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

Hutchinson, Robert. Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011. Google Books. Web. 02 Dec. 2012.

Jones, Michael K. and Malcolm G. Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret
Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.

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

Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Print.

Penn, Thomas. Winter King; the Dawn of Tudor England. New York: Penguin Books, 2012. Print.

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

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

Robinson, James Harvey. Readings in European History: A Collection of Extracts from the Sources Chosen with the Purpose of Illustrating the Progress of Culture in Western Europe since the German Invasions,. Vol. II. Boston: Ginn &, 1904. Google Books. Web. 19 Jan. 2013.

Ross, Josephine. The Tudors, England’s Golden Age. London: Artus, 1994. Print.

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

Starkey, David, ed. Rivals in Power. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990. Print.

Strachey, Lytton. Elizabeth and Essex: A Tragic History. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1969. Print.

Tremlett, Giles. Catherine of Aragon: Henry’s Spanish Queen. London: Faber and Faber, 2010. Print.

Weir, Alison. The Life of Elizabeth I. New York: Ballatine Books, 1998. Print.

Vergil, Polydore. Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 Version). Ed. Dana F. Sutton.

Irvine: University of California, 2005. Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 Version). The Philological Museum, 04 Aug. 2005. Web. 02 Jan. 2013.

elizregina

Elizabeth I Regina

Tag Archives: Lord Burghley

Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part IV

Friend, Cousin, Brother? Part I

Said it, Believed it, Lived it

Reigned With Your Loves

Heir Unapparent

Why Do Today…?

$afe and $ecure

Tight Purse Strings