His Last Letter

Posted on June 11, 2013 by jodmcp

His Last Letter

At her death in 1603, Leicester’s last letter* to Elizabeth (written six days before his death in September 1588) was found in a small casket by her bed with “His Last Letter” written in her own handwriting on it. This story has always captured my imagination as a very adoring gesture taken by this imposing historical figure.

His Last Letter. For a modern transcription see below*.

In the early summer of 2003, I came home from work to find a present waiting for me from my husband. When I opened it, imagine my surprise when I found Susan Doran’s Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum--the catalog to the Greenwich Exhibition celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth I. Along with the catalog were entry tickets for August 8^th and plane and hotel reservations. I was going! The catalog was read thoroughly beforehand with meticulous notes taken on which items would be “Want to See” and “Must See”. Lot #70, Leicester’s last letter written to Elizabeth, was a “Must See” and became one of the top artifacts that I said I would die if I didn’t see. What a way to set myself up.

We arrived early at the National Maritime Museum. I was so excited. We were some of the first in the doors that morning and sat front and center to watch the introductory video narrated by Guest Curator, David Starkey then I was ready to view the artifacts.

Armed with my list of exhibits to see (see below for an abbreviated chart of artifacts), I came upon Lot #70 and the letter wasn’t there! There was #69 and #71 immediately next to it. No #70. I kept looking expecting it to miraculously materialize. Nothing. My husband looked: he called a docent over and they looked together. The young man expressed great concern and radioed his supervisor who came to spend over 15 minutes looking for it. Neither one of them could come up with a reason for its absence. Still mystified, I finished the rest of the exhibit, went back to admire some particular items, wrote my notes and had to leave despite not seeing “His Last Letter.”

Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester

The rest of my surprise trip to Great Britain was a thrill (My visit to the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London is for another blog entry). Upon my return home to the USA, I was determined to discover what had happened to Lot #70. Leicester’s last letter had become almost as important to me as it had to Elizabeth I. I researched as much as I could and came up empty handed until my husband and I attended Dr. David Starkey’s lecture at the Newberry Library in Chicago, IL on November 22, 2003.

While standing in line to have books autographed (I took Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum and my husband had Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII), I resolved to ask him about the letter. Dr. Starkey was wonderful to take the time to answer my questions (with a queue trailing behind me) and expressed surprise that I did not see the letter. He assured me that it should have been there.

My next step, e-mailing the National Maritime Museum, which I did on November 24, 2003, asking if the lot had been removed for some reason.

The reply I received on November 26, 2003 is as follows. [Having eliminated the name of the respondent for privacy.]

Dear Jodi,

Dudley’s last letter was on display in the exhibition but unfortunately, the
National Archives would only loan it to us for 3 months or so. By the time you
visited, it was replaced with another letter from Dudley to Elizabeth.>

An image of the letter is available to view on our website. [The link is not active
now in 2013.] http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/setTemplate:singlecontent/
contentTypeA/conWebDoc.contentld/6088/viewPage

Mystery solved. It still does not end my disappointment of not seeing the actual letter but ten years later and I am close to being over it. Happily, I have a framed poster of the fantastic Exhibition in my den as a reminder.

National Maritime Museum Exhibition on Queen Elizabeth I

Attended August 8, 2003

Lot *Must See	Subject	Form	Comments
*7	Elizabeth	Locket ring	Has picture of her mom.
*26	Elizabeth & Mary	Letter	Hard to read as faded at the top of the paper. Elizabeth wrote to Mary requesting an audience during the Wyatt Rebellion interrogation—diagonals across the bottom so no one could add anything.
*70	Elizabeth & Dudley	Letter	Was not there—his last letter to her with her writing on it identifying it as his last letter.
*192	Elizabeth	Portrait	Three Goddess.
*193	Elizabeth	Portrait	Pelican—from Walker Art Gallery.
*196	Elizabeth	Portrait	Peace
4	Anne Boleyn	Pendant	Given to her by Henry VIII.
5	Anne Boleyn	Medal	Has her motto on it.
12	Elizabeth, Katherine Parr, Henry VIII	Book	Elizabeth made for Henry of Katherine’s writings.
17	Elizabeth & Katherine Parr	Letter	Elizabeth forgot the word ‘them’ in the two letters on display. Letters she wrote to her little brother Edward were also interesting to see.
29	Elizabeth	Portrait	Coronation (Enjoyed the one of her at about age 14 also.)
69	Elizabeth & Dudley	Letter	He wrote to her as her ‘eyes’ signature was Ȱ Ȱ. (Well, close to that.)
118	Elizabeth	Inventory	Great Wardrobe inventory of 1600 with separate exhibits of a pair of gloves and even her saddle.
264/265	Elizabeth	Drawings	Funeral procession. (These drawings appear to be seen infrequently prior to this exhibit.)

Newberry Library Elizabeth I Exhibit—Attnded November 22, 2003

Subject	Comments
Quentin Massey’s “Sieve” Portrait	From 1580-83, after the one in Sienna, Italy.
Copy book by Roger Ascham (her tutor)	Book on the education of children.
Elizabeth letter to Seymour	Written February 21, 1549.
Evangelical Shepherd 1533	Gift to Anne Boleyn from Francis I with the introduction by a French poet.
Small portrait of Elizabeth	She is in black and has a watch noticeably –from 1564-1567.
Elizabeth’s letter to Catherine de Medici	The letter offers condolences over d’Alencon’s death in 1584—it was in French and in her handwriting.
Answer to the Lords Petition that she marry	It had her scribbles etc. It was delivered in 1563 to Parliament by Nicholas Bacon with her seated nearby.
Speech of 1567	Elizabeth gave the speech herself to Parliament on the topic of her marrying –calling it “lip labored orations.”
Copy of Stubbs pamphlet	It protested her marriage to d’Alencon– of which cost him his right hand.
Copy of Knox’s book, Blast on Female Rulers.	It was a colonial copy from 1766 printed in Philadelphia.
Elizabeth speech to Parliament	Topic concerned Mary, Queen of Scots on November 12, 1586.
Letter Elizabeth wrote to James	Written in January 1593 offering advice.
Letter to Elizabeth from James	The letter was written after Mary, Queen of Scots execution and dated March 1587. He protests the action but would say—gently.
Mary’s execution drawing	Similar to the one seen in Greenwich Exhibition.
Painting of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth from 1597	Had never seen this painting before although it is from the Art Institute of Chicago.
Essex letter to Elizabeth from November 1597	Essex pleading for her forgiveness in his own arrogant way.
Version of Tilbury speech August 9, 1588	Written by an eyewitness.
Scroll of funeral procession, from British Library	Forty feet long by College of Heralds. Had listed Walter Raleigh as Capitan of the Guard.
William Camden Annals of 1625	Definitive source of information on Elizabeth.

Afterward:

In October of 2012 inquires were made as how Liecester’s letter came to the ownership of the National Archives. My first e-mail was mistakenly taken as a request for a copy (for those of you who are interested, here is the web address where it can be purchased: https:www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordcopying/estimateoptions.aspx). A second e-mail fielded this reply:

Dear Jodi,

Thank you for your further email, and I am sorry if my colleague did not fully answer your enquiry. While it is often very difficult to check the provenance of a single document, more generally the National Archives holds the archive of the crown and central government, and as such many personal documents from the reigning monarch ended up amongst more formal state documents, known collectively as State Papers. Some have ended up elsewhere, as royal officials often treated official papers as personal property, but royal letters can be found for all the Tudor monarchs in our collections. There is some background research guidance on this in:http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/state-papers-1547-1649.htm. Elizabeth’s letter is likely to have been in custody of royal officials since her death.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. ##### ######
Medieval and Early Modern Team
Advice and Records Knowledge (ARK)
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

It must be surmised that the letter was treated as a “State Paper” and handled as such throughout. I am just thankful that it is still in existence and the story of Elizabeth I treasuring it for the 15 years until her own death is preserved as well.

*“I most humbly beseech your Majesty to pardon your poor old servant to be thus bold in sending to know how my gracious lady doth, and what ease of her late pains she finds, being the chiefest thing in this world I do pray for, for her to have good health and long life. For my own poor case, I continue still your medicine and find that (it) amends much better than with any other thing that hath been given me. Thus hoping to find perfect cure at the bath, with the continuance of my wonted prayer for your Majesty’s most happy preservation, I humbly kiss your foot. From your old lodging at Rycote, this Thursday morning, ready to take on my Journey, by your Majesty’s most faithful and obedient servant,

R. Leicester

Even as I had writ thus much, I received Your Majesty’s token by Young Tracey.”

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.

$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.

Dieu et mon Droit

Posted on January 15, 2013 by jodmcp

Dieu et mon Droit

Although Henry (Earl of Richmond and later Henry VII) was born to a lawfully married couple, his ancestry implied illegitimacy. Whereas, Queen Elizabeth I had to contend with the doubts over the legality of the marriage between her parents, and the Parliamentary action of July 1536 declaring her illegitimate. Both Henry VII and Elizabeth I realized the importance of confirming their claim to the throne, and how they handled this issue is interesting.

Henry was named for his half-uncle King Henry VI. His grandmother, Katherine of Valois, was married to King Henry V of England and gave birth to the future Henry VI. As a widow Katherine married Owen Tudor. Some people at that time and even now believe there was no marriage ceremony. In all probability they wed in secret, or perhaps a wedding away from Court would not have been as well documented which could add to people’s suspicions. Their eldest surviving son was Edmund, first Earl of Richmond. Edmund went on to marry Margaret Beaufort who herself descended from questionable legitimacy.

Margaret’s great-grandmother, Katherine Swynford, was the mistress of John of Gaunt (son of King Edward III and father of Henry VI). After John was widowed, he married Katherine and received a Papal Bull declaring their children legitimate. Shortly after, in February of 1397, Richard II legitimized his cousins. The Letters Patent were read in Parliament, ratified and confirmed, making the legitimization an Act of Parliament. Regardless, the taint of illegitimacy lingered. Thus, in 1407 John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the eldest child of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford asked his half-brother, King Henry IV, for an exemplification of the original Letters Patent. This is where things get tricky.

Henry IV must have felt some threat from the Beauforts to his throne for he inserted the phrase ‘excepta dignitate regali’ which meant his half-siblings were not eligible for the royal dignity—they could not inherit the throne. Although people could argue endlessly as to whether children born of parents who were married to other spouses were legitimate, the legal fact remains. Henry IV could not on his own authority alter the Letters Patent issued in a previous reign which had become law through the ratification of Parliament. This has been discussed in much greater detail by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood in The King’s Mother and by Samuel Bentley in the Excerpta Historica which includes a transcript of the Letters Patent.

So where does this place Henry when he came to the throne in 1485? Henry used the 1397 Act to cement his royal lineage even though, interestingly enough, he did not base his claim to the throne on this act. He probably realized its precariousness and he intentionally kept his genealogy vague (Jones, Penn). Henry obviously ignored the 1407 statute that said the Beauforts would be excluded from the throne (Griffiths 183). Therefore, Henry VII could claim the throne as the heir of the House of Lancaster through the lineage of John of Gaunt. So it is the Beaufort line on the female side that gave Henry the greatest claim to the throne. His mother, a firm supporter in his right of inheritance, made popular the story recounted by Vergil of the prophecy made by Henry VI upon meeting the young Henry, Earl of Richmond:

Whan the king saw the chylde, beholding within himself without
speache a prety space the haultie disposition therof, he ys
reportyd to H. 6 pro have sayd to the noble men ther present.
This trewly, this is he unto whom both we and our adversaryes
must yeald and geave of H. 7. over the domynion. Thus the holy
man shewyd yt woold coome to passe that Henry showld in time enjoy
the kingdom. (Vergil 135)

Years into his reign, Henry VII still worried that, although he was the acknowledged victor at Bosworth and the Pope had confirmed his right to the crown, he still felt the need to ensure his rule to the point of naming his first son Arthur to connect himself to the king of legend (Perry). It is obvious there were no Yorkist names for his sons—no Edward, no George, no Richard. He also used Lancastrian names for his daughters. Carrying this further, Henry reinforced his family’s royal connections and lineage using symbolism including the Tudor rose and the Beaufort portcullis.

The Tudor Rose emerged upon the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The smaller, white rose of York was surrounded by the large, red rose of Lancaster to become the emblem of the union. The Tudor Rose was used expansively throughout the successive reigns in various formats making it perhaps the most recognizable symbol of the Tudors. Less dramatic but in use longer was the portcullis of the Beaufort badge. Beaufort Castle in Champagne, France, was where John of Gaunt had a stronghold. The family embedded the portcullis into the design of the badge for the Somerset dukedom. This was used extensively from the time of Henry VII from the badge of the London Borough of Richmond to the architecture in the King’s Chapel at Cambridge. Its importance is seen in its longevity for in the modern era it was used on the backside of the penny until 2008.

Corfe Castle, a Beaufort stronghold, and its local parish church was used by Henry to show the legitimacy of the Beaufort line. On the left side of the door was the coats-of-arms with the shield on its side symbolizing an illegitimate line while on the right it was upright (Jones 71-72).

Photographs from the online version of A Short Account of King’s College Chapel by W. P. Littlechild.

While Henry stressed his maternal line, he did identify with his paternal Welsh side (Norton 44). This was the exact opposite position of his granddaughter, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth maintained the silence that surrounded her mother as she knew opening up that line of thinking would question her claim to the throne. Following that same reasoning, at the urging of her councilors notably Nicholas Bacon, Elizabeth did not pass any legislation legitimizing herself, as Henry VIII’s will gave her the right to succession (Ridley 85). By invoking her right to succeed via Henry’s will, she tactically ignored the Act of Succession of July 1536 in which Henry declared her illegitimate and excluded her from any inheritance. The page from The Statutes at Large of Henry VIII’s reign is below as it contains the annulment of his marriage to Anne Boleyn as well (Pickering 422).

Both Mary and Elizabeth spent many years in the limbo world of being an illegitimate child of a king. Illegitimate royal children held positions at Court but could not inherit the throne nor provide attractive prospects for foreign marriages. Several years into her reign when members of Parliament approached her urging her to marry and name her successor, Elizabeth was not welcoming. She remembered that when her sister Mary was fighting for her right to succeed after Edward VI had altered the succession some of these very men declared “my sister and I were bastards” (Marcus 97). It is easy to conclude that the question of her legitimacy and others’ responses to it was never far from her mind. Although her line in succession was reinstated in June 1543 by act of Parliament (and, as mentioned above, in December of 1546 by Henry’s will), Elizabeth was not declared legitimate. This issue was pressed by Mary as Queen when, in 1553, her Parliament repealed the divorce between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon thus reinforcing Elizabeth’s illegitimacy (Somerset 35).

Thus it was in Elizabeth’s interest to face the world in as firm a position as possible when she became queen. It was well-known she would often reference her father when she spoke, perhaps to instill her claim to the throne and famously referred to herself as the ‘lion’s cub’. Those who knew her must have recognized this as we see attempts made in pageants and writings to promote her legitimate status.

At her coronation pageant at Gracechurch Street, her ancestors were depicted as the “valiant and noble prince King Henry the eighth” and “the right worthy Lady Queen Anne…” The entire quote is recreated below as it stresses that Anne was the wife of Henry:

Out of which two roses sprang, two branches gathered into one,
which were directed upward to the second stage or degree wherein
was placed one representing the valiant and noble prince King
Henry the eighth, which sprang out of the former stock, crowned
with a crown imperial, and by him sat one representing the right
worthy Lady Queen Anne, wife to the said King Henry the eighth and
mother to our most sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth that now is,
both appareled with scepters and diadems and other furniture due
to the estate of a king and queen … (Warkentin 78).

One avenue taken to promote her legitimacy was to invoke her descent from the legendary King Arthur. A pageant at Kenilworth in 1575 declared the lake was being kept until a true heir of Arthur came and it would be handed over. Although it was meant in all seriousness, Elizabeth could not help but tease when she exclaimed that she thought the lake had always been hers (or was it a reminder to Leicester that she was the one of royal blood?). An account of this pageant written by John Nichols but gleaned from the contemporary source, George Gascoigne’s Princely Pleasures at Kenelwoorth Castle, is shared below:

…first of the auncientee of the Castl, whoo had been ownerz
of the same e’en till this day, most allweyz in the hands of
the Earls of Leyceter ; hoow shee had kept this Lake sins King
Arthur’z dayz ; and now understanding of her Highness hither
cumming, thought it both office and duetie, in humble wize to
discover her and her estate ; oflfering up the same her Lake
and poour therein, with promise of repayre unto the Coourt. It
pleazed her Highness too thank this Lady, and too add withall,
we had thought indeed the Lake had been oours, and doo you call
it yourz noow ? Well, we will herein common more with yoo
hereafter (Nichols 431).

In Spencer’s Faerie Queene, the link to King Arthur was wrapped in allegory throughout. In Book II, Canto X titled “A chronicle of Briton Kings, from Brute to Vthers rayne. And rolles of Elfin Emperours, till time of Gloriane”, we see Spencer’s attempt to link the historical Arthur to Elizabeth as the stanzas relate to the book, History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth:

Who now shall giue vnto me words and sound,
Equall vnto this haughtie enterprise?
Or who shall lend me wings, with which from ground
Lowly verse may loftily arise,
And lift it selfe vnto the highest skies?
More ample spirit, then hitherto was wount,
Here needes me, whiles the famous auncestries
Of my most dreaded Soueraigne I recount,
By which all earthly Princes she doth farre surmount.

Ne vnder Sunne, that shines so wide and faire,
Whence all that liues, does borrow life and light,
Liues ought, that to her linage may compaire,
Which though from earth it be deriued right,
Yet doth it selfe stretch forth to heauens hight,
And all the world with wonder ouerspred;
A labour huge, exceeding farre my might:
How shall fraile pen, with feare disparaged,
Conceiue such soueraine glory, and great bountihed?

Argument worthy of Moeonian quill,
Or rather worthy of great Phoebus rote,
Whereon the ruines of great Ossa hill,
And triumphes of PhlegrÃ¦an Ioue he wrote,
That all the Gods admird his loftie note.
But if some relish of that heauenly lay
His learned daughters would to me report,
To decke my song withall, I would assay,
Thy name, Ã´ soueraine Queene, to blazon farre away.

Thy name soueraine Queene, thy realme and race,
From this renowmed Prince deriued arre,
Who mightily vpheld that royall mace,
Which now thou bear’st, to thee descended farre
From mightie kings and conquerours in warre,
Thy fathers and great Grandfathers of old,
Whose noble deedes aboue the Northerne starre
Immortall fame for euer hath enrold;
As in that old mans booke they were in order told.

Carolly Erickson mentioned that Elizabeth had a large genealogy of her personal lineage which she kept. There was reference to it in Robert Cecil’s papers as seen below. Now this does not necessarily mean it was important to her, but it is noteworthy that it was kept and recorded.

Thanks to Vicki Perry, Head of Archives and Historic Collections Library and Archives at Hatfield House, who responded to an inquiry concerning the genealogical scroll. She informed me that the scroll itself is on view at Hatfield House (only a small portion is shown at a time) and a digitized copy is at the British Library–reference number Cecil Papers 357.

Although much of this evidence is anecdotal, there are enough instances to realize that both Henry VII and Elizabeth I were concerned with projecting an image of their lineage, ancestral connections and right to the throne.

Works Cited

Bentley, Samuel, ed. “Issue of Katherine de Roelt, Wife of Sir Hugh Swynford, and Afterwards of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. Letters Patent of King Henry the Fourth Certifying the Legitimacy of Sir Thomas Svvynford;with Notices of the Swynford Family.” Excerpta Historica: Or, Illustrations of English History. London: Samuel Bentley, 1831. 152-54. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.

Cecil, Sir Robert, Marquess of Salisbury. “Elizabeth.” Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable, the Marquess of Salisbury Preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire. Vol. 11. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1906. 147+. Great Britain, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

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

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

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

Littlechild, Walter Poole, ed. A Short Account of King’s College Chapel. 2nd ed. Cambridge: W. HEFFER & SONS, 1921. Project Gutenberg, 2 Aug. 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.

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

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. London: Printed by and for J. Nichols, 1823. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

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

Pickering, Danby, Esq. “Statues Made at Westminster, Year 28 of Henry VIII, Year 1536.” Statue At Large: From the Fifth Year of King Richard III to the 31st Year of King Henry VIII. Vol. 4. London: Gray’s Inn, 1763. 421-22. Google Books. Web. 09 Nov. 2012.

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.

Spenser, Edmund, and Alexander Balloch Grosart. The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Edmund Spenser. [Manchester]: Printed for the Spenser Society, 1882. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Vergil, Polydore. Full Text of “Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History, Comprising the Reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III. from an Early Translation, Preserved among the Mss. of the Old Royal Library in the British Museum” Internet Archive, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2012.

Warkentin, Germain, ed. “The Queen’s Majesty’s Passage & Related Documents.” Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

elizregina

Elizabeth I Regina

Tag Archives: Nicholas Bacon

His Last Letter

Heir Unapparent

$afe and $ecure

Dieu et mon Droit