Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part IV

Posted on May 17, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part IV

Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer were more pliable to Anne’s ideas and cause than Cardinal Wolsey. Cromwell as Chief Minister pushed through Parliament several reform measures including the creation of the King as Head of the Church of England. Cranmer, appointed Archbishop of Canterbury after the death of William Warham, declared the end to Henry and Katherine’s marriage. The age of Wolsey was over.

Thomas Cromwell

Anne Boleyn owed a great deal to Thomas Cromwell. He put into effect his plan to frighten the clergy into submission and sever the English Church from Rome– but it was quite a time before it could be implemented. His plan he felt sure “could not of course fail to please Anne, to whom it held out a sure way of obtaining what she desired” (Friedmann I 135-136). At the Convocation of Canterbury in January 1531, under threat the clergy acknowledged Henry as “singular protector, supreme lord and even, so far as the law of Christ allows, supreme head of the English Church and clergy” (Haigh 108). Added to the brilliance of the plan was the fact that the members of the Privy Council who “generally opposed the measures brought forward by Anne’s friends, willingly assented to a scheme which would weaken the influence of the bishops” (Friedmann I 135-136).

Despite the capitulation of the Clergy, all was not smooth sailing for Henry and Anne. By May 22, 1531, Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador, reported to Charles V that “the clergy of York and Durham sent to the King a strong protestation against the supremacy which he pretends to have over them. The King is greatly displeased, still more because one of his couriers coming from Rome has brought him news that his Ambassadors there are afraid that the Pope will definitively quash the process” (Gairdner 251). This was “a serious defeat for Anne’s party.” Legislation to force the clergy and Parliament to submit had to be abandoned as priests protested “against any encroachments on the liberty of the Church or any act derogatory to the authority of the Holy See” (Friedmann I 142). Resistance did not last and in 1534 Henry passed the Acts of Supremacy and of Succession. Legally he was Head of the Church of England and his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was annulled and that of Anne legitimized along with any children from their union. All seemed to be going well; Anne was Queen and the Protestant reform movement was gaining momentum. What happened?

Anne encountered forces stronger than her influence on Henry. She disagreed with the King over the dissolution of the monasteries, she clashed with Thomas Cromwell over international politics and Anne underestimated Henry’s frustration at not having a male heir, his attraction for Jane Seymour and the Court’s ability to use those domestic issues against her and the evangelical faction.

Henry VIII committed to improving the religious houses in England. He sent agents out to track adherence to monastic orders’ rules and to account for the wealth of each. He ordered the Commission for the Valuation of Ecclesiastical Benefices stressing his right as Supreme Head of the Church, “Henricus Octavus, Dei gratia Agnlie et Francie Rex, Fidei Defensor, Dominus Hibernie et in terra Supremum Capud Anglicane Ecclesie, Reverendo in Christo patri J[ohanni] Episcopo Exoniensi ac dilectis et fidelbus suis Salutem” (Hall A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents 63).

Henry VIII –attributed to the circle of Holbein 1535-1541

Commissioners appointed by King Henry were to “examyn, serche and enquire, by all the ways and meanes that they can by their dyscrections, of and for the true and just hole and entire yerely values of all the manours, londes, tenements, hereditamentes, rentes, tythes, offerings, emoluments and all other profittes, as well spitrituall as temporall, apperteyninge or belonging to any Archebusshopriche, Busshoprich, Abbacye, Monasterie, Priorie, Archdeaconry, Deanry, Hospitall, College, Howse Collegyate … or any other benefice or promocion sprituall within the lymyttes of their Commyssion” (Hall A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents 62). Henry also wanted to know “in what manner the revenewes and profitts” were used (Leach ii).

Once the Valor Ecclesiasticus had been presented to Parliament on February 5, 1536, creating the dismay that Henry and Cromwell hoped it would, the Legislature quickly formulated and implemented new policy by mid-March. It certainly was easy to see what Henry’s main purpose was. He needed money, a lot of it, having gone through the vast fortune his father had left him. Confiscating the property of religious houses would provide that wealth.

The Act of the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries of 1536 (also known as The Suppression of Religious Houses Act), deemed the lesser monastic houses sinful and wasteful. All the occupants were ordered to transfer to larger monasteries where they would be reformed to live more religiously. It was proclaimed that Parliament finally revolved “that it is and shall be much more to the pleasure of Almighty God, and for the honour of this his realm, that the possessions of such religious houses, now being spent, spoiled, and wasted for increase maintenance of sin, should be used and converted to better uses.” Parliament authorized “that his majesty shall have and enjoy to him and to his heirs for ever, all and singular such monasteries, priories, and other religious houses” the land, rent, chapels and all their property “with all their rights, profits, jurisdictions, and commodities, unto the King’s majesty, and to his heirs and assigns for ever, to do and use therewith his and their own wills, to the pleasure of Almighty God, and to honour and profit this realm….” Not daring to leave anything behind, the Act of Suppression gave the rights for the “…King’s highness shall have and enjoy to his own proper use, all the ornaments, jewels, goods, chattels and debts, which appertained to any of the chief governors of the said monasteries” (“Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries”).

Eustace Chapuys, Spanish Ambassador to Charles V wrote “The King and Council are busy setting officers for the provision and exaction of the revenues of the churches which are to be suppressed; which, it is said, will be in number above 300, and are expected to bring in a revenue of 120,000 ducats. The silver plate, chalices, and reliquaries, the church ornaments, bells, lead from the roofs, cattle, and furniture belonging to them, which will come to the King, will be of inestimable amount. All these lords are intent on having farms of the goods of the said churches, and already the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk are largely provided with them. I am told that although Cromwell promoted in the first instance the demolition of the said churches, that nevertheless, seeing the dangers that might arise from it, he was anxious to prevent them, for which reason the King had been somewhat angry with him” (Gairdner X 601).

Eustace Chapuys, Spanish Ambassador to England

The busy Ambassador wrote that same day, March 18, 1536, to his fellow Hapsburg statesman, Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (sometimes referred to as Granville or Grenville): “You will see by the letters I write to his Majesty, the gentle device of this King to extract money on pretext of charity by means of the offerings. If it succeeds, as no doubt it will, he will gain an immense sum of money, for he will impose a tax according to his will which everyone will have to offer, and not engage to do so for once but for all the other innumerable inventions that this King daily puts forward in order to get money, at which the people is terribly grieved and almost desperate, but no man dare complain ” (Gairdner X 495). Contemporaries discussed Cranmer’s sermon which assured the people that the king would now gain so much treasure “that from that time he should have no need, nor put the people to … any charge for his or the realm’s affairs” (Heal 145).

The monasteries did need some reform. It was not unique to England and it was not so much against the religion as to the laxity that befell many religious houses. Henry’s and Cromwell’s greed were not the sole motivators. Local landed gentry also eagerly eyed the wealth of the lands of their neighbors. Already indebted to each other, the monasteries and noble estates had been intertwined for years. Abbots had long been “giving up part of their revenues, in the form of pensions …to courtiers, in the hope of being allowed to retain the remainder” (Pollard 340). But Henry had hit upon an enormous source of wealth in his position as Supreme Head of the Church of England. And perhaps, not beyond the one time infusion as Chapuys further opinioned that “the King will greatly increase his revenue” (Gairdner X 494).

Transcription of the above Statute

“An Acte whereby all Relygeous Houses of Monks, Chanons, and Nonnes whiche may not dyspend Manors Lands Tenants & Heredytaments above the clere yerly Value of ij C E are geven to the Kings Highness his heirs and Successours for ever. The Byll for the suppressing of dy__ Places of Relygion” (“The Statutes of the Realm”)

Oddly enough Henry was not made astronomically wealthy–he needed to cover debts and he distributed much of the wealth to his nobles. Thus, the view must be that the dissolution’s intention was not to make Henry wealthy but to bribe the gentry to support Henry’s policies. Chapuys reported to Charles V that “the King will distribute among the gentlemen of the kingdom the greater part of the ecclesiastical revenues to gain their goodwill” (Gairdner VII 1141). “The dissolution of the monasteries harmonised well with the secular principles of the predominant classes” (Pollard 342).

Whom it did not harmonize well with was Queen Anne Bolyen.

On Passion Sunday, April 2, 1536, John Skip, chaplain to Anne Boleyn, preached a sermon to the entire Court with his target “scarcely disguised” as Thomas Cromwell (Heal 142). Taking his theme from Biblical text, he asked, Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Which of you convinceth me of sin? (Newcombe). The message of this incendiary sermon was to encourage Henry’s advisors to cease their greed and do what was right for the people, especially the poor. Skip altered the Esther Biblical story to stress “to courtiers and counselors alike to change the advice they were giving the king and to reject the lure of personal gain” (Ives 309).

Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther by Rembrandt

Eric Ives in the text, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, supported by other historians, has analyzed Skip’s symbolism-laden sermon and has pointed out the correlation between this sermon and Anne’s disagreement with Cromwell over how the proceeds from the dissolution of the lesser monasteries should be used. Cranmer even ran afoul of Henry later by not consenting “that the king should have all the revenues of the monasteries which were suppressed, to his own sole use” (Dodd 21). Many understood that Henry could have the lands to do with as he wished but that the wealth should be “bestowed on hospitals, schools, and other pious and charitable foundations” (Dodd 21). It appeared to be common knowledge that Anne too wanted the money to be “devoted to furthering the cause of reform rather than filling the king’s coffers” (Newcombe).

It must be clarified that Anne was not against the monasteries being suppressed. She disagreed with the King and Cromwell on how the funds should be distributed. She wanted to follow her inclinations by having the revenues assist the poor and help scholars, causes she was known to patronize.

George Wyatt praised Anne for making shirts and smocks for the poor, and remarking that her charity “passed through the whole land” and she gave “fifteen hundred pounds* at the least, yearly, to be bestowed on the poor” with another fourteen or fifteen thousand pounds** being given in alms and to support scholars (Cavendish II 207).
John Foxe commended Anne for “how bountiful she was to the poor, passing not only the common example of other queens, but also the revenues almost of her estate; insomuch that the alms which she gave in three quarters of a year, in distribution, …to the behalf of poor artificers and occupiers” (Foxe V 232-234).

John Foxe

The Scottish cleric, Alexander Alesius, referred to Anne Boleyn as ‘your most holy mother’ when writing to Elizabeth. He clearly believed that Elizabeth’s “very pious mother” formed many enemies at Court for “her desire to promote the pure doctrine of the Gospel and her kindness to the poor” (Stevenson 1303-15).

Anne more than likely could not imagine that her preferences would be gainsaid. Her influence over Henry was well-known. Even in the Privy-Council her impact could be felt. Jean du Bellay, Bishop of Bayonne, the French Ambassador relayed a story that council member, Thomas Boleyn, “allowed everything to be said, and then came and suggested the complete opposite, defending his position without budging, as though he wanted to show me that he was not pleased that anyone should have failed to pay court to the lady [Anne], and also to make me accept that what he had said before is true, that is, that all the rest have no influence except what it pleases the lady to allow them, and that is gospel truth. And because of this he wanted with words and deeds to beat down their opinions before my eyes” (Ives 126).

Yet, Anne was going to see more and more of her influence slip away. Not only was she not seeing eye-to-eye with Cromwell over the use of the monies gained from the dissolution of the monasteries, international politics also added a level of tension and discord. Charles V now needed an alliance with England against France.

A long-time ally of Anne’s, Francis, King of France, was being replaced in Henry’s diplomatic play book with Charles V. What emerged was the famously orchestrated meeting between Chapuys and Anne. On April 18, 1536, George Boleyn greeted the Ambassador who was invited by Henry via message to meet Anne and kiss her hand as she made her way to chapel. Chapuys excused himself from that honor, as this was a bit much even though he knew that Henry’s move from favoring the French to the Imperial side was vital. Chapuys was in a difficult position as he was personally loyal to the late Queen Katherine and Princess Mary—more so than to the woman he referred to as “the concubine.”

The play unfolded as Anne acknowledged the Ambassador at chapel and he had to bow in return. She asked after him specifically and made some anti-French remarks. Henry swung the other way as he wanted his feigned pro-French stance to force the Imperial hand. It was Cromwell’s turn to be in a bind. If the Imperial acceptance of her was what negotiations hinged on, he needed to do something. Cromwell cultivated his relationship with Chapuys. Knowing that the Ambassador greatly disliked the Queen and would probably believe the words, Cromwell told the Ambassador that Anne “would like to see his [Cromwell’s] head cut off” and Chapuys could not forget this “for the love I bore him; and I could not but wish him a more gracious mistress, and one more grateful for the inestimable services he had done the King, and that he must beware of enraging her” and warned that Cromwell deserved better treatment “than did the Cardinal.” This illusion to Wolsey accompanied Chapuys’ veiled warning that he hoped that Cromwell’s greater “dexterity and prudence” would stand him well in his dealings with Anne (Gairdner X 601).

Anne Boleyn

It appeared as if Cromwell was working closely with Chapuys to further the relations between their two countries. Chapuys wrote in April of 1536 to the Emperor that Cromwell had assured him that he was “very desirous of the preservation and increase of friendship of his master’s with Your Majesty, and is daily doing good offices in that respect—not only pointing out those measures which he considers most fit under the circumstances, but advising also of his own accord, and working for the accomplishment of our mutual wishes” (de Gayangos V 43). At their meeting, Cromwell “replied five or six times, with great fervour, that it was a good beginning for the matter of the preservation of the amity of which we had so often talked, to which the King was more inclined than ever, and likewise those of his Council … and Cromwell assured me, on his life and honor, that the King had never treated anything in France, Germany, or elsewhere, to the prejudice of the friendship he has with your Majesty” (Gairdner X 601).

Domestically, Cromwell managed to upset both pro-French and pro-Imperial factions in England. Internationally, events took a more favorable turn. Charles V continued his overtures of friendship, the Pope became more inclined to treat with England, and Francis I became sidelined—all international events which weakened Anne’s position and nudged Cromwell to act.

Oddly enough, Cromwell’s station, his continued political position and his economic gains were because of Anne’s support. Her influence over Henry could have swung the king’s favor to another councilor. Perhaps it was this precariousness or the rise of the more evangelical faction led by such young men as George Boleyn and Henry Norris or his own interest in intrigue or, most likely, a combination of reasons which led Cromwell to move against Anne.

George Boleyn’s signature

Cromwell assessed the situation and determined that it would be better if he “took the side of the conservative churchmen against those who had been hitherto considered Anne’s principal supporters” (Friedmann II 226). Cromwell knew that having “identified himself so closely with the measures against the Roman Church, he could not but fear that, if its authority were re-established, he would fare very badly at its hands” (Friedmann II 55-56).

By March of 1536, Cromwell tried a more moderate approach with success as, surprisingly, those in opposition to Anne, by March of 1536, included fellow Protestants. The more radical groups believed reform was not moving fast enough and the more moderate thought enough changes had been made. Cromwell felt his position strengthened and the Secretary most likely saw the way Henry was treating Anne and his interest in Jane Seymour. Chapuys gleefully reported that “the Concubine and Cromwell were on bad terms, and that some new marriage for the King was spoken of” (Gairdner X 601).

In early 1536 Henry was certainly paying attention to Jane Seymour. Chapuys remarked to his king that the “new amours of this King with the young lady…still go on, to the intense rage of the concubine” (Gairdner X 495). It was suspected that the King “believed that he might take another wife, which he gave to understand that he had some wish to do” (Gairdner X 199).

Jane Seymour by Holbein

At first it appeared to Chapuys that Henry was going to negotiate with France to obtain a French Princess and “was now thinking of a fresh marriage, that would, no doubt, be the way of preserving him (Cromwell) from many inconveniences, and likewise the best thing for the King to do” (de Gayangos V 43). Chapuys certainly hoped that a new marriage for Henry would bring “peace, honour, and prosperity to England” and would provide Cromwell “another royal mistress, not out of hatred of Anne Boleyn, for she had never done me any harm, but for his own sake” (de Gayangos V 43). Regardless of the rumors of a French alliance, Chapuys was assured by Cromwell shortly after he had written about his speculation of a French marriage, “that the King had already fixed on a wife, to wit Jane Semel” (Gairdner X 1069). Anne Boleyn had less than a month to live.

Cromwell knowing many men of the Privy Chamber such as Nicholas Carew “never accepted the new Queen with any more grace than was needed to avoid their own ruin,” headed the move against Anne (MacCulloch 154). The Spanish Ambassador “monitored these events with increasing excitement, and probably acted as a go-between for the union of Cromwell’s plans and those of the conservatives” (MacCulloch 154).

Nicholas Carew

Taking the religious issue to the domestic sphere, the conservatives and Cromwell exploited the King’s interest in Jane Seymour. Chapuys wrote to the Imperial Court on 1 April 1536, that “certainly it appears to me that if it succeeds, it will be a great thing … to remedy the heresies here, of which the Concubine is the cause and principal nurse, and also to pluck the King from such an abominable and more than incestuous marriage” (Gairdner X 601). By the middle of April when John Skip gave his sermon on Passion Sunday, it became obvious that rumors of intrigues “were beginning to fly around the Court” (MacCulloch 154). Skip showed great nerve by attacking Henry VIII and Jane Seymour using the analogy of King Solomon who blemished his own reputation by his “sensual and carnal aptitude in taking many wives and concubines” (MacCulloch 154).

Jane protected her own reputation evidenced by the famous story that Chapuys relayed. Supposedly “some days ago, the King being here in London, and, the young Miss Seymour, to whom he is paying court at Greenwich, he sent her a purse full of sovereigns, together with a letter, and that the young damsel, after respectfully kissing the letter, returned it to the messenger without opening it, and then falling on her knees, begged the royal messenger to entreat the King in her name to consider that she was a well-born damsel, the daughter of good and honourable parents without blame or reproach of any kind; there was no treasure in this world that she valued as much as her honour, and on no account would she lose it, even if she were to die a thousand deaths. That if the King wished to make her a present of money, she requested him to reserve it for such a time as God would be pleased to send her some advantageous marriage” (de Gayangos V 43).

Evidently, this episode, well-orchestrated by Jane and her advisors, had the following reaction by Henry. The “King’s love and desire towards the said lady was wonderfully increased, and that he had said she had behaved most virtuously, and to show her that he only loved her honorably, he did not intend henceforth to speak with her except in presence of some of her kin; for which reason the King has caused Cromwell to remove from a chamber to which the King can go by certain galleries without being perceived, and has lodged there the eldest brother of the said lady [Edward Seymour] with his wife, in order to bring thither the same young lady, who has been well taught for the most part by those intimate with the King, who hate the concubine, that she must by no means comply with the King’s wishes except by way of marriage; in which she is quite firm” (Gairdner X 601).

Edward Seymour

Intentions of a third marriage were already firmly believed by many at Court as early as January 1536. A gleeful Chapuys imagined that Henry knew “how much his subjects abominate the marriage contracted with the concubine, and that not one considers it legitimate” (de Gayangos V 43). Henry stated “in great confidence, and as it were in confession, that he had made this marriage, seduced by witchcraft, and for this reason he considered it null; and that this was evident because God did not permit them to have any male issue, and that he believed that he might take another wife, which he gave to understand that he had some wish to do” (Gairdner X 199).

Henry was very taken with Jane Seymour but realized he could not have a repeat scenario of a living divorced wife. How actively involved was Henry in eliminating Anne and many of the leading evangelicals? That is a difficult question to answer although Cromwell, according to Chapuys, took full credit as the person “who had discovered and followed up the affair of the Concubine, in which he had taken a great deal of trouble, and that, … he had set himself to arrange the plot (a fantasier et conspirer led affaire)” to protect the king (Gairdner 1069). To protect and to please the king?

Surprisingly, Cromwell himself will be put to death by Henry. Frustrated over the machinations that forced him to marry Anne of Cleeves, Henry was persuaded by Cromwell’s enemies to charge him with treason. Years later, the Scottish cleric, Alexander Alesius wrote to Elizabeth Regina that Cromwell “was punished by the just judgment of God, because he had loved the King more than God; and that out of deference to his Sovereign he had caused many innocent persons to be put to death, not sparing your most holy mother, nor had he obeyed her directions in promoting the doctrine of the Gospel” (Stevenson I 51).

Cromwell’s contemporary, Nicholas Shaxton, appointed Bishop of Salisbury at Anne’s urging–one of the clerics “who favoured the purer doctrine of the Gospel, and to whom she [Anne] had intrusted the care of it” (Stevenson I 15), wrote to Cromwell on May 23rd shortly after her death, “I beseech you, Sir, in vis[ceribus] Jesu Christi, that ye will now be no less diligent [in setting] forth the honour of God and his Holy Word, than [when] the late Queen was alive, and often incit[ed you thereto]” (Gairdner X 942). Interesting that a known evangelical saw the need to prod Cromwell to maintain the strides made in the name of reform. It appears to this blogger that the reformers realized that Henry was too much a conservative at heart to continue the cause of evangelical dogma without the advocacy of Anne. Cromwell was likely to be swayed in the direction of his king.

Salisbury Cathedral

Anne, identified as a “zealous defender of Christ’s gospel” would use her influence so that “her acts… will declare to the world’s end” her theological ideals (Foxe V 232-234). At the time of her death, it was inconceivable that Anne’s most lasting influence on the Protestant faith would be in the form of her three-year old daughter, Elizabeth.

Upon her acquisition of the throne, Alesius urged her to “guard herself from the snares of the devil, who were the cause of her mother’s death in consequence of her love for the doctrine of the Gospel while it was in its infancy, and afterwards persecuted those persons whom she appointed to watch over the Church” (Stevenson I 1303).

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

Lady Bryan: An Iron Hand in a Velvet Glove

Posted on January 7, 2014 by jodmcp

Lady Bryan: An Iron Hand in a Velvet Glove

Margaret, Lady Bryan, governess to the royal children of King Henry VIII, was born about 1468 in Benningborough, Yorkshire, England. Her parents were Sir Humphrey Bourchier–who was killed fighting for Edward VI at the battle of Barnet (Wagner 180) and Elizabeth Tilney–related through the Plantagent line to Edward III. Elizabeth Tilney remarried upon the death of Sir Humphrey to Thomas Howard, 2^nd Duke of Norfolk. She went on to have more children, notably the 3^rd Duke who played a very prominent role in Tudor politics and Elizabeth Boleyn, mother to Queen Anne, thus making Margaret Bourchier a half-sister to Anne Boleyn’s mother.

Detail of a stained glass window at Holy Trinity Church, Long Melford, Suffolk depicting Elizabeth Tilney

The pre-contract that had been arranged with John Sands in November of 1478, did not impede her marriage to Sir Thomas Bryan in 1487. It is known the couple had four children of which, most sources agree, two reached adulthood, Sir Francis Bryan and Elizabeth.

Francis Bryan did not care for Anne Boleyn and would take a role in her downfall. He was referred to as the ‘Vicar of Hell’ by both King Henry and Thomas Cromwell for his lack of principles. He had a “reputation for liking rich clothing and for gambling. He was a popular courtier, skilled hunter and ouster, and lost an eye in a joust in 1526” (Ridgway xv). Sir Francis was a very close friend to King Henry VIII and held positions on the Privy Council until eventually he became Lord Chief Justice of Ireland where he died in 1550.

Elizabeth Bryan married Sir Nicholas Carew. The King did not forget his obligation to his loyal servants’ daughter. Accounts record a dowry, “Receipt 7 Nov. 6 Hen. VIII., from Sir John Daunce, by Dame Margaret Bryan, wife of Sir Thomas Bryan, on behalf of Mistress Elizabeth Bryan, their daughter, of 550/. Given ‘to her marriage, which by God’s grace shall be espoused and wedded to Nicholas Carewe, son and heir apparent to Sir Richard Carewe, knight, before the feast of the Purification of Our Blessed Lady the Virgin” (Brewer I 3419). Nicholas Carew was in high favor with the king and on May 3, 1516, a further wedding gift was recorded : “For NICH. CARUE. squire of the Body, son and heir of Sir Ric, and for ELIZ his wife, daughter of Tho. Bryan, vice-chamberlain to Queen Katherine. Writ to the Barons of the Exchequer, to make over lands …to the annual value of 40 mks., in part payment of 50 mrks. as a marriage portion” (Brewer II 1850).

Sir Nicholas Carew by Hans Holbein, 1533

Sir Nicholas Carew, Master of the Horse, was very close to the king. He had “at first been one of Anne’s partisans – they were cousins–but by 1532 she had alienated and angered him not only by her overbearing ways and her abuse of her position, but also by her unjust treatment of his friend, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, and his brother-in-law, Sir Henry Guildford” (Weir Lady in the Tower 33). Carew was executed in 1539 for treasonous actions. Because his assets and property were confiscated, he left his widow and children destitute. Obviously, her mother intervened and wrote from Hunsdon an imploring letter to Thomas Cromwell in 1539: “My lord, I most humbly thank your good lordship for the great goodness you shew upon my poor daughter Carew, which bindeth me to owe you my true heart and faithful service while I live. She sendeth me word that it is the king’s pleasure she shall have lands in Sussex, which is to the value of six score pounds, and somewhat above, which I heartily thank his grace and your lordship for” (Wood 112). It appears that the land did not have a house so Lady Bryan was requesting more suitable property for the widow and “her heirs males” upon which receipt it would “comfort two troubled hearts; for, my lord, unfeignedly you have, and shall have our true prayers and hearty service during our lives.” Lady Bryan wanted to assure Cromwell that she knew that putting her trust in him and the King was the best she could do for her daughter who is “so kind a child to me as she hath been, I cannot for pity do no less” (Wood 113-114).

Tomb of Elizabeth Bryan Carew

Margaret Bryan had been a lady-in-waiting to Catherine of Aragon from the time she married Henry VIII in 1509; she also attended Catherine at her coronation and was later listed as a chamber woman (Brewer I 82). Sir Thomas was a vice chamberlain to the Queen Catherine’s household until his death sometime before 1517. Perhaps her widowhood is the reason for the king’s taking measures to assist this loyal servant. A ledger entry for November 19, 1517, was not very comforting to a servant named Elizabeth Denton, but it certainly was for Margaret Bryan. “Marg. Brian, lady mistress to the King’s daughter, the Princess states: Annuity of 40 marks for services to the Princess, during the life of Eliz. Denton, widow, who has the fee of lady mistress to the Princess, and on whose death Brian is to have her office and fee” (Brewer II 3802).

Well-placed, Lady Margaret became governess to Princess Mary and was rewarded by Henry with her own title when she was made Baroness Bryan suo jure. It is known that she stayed with Mary for almost six years and prior to being relieved of her duties was given a pension. On July 7, 1519, “Margaret Bryan, widow of Sir Thomas Bryan, and now wife of David Soche, annuity of 50/, for services to the King and queen Katharine, and one tun of Gascon wine; yearly, out of the wine received for the King’s use” (Brewer III 361). Still known as Lady Bryan, Margaret had married her final husband David Zouche sometime before July 1519.

Lady Bryan, Margaret Bourchier

David Zouche is all but lost to history. Some believe he died in 1526, others in 1536 shortly after Anne Boleyn was executed. Certainly, someone important to her died in the summer of 1536 as revealed in the beginning sentence of a letter Margaret wrote to Cromwell: “I beseech you to be good lord to me now in the greatest need that ever [was], for it hath pleased God to take from me hem (them) that was my most com[fort] in this world, to my great heaviness, Jesu have mercy on his soul, a[nd] I am succourless and as a redeless creature but for my great trust in the King and your good lordship” (Gairdner XI 203).

Lady Margaret’s exact role is not clear after she left Princess Mary. Some speculate that she looked after Henry Fitzroy, the king’s illegitimate son. She was granted a gift of plate in 1532 even though the Royal household may not have directly employed her at that time (Gairdner V 1711). When she was called upon to care for Elizabeth, Lady Bryan was over the age of 60. Margaret took charge of Elizabeth at her birth and went on to setup her household at Hatfield three months later. On 2 December 1533, “The king’s highness hath appointed that the lady princess Elizabeth (almost three months old) shall be taken from hence towards Hatfield to remain with such household as the king’s highness has established for the same” (Strickland VI 6). At Hatfield and Hunsdon is where the princess “spent much of her childhood although, like her parents, she traveled from house to house, staying in such places as Richmond, Eltham, Langley,and the More” (Warnicke 170).

Hatfield

Much of what we know from the childhoods of Elizabeth and Edward come from the correspondence from Lady Bryan to Thomas Cromwell concerning the households of the children. In a much quoted letter to Thomas Cromwell soon after Anne’s execution, Lady Bryan lays forth the difficulties of the child’s household with her change of status, her lack of clothing and her method of eating, all to be discussed further.

Held in such esteem by King Henry VIII when his treasured male heir was born in October of 1537, Lady Bryan was installed as his governess and Kat Ashley nee Champernowne took charge as Elizabeth’s. As conscientious with the Prince as she was with Elizabeth, Lady Bryan wrote to Cromwell appraising him of her charge. A letter survives from 11 March 1539 in which young Edward is praised and touted; “Pleaseth your lordship to understand that, blessed be Jesu, my lord prince’s grace is in good health and merry, as would to God the king’s grace and your lordship had seen him yesternight; for his grace was marvelous pleasantly disposed. The minstrels played, and his grace danced and played so wantonly that he could not stand still, and was as full of pretty toys as ever I saw a child in my life; as Master Chamberlain and my lady his wife can shew your lordship when they speak with you, whom I assure your lordship giveth as good and diligent attendance as is possible” (Wood 112).

It is unclear if Margaret relinquished her duties prior to Edward’s becoming king. She was not forgotten as there is a mention of an annuity to her in January 1545. A ledger entry reads for “Lady Margaret Bryane, the King’s servant. Annuity of 20/ from the Annunciation of Our Lady last. Greenwich, 16 Jan. 36 Hen. VIII” (Gairdner XX 125). Once Edward succeeded to the throne, Lady Bryan maintained her title, but lived away from court at her estates in Essex, “where she enjoyed a generous annuity of £70 per year” (Wagner 180).

Prince Edward by Hans Holbein, 1538

We do know Lady Bryan died in Leyton, a village in Essex; the year is a bit more elusive. Various sources list her possible years of death as 1551, 1552, and 1554. One source confidently declared that Margaret “died in 1552, shortly before the proving of her will on 21 June” (Wagner 180).

When Anne Boleyn gave birth to Elizabeth in 1533, Margaret transferred her duties to become the governess of the newest royal baby. Margaret held this post until Edward was born in 1537 when she moved to his household and Katherine Ashley took over duties with Princess Elizabeth. Anne did not have much say in her child’s upbringing—that was for Henry and his council. When Lady Bryan thought Elizabeth should be weaned, she contacted Lord Cromwell and then he submitted the request to the Privy Council.

A response from Sir William Paulet, onetime Comptroller of the Royal Household and Lord Chamberlain to Henry VIII, to Thomas Cromwell on 9 October 1535 addressed the issue of Elizabeth’s weaning. “The King having considered the letter to Cromwell from lady Brian and other of the Princess’s officers, has determined that she shall be weaned with all diligence” (Gairdner IX 568). Agnes Strickland gives us some sardonic imagery when she tells us that in order for Elizabeth to be weaned “the preliminaries for this important business were arranged between the officers of her household and the cabinet ministers of her august sire, with as much solemnity as if the fate of empires had been involved in the matter” (Strickland Life of Elizabeth 6).

Sir William Paulet

Having the charge of the royal children meant teaching them etiquette and proper manners—and displaying the children in the majesty expected. “Lady Bryan, who had brought Mary up until she was six, had been accustomed to treat her as the heiress to the throne for seventeen years. She must have been profoundly embarrassed when the girl was sent to share Elizabeth’s household with orders to ride behind the baby’s litter on progress and to cede the seat of honour even when the infant was still in the care of a wet-nurse” (Perry 19). But as a stickler to her duty, it can be assumed she ensured the King’s wishes were fulfilled.

Chapuys, no friend of Elizabeth, shared with Charles V a meeting that took place on the Tuesday following Easter of 1534 between the French Ambassadors, La Pommeraye and Catillion and Elizabeth. This visit was orchestrated to present Elizabeth as a fitting bride for a French prince and full-credit for its success went to Lady Bryan. The Ambassadors “went to visit the King’s bastard daughter, who was brought out to them splendidly accoutred and dressed, and in princely state, with all the ceremonial her governess could think of” (Gayangos V 40).

That Lady Bryan took this portion of her duties seriously was again shown in her letter to Cromwell. It is speculated this letter was written in response to Lord Chancellor Thomas Audeley’s proposed visit to baby Prince Edward in 1537. Lady Bryan wrote:

“My lord,
After my most bounden duty I humbly recommend me unto your good lordship; and shall accomplish it to the best of my power…. The best coat my lord prince’s grace hath is tinsel, and that he shall have on at that time; he hath never a good jewel to set on his cap; howbeit I shall order all things for my lord’s honour the best I can, so as I trust the king’s grace shall be contented withal” (Wood 68-69).

Her affection seemed sincere for her royal charges and her pride in them too. She could not help but brag on Prince Edward, informing Cromwell, “I thank Jesu my lord prince’s grace is in good health and merry, and his grace hath four teeth; three full out, and the fourth appeareth” (Wood 69).

Lord Chancellor, Thomas Audeley

“Much of the future greatness of Elizabeth may reasonably be attributed to the judicious training of her sensible and conscientious governess, combined with the salutary adversity, which deprived her of the pernicious pomp and luxury that had surrounded her cradle while she was treated as heiress of England” (Strickland VI 12). Elizabeth was brought up calmly in the way that Lady Bryan thought best, shielded from the gossip and temptations of the adult world. Lady Bryan no doubt shielded Princess Elizabeth as much as she could from the gossip surrounding her mother and the inevitable slander that began shortly after Anne’s death concerning the paternity of her daughter (Weir, The Lady in the Tower 316-317).

The king’s order for Elizabeth to remain in seclusion could have been his attempt to protect her as much as the theory that it was his unwillingness to face the child. To read further on this topic visit the blog entry “Elizabeth: Her Mother’s Memory” @elizregina.com. This blogger believes that Agnes Strickland judged the Tudor Era with the mores of her own time period when she exclaimed that when “Elizabeth was branded with the stigma of illegitimacy; she was for a time exposed to the sort of neglect and contempt which is too often the lot of children to whom that reproach applies” (Strickland VI 9). Henry VIII did not neglect his recognized illegitimate son, Henry FitzRoy, and perhaps he did not purposefully neglect Elizabeth in the summer of 1536. He was embarking on a new life with his third wife, Jane Seymour, and was traveling the country. We have seen how the final word of the organization of the children’s households rested with Henry. His thoughts were on her to some degree so it could not be his indifference that led to the ‘crisis’ of her wardrobe and her household but perhaps more of benign neglect—administrative oversight. That her position was diminished was obvious. “On 25 June 1536, an order reconstituted the households of Mary and Elizabeth. It was certainly no coincidence, in that age when the number of servants in a household was a great status symbol, that Mary was given fourty-two servants, and Elizabeth thirty-two” (Ridley 26). Below reprinted in chart form is the information from the 10^th volume of Letters and Papers of Henry VIII concerning the structural changes made to the two households.

Personages appointed to attend on the lady Mary:—
Gentlewomen. Anne Morgan, Mrs. Finche, Frances Jerningham, Elizabeth Sydney.
Chamberers: Systile (Cecil ?) Barnes, Lucretia the Tumbler.
Gentlemen Ushers and Waiters: Richard Wilbraham, Robt. Chichester, Sir Ric. Baldwin, Walter Bridges, Thos. Burrows.
Wardrobe of Robes: Thos. Palmer, Nic. Newes.
Footman: Chas. Morley.
Laundress: Deachryche (Beatrice) Ap Rice.
Woodbearer: John Layton.
Keeper of Greyhounds: Christopher Bradley.
The Stable: Thos. Jene, yeoman; Ric. Hogg, Nic. Twydall, and Thos. Crabtree, grooms.

The names of persons attending upon lady Mary and lady Elizabeth:— i. On lady Mary:—
Gentlewomen: Susan Clarencyus, Frances Elmer, Mary Baynton Frances Baynan. “Chamberes:” Knyght, Syssele. Physician: Dr. Mychell. Gentlemen: Ant. Cotton, Wm. Chechester, Ric. Wylbram, Randale Dod, Sym Borton. Chaplain: Bauldewen. Yeoman: Geo. Mounge, David à Pryce, Chr. Wryght, John Conwey, Gray. Grooms of the Chamber: Thos. Borow, Walter Brydges, Thos. Palmer, Nic. Newes. Footman: Chas. Morley. Stable: Thos. Gent, yeoman; Thos. Bell, John Smith, and John Hyges, grooms. Laundress: Beatrice a Pryce. Woodbearer: William. Total, 42.

On lady Elizabeth:—
Ladies and gentlewomen: Lady Troy, Mrs. Chambrum, lady Garet, Eliz. Candysche, Mary Norice. “Chamberes:” Alys Huntercum, Jane Bradbelt. Gentlemen: Thos. Torrell, Robt. Porter, Ric. Sandes.Chaplain: Sir Rauffe. Grooms of the Chamber: Ric. Foster, Wm. Russell. Yeomen: David Morgan, Gabryell Tenant. Laundress: Agnes Hylton. Woodbearer: Christopher. Total, 32.

Personages appointed to attend on the lady Elizabethe, the Kinges doughter.”
Gentlewomen: Kateryne Chambernowne, Elizabethe Garret, Mary Hyll, Blanche ap Harrye.
Chamberers: Alice Huntercombe, Jane Bradbelt.
Gentlemen Ushers and Gentlemen Waiters: Rychard Sandes, Robert Power.
Chaplain: S^r Raffe Taylour.
Gromes of the Chambre: Willm. Man, John Acton.
Wardrobe of Robes: John Goughe, yeoman.
Lawndresse: Anne Hilton.
Woodberer: John Wyllycke

(Gairdner X 1187)

Lady Bryan’s letter to Thomas Cromwell in the summer of 1536, which was referred to earlier and has been recreated in full below, can be seen as a way to restore the prestige of and attention on Elizabeth’s household which was at Hunsdon. Cromwell’s response has not survived but Mistress Bryan’s concerns must have been addressed as there appears to be no further pleas on her part. Her initial issue involved the altered status Elizabeth held. Lady Bryan was searching for guidance when she wrote, “Now, as my lady Elizabeth is put from that degree she was in, and what degree she is at now I know not but by hearsay, I know not how to order her or myself, or her women or grooms” (Gairdner XI 203).

Hunsdon

Next up was the issue of Elizabeth’s wardrobe. It was up to “the lady mistress to make certain Elizabeth looked and acted like a king’s daughter, and proper clothes were essential to the role” (Erickson 37). Margaret was beside herself as she begged Cromwell “to be good lord to her and hers, and that she may have raiment, for she has neither gown nor kirtle nor petticoat, nor linen foresmocks, nor kerchiefs, rails (night dresses), bodystychets (corsets), handkerchiefs, sleeves, mufflers, nor begins (night-caps). All thys her Graces must take I have dreven off as long as I can, that, be my trothe, I cannot drive it no lenger. Besseeching you, my lord, that ye will see that her grace may have that which is needful for her, as my trust is that ye will do” (Gairdner XI 203).

The condition of Elizabeth’s wardrobe “reflected the general penury of the household” (Erickson 38). Money must have been tight as the final concern that Lady Bryan has mixes the role of the steward, John Shelton, with the need for economy. Shelton, who was responsible for keeping up the supplies of food, drink and other items necessary for the household, wrote to Cromwell shortly after Lady Bryan did to complain that he was “running short of money and ‘could not continue’ without more.” This may not have been easy to acquire as the king’s Secretary Brian Tuke “had made it clear only a week earlier that he hoped Mr. Shelton would not be appealing for additional funds, as he had little or nothing to give him” (Erickson 38).

Sir Brian Tuke by Hans Holbein, 1527

Lady Bryan’s tactic was to explain the poor judgment on Shelton’s part– who, she lets us know, “saith he is master of this house. ‘What fashion that shal be I cannot tel, for I have not seen it afore.’” (Gairdner XI 203)–and offer a solution. Apparently, Shelton “would have my lady Elizabeth to dine and sup every day at the board of estate.” Margaret explains that this is not good for a child and “she will see divers meats, fruits, and wine, that it will be hard for me to refrain her from. ‘Ye know, my lord, there is no place of correction there; and she is too young to correct greatly.’ I beg she may have a good mess of meat to her own lodging, with a good dish or two” which would be enough to feed 11 of her personal attendants which in turn would be more economical as less people would have to be fed in the great hall (Gairdner XI 203).

One theory for Mr. Shelton, a relative of Anne Boleyn, actions could be that he “wished to keep regal state as long as possible round the descendant of the Boleyns” and with “perhaps an eye to ingratiate himself with the infant, by indulging her by the gratification of her palate with mischievous dainties” (Strickland VI 11). Or, as this blogger wonders, could it be a way for him and his associates to be served elaborate meals at the King’s expense.

Princess Elizabeth

This letter, which gives us a peek into the politics of the household, ends with Margaret expressing sympathy for Elizabeth’s teething. The governess realizes that witnessing the pain the child is in, “makes me give her her own way more than I would” yet excuses herself by assuring Cromwell that “she is as toward a child and as gentle of conditions as ever I knew any in my life….” Determined in her duties, Lady Bryan wanted to ensure that when the time came for Elizabeth to be “set abroad, I trust so to endeavour me that she shall so do as shall be to the King’s honour and hers…”(Gairdner XI 203).

Letter from Lady Margaret Bryan to Thomas Cromwell, June 1536
I beseech you to be good lord to me now in the greatest need that ever [was], for it hath pleased God to take from me hem (them) that was my most com[fort] in this world, to my great heaviness, Jesu have mercy on his soul, a[nd] I am succourless and as a redeless creature but for my great trust in the King and your good lordship. When your lordship was last here you bade me not mistrust the King or you, which gave me great comfort, and encourages me now to show you my poor mind. When my lady Mary was born the King appointed me lady Mistress, and made me a baroness; ‘And so I have been a governess to the children his Grace have had since.’

Now, as my lady Elizabeth is put from that degree she was in, and what degree she is at now I know not but by hearsay, I know not how to order her or myself, or her women or grooms. I beg you to be good lord to her and hers, and that she may have raiment, for she has neither gown nor kirtle nor petticoat, nor linen foresmocks, nor kerchiefs, rails (night dresses), bodystychets (corsets), handkerchiefs, sleeves, mufflers, nor begins (night-caps). All thys her Graces must take I have dreven off as long as I can, that, be my trothe, I cannot drive it no lenger. Besseeching you, my lord, that ye will see that her grace may have that which is needful for her, as my trust is that ye will do. Beseeching ye, mine own good lord, that I may know from you, by writing, how I shall order myself, and what is the king’s grace’s pleasure and yours; and that I shall do in everything? And whatsomever it shall please the king’s grace or your lordship to command me at all time, I shall fulfil it to the best of my power.

Mr. Shelton saith he is master of this house. ‘What fashion that shal be I cannot tel, for I have not seen it afore.’ I trust to your lordship, who, as every man reports, loveth honour, to see this house honourably ordered,’ howsom ever it hath been aforetime.’ If the head of [the same] know what honor meaneth it will be the better ordered; if not, it will be hard to bring it to pass.

Mr. Shelton would have my lady Elizabeth to dine and sup every day at the board of estate. It is not meet for a child of her age to keep such rule. If she do, I dare not take it upon me to keep her Grace in health; for she will see divers meats, fruits, and wine, that it will be hard for me to refrain her from. ‘Ye know, my lord, there is no place of correction there; and she is too young to correct greatly.’ I know well and she be there, I shall neither bring her up t the king’s grace’s honour, nor hers, nor to her health, nor to my poor honesty.

I beg she may have a good mess of meat to her own lodging, with a good dish or two meet for her to eat of; and the reversion of the mess shall satisfy her women, a gentleman usher, and a groom; ‘which been eleven persons on her side.’ This will also be more economical.

God knoweth my lady hath great pain with her teeth, which come very slowly. This makes me give her her own way more than I would. ‘I trust to God and her teeth were well graft to have her Grace after another fashion than she is yet; so, as I trust, the King’s Grace shall have great comfort in her Grace. For she is as toward a child and as gentle of conditions as ever I knew any in my life, Jesu preserve her Grace. As for a day or two at a hey time or whansomever it shall please the King’s Grace to have her set abroad, I trust so to endeavour me that she shall so do as shall be to the King’s honour and hers; and then after to take her ease again. I think Mr. Shelton will not be content with this. He may not know it is my desire, but that it is the King’s pleasure and yours it should be so.’ From Hunsdon with the evil hand of your daily bede woman.
Apologies for her boldness in writing thus” (Gairdner XI 203).

References

Brewer, J. S. (editor). “Henry VIII: November 1514, 2-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 1: 1509-1514 (1920): 1431-1444. British History Online. Web. 06 July 2013.

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

Brewer, J. S. (editor). “Henry VIII: July 1519, 1-15.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 3: 1519-1523 (1867): 121-136. British History Online. Web. 30 June 2013.

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

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

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

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

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: Miscellaneous, 1536.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 531-537. British History Online. Web. 06 July 2013.

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

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: June 1538, 26-30.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 13 Part 1: January-July 1538 (1892): 464-491. British History Online. Web. 06 July 2013. <

Gairdner, James and R. H. Brodie (editors). “Appendix.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 14 Part 2: August-December 1539 (1895): 359-372. British History Online. Web. 06 July 2013.

Gairdner, James and R. H. Brodie (editors). “Henry VIII: January 1545, 26-31.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 20 Part 1: January-July 1545 (1905): 38-59. British History Online. Web. 30 June 2013.

Gayangos, de Pascual (editor). “Spain: April 1534, 11-20.” Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 5 Part 1: 1534-1535 (1886): 110-124. British History Online. Web. 07 July 2013.

Gristwood, Sarah. Elizabeth & Leicester: Power, Passion, Politics. New York: Viking, 2007. Print.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strickland, Agnes. The Life of Queen Elizabeth. London: J.M. Dent &, 1906. Google Books. Web. 3 June 2013.

Strickland, Agnes, Elisabeth Strickland, and Rosalie Kaufman. The Queens of England, Vol VI. Chicago: Werner, 1895. Internet Archive. Web. 4 May 2013.

Wagner, John and Susan Walters Schmid. Encyclopedia of Tudor England. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Google Books. Web 29 June 2013.

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

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

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

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

Wood, Mary Anne Everett. Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain: From the Commencement of the Twelfth Century to the Close of the Reign of Queen Mary : Edited, Chiefly from the Originals in the State Paper Office, the Tower of London, the British Museum and Other State Archives. Vol. III. London: Henry. Colburn, 1846. Google Books. Web. 5 July 2013.

POST THIS ONE AFTER THE ELIZATH AND HER MOTHER SINCE NEED TO GET THE BLOG ADDRESS TO ADD IN HERE

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

Posted on December 18, 2013 by jodmcp

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

Elizabeth had the common touch, the ability to ‘work a crowd’. Many rulers including, Mary and Philip, did not. It is interesting that all three had classical educations and they used those foundations completely opposite. Mary and Philip’s studies prepared them to be patriarchal, Catholic monarchs: Elizabeth’s studies prepared her to be a humanist Protestant monarch. Philip entered his inheritance viewed as the king and his subjects were literally subject to him. He also did not have to assure anyone that he could rule. Mary and Elizabeth entered their inheritance in a world where Catholic and Protestant interests were in competition after several altering successions and, as women, they were forced to prove themselves as a leader of men.

Elizabeth certainly held an emotional sway over her peoples; she inspired them to her vision of England via her propaganda and her imagery and provided intellectual stimulation by supporting and encouraging the arts. No one can deny that Elizabeth instilled loyalty in her civil servants, something at which her sister was less successful.

The Roots of Mary’s Problems

King Henry VIII’s will and that of his son, Edward VI, were problems for Mary. She could not countenance Elizabeth inheriting her throne. According to Mary, Elizabeth was the daughter of a concubine, from an unlawful union. Yet, Henry’s will and his Act of Successions stipulated Elizabeth as a successor while Edward’s will eliminated both of his half-sisters. Mary was in a difficult position as she had declared Edward’s will ineffectual based on her father’s legal provisions; obviously, this was convenient for her at the time of her accession to solidify her position. Her brother had declared that because of acts of parliament stating their illegitimacy “the said lady Marye as also the said ladie Elizabeth to all intents and purposes are and be clearly disabled to aske, claime, or challenge the said imperiall crowne… as also for that the said lady Mary and lady Elizabeth be unto us but of the halfe bloud, and therfore by the auntyent lawes, statutes, and customes of this realme be not inheritable unto us, although they were legitimate, as they be not indeed” (Nichols The Chronicle of Queen Jane 92-93).

Oath of Allegiance as part of The Act of Succession of 1534

If Mary were to ignore her brother’s will using the right and statutes of her father acts, she then was bound to Henry’s last will and testament. Below is a contemporary’s summary of the will of Henry VIII (this was written by ‘A Resident in the Tower of London’ and edited by John Gough Nichols).

“In conformity with the enactment of his 35th year,
king Henry the Eighth made a will, and by that will
the crown was to devolve, 1. on his son Edward and
the heirs of his body 2. on his own heirs by queen
Katharine (Parr) or any other future wife; 3. on his
daughter Mary; 4. on his daughter Elizabeth;
5. on the heirs of the body of his niece the lady Frances;
6. on those of her sister the lady Eleanor; 7. to the
next rightful heirs. In the event of either the lady Mary
or the lady Elizabeth marrying without the consent of the
privy council, they were respectively to be passed over
as if dead without lawful issue” (Nichols Chronicle of Queen Jane 85-86).

Last Will and Testament of Henry VIII

To honor these provisions, there is urgency for Mary to gain the permission of the Privy Council for her marriage contract to Philip of Spain. She knew it was not popular and there was a fear of his taking over England and not respecting its customs. This was even seen as an argument by her brother’s heightening the fear that if either Mary or Elizabeth married a foreign prince “the same stranger, havinge the governemente and the imperiall crowne in his hands, would rather adhere and practice to have the lawes and customes of his or their owne native countrey or countreyes to be practised or put in ure within this our realme” rather than English laws and customs which would lead to the utter subversion of the comon-welth of this our realme, which God defend” (Nichols Chronicle of Queen Jane 93).

A union between Mary and Philip was not universally accepted and she expended some effort to convince her subjects all would be well. In a speech to Parliament she setdown assurances. “I am already married to the Common Weal and the faithful members of the same; the spousal ring whereof I have on my finger: which never hitherto was, nor hereafter shall be, left off. Protesting unto you nothing to be more acceptable to my heart, nor more answerable to my will, than your advancement in wealth and welfare, with the furtherance of God’s glory” (Loades Chronicle of Tudor Queens 36). It took some convincing people to see the marriage “presented as not only for the comfort and benefit of this entire realm, but universally of the entire Christendom” (Hunt 152).

Mary Acknowledges Succession—Elizabeth Becomes Queen

Another main purpose of the union between Mary and Philip was to provide a Catholic heir to succeed in England. Of course, this was not to transpire. Although Mary had not formally acknowledged Elizabeth as her heir until the autumn of 1559, Elizabeth had been laying the groundwork for her succession throughout that summer. Mary had to be aware of what was happening as Paulo Tiepolo, Venetian Ambassador to King Philip’s Court reported that Elizabeth “may be said never to have been at liberty, for although she is allowed to live at a house of hers called Hatfield, 12 miles from London, the Queen has nevertheless many spies and guards in the neighbourhood who keep strict watch on all persons passing to and fro, nor is any thing said or done that is not immediately reported to the Queen, so she is obliged to act very cautiously” (Brown VI May 1557 884).

The children of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I, in a copy of the 1545-1550 original. Property of the Duke of Buccleuch, Boughton House.

Regardless of what was perhaps being reported, Elizabeth began to employ talented political and military men of the Court, who willingly flocked to her side. Men were already in place with Elizabeth by the time Mary sent “a message to her half-sister, acknowledging Elizabeth’s right” (Loades Mary Tudor 196). Mary sent her Comptroller Sir Thomas Cornwallis and her Secretary John Boxall on behalf of the Council to visit Elizabeth with the news that she could succeed if she fulfilled two requests: “one, that she will maintain the old religion as the Queen has restored it; and the other that she will pay the Queen’s debts” (Tyler XIII November 1558 498). According to the Memoirs of Jane Dormer, Mary’s trusted companion who married Count de Feria and returned with him to Spain, Elizabeth, when implored by Mary’s Councilmen to maintain the orthodox religion, declared vehemently “that she prayed God that the earth might open and swallow her alive, if she were not a true Roman Catholic” (Queen Elizabeth I 244).

Jane’s memoirs imply that Elizabeth was at Court when Mary died and owed her succession to Mary’s appointment. As far as we know, Elizabeth did not respond by letter to the visit by the Council’s representatives nor did the two sisters meet. Elizabeth was at Hatfield. In contrast to the passionate declarations from Jane Dormer, the ever-popular story that has been relayed down through history is that Elizabeth was seated under an oak tree in the grounds of Hatfield when she learned she was Queen. Elizabeth quoted a psalm in Latin: A Dominium factum est illud, et est mirabile in oculis notris – “It is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes” immediately upon hearing the news. Shortly thereafter, Articles of Parliament proclaimed her Queen to the rejoicing of the people of England. Mary had done what was necessary: she had ensured a peaceful transfer of power.

Wallace MacCaffrey, in his book Elizabeth I, noted the manner in which, and the extent to which, Elizabeth was able to illicit strong emotions in her supporters and identification with her people. Common purposes with her people were religious stability and economic security. “She had imposed her will on her people as effectively as her father ever did. He had ruled by fear; she had won her people’s loving devotion, and achieved a degree of personal popularity unequalled by her predecessors or successors” (MacCaffrey 445).

Philip—As a Person not a Politician

Through the diplomatic dispatches, the paper portrait of Philip is of a rather cold, calculating politician with only one focus and that is the promotion of his dynasty and its interests. Yet, there is a person hidden within who was a caring father and master.

A series of letters he wrote to his daughters in Spain when he was in Portugal, reveals Philip’s more human side. For instance it is revealed how when an old beloved servant Magdalena teased him for travelling on horseback like a child instead of in a carriage he replied “I feel so lonely in the carriage without you both and the days are so beautiful that it would be a shame to miss them” (Ravencroft 28). Is this the man who stated upon the death of his wife, “I felt a reasonable regret for her death”?

Isabella, eldest daughter of Philip II and loyal servant Magdalena Ruiz by Alonso Coello.

His letters covered many topics: fashion, he compared the styles in Portugal to those “worn in Madrid”; teething, he commented that his youngest child’s first teeth “must be in place of the two that I am about to lose”; and, pride, he warned his daughters who were angling to be praised for being taller than their cousin not to “be conceited about this as I believe it is because she is very short rather than you being tall” (Ravencroft 26). Moreover, a poetic Philip expressed that the servant Magdalena “has a great desire for strawberries and I of nightingales, although they can sometimes be heard from one of my windows” (Ravencroft 27).

These fatherly comments are a window through which we can see the man who one could believe was truly “not only popular and universally beloved, but even longed for…by good men and by all who know the good effect produced by his presence” (Brown VI May 1557 884). Count Michiel, the Venetian Ambassador to England, explained how Philip gained this devotion from those men in positions of power close to him.

By respecting the authority of the Queen and Cardinal Pole, Philip “won the whole Court, especially the chief nobility, by so much the more as he has made no alteration whatever in the style and form of government, nor has he departed a hair’s breadth from the marriage contract” (Brown VI May 1557 884). He was reported to have “behaved in line with English customs….” In addition, by altering some of the ceremonies subtly there was no need for the English to “fear that their queen would be dominated by her Habsburg husband….” Even after Mary’s death, “it was still stated that he had managed to convince the English that they did not need to fear foreign domination” (Hunt 151).

Count Michiel described the difficulty that would arise from Philip staying in England mainly that “the customs there and the mode of governing differing so much from what he has been used to” (Brown VI May 1557 884). Michiel speculated that having subjects from such diverse nations from Burgundians to Italians, makes them all “indifferently his subjects” but the English “do not brook being treated as their companions” (Brown VI May 1557 884). If the King were to remedy the situation, it would “turn the English constitution topsyturvy and perhaps revolutionize the kingdom completely.”

Another positive action, or lack of action, taken by Philip was that he did not replace officials nor force his countrymen into government positions and “he rendered himself yet more popular, not only by purposely dispensing with many pecuniary advantages and prerogatives, to which he had a personal right, but also because during his stay in England, …he showed that he had not come from ambition to be King, he having so many crowns, he always paid his own expenses” (Brown VI May 1557 884). Beyond these righteous moves, the Ambassador stressed that Philip was not in England to act as sole sovereign. King Philip acted more “as mediator and intercessor with the Queen (towards whom he shows deference in everything), rather than from any wish to be considered either master or lord-paramount” (Brown VI May 1557 884).

Philip—Widower, Friend, Enemy

Upon Mary’s death and Elizabeth’s ascension, Philip’s policy toward England did not take much of a change. As seen in the previous blog postings in the series, “Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd,” https://elizregina.com/ Philip proposed marriage to Elizabeth and when that bid was not successful, he promoted his nephew. She exclaimed that even though they could not marry they could continue their friendship. In later years Elizabeth knew she could count on Philip “exerting his powerful influence in her favour at Rome” (Neale 56) and even as late as 1577 diplomats wrote to Philip that “the Queen did not forget the favour he had showed her in her sister’s time” (Allan 1236). Unfortunately, friendship could not be maintained as the international scene shifted. Spain’s treaty with France, the power of the Hapsburg empire, England’s assistance to the Low Countries, the position of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the treatment of Protestants in Catholic countries (the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre) are just samples of the churning diplomatic world which culminated in the Spanish Armada.

Giovanni Gritti, Venetian Ambassador in Rome, quoted Pope Sixtus V in a dispatch to the Doge and Senate on 19 March, 1588. The Pope stated that he had heard from Spain that the Armada was ready. He exclaimed that the English were ready, also giving credit to Queen Elizabeth: “She certainly is a great Queen, and were she only a Catholic she would be our dearly beloved. Just look how well she governs; she is only a woman, only mistress of half an island, and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the empire, by all” (Brown VIII 641).

Pope Sixtus V

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

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

Posted on November 11, 2013 by jodmcp

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

Already in December of 1558 Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, Count de Feria was plotting how to approach Elizabeth on marrying King Philip. He knew that she was convinced that a foreigner was too divisive for the realm. Added to this he had to persuade her not to marry an Englishman by pointing out that she would not want to “hold herself less than her sister, who would never marry a subject” (Hume Simancas: December 1558 4). His strategy included telling her it would look bad for her to marry a subject where there are so many worthy princes. “After that we can take those whom she might marry here and pick them to pieces one by one, which will not require much rhetoric, for there is not a man amongst them worth anything” (Hume Simancas: December 1558 4). The Count would stress the need for an alliance with Spain against the French threat and add the argument of maintaining the Catholic faith to secure her throne. Okay, he had the strategy, now to implement it.

Philip’s Decision to Propose Marriage

Philip’s instructions to his ever-faithful ambassador, de Feria, on 10 January 1559 were to propose marriage to Elizabeth Regina when de Feria could obtain a private audience with Elizabeth. The ever-cautious king did stipulate that Count Feria was not to propose any conditions until he ascertained “how the Queen is disposed towards the matter itself” (Hume Simancas January 1559 8). Philip did struggle with his conscience and “many great difficulties” but he “decided to place on one side all other considerations which might be urged against it” and was “resolved to render this service to God, and offer to marry the queen of England” (Hume Simancas January 1559 8). He wrote to his Ambassador in England that he believed as a faithful Catholic he had “to sacrifice my private inclination” and if “it was not to serve God, believe me, I would not have got into this… Nothing would make me do this except the clear knowledge that it would gain the kingdom [of England] for his service and faith” (Somerset 107).

The difficulties Philip envisioned with the marriage included his obligation to be in his other dominions and therefore could not be in England; Elizabeth’s lack of sincere commitment to the Catholic faith; the French perceived threat to their interests; and, Spain’s exhausted treasury. Despite these and “many other difficulties no less grave,” Philip admits that he “cannot lose sight of the enormous importance of such a match to Christianity and the preservation of religion” (Hume Simancas January 1559 8). Philip did not think he could, in all conscience, risk the loss of England, and put neighboring countries in danger, to the Protestant faith.

I
Philip II by Anthonis Mor Van Dashorst, 1549-1555

Philip figured that as Elizabeth would have to be Catholic to marry him, it would “be evident and manifest” that he was “serving the Lord in marrying her and that she has been converted by his act” (Hume Simancas January 1559 8). Not so astonishingly, Philip wanted to portray himself with having the upper hand, being seen as the benefactor of as many things as possible and to once again force a sense of obligation on Elizabeth.

Count de Feria, so loyal to his country and king, could not contemplate that Elizabeth would not readily marry Philip. Imagine his surprise when she thanked him for the compliments but requested time to think it over—which she did for several months.

Perhaps de Feria would have done well to have remembered Elizabeth’s comments in November 1558 when she referred to the loss of the peoples’ affections that her sister Mary experienced upon marriage to a foreigner. This topic was discussed more thoroughly in the blog entry, “Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part IV” at http://www.elizregina.com.

Elizabeth told de Feria that she would lay the question before her Privy Council and Parliament. The Ambassador certainly had an ear to the ground. He heard the rumblings that Elizabeth’s First Parliament was going to push forward the issue of her marriage (this topic has been discussed in the blog entry “Heir Unapparent” at https://elizregina.com/2013/04/02/heir-unapparent/). He advised his king on 31 January 1559 “to wait for Parliament to press the Queen to marry” which she did not want to have happen. If she did declare her choice while Parliament was sitting, “if the person chosen is not to their liking they could use the national voice to stop the affair” (Hume Simancas January 1559 13).

Elizabeth assured Count de Feria that if she were to marry anyone it would be Philip. Of course, the councilors were against it, just as she probably suspected they would be. Elizabeth understood the diplomatic responses she had to make. She was holding out on giving a true answer as she waited for the international scene to unfold and she did not think it was politic to turn Philip down outright, as she needed Spain and his good will.

One objection Elizabeth raised to the marriage was the consanguinity of her relationship with Philip. As the widow of her sister, she walked the fine line as her father had married his brother’s widow. Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon based on the violation of the Book of Leviticus. A dispensation from the Pope would tactically admit her illegitimacy by saying that she and Philip could marry; there could be no way to apply the objection of consanguinity to Henry and Catherine’s marriage because if they were legally married, Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn would have been bigamous.

Elizabeth Regina, Coronation Portrait

By the time of his letter to his King on February 12^th, de Feria was clued to Elizabeth’s responses and her delays. He reported that at his audience with her the day before she “began to answer me by keeping to her old argument for not wishing to marry” but when he “cut short the reply” and pressed for an answer his exasperation could be felt. “I soon understood what the answer would be, namely, that she did not think of marrying, and so to shelve the business with fair words” (Hume Simancas February 1559 14). So ended this conversation, yet, the Count’s optimism could not be curtailed. He believed that even though he “would have no answer that was not a very good one” he “left the matter open” (Hume Simancas February 1559 14).

By February 12, Paulo Tiepolo, Venetian Ambassador to King Philip’s Court was conceding that “the discussion about the Queen’s marriage to this King has in great measure ceased, and it seems that the whole of this negotiation will depend on the resolve of Parliament about religion” (Brown Venice February 1559 21).

Some flippancy could not be held back from a London writer in correspondence with Paulo Tiepolo. Tiepolo related that the Londoner revealed that “Parliament also sent a deputation to pray the Queen that she will be pleased to marry within the Realm” and although no particular candidate was mentioned “her Majesty, after having first made some verbal resistance to the first point, as becoming a maiden, replied that to oblige them she would marry; adding with regard to the second point, that she had well seen how many inconveniences her sister was subjected to, from having married a foreigner. Obviously, knowing Elizabeth fairly well, the correspondent continued “some persons are of the opinion that she will marry to please herself (as it seems to me that I also should do the like), and perhaps a person of not much lineage. Amongst those most frequently mentioned is a gentleman who is now in Flanders, and who is said to be ill there. Guess who he is!” (Brown Venice February 1559 19). Robert Dudley never was out of peoples’ thoughts as Elizabeth’s possible consort.

Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester

One thing that discomposed the Ambassador was the suspicion he had over the integrity of his correspondence with Spain. He wrote to his fellow ministers in a debriefing at the end of February 1559 that sometimes it seemed as if Elizabeth could read his thoughts. He speculated that Elizabeth was “so well informed about this that it looks as if she had seen His Majesty’s letters. This should be taken good note of” (Hume Simancas February 1559 17).

The Rejection

On 19 March, de Feria shared with Philip that during his audience with Elizabeth she told him “she could not marry your Majesty as she was a heretic. I was much surprised to hear her use such words and begged her to tell me the cause of so great a change since I last discussed the subject with her, but she did not enlighten me” (Hume Simancas March 1559 18).

By this time the international situation had shifted as she was in sounder diplomatic standing with France and she could not keep up the pretext that she would be a Catholic. She and Parliament were pressing forward with religious changes as de Feria wrote to Philip on March 18^th that she was “resolved about what was yesterday passed in Parliament, and which Cecil and Chamberlain Knollys and their followers have managed to bring about for their own ends” (Hume Simancas March 1559 18).

Feria was quite astounded by her response which he could only contribute to those heretics who “leave no stone unturned to compass their ends that no doubt they have persuaded her that your Majesty wishes to marry her for religious objects alone, and so she kept repeating to me that she was heretical and consequently could not marry your Majesty” (Hume Simancas March 1559 18). Fearful of losing the objective Feria told his King that he assured her that he “did not consider she was heretical and could not believe that she would sanction the things which were being discussed in Parliament, because if she changed the religion she would be ruined” (Hume Simancas March 1559 18).

Now we see the blend of religious policy, marriage policy and foreign policy. In Spanish eyes to balance all three was virtually impossible. Those Spanish eyes were not viewing Elizabeth Regina in all her determined glory. Elizabeth was determined to return her country to the Church of Henry VIII if not Edward VI; she was determined not to marry; and she was equally determined to pacify French and Spanish demands. Paulo Tiepolo wrote from Brussels on 19 March 1559 to the Doge that the Bishop of Aquila told him that Elizabeth risked “alienating herself entirely from the Catholic religion” but he also “bestowed on her as much praise for talent and ability as was ever given to any other woman” (Brown Venice March 1559 44). High praise indeed.

Lorenzo Priuli, Doge of Venice

Philip wrote to his Ambassador, Count de Feria, on 23 March after the negotiations for marriage to Elizabeth had failed expressing lukewarm regret. “By your letters and by the bishop of Aquila I am informed of the Queen’s decision about the marriage, and, although I cannot help being sorry that the affair has not been arranged, as I greatly desired and the public weal demanded, yet as the Queen thinks it was not necessary and that with good friendship we shall attain the same object, I am content that it should be so” (Hume Simancas March 1559 19).

Elizabeth was to rely on Philip’s “friendship implicitly so that no opportunity shall be presented for the French to be appealed to in case of necessity.…” The Hapsburg interests emerged in the direct mission for de Feria: “The main end and aim that you must have in view in all things is to obstruct and impede, by every way, form and means, any rupture between the Catholics and heretics in England, this being the best course for the pacification of the country, and for the welfare of our interests, as it will deprive the French of any excuse for putting their foot in the country, which is the thing principally to be avoided” (Hume Simancas March 1559 20). Quite an assignment.

As always Philip needed to cover all his bases. Worried that “the Queen might perhaps think I was offended at her rejection of the marriage,” he wrote a separate letter to de Feria that was to be presented to Elizabeth. For a man who approached the proposal feeling “like a condemned man awaiting his fate” (Somerset 107), he wanted to maintain the idea of friendship between them. The letter Feria was commissioned to give to Elizabeth stressed to her that Philip was “quite satisfied with what pleases her.” Feria was given a bit of leeway by his boss to give the necessary “complimentary words and offers of service…in accord with the contents of the letter” and Spanish interests (Hume Simancas March 1559 20).

It is good to see Philip acknowledge the diligence of his hard-working Ambassador by including in the letter praise for “the prudence, moderation and zeal” Count de Feria had shown in all his dealings with the Queen. The King thanked his servant but could not help but send a not-so-subtle message that he expected Feria “to continue the same care, diligence and good will in the guidance of affairs touching my interests” (Hume Simancas March 1559 20).

The King wanted his ambassador to ensure the Queen understood that he would always be ready to assist her and cooperate with her government. Philip did want to assure her that he would “preserve the good friendship and brotherhood that I have hitherto maintained.” Elizabeth was also to be advised that Philip would “render her any service in the matter of her marriage …with all the goodwill …ever shown in matters that concern her” (Hume Simancas March 1559 19).

Elizabeth took the chance to tease de Feria on his master’s inconstancy saying that if Philip would not change religions for “all the kingdoms of the earth” then “much less would he do it for a woman.” Feria’s romantically diplomatic answer was that “men did more for a woman than for anything else” (Hume Simancas March 1559 18). According to his report, Elizabeth shifted the line of the interview by discussing the large sums of money taken out of the country every year for the Pope and that she knew it must be ended.

Interestingly, Feria revealed a maneuver on the part of Sir Francis Knollys. He said that about a half hour after they were talking, Knollys came to announce supper was ready. Feria clearly thought this was “arranged by those who are working this wickedness, for there is nothing that annoys them more than that I should speak to her.” He took his leave and informed Philip that he told her “that she was not the Queen Elizabeth that I knew and that I was very dissatisfied with what I had heard, and if she did what she said she would be ruined” (Hume Simancas March 1559 18). Pretty courageous fellow.

Sir Francis Knollys

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

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.”

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

Posted on September 16, 2013 by jodmcp

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

To understand the relationship between Elizabeth Regina and Philip II, a study must be made of the events of their association and the outcomes. These include two attempts to place Elizabeth on the throne during Mary’s reign; the role Philip played in how Elizabeth was treated in the aftermath of each rebellion; and Mary’s view of her sister’s place in the succession.

Wyatt Rebellion, 1554
Sir Thomas Wyatt was the leader of a rebellion instigated in early 1554 by Mary’s proposed marriage to Philip of Spain. Once she became queen, Mary repealed the act which declared her parents’ marriage invalid and herself illegitimate. She was, as queen, a highly eligible match even though she was 37, certainly middle-aged in that era. She assured Charles V she would be guided by him in her selection of husband, and low and behold his son, Philip, a widower at 26, was the most eligible prince in Catholic Europe. Mary was determined to marry him.

Sir Thomas Wyatt

The Wyatt Rebellion caused her to take decisive action. She went to the Guildhall and gave a speech to the populace assuring them that she married Philip only with the consent of her councilors and that she was firstly married to her kingdom.

Wyatt did enter London; Mary sent her troops after him. She did not flee and, while she was praying for her country’s safety, Wyatt was captured. The rebel said he took action being “persuaded, that by the marriage of the Prince of Spain, the second person of this realm, and next heir to the crown, should have been in danger; and I, being a free-born man, should, with my country, have been brought into bondage and servitude of aliens and strangers” (Strype 132). Rebellion was saving England from the Catholic scourge by ‘the second person of this realm.’ Thus, Elizabeth was implicated although Wyatt never named her during his interrogations or on the scaffold. Elizabeth was sent to the Tower for two months where she was held prisoner, questioned and intimidated.

Mary I Princess Elizabeth

Simon Renard, Ambassador to Spain, wrote to his sovereign, Charles V, 22 March 1554 that there was disagreement in the Council when “it was proposed to throw the Lady Elizabeth into the Tower, the Council expressed a wish to know exactly the reason, and the upshot was that the heretics combined against the Chancellor, and stuck to it that the law of England would not allow of such a measure because there was not sufficient evidence against her, that her rank must be considered and that she might perfectly well be confined elsewhere than in the Tower.” Renard relayed that no one would “accept the responsibility of taking custody of her.” Because of the councilors shying away from taking charge of Elizabeth, they “decided to conduct her to the Tower last Saturday, by river and not through the streets; but it did not happen that day, because when the tide was rising Elizabeth prayed to be allowed to speak to the Queen, saying the order could not have been given with her knowledge, but merely proceeded from the Chancellor’s hatred of her. If she could not speak to the Queen, she begged to be allowed to write to her. This was granted, and while she was writing the tide rose so high that it was no longer possible to pass under London bridge, and they had to wait till the morrow” (Tyler XII March).

Simon Renard A Youthful Charles V

Elizabeth had achieved her purposes: she had postponed her imprisonment in the Tower and had written to her sister. This letter of March 16, 1554, one of Elizabeth’s most famous, was a marvel how she handled her sister and logically argued her innocence while writing under distressing circumstances.

Elizabeth beseeched Mary to remember her agreement to Elizabeth’s request “That I be not condemned without answer and due proof.” Elizabeth wanted her sister to know that “I am by your Council from you commanded to go unto the Tower, a place more wonted for a false traitor than a true subject.” Although she bravely declared that she will go and be proved innocent, she pledged to her sister “I protest afore God that I never practiced, counseled, nor consented to anything that might be prejudicial to your person any way or dangerous to the state by any mean.” Elizabeth appealed for an opportunity to meet with the Queen to tell her in person of her innocence and asked her sister to pardon her boldness, excusing her actions “which innocency procures me to do, together with the hope of your natural kindness.…” The evidence of a letter written by Wyatt is addressed by logically stating “he might peradventure write me a letter, but on my faith I never received any from him.” Elizabeth completed the letter by making diagonal lines across the bottom so that nothing could be inserted and signed herself “Your highness’ most faithful subject that hath been from the beginning and will be to my end, Elizabeth” (Marcus 41-42).

The letter Elizabeth wrote to Mary in March of 1554

Her collaboration in the rebellion was never proven. Renard suggests that Gardiner “held documentary evidence of her [Elizabeth’s] active interest in the plot, but that he destroyed this because it also involved young Courtenay” (Queen Elizabeth 110). Not having direct proof of her sister’s guilt, Mary was reluctant to condemn Elizabeth and so released her to house arrest. John Foxe informed “The xix daye of Maye, the Ladye Elizabeth, Sister to the Queene, was brought oute of the Tower, and committed to the kepyng of Syr Henry Benifielde… shewed himself more harde and strayte unto her, then eyther cause was geven of her parte, or reason of his owne parte.” Foxe showed the surprise not in Bedingfield’s bad treatment but in the benevolence shown by Elizabeth once she came to the throne. Praising her for not taking revenge as other monarchs “oftentimes requited lesse offences with losse of life,” Foxe explained that Elizabeth did not deprive Bedingfield of his liberty “save only that he was restrained for not comming to the court” (Foxe V 1072).

Stephen Gardiner John Foxe

When she was released from Woodstock, it was to come to Court to witness the birth of Mary’s heir. Sources differ on when Mary’s pregnancy was officially announced with some historians, such as Jasper Ridley, claiming it was in the spring of 1555 while we have an official document from January. The Doge Francesco Venier of Venice did send his Ambassador Giovanni Michiel instructions 5 January 1555 to congratulate the King and Queen on the “certainty now obtained of the Queen giving an heir to the realm” (Brown VI January 5). Further exclamations were extended for this “auspicious and desired event” concluding this was a “great gift conferred on the whole of Christendom” (Brown VI January 6).

Francesco Venier, Doge of Venice

Regardless of when it was officially announced, the impending event did affect Elizabeth. On 29 April 1555, Michiel reported to the Doge, “that day or on the morrow Elizabeth Tudor was to arrive at Hampton Court from Woodstock.” Then on the 6th of May he informed the Venetian officials that when Elizabeth “appeared she was neither met nor received by anyone, but was placed in the apartment lately inhabited by the Duke of Alva, where she lives in retirement, not having been seen by any one, save once or twice by their Majesties, by private stairs” (Brown VIPreface 16).

Elizabeth was housed with a “certain Sir Thomas Pope, a rich and grave gentleman, of good name, both for conduct and religion; the Queen having appointed him Miladi’s governor. I am told …they also assigned her a widow gentlewoman, as governess, in lieu of her own who is a prisoner, she herself likewise may be also said to be in ward and custody, though in such decorous and honourable form as becoming” (Brown VI June 514). No ifs, ands or buts about it, Elizabeth was still under house arrest. Elizabeth’s release is credited to Philip’s influence on Mary. Philip realized without an heir born of Mary, Elizabeth would be the successor. To preserve Hapsburg interests, Philip realized Elizabeth had to be married to a Catholic prince: the intended bridegroom was Emmanuel Philibert, Prince of Piedmont and titular Duke of Savoy.

Philip had plans for Elizabeth. Antoine de Noailles wrote to the Queen-Dowager of Scotland in September 1555 informing her of Elizabeth’s popularity and the fact that “his Grace, the said Lord King, has shown a friendly disposition for her, and he has written several letters to the Queen, his wife, commending the Princess to her care” (Queen Elizabeth I 200).

Dudley Conspiracy, Late 1555 -1556

Another rebellion against the reign of Queen Mary began in December 1555. In a letter to Sir William Petre, Secretary of State, dated January 21, 1556, Nicholas Wotton, Dean of Canterbury and English Ambassador to France, wrote of information he had gleaned from an informant. There was a “plot against the Queen which he said was devised by some of the best in England, and so many were agreed thereupon that it was impossible but that it must take effect; that the matter had been in hand about a year ago.” The conspirators’ intentions were not to kill her Majesty “but to deprive her of her estate…” Wotton “did not think it necessary to write thereof to her Majesty lest she might suddenly be troubled with it, and conceive some greater fear of it than were good for her to do.” Petre was to inform the Queen when “it shall not disquiet her Majesty” (Turnbull 285-286). Mary was disquieted though and fearful for her life.

Sir William Petre Nicholas Wotton, Dean of Canterbury

Called the Dudley Conspiracy for the main instigator, Sir Henry Dudley (a distant relative to John Dudley, the executed Duke of Northumberland and Robert Dudley, the future favorite of Elizabeth), its purpose became clearer as the investigation continued. Mary and Philip were to be deposed and replaced by Elizabeth with her consort being Edward Courtenay.

Imprisoned during the time of Henry VIII, Courtenay spent 15 years in confinement. Released upon Mary’s ascension to the throne, he was created 1^st Earl of Devon and sent on several diplomatic missions. His hopes of marriage to Mary fell flat when she espoused Philip. Courtenay then turned his attention to Elizabeth obviously seeing marriage as his way to the throne. After serving more time in the Tower for the Wyatt Rebellion, the Earl of Devon was exiled to Europe until his death in September of 1556. He found acceptance in Venice where he became the focal point for further conspiracies such as the Dudley Rebellion.

Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon

Several prominent supporters of the rebellion were Lord Thomas Howard, Sir Peter Killigrew, Henry Peckham and several members of the Throckmorton clan. One cannot underestimate the organization of Dudley and his fellow conspirators. They raised money, attempted to gain powerful allies such as the King of France and landed gentry, approached Courtenay and saturated England with anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish writings. It was subversive writings such as these that were found in the London residence of Kat Ashley, governess to Princess Elizabeth.

Giovanni Michiel, Ambassador to England for Venice kept the Doge and the Venetian Senate informed of what was occurring. Michiel reported on 2 June, “The number of persons imprisoned increases daily… Mistress [Katharine] Ashley was taken thither [to the Tower], she being the chief governess of Miladi Elizabeth, the arrest, together with that of three other domestics, having taken place in the country, 18 [Venetian] miles hence, even in the aforesaid Miladi’s own house [Hatfield], and where she at present resides, which has caused great general vexation. I am told that they have all already confessed to having known about the conspiracy; so not having revealed it, were there nothing else against them, they may probably not quit the Tower alive, this alone subjecting them to capital punishment. This governess was also found in possession of those writings and scandalous books against the religion and against the King and Queen which were scattered about some months ago, and published all over the kingdom” (Brown VIJune 505).

Kat Ashley

People close to Elizabeth knew about the plot — that has been well established. How involved was Elizabeth? The only written link between her and the rebels occurred in February 1556 when Anne, Duke de Montmorency, Constable of France wrote to the French Ambassador, Antoine de Noailles that “above all restrain Madame Elizabeth from stirring at all in the affair of which you have written to me, for that would be to ruin everything” (Queen Elizabeth I 203). Can this letter be seen as proof of Elizabeth’s willing cooperation with the Dudley plot? Although it is damaging, it is not conclusive. This could be a misinterpretation of information gathered by the Constable or wishful thinking.

Anne, Duke de Montmorency, Constable of France

Noailles and King Henri II were implicated in the Dudley plot. Because the international diplomatic scene had changed with the Vaucelles truce, Henri did not want to antagonize Charles and Philip so he “advised the conspirators to defer the execution of their plans” which they ignored (Acton 544). The success of the plot depended on too many people and too many variables (this blog will not relay the details there are many sources available including contemporary diplomatic dispatches in the Calendar of State Papers-Venice Volume VI). A conspirator, Thomas White, on staff at the Royal Exchequer was to ensure the robbery of funds to finance the conspiracy (Whitelock Mary Tudor 303). Ambassador Michiel wondered if White came forward “either from hope of reward, or to exculpate himself… revealed the plot to Cardinal Pole” (Brown VI March 5 434). White was rewarded as shown in the Originalia Roll (the fine roll sent to the Exchequer) for Mary and Philip because “of good and faithful service by our beloved servant, Thomas White, gentleman, in the late conspiracy against us, our crown and dignity attempted not long since by Henry Dudley and his accomplices” (Thoroton Society 52). A known conspirator rewarded: what of Elizabeth?

King Henri II of France

Convinced that Elizabeth was aware of the plot, Mary sent her trusted courtier, Francesco Piamontese, to Brussels to consult with Philip on how to handle the situation. Venetian Ambassador Michiel went further to explain that this issue was very sensitive because of Kat Ashley’s involvement “by reason of her grade with the “Signora,” who is held in universal esteem and consideration” (Brown VI June 505). So not only is a trusted servant of Elizabeth’s in possession of seditious materials, it appears to be universally acknowledged that Elizabeth is very popular. Would it be wise to move against her too aggressively? A tricky situation for Mary.

In June Michiel wrote to his superiors in Venice, “Finally, at the very hour when persons were departing, her chamberlain and the courier Francesco Piamontese returned” from Brussels to the Queen’s relief. “As for many months the Queen has passed from one sorrow to another” (Brown VI June 525).

So what was to become of Elizabeth? What guidance had Philip given his wife concerning the suspicions of her sister? What Mary received was pro-Hapsburgian advice. Despite Michiel’s predicitons, none of Elizabeth’s household members were executed nor was she punished. Although there was strong evidence that those around her were involved in treasonous activities (Kat Ashley being in posession of the seditious materials was enough cause for punishment beyond time in the Tower) and questions concerning what Elizabeth knew, any action against her would threaten her succession. “There is little doubt that it was the King’s influence which prevented Elizabeth herself from being again arrested on this occasion and sent to the Tower with the four other members of her household. It is difficult otherwise to account for Mary’s leniency” (Queen Elizabeth I 209).

Tower of London

Hapsburg interests demanded that Elizabeth be heir to the throne of England over Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary had the surest position of inheritance after Elizabeth and as the fiancé of the dauphin of France, could unite Scottish, French and English dominions and interests which would threaten the power of Spain. Hapsburg interests prevailed. “Piamontese returned to London with an unequivocal message from the king: no further inquiries should be made into Elizabeth’s guilt, nor any suggestion made that her servants had been implicated in the plot with her authority” (Whitlock 307). Philip was more than willing to be lenient with Elizabeth. By 1556 few people believed that Mary would produce an heir and looked toward Elizabeth to be the next queen. It probably was wise on the part of the councilors not to antagonize Elizabeth. She was considered the preferred heir, and her smooth succession could halt potential civil conflict or French interference to place Mary Stuart on the throne—both good enough reasons to leave well-enough alone.

So, astoundingly, Elizabeth remained free. Protestations of ignorance about her household’s activities were enough. Mary probably did not believe her but allowed the stories that Elizabeth’s name had been used without authority to be circulated. This blogger cannot help but feel for the position in which Mary was placed. Her motto, ‘Truth, Daughter of Time,’ seemed to be jeopardized as she did her husband’s bidding; although, with most of Mary’s submissiveness it was up to a point.

According to Michiel, in June of 1556 Mary sent two of her gentlemen, Sir Henry Hastings, and Sir H. Francis Englefield, to Elizabeth with a “message of good will…with a ring worth 400 ducats, and also to give her minute account of the cause of their arrest, to aquaint her with what they had hitherto deposed and confesssed, and to persaude her not to take amiss the removal from about her persons of similar folds, who subjected her to the danger of some evil suspicion; assuring her of the Queen’s good will and disposiiton, provided she continue to live becomingly, to Her Majesty’s liking. Using in short loving and gracious expressions, to show her that she is neither neglected nor hated, but loved and esteemed by Her Majesty. This message is considered most gracious by the whole kindom, everybody in general wishing her all ease and honour, and very greatly regretting any trouble she may incure; the proceeding having been not only necessary but profitable, to warn her of the licentious life led, especially in matters of religion, by her household” (Queen Elizabeth I 210).

Henry Hastings

Ambassador Michiel let on that Elizabeth’s household would be made up of persons the Queen believed to better serve her. It is assumed Mary thought her sister guilty and urged Elizabeth “to keep so much the more to her duty, and together with her attendants behave the more cautiously” (Queen Elizabeth I 210).

Mary feigned that she believed Elizabeth had been in danger of “being thus clandestinely exposed to the manifest risk of infamy and ruin.” So, the solution was for the Queen to remodel Elizabeth’s household “in another form, and with a different sort of persons to those now in her service, replacing them by such as are entirely dependent on her Majesty; so that as her own proceedings and those of all such persons as enter or quit her abode will be most narrowly scanned” (Brown VIJune 505).

Assigned to Elizabeth’s household was “Sir Thomas Pope, a rich and grave gentleman, of good name, both for conduct and religion; the Queen having appointed him Miladi’s governor, and she having accepted him willingly, although he himself did his utmost to decline such a charge. I am told that besides this person, they also assigned her a widow gentlewoman, as governess, in lieu of her own who is a prisoner, so that at present having none but the Queen’s dependents about her person, she herself likewise may be also said to be in ward and custody, though in such decorous and honourable form as becoming” (Brown VI June 514).

Sir Thomas Pope

Pope was commissioned by Mary’s Council in July of 1556 to keep Elizabeth informed of the activities confessed by the Dudley conspirators “how little these men stick, by falsehood, and untruth, to compass their purpose; not letting, for that intent, to abuse the name of her Grace, or any others” (Queen Elizabeth I 213).

Elizabeth did write to the Queen in careful phraseology about the information she had received from Pope. “Of this I assure your majesty, though it be my part above the rest to bewail such things though my name had not been in them, yet it vexeth me too much …as to put me in any part of his [the devil] mischievous instigations. And like as I have been your faithful subject from the beginning of your reign, so shall no wicked persons cause me to change to the end of my life. And thus I commit your majesty to God’s tuition, whom I beseech long time to preserve … from Hatfield this present Sunday, the second day of August. Your majesty’s obedient subject and humble sister, Elizabeth” (Marcus 43-44).

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.

elizregina

Elizabeth I Regina

Tag Archives: Privy Council

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part IV

Lady Bryan: An Iron Hand in a Velvet Glove

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

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

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

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

Friend, Cousin, Brother? Part I

Said it, Believed it, Lived it

Reigned With Your Loves