Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part VIII-A

Posted on May 17, 2015 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part VIII—A

Although Elizabeth was still at Greenwich at the time of her mother’s execution, she was soon moved to Hunsdon. Please refer to the blog entries at elizregina.com entitled “Elizabeth: Her Mother’s Memory” https://elizregina.com/2014/01/20/elizabeth-regina-her-mothers-memory/ and “Lady Bryan: An Iron Hand in a Velvet Glove” https://elizregina.com/2014/01/07/lady-bryan-an-iron-hand-in-a-velvet-glove/ for further information about Elizabeth’s childhood at the time of her mother’s arrest and execution.

hunsdon
Hunsdon

It was while at Hunsdon that Sir John Shelton wrote to Master Secretary Thomas Cromwell, on Wednesday 16 August 1536, assuring him he would follow the King’s orders which stripped Elizabeth of the title Princess and kept her in her chamber. Explanations for this included a story that Queen Jane Seymour slandered Anne and said to the King, “Your Majesty knows how bad Queen Anne was, and it is not fit that her daughter should be the Princess” (Hume 72-73).

Many historians believe that Elizabeth was confined to her rooms after her mother’s disgrace because Henry could not bear any mention of her as a reminder of her mother. Others consider that Henry secluded Elizabeth for her own protection against the rumors and stories swirling around Court, a view seemingly supported by French Ambassador Guillaume du Bellay. Du Bellay commented that at a banquet celebrating the marriage of Henry and Jane Seymour, although “Madame Ysabeau is not at that table, the King is very affectionate to her. It is said he loves her much” (Gairdner XI 860).

Bellayguillaume
Guillaume du Bellay

Therefore, under the instructions of her father, Lady Margaret Bryan, Elizabeth’s governess, protected her as much as possible. While Henry was eradicating all trace of Anne by altering, removing or destroying emblems, heraldry, portraits, etc., the Court was avoiding any mention of Anne Boleyn. After her execution Anne’s existence was basically erased. We do not know when or how Elizabeth learned of her mother’s end, therefore, speculation is useless. We do know that after Elizabeth became queen, several chroniclers such as John Foxe were able to tell Anne’s story “at least as he and many of her contemporaries had grasped it at the time” (Zahl 18).

When Elizabeth gained the throne and did not immediately defend her mother’s memory, to many onlookers it seemed strange “that during her long and glorious reign, none wrote in vindication of her mother, which officious courtiers are apt to do often, without any good grounds; so that silence was made an argument of her guilt, and that she could not be defended. But perhaps that was an effect of the wisdom of the ministers of that time, who would not suffer so nice a point, upon which the Queen’s legitimation depended, to be brought into dispute” (Burnet 115-116).

The conclusion that Elizabeth did not defend Anne as proof of her mother’s guilt ignores the work of John Foxe, George Wyatt and others; although, it is conceded that Elizabeth Regina did stress her paternity. Elizabeth, unlike her sister Mary, never passed legislation to restore her parents’ marriage. Why should she? Henry VIII’s will had placed her in line to the succession as did the Acts of Succession, the latest in 1543; she had gained the throne uncontested in 1558; and, as a political survivor, she realized there was no need to bring to the fore the controversy of her mother’s execution. Elizabeth’s usual maneuverings were to watch and wait—and this was no exception. A pro-active stance trying to prove Anne’s innocence was unnecessary and could prove politically harmful.

Oath of Succession

Alexander Aless, a Scottish theologian and diplomat recalled that Anne’s innocence was demonstrated not only by her character but also by no greater “evident proof than this, that whereas she left you, her only child, your father always acknowledged you as legitimate” and nothing could “persuade the illustrious King that you were not his daughter” (Stevenson 1303:46). John Foxe wrote that Henry VIII in his Last Will and Testament did by name, “accept, and by plain ratification did allow, the succession of his marriage to stand good and lawful” (Foxe V 232).

Opposite of the views of Anne’s proponents were those of her detractors such as Nicholas Sander. He deduced that Elizabeth “under the pressure of the fear … that because she was the issue of a marriage condemned by the Church and the sovereign Pontiff, a doubt might be raised touching her birth and her title to the throne” (Sander 241). Sir Thomas Tresham of Rushton described Anne as “the ruin of many pious, worthy and famous men who favoured not that unlawful marriage” (Zahl 13).

Perhaps because of a sliver of doubt in her mind, in 1572 Elizabeth had Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, track down the papal bull of dispensation from 1528 that had sanctioned her parents’ marriage. Queen Elizabeth wanted to have the document on file in case she needed to prove her legitimacy, beyond any doubt. Although this document would not be needed in England, it is assumed by this blogger that Elizabeth Regina wanted to have it for her own marriage negotiations within Catholic Europe.

Heading of the Papal Bull concerning the dissolution of Henry VIII marriage to Katherine of Aragon.

Henry’s marital status with Anne (the dispensation and later divorce) was one of the troubles he bequeathed Elizabeth. The “sole advantage to Henry was that his infidelities to Anne ceased to be breaches of the seventh commandment. The justice of her sentence to death is also open to doubt. Anne herself went to the block boldly proclaiming her innocence” (Pollard 345). Although Anne did not directly address the accusations against her on the scaffold, she did take communion prior to her death and did not confess guilt. To die without confession would have been unheard of for a practicing Christian of that time period. William Kingston Constable of the Tower of London bore witness and reported on the day of Anne’s execution, ‘thys morning she sent for me that I myght be with hyr at soche tyme as she reysayved the gud lord to the in tent I shuld here hyr speke as towchyng her innosensy always to be clere” (Cavendish 229)

Not defending her innocence was seen as troubling to contemporaries whereas modern eyes would admire her. Anne’s “faint way of speaking concerning her innocence at last was judged too high a compliment to the King in a dying woman, and shewed more regard to her daughter than to her own honour” (Burnet An Abridgement 115). She “was, it seems, prevailed on, out of regard to her daughter, to make no reflections on the hard measure she met with, nor to say any thing touching the grounds on which sentence passed against her” (Burnet An Abridgement 114).

As witnessed in a letter to Queen Elizabeth concerning her mother, Alexander Aless stated that the “Queen exhibited such constancy, patience, and faith towards God that all the spectators, even her enemies…testified and proclaimed her innocence and chastity” (Stevenson 1303:27).

Elizabeth Regina and Queen Anne Boleyn

Anne’s reputation, written by contemporaries or near contemporaries, was a study of contrast. Was she a pious, Protestant heroine or lecherous woman “following daily her frail and carnal lust”(Gairdner X 876). Defending her in the immediate aftermath of her death was not a politically astute thing to do with her guilt having been ‘proven’ and, yet, defending her during her daughter’s reign invited accusations of sycophantic behavior.

Could there be a middle ground? Apparently not, even when a Catholic appeared to take Anne’s side, it was viewed with suspicion. Andre Thevet, a French Franciscan, wrote Universal Cosmography in which he stated he had on good authority from multiple sources “that King Henry at his death, among his other sins, repented in particular of the wrong he had done the queen, in destroying her by a false accusation” (Burnet 268). Considering the monasteries, including the Franciscan Order, had suffered at the hands of Henry VIII and inadvertently Anne Boleyn, the influence of this statement is strengthened. What cause would Thevet have to defend Anne despite her pro-French inclinations?

Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer must have believed Anne innocent of the deeds and her acquired reputation yet as a pragmatist he realized that when dealing with Henry he had to tread cautiously. The postscript of a letter written to Henry at the time of Anne’s arrest covered both angles “I am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved by the Queen, as I heard of their relation. But I am, and ever shall be, your faithful subject” (Burnet 262). Cranmer wanted to preserve the Reformation which in its infancy could not be too closely associated with a blighted leader.

With Anne credited for encouraging the Reformation movement in England, her supporters kept her memory alive. John Foxe referred to her as Godly, “for sundry respects, whatsoever the cause was, or quarrel objected against her. Certain this was, that for the rare and singular gifts of her mind, so well instructed, and given toward God, with such a fervent desire unto the truth and setting forth of sincere religion, joined with like gentleness, modesty, and pity toward all men, there have not many such queens before her borne the crown of England. Principally this one commendation she left behind her, that during her life, the religion of Christ most happily flourished, and had a right prosperous course. Again, what a zealous defender she was of Christ’s gospel all the world doth know…” (Foxe II 407).

Bishop John Aylmer, at one time a tutor to Lady Jane Grey, questioned that by banishing Rome from England, was there no “greater feat wrought by any man than this was by a woman?” Alymer was thankful that God had “given Queen Anne favour in the sight of the king” and although he praised many people who were instrumental in promoting the Reformation he felt that “wherefore, that many deserved much praise for helping forward of it, yet the crop and root was the queen, which God had endued with wisdom that she could, and given her the mind that she would, do it” (Cassell 176).

John Aylmer

Raphael Holinshed praised Anne posthumously in 1577. “Now because I might rather saie much than suffcientlie inough in praise of this noble queene, as well for hir singular wit and other excellent qualities of mind, as also for hir favouring of learned men, zeale of religion, and liberalitie in distributing almes in reliefe of the poore” (Holinshed 797).

Even Secretary Cromwell admitted to Spanish Ambassador Eustace Chapuys that Anne had courage and intelligence–“Et sur ce me loucha grandement le sens expert et cueur de la dicte concubine et de son frère” (Friedmann 297).

Anne was defended periodically as records of the following years show accounts against persons who maintained that Henry had put her to death unjustly. An example would be proceedings against John Hill of Eysham. On 26 June 1536 it was reported that Hill claimed that Henry had caused Mr. Norris, Mr. Weston, “and the other Queen to be put to death” for “a frawde and a gille” (Gairdner X 1205).

In France poems were written in her honour, and in Germany the Protestants expressed strong disapproval of the king’s act” (Friedmann II 300). An anecdote about Christina of Denmark, the Duchess of Milan written by George Constantyne, an Evangelical-eyewitness to many of the events of 1536, to Thomas Cromwell revealed the international view towards Henry. Suspicious that “the kynges majestie was in so little space rydde of the Quenes, that she dare not trust his cownceill, though she durst trust his majestie” although she “suspecteth that her great Aunte was poysoned; that the second was innocentlye put to deeth; And the thred lost for lacke of kepinge in her child bed” (Constantyne 61).

Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan

For References please see Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – C

Posted on December 26, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – C

Why did Parliament suddenly declare a marriage unlawful which it had previously declared lawful? Not only is it a mystery to us over half a millennium later, it was baffling to contemporaries. “What an astonishment and wonder was it for us at home to see it, and for all the world beside to hear, that after all this importunate suit to get her to his wife, the King caused her by parliament to be condemned as a foul detestable adulteress” (Harpsfield 254). Even later commentators expressed it was “natural to sympathize with a person cruelly persecuted, unlawfully condemned, and murderously sacrificed to the lust of bloody vengeance, not to the majesty of the law… that it is as difficult positively to pronounce the judgment virtually unjust, as it is easy to declare it actually illegal” (Herbert, Henry 324). So, while many enemies condemned Anne and willingly believed all of the charges against her, there were many who believed in her goodness.

Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury, drew on sources including George Cavendish when he praised Anne for her respectable lineage and the education her parents provided. Her accomplishments in singing, dancing and playing musical instruments were particularly stressed. Herbert of Cherbury, no fan of Anne’s, declared “Briefly, it seems the most attractive perfections were eminent in her” (Herbert, Edward 285). Astoundingly, these very talents were vilified by the Marian Archdeacon of Canterbury, Nicholas Harpsfield, and will be discussed later. Even her nemesis Thomas Cromwell spoke to the Spanish Ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, of Anne’s good qualities: he praised her “sense, wit and courage” (Gairdner X 1069).

Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury, from 1609-1610

John Foxe, author of Actes and Monuments, (commonly referred to as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs), wrote rather fulsomely of Anne yet, the specific information and circumstances portrayed are accurate. Foxe declared that “many things might be written more of the manifold virtues, and the quiet moderation of her mild nature” how she required her chaplains to point out to her any part of her character or behavior “whatsoever they saw in her amiss.” Continuing in this thread, Foxe expressed “how bountiful she was to the poor; …insomuch that the alms which she gave in three quarters of a year, in distribution, is summed to the number of fourteen or fifteen thousand pounds” and she always had “a stock there to be employed to the behalf of poor artificers and occupiers” (Foxe V 232-233). He praised her as “a zealous defender of Christ’s gospel …as her acts do and will declare to the world’s end” (Foxe V 233). Confident in her goodness, Foxe knew that more would “be declared of her virtuous life (the Lord so permitting) by others” (Foxe V 234). One such fan was the Scottish theologian, Alexander Alesius (also called Aless or Alesse).

John Foxe

Alesius, who was in London the day Anne was executed, expressed his grief along with Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. According to Alesius, when Cranmer learned of Anne’s death, he “raised his eyes to heaven and said, ‘She who has been the Queen of England upon earth will to-day become a Queen in heaven.’ So great was his grief that he could say nothing more, and then he burst into tears” (Stevenson 1303-22). Alesius reported himself so overcome with grief he could not venture out and about in town for several days.

Even some men, willing to believe the worst of Anne, conceded how hers was a “pitiful case” and that one has a “duty to lean to the side of innocence, where guilt is not manifestly proven, and to look with suspicious eyes on persecution where the object of the persecutor is notorious” (Herbert, Henry 325). These sentiments led to several writers, such as Alesius who told Elizabeth Regina in 1559 he believed it his duty to “write the history, or tragedy, of the death of your most holy mother, in order to illustrate the glory of God and to afford consolation to the godly” (Stevenson 1303-8). With similar thoughts, John Foxe praised “the rare and singular gifts of her mind” which brought forth Anne’s “desire unto the truth and setting forth of sincere religion, joined with gentleness, modesty and pity toward all men, there have not many such queens before her borne the crown of England” (Foxe).

Anne Boleyn

Alesius clearly believed that Anne was framed for her pursuit of “the purer doctrine of the Gospel.” He believed this because with her “modesty, prudence, and gravity, as her desire to promote the pure doctrine of the Gospel” and her kindness to the poor, only the “enemies of the Gospel, whose intention it was, along with her, to bury true religion in England” could perpetuate such charges (Stevenson 1303-15). The Scot stressed to Elizabeth, “Thus much have I introduced about the tragedy of your most pious mother, in order that this illustrious instance might manifest the glory of God, and that the craft and power of man in vain oppose themselves to Him” (Stevenson 1303). John Foxe could not help but gloat that Anne’s legacy was that “the religion of Christ most happily flourished, and had a right prosperous course” (Foxe).

Cranmer also praised Anne for her religious practices in a letter he wrote to Henry at the time of her arrest. By professing he “loved her not a little, because of the love which she seemed to bear to God, and his Gospel; but if she was guilty, all that loved the Gospel must hate her, as having given the greatest slander possible to the Gospel” (Burnet 111). The Archbishop did have a sense of loyalty to Anne as she had been one of his greatest champions, yet, he also was pragmatic. Once it became clear that the King would not back away from the charges put against Anne (he had his eye on Jane Seymour), Cranmer acquiesced in all that was required of him.

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury

There were “tears and lamentations of the faithful who were lamenting over the snare laid for the Queen, and the boastful triumphing of the foes of the true doctrine” (Stevenson 1319). John Foxe also believed in Anne’s role in Protestantism exclaiming “the end of that godly lady and queen. Godly I call her, for sundry respects, whatsoever the cause was, or quarrel objected against her…. Again, what a zealous defender she was of Christ’s gospel all the world doth know, and her acts do and will declare to the world’s end” (Foxe).

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

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-F

Posted on September 25, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-F

Is Adultery Adultery If You Are Not Married?
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer visited Anne on May 16^th. Constable of the Tower Kingston reported to Cromwell “the King told me that my lord of Canterbury should be her confessor, and he was here today with her” (Gairdner X 890). Others believed that Cranmer was not there to offer spiritual comfort but to offer a deal to Anne. Proof of an offer could be in something Anne said that Kingston relayed to the Secretary. He told Cromwell, “Thys daye at dynar the Quene sayd that she should go to anonre (a nunnery) and ys in hope of lyf” (Bell 103). If Anne believed she was going to a nunnery, Cranmer must have assured her that if she agreed to an impediment to her marriage her life would be spared. As events proved, she may have been offered life, but what she received was the more merciful death by sword instead of burning.

Letter from Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower of London to Thomas Cromwell, May 16, 1536.

Henry, not satisfied with the vengeance of executing Anne, decided to annul his marriage to her and declare Elizabeth illegitimate. Similar to his sudden recollection after 20 years of marriage to Katherine of Aragon of the impediment of her being his brother’s widow and thus against the teachings of Leviticus, Henry recalled a previous attachment of Anne’s to the Earl of Northumberland, then Lord Henry Percy. Northumberland was brought in for questioning. He took an oath before two archbishops, that no contract or promise of marriage had existed between him and Anne. He “received the sacrament upon it, before the duke of Norfolk and another of the privy council; and this solemn act he accompanied with the most solemn protestations of veracity” (Hume III 227).

So why does Anne confess to a pre-contract? Did she and Lord Percy promise to marry each other, per verba de futuro, which “the poor queen was either so ignorant, or so ill advised, as to be persuaded afterwards it was one; though it is certain that nothing but a contract, per verba de praesenti could be of any force to annul the subsequent marriage” (Burnet 263-264). Did she offer a “confession, into which she was frighted, or for some other reasons, tho’ not found upon record” (Smeeton 49). Did she accept “some hopes of life that were given her, or at least she was wrought on by the assurances of mitigating that cruel part of her judgment of being burnt, into the milder part of the sentence, of having her head cut off” (Burnet 265). Or had her imminent death “deprived her of all manner of mans, as well as all manner of desire to dispute the point” (Smeeton 49).

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland.

Archbishop Cranmer, in possession of the articles objecting to the validity of the marriage ,called for the King and Queen to “appear in his Ecclesiastical Court at Lambeth to show cause why a sentence of divorce should not be passed. Dr. Sampson appeared for the King, and Drs. Weston and Barbour for the Queen, by the King’s appointment” (Wriothesley 40). The day after Cranmer met Anne, “sentence was pronounced by the archbishop of Canterbury of the nullity of the marriage between the King and Anne Boleyn, in the presence of Sir Thos. Audeley, chancellor, Charles duke of Suffolk, John earl of Oxford, and others, at Lambeth, 17 May 1536” (Gairdner X 896). Thus we learn, “at a solomne court kept at Lambeth by the Lord Archbishoppe of Canterburie and the doctors of the lawe, the King was divorsed from his wife Queene Anne, and there at the same cowrte was a privie contract approved that she had made to the Earle of Northumberlande afore the Kings tyme; and so she was discharged, and was never lawfull Queene of England, and there it was approved the same” (Wriothesley 41). Most historians cite Anne’s admission to a pre-contract with Lord Percy as the grounds for the nullification of the marriage. (Which makes this blogger wonder why the Northumberland marriage was not dissolved as it would have been invalid also.) Others such as Pollard and Friedmann support Ambassador Chapuys claim that the marriage was “invalid on account of the King having had connection with her sister [Mary Boleyn]” (Gairdner X 909).

Mary Boleyn

Regardless of which reason was the catalyst to the divorce, many historians offer a sympathetic bend to Cranmer and the nullification proclamation he had to produce. Hume referred to him as “the afflicted primate” (Hume III 227). Smeeton proclaimed Cranmer “could not avoid giving sentence” (Smeeton 49). As mentioned previously, Cranmer was a practical man and knew his survival depended on providing what Henry VIII wished, yet he was not alone in indulging the King. “These particulars are repeated in the act that passed in the next parliament, touching the succession to the crown…” (Burnet 265). Henry’s children with Katherine and Anne were declared illegitimate and he was granted the right to “designate his heir by letters patent or by his will. This enactment furnishes a striking proof of the King’s absolute power” (Butler 408). The process in the “Ecclesiastical Court was submitted, after Anne’s death, to the members of the Convocation and the two Houses of Parliament; and the Church, Commons, and Lords, ratified it” (Wriothesley 41). So “the meeting of Parliament (June 9, 1536), was found to be wholly subservient to the wishes of the King” (Butler 408-409). Therefore, divorce from Anne Boleyn was not the only outcome Henry had aimed for; he had to have her dead. Anne discredited and dead would enable any successive marriages and offspring to be without taint. “He would have his bed free from all such pretensions, the better to draw on the following marriage” (Smeeton 48). The new Parliament met and passed the act proclaiming the divorce between Henry and Anne and declared all previous issue as illegitimate. “Moreover the act confirmed Anne Bullen’s sentence as being grounded upon very just causes and settled the crown after the king’s death upon the issue of queen Jane, or of any other queen whom he might afterwards marry” (Thoyras 424). Henry certainly covered all the angles while maintaining an escape clause as well.

Signature of Anne the Queen.

Knowing Anne could be flirtatious, indiscrete and open in her interactions with others, Henry accepted her guilt. He ignored the rationale that he could “trust her innocence and had reason to be assured of it, since she had resisted his addresses near five years, till he legitimated them by marriage” (Burnet 319). This man, who was previously so passionate toward his wife, not only cruelly executed her but besmirched her reputation and stained the childhood of his daughter with the question of her legitimacy. Rumors advanced to such a degree that Ambassador Chapuys wrote to Cardinal Granville “that the Concubine’s daughter was the bastard of Mr. Norris, and not the King’s daughter” (Gairdner X 909). A Portuguese dispatch proclaimed that after Anne’s execution “the Council declared that the Queen’s daughter was the child of her brother and that she should be removed from her place” (Gairdner X 1107).

Queen Elizabeth and her visual likeness to her mother, Anne Boleyn.

As mentioned in a previous blog, there were numerous political, religious and social reasons for Henry’s move against Anne. There were also personal ones. Henry was determined to marry Jane Seymour. A divorced Anne would still be the Marchioness of Pembroke—wealthy with powerful allies. Anne faced the reality. Recognizing her death was imminent, she would have agreed to conditions Archbishop Cranmer presented to her. Recognizing her daughter’s safety depended on her actions, she gratefully grasped the more merciful death by sword. Recognizing Henry’s malice, she ignored the obvious issue: If she were not legally married to Henry because of a pre-contract or affinity then there was no treason based on adultery.

For References, please refer to Path to St. Peter ad Vincular Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-C

Posted on July 27, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-C

When is a Friend Not a Friend?

Some people at Court were not opposed to Anne and many owed their positions to her patronage, but the vast majority of them were pliant (or worldly) enough to realize doing the King’s bidding would be the most expedient. Therefore, Anne’s friends did little to help her and even less to support her good name. Most were content to let the events unfold while distancing themselves from anyone closely associated with her. A story circulated that reached the ears of the Imperial Ambassador Eustace Chapuys, who relished in relaying it to his king, Charles V. Evidently, on being consulted whether Anne and Henry were truly married, the Bishop of London, John Stokesley, replied he would “not give any opinion to anyone but the King himself.” And “before doing so he would like to know the King’s own inclination” (Gairdner X 752). It is easy to interpret this to mean that Stokesley would not put himself in danger knowing the king’s volatility.

One young man, Roland Buckley, a lawyer at Grey’s Inn, seemingly wholly unconnected with Anne, wrote to his brother Richard, Chamberlain of North Wales, on May 2^nd when he heard the news of Anne’s arrest. He quickly dispatched the following letter into the hands of a trusted servant, Geoffrey Griffith.
“Sir ye shall untherstande that the queene is in the towere, the ierles of Wyltshyre her father my lorde Rocheforde her brother, maister norres on of the king previe chamber, on maister Markes on of the kings preyve chamber, wyth divers others soundry ladys. The causse of there committing there is of certen hie treson comytyde conscernyng there prynce, that is to saye that maister norres shuld have a doe wyth the queyne and Marke and the other acsesari to the sayme. The arre lyke to suffyre, all ther morre is the pitte” (Gairdner X 785).
‘Yff it plesyde good otherwise I praye you macke you redy in all the haste that can be and come downe to youre prynce for you your seffte may do more than xx men in your absence, therefore mayke haste for ye may be ther or onny a worde be of theyr deth, when it is ones knowe that the shall dede all wilbe to latte therefore mayke haste” (Friedmann 258).

Geoffrey was apprehended near Shrewsbury on his way to Wales. The letter was found and caused concern among the local dignitaries. Buckley seemed to be enticing his brother to take some type of action—not specifically stated but obviously feeling Richard could hold the persuasive power of 20 men over Henry. Roland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, along with three other prominent citizens, wrote to Secretary Cromwell requesting guidance or more specifically “the King’s pleasure” in dealing with the situation (Gairdner X 820). Frustratingly, this blogger has not been able to uncover what actions were taken against the three principals involved.

Buildings from the Tudor era in Shrewsbury.

Understandably, the arrests led to a great deal of talk and several letters survive written from diplomats, churchmen and merchants. Reports varied in accuracy (from the outlandish, such as Anne’s mother had been arrested to pinpoint correctness in naming which prisoners would be allowed to escape) and tone (from gleeful fascination to straightforward disinterest).

Sir John Duddeley wrote to Lady Lisle on some issue of patronage and concluded that he was sure “there is no need to write the news, for all the world knows them by this time. Today Mr. Norres, Mr. Weston, William a Brearton, Markes, and lord Rocheforde were indicted, and on Friday they will be arraigned at Westminster. The Queen herself will be condemned by Parliament. Wednesday, 10 May” (Gairdner X 837).

A footnote in Friedmann’s text relayed from the letter of Eustace Chapuys to the Emperor Charles V that the commitment of Anne and her brother to the Tower along with others “is of certen hie treson comytyde conscernyng there prynce, that is to saye that maister norres shuld have a doc with the queyn and Marke and the other acesari to the sayme” (Friedmann 256).

Sir Edward Baynton wrote to Treasurer FitzWilliam (it is assumed this is William FitzWilliam, 1^st Earl of Southampton when he was Treasurer of the Household), with concern over the lack of confessions from the prisoners. He then cryptically comments that “I have mused much at [the conduct] of Mrs. Margery, who hath used her[self] strangely toward me of late, being her friend as I have been. There has been great friendship of late between the Queen and her. I hear further that the Queen standeth stiffly in her opinion, that she wi[ll not be convicted], which I think is in the trust that she [hath in the o]ther two” (Gairdner X 799). An interesting mix of gossip and worry for himself—letting an official know that he has been associating with someone close to the Queen but in a benign capacity.

Sir William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton, by Hans Holbein

The Mayor of Sandwich wrote to Henry VIII concerning the Queen’s emissary, Sir Reverend William Latymer, who had been to Flanders on business for the Queen. Evidently, Latymer had purchased several books in her name. Some “of the books he had with him, and of others in his mail, which had not yet arrived, but which were to be conveyed to London to one Mrs. Wilkinson” (Gairdner X 827). Luckily for all involved, Thomas Boys, “one of the King’s servants”, was present who would “convey Latymer himself to the King” and directly testify about the books and Latymer’s role.

Catholic hopes ran as high as the gossip swirled. Cardinal Rudolfo Pio da Carpi, Bishop of Faenza, optimistically wrote to Prothonotary Monsignor Ambrogio Ricalcato, Chief Secretary to Pope Paul III, “News came yesterday from England that the King had caused to be arrested the Queen, her father, mother, brother, and an organist with whom she had been too intimate. If it be as is reported, and as the cardinal Du Bellay has given him to understand, it is a great judgment of God” (Gairdner X 838).

Cardinal Rudolfo Pio, Bishop of Faenza by Francesco de’ Rossi and in the
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria

John Husee, Lord Lisle’s London business agent, kept his boss informed of the happenings in London. On May 12^th he shared, “Today Mr. Norrys, Weston, Bryerton, and Markes have been arraigned, and are judged to be drawn, hanged, and quartered. They shall die tomorrow or Monday. Anne the queen, and her brother, shall be arraigned in the Tower, some think tomorrow, but on Monday at furthest, and that they will suffer there immediately ‘for divers considerations, which are not yet known.’ Mr. Payge and Mr. W[y]at are in the Tower, but it is thought without danger of life, though Mr. Payge is banished the King’s court for ever” (Gairdner X 855).

The next day Husee succumbed to the confusion of reports by declaring that there “are so many tales I cannot tell what to write. This day, some say, young Weston shall escape, and some that none shall die but the Queen and her brother; others, that Wyat and Mr. Payge are as like to suffer as the others. The saying now is that those who shall suffer shall die when the Queen and her brother go to execution; but I think they shall all suffer. If any escape, it will be young Weston, for whom importunate suit is made” (Gairdner X 865).

Later John Husee’s opening remarks in a letter to Lady Lisle exclaimed over the world’s previously collective writings that vilified women were “nothing in comparison of that which hath been done and committed by Anne the Queen; which, though I presume be not althing as it is now rumoured, yet that which hath been by her confessed, and other offenders with her by her own alluring, procurement, and instigation, is so abominable and detestable that I am ashamed that any good woman should give ear thereunto. I pray God give her grace to repent while she now liveth. I think not the contrary but she and all they shall suffer” (Gairdner X 866).

John Husee heraldry

A Portuguese merchant in London wrote to a contemporary back home, “The Council then declared that the Queen’s daughter was the child of her brother; and that as the child of a private person, the child be forthwith removed from that place; and that the King should again receive that Princess who was the daughter of the former and the true Queen, as his own and real daughter, and as being his successor in the kingdom” (Urban 56).

With the current situation so unpredictable, Anne’s friends and allies had to distance themselves from her and dared not interfere. It appeared as if “all the Court was now turned against her, and she had no friend about the King but Cranmer and therefore her enemies procured an order for him not to come to Court” (Burnet 111).

Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer’s Letter to Henry VIII

Aware of what he owed to her favor, Cranmer made an attempt to show his gratitude to the Queen by writing a letter to Henry VIII on May 3, 1536, expressing his favorable impressions of Anne “as far as was consistent with prudence and charity” (Burnet 260). Cranmer knew the king’s temperament and an out and out defense of Anne would place the Archbishop of Canterbury in jeopardy.

Cranmer began by informing Henry that he had relocated to Lambeth to await the king’s pleasure and with the wish to bring comfort. Cranmer consoled the king that with Henry’s “great wisdom, and by the assistance of God’s help, somewhat to suppress the deep sorrows of your grace’s heart, and to take all adversities of God’s hands both patiently and thankfully” (Burnet 260).

The Archbishop acknowledged the grievances Henry faced “whether the things that commonly be spoken of be true or not” (Burnet 261). The king was likened to Job and Cranmer stressed that by accepting adversities as well as glory he was showing his obedience to God. After flattering Henry, Cranmer then goes on to cushion his remarks which were favorable to Anne. Yes, here is a man nervous of his own position and even, life yet conscientious enough to know he is obliged to Anne to utter some words of support.

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury

“And if it be true, that is openly reported of the queen’s grace, if men had a right estimation of things, they should not esteem any part of your grace’s honour to be touched thereby, but her honour only to be clearly disparaged. And I am in such a perplexity, that my mind is clean amazed: for I never had better opinion in woman, than I had in her; which maketh me to think, that she should not be culpable. And again, I think your highness would not have gone so far, except she had surely been culpable.

‘Now I think that your grace best knoweth, that, next unto your grace, I was most bound unto her of all creatures living. Wherefore, I most humbly beseech your grace, to suffer me in that, which both God’s law, nature, and also her kindness bindeth me unto; that is, that I may, with your grace’s favor, wish and pray for her that she may declare herself inculpable and innocent. And if she be found culpable, considering your grace’s goodness towards her, and from what condition your grace of your only mere goodness took her, and set the crown upon her head; I reput him not your grace’s faithful servant and subject, nor true unto the realm, that would not desire the offence without mercy to be punished, to the example of all other. And as I loved her not a little, for the love which I judged her to bear towards God and his gospel; so if she be proved culpable, there is not one that loveth God and his gospel that ever will favour her, but must hate her above all other; and the more they favour the gospel, the more they will hate her: for then there was never creature in our time that so much slandered the gospel” (Burnet 261-262).

Cranmer then goes to the heart of the issue—the preservation of the reformist movement. The Church, which Anne helped create was in its infancy and Cranmer wanted to ensure that Henry VIII did not place the faults of Anne onto the reformist movement. “Wherefore, I trust that your grace will bear no less entire favour unto the truth of the gospel than you did before: forsomuch as your grace’s favor to the gospel was not led by affection unto her, but by zeal unto the truth. And thus I beseech Almighty God, whose gospel he hath ordained your grace to be defender of, ever to preserve your grace from all evil, and give you at the end the promise of his gospel. From Lambeth, the 3d day of May” (Burnet 261-262).

Astoundingly, the letter does not end there. A postscript was added, “After I had written this letter unto your grace, my lord chancellor, my lord of Oxford, my lord of Sussex, and my lord chamberlain of your grace’s house, sent for me to come unto the star-chamber; and there declared unto me such things as your grace’s pleasure was they should make me privy unto. For the which I am most bounded unto your Grace. And what communication we had together, I doubt not but they will make the true report thereof unto your grace. I am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen, as I heard of their relation. But I am, and ever shall be, your faithful subject.
Your grace’s,
Humble subject and chaplain
T. Cantuariensis” (Burnet 262).

Although Cranmer was summoned on the King’s orders to hear the evidence against Queen Anne, he still did not alter his letter. Perhaps he was doubtful about the strength of the charges against Anne; perhaps he wanted to ensure the evangelical reforms; perhaps he was flattered that the king felt it necessary to advise him of the Queen’s crimes; or, perhaps, his compassion outweighed his caution. Regardless, the missive was sent and no repercussion fell upon him, nor was Anne’s situation abated.

For References, please refer to Path to St. Peter ad Vincular Part I

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

The Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part I

Posted on March 19, 2014 by jodmcp

The Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part I

Nicholas Sander was an English Catholic who in 1586 wrote The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, (De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani.) For the purpose of this blog the materials relayed from his book will concentrate on Sander’s discussion of Anne Boleyn. That he was not a supporter of Anne is an understatement. That he saw it as his duty to publish any-and-all anecdotes that reached him is also an understatement. In an introduction to a later publication of Sander’s book (1877), editor, David Lewis wrote that Sander was not a “slave to his resentments and passions” and did no true harm to Anne’s reputation as many had already done as much (Sander XXVI).

“The French Ambassador did not spare her, and the king’s own sister, the duchess of Suffolk, is said to have uttered ‘opprobrious language’ against her.” Lewis went on to report that “the Venetian Calendar of State Papers, edited by Mr. Rawdon Brown, is a contemporary account of Anne, not more flattering than that of Dr. Sander” (Sander XXV).

Mario Savorgnano, Venetian Ambassador to England, had many of his dispatches to the Doge and Senate compiled by historian Marnio Sanuto in Diaries. Sanuto’s work covers the time-period of January 1496 to September 1533 in 58 volumes. Rawdon Brown used materials from these volumes in 1871 in his translations of the Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice. Savorgnano, while praising King Henry VIII on August 25, 1531, lessened the commendation by declaring that one “thing detracts greatly from his merits, as there is now living with him a young woman of noble birth, though many say of bad character, whose will is law to him” (Brown August 1531 682)

.
Page from the book, Diaries, by Marnio Sanuto.

Simon Grynaeus, a religious reformer from Basel, who, through Erasmus, had an introduction to Sir Thomas More, spent several months in England in late 1531. Although he accepted the task to help Henry collect the opinions of the continental reformers on the divorce between Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon, Grynaeus spoke of Anne “as a woman entitled to no respect” (Sander XXV).

Pages from the book by Simon Grynaeus.

Lodovico Falier, Venetian co-Ambassador to the Court of Henry VIII from January 1528 until August 1531 wrote a summary report on 10 November 1531 which was presented to the Venetian rulers declaring that Queen Katherine of Aragon was “beloved by the islanders more than any Queen that ever reigned” (Brown November 1531 694). Sander relayed a contemporary’s assessment of Anne. “Madam Anne is not one of the handsomest women in the world: she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and in fact has nothing but the English king’s great appetite and her eyes, which are black and beautiful. That is an account of Anne Boleyn in October 1532, when she was living ‘like a queen at Calais,’ accompanied by the king” (Sander XXV-XXVI).

Engraving by an unknown artist of Simon Grynaeus.

The following is a story attributed by Sander only to the ‘French Ambassador in Venice’ who received this about the same time as Falier was giving his report. It is also relayed in Sanuto’s Diaries for the date 24 November, 1531 as reported by Brown in the Calendar of State Papers—Venice. “It is said that more than seven weeks ago a mob of from seven to eight thousand women of London went out of the town to seize Boleyn’s daughter, the sweetheart of the king of England, who was supping at a villa –in una casa di piacere—on a river; the king not being with her; and having received notice of this she escaped by crossing the river in a boat. The women had intended to kill her, and amongst the mob were many men disguised as women; nor has any great demonstration been made about this, because it was a thing done by women” (Sander xxvii; Brown November 1531 701).

Even more tantalizing than the above story is the one concerning the birth of Anne Boleyn. Lewis goes on quite a tirade concerning the work of William Rastall (Rastell), Life of Sir Thomas More. It appeared to be used as an argument for the validity of Dr. Burnet’s (Gilbert Burnet was a 17^th century Scottish theologian, respected historian, and Bishop of Salisbury) story of the birth of Anne Boleyn—more on that in a little bit. Sander’s lengthy discourse caused me to spend way too much time investigating. As near as I can piece together, William Rastell did not write a book about his uncle Sir Thomas More (William’s mother was Sir Thomas’ sister) but printed the text of More’s own work, A dyaloge of Syr Thomas More knyghte: one of the counsayll of oure soverayne lorde the kyng & chauncellour of hys duchy of Lancaster…. William later edited it into More’s English Works. John Rastell a printer and William’s father, and his subcontractor, Peter Treveris, had completed an initial printing in June 1529 (Devereux 153-155). Therefore, when Lewis pronounced, “Dr. Burnet was a bolder man” than Nicholas Sander and that Brunet “denies also that Rastell ever wrote a Life of Sir Thomas More” as to why his story “deserves to be read” I had to investigate (Sander xxvii).

Printer’s Mark of John Rastell

“Were true,” writes Burnet, “very much might be drawn from it, both to disparage king Henry, who pretended conscience to annul his marriage for the nearness of affinity, and yet would after that marry his own daughter. It leaves also a foul and lasting stain both on the memory of Anne Boleyn, and of her incomparable daughter, queen Elizabeth. It also derogates so much from the first reformers, who had some kind of dependence on queen Anne Boleyn, that it seems to be of great importance, for directing the reader in the judgment he is to make of persons and things, to lay open the falsehood of this account. It were sufficient for blasting it, that there is no proof pretended to be brought for any part of it, but a book of one Rastall, a judge, that was never seen by any other person than that writer. The title of the book is ‘The Life of Sir Thomas More.’ There is great reason to think that Rastall never writ any such book; for it is most common for the lives of great authors to be prefixed to their works. Now this Rastall published all More’s works in queen Mary’s reign, to which if he had written his life, it is likely he would have prefixed it. No evidence, therefore, being given for his relation, either from record or letters, or the testimony of any person who was privy to the matter, the whole is to be looked on as a black forgery, devised on purpose to defame queen Elizabeth” (Sander xxviii).

Sir Thomas More

The implication that Henry VIII had sired a daughter, Anne, by Elizabeth Howard Boleyn was the outgrowth of the steady rumor that Henry had intimate relations with Elizabeth. Henry addressed the gossip to Sir George Throgmorton saying, “Never with the mother” (Friedman 326). This blog will relay the story via the work of Nicholas Sander relayed through Dr. Burnet and Nicholas Pocock.

Pocock, who wrote Records of the Reformation: The Divorce 1527-1533, was no fan of Sander’s work. In later years he edited a volume and wrote extensively of Sander’s mistakes. In a lengthy chapter titled, “An Appendix Concerning Some of the Errors and Falsehoods in Sanders’ Book of the English Schism,” Pocock referred to his predecessor as “so great a master, impudence, and falsehood are matter of fact” (Burnet and Pocock 615).

Henry VIII was determined to marry Anne Boleyn and he was concerned over Cannon Law which could prohibit the marriage due to consanguinity. It was accepted that Henry had committed “intrigue with Mary Boleyn, the elder sister of Anne” (Pocock xxxviii). Nicholas Sander would not hold to Henry VIII’s argument that he must divorce Catherine of Aragon due to consanguinity yet would marry Anne Boleyn “having at the same time knowledge that this very impediment subsisted against the marriage with Anne Boleyn” (Sander 95). According to Sander, Henry had confessed in “a letter to Pope Clement VII that he had committed adultery with Mary Boleyn, the sister of Anne” (Sander 98). This would make Henry related to Anne by the first degree of consanguinity. Sander chided Henry for his lack of respect to the doctrines of the Church and for “his hypocrisy …and the falsehood of his heart” (Sander 98). This being reference to Henry divorcing Katherine Aragon as the wife of his brother and for his relations to Mary Boleyn and Elizabeth Boleyn.

“Whether there was any connexion of a similar kind between Henry and the mother of Anne Boleyn may perhaps still be somewhat doubtful. The king, on one occasion, denied that there had been any such intercourse, thereby tacitly admitting the other charge” (Pocock xxxviii).

ehboley

Portrait believed to be of Elizabeth Howard Boleyn

Whatever the truth concerning the matter of Lady Boleyn and Henry VIII, Pocock believed that Sander overreached himself in his eagerness to defame Elizabeth Regina. He does later find more charity with Sander and states that Sander truly believed the information he had been given (Pocock xli). Below is the document dated March 1533, in which a priest named Thomas Jackson was charged with having stated that the King had committed adultery with Anne and Elizabeth Boleyn. It was reported by Sander and later reproduced by Pocock, titled, “Number CCCXXIX.”

Certain Articles deposed against Sir Thomas Jakson,
Chantree priest of Chepax, for certain words spoken by
him maliciously against our sovereign lord and king and
the queen’s grace by John Kepar and Bryan Banke of the
said town, which things also they have confessed before
Mr. William Fairfax, Esquire, Sheriff of the county of York.
First, The said Chantry Priest said that the king’s grace had
lived before this his marriage lawfully made with the queen’s
grace, not after the laws of God, but in adultery with her
grace and so doth now still continue, putting away from him
his lawful wife.

Item, He said maliciously that the king’s grace should first
kepe the mother and after the daughter, and now he hath
married her whom he kept afore and her mother also, upon
which words we presented the said preiset unto the sheriff
aforesaid, upon which presentment the said preist was
attached with all his goods, and the said John Kepar
and Brian Banke were by the said sheriff made to bind
themselves ot come hither and present the same to the
king’s grace counsel; which they have now done, most
meekly desiring to be at your pleasure demitted, for
they be poor men, and to lye long here should be to them
great hindrance.

Which thing to be true the said John Kepar and Brian Banke
will stand by at all times and have bounden themselves
before the sheriff by their hands and seals.

Endorsed—
Certain Articles deposed against Sir Thomas Jakson priest
(Pocock 468).

Document Number CCCXXIX

“That the report of such intercourse spread during the first year of the marriage is plain from the document Number CCCXXIX, and the story must be allowed whatever weight is due to an assertion of a charge in itself improbably, and for the invention f which no adequate reason can be assigned. Hitherto it has been supposed that Nicholas Sanders was the inventor of the libel; but this document shews that the report existed at least half a century before Sanders’ book, ‘De Schismate,’ was published. It was, of course easy to magnify the particulars of such a story till it grew to the dimensions of Anne being the king’s own daughter” (Pocock xxxix). Sander declared that “Henry had sinned with the mother of Anne Boleyn. And there was therefore, that relationship between them which subsists between parent and child. It is never lawful for a father to marry his own daughter” (Sander 99).

Pocock told how Sander had acquired the tale from a book about the life of Sir Thomas More by Rastell and had never checked the facts. “That Anne could be the king’s daughter by lady Boleyn is easily shewn to be impossible from considerations of time and circumstance” (Pocock xxxix). Although Pocock never relays to us the proof of this, he does give Sander some slack due to the wording of the dispensation that Cranmer had petitioned from the Pope to allow Henry to marry Anne. Cranmer had to cover every possible point and we are cautioned not to place too much stress “on Cranmer’s assertion, that the affinity supposed to be contracted by illicit intercourse of a man with his wife’s sister, daughter, or mother.” Specifics would not even be that necessary as Cannon Law “being express upon this subject: Secundum canones etiam per coitum fornicarium et incestuosum contrahitur affinitas.” Pocock assures us that the details of Cranmer’s request are “veiled in the decent obscurity of a dead language” (Pocock xxxix-xl).

Thomas Cranmer

This blogger is upset with herself for spending too much time and energy on these rumors but they do illustrate the lengths people went to defame Anne Boleyn. Now we come to the crux of Sander’s argument.

Henry was deemed as shameless and Sander was astounded by the “hypocrisy and the rashness and lewdness of one man” but marveled the more at the fact that “multitudes of men should endure patiently, not their own lewdness, but that of another—not only endure it patiently, but respect it, praise and honour it so far as to build upon it their belief, their hope and salvation” (Sander 99-100).

Anne Boleyn
He exclaimed that “Now, all English Protestants, honour the incestuous marriage of Henry and Anne Boleyn as the well-spring of their gospel, the mother of their Church, and the source of their belief” (Sander 100). The religious issue was never far behind the personal and the political. Pope Clement VII had officially declared that Henry had by “de facto married one Anne, contrary to Our commandments, and in contempt of Our prohibitions contained in Our letter in forma Brevis, thereby temerariously disturbing the due course of law; the marriage contracted by the aforesaid Henry and Anne all manifest and notorious deeds to be what they are and were, null and unjust and contrary to law” (Lilly 350). For further measure, Clement declared “by the same sentence that the children, born or to be born of that marriage, are and always have been bastards” (Lilly 351).

Pope Clement VII

As mentioned, politics wrapped itself in the religious and personal lives of the Tudor Era and the Pope saw fit to “deal gently and mercifully with the said Henry.” He gave Henry over a year to comply with the orders to repudiate Anne and reinstate Catherine or face excommunication. The Pope could not afford to alienate Henry and was hoping for a reprieve to allow matters to resolve themselves and thus not offend Charles, Holy Roman Emperor, nephew of Catherine of Aragon. That fascinating angle to this topic will not be addressed here. Thus, Catholic Sander was convinced that “this marriage opened a door to every heresy and to every sin” which eventually brought her downfall (Sander 101).

References:

“Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries.” Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries. The Tudor Place, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

“Alesius, Alexander (DNB00).” Wikisource, the Free Online Library, Dictionary of National Biography. (1904). 21 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Aug. 2013.

“Anne Boleyn’s Book of Hours.” Anne Boleyn’s Book of Hours. British Library, 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.

Bell, Doyne Courtenay. Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula, in the Tower of London. With an Account of the Discovery of the Supposed Remains of Queen Anne Boleyn. London: J. Murray, 1877. Google Books. Web. 14 Sept. 2013.

Bernard, G. W. Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Google Books. Web. 28 Dec. 2013.

Bernard,G.W. “The Fall of Anne Boleyn.” Power and Politics in Tudor England. Burlington: Ashgate, 2000. Google Books. Web. 5 May 2014.

Bordo, Susan. The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England’s Most Notorious Queen. New York: Houghton, Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 2013. Google Books. Web. 27 Mar. 2014

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: December 1528, 2-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530 (1875): 2170-2181. British History Online. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

Brewer, J.S. (editor). “Henry VIII: February 1530, 1-15.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530 (1875): 2773-2790. British History Online. Web. 12 Nov. 2013

Brewer, J. S. (editor). “Henry VIII: December 1530, 1-14.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530 (1875): 3052-3058. British History Online. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.

Brown, Rawdon (editor). “Volume I 1202-1509.” Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, (1864): CXXIII. British History Online. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.

Brown, Rawdon (editor). “Venice: August 1531.” Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 4: 1527-1533 (1871): 284-289. British History Online. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.

Brown, Rawdon (editor). “Venice: April 1532.” Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 4: 1527-1533 (1871): 331-334. British History Online. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

Brown, Rawdon (editor). “Venice: November 1531.” Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 4: 1527-1533 (1871): 291-307. British History Online. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.

Burke, James (editor). Lingard’s History of England Abridged: With a Continuation, from 1688 to 1854. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1875. Internet Archive. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.

Burnet, Bishop Gilbert. An Abridgement of Bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation of the Church of England. New Edition. Vol. I. London: F. C. & J. Rivington, 1819. Google Books. Web. 22 Dec. 2013

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

Burnet, Gilbert, and Nicholas Pocock. The History of the Reformation of the Church of England. Vol. V. Oxford: MacMillian and Company, 1865. Google Books. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.

Butler, Clement Moore. An Ecclesiastical History from the Thriteenth to the Nineteenth Century. Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen, and Haffelfinger, 1872. Google Books. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.

Cassell Itd. Cassell’s Library of English Literature, Selected, Edited and Arranged by Henry Morley: The Religious Life of England, Part I. London: Cassell, Petter, and Galpin, 1876. Google Books. Web. 31 May 2014.

Cavendish, George. The Life of Cardinal Wolsey; and Metrical Visions from the Original Autograph Manuscript. Ed. Samuel Weller Singer. Vol. I. Chiswick: Harding, Triphook, and Lepard, 1825. Google Books. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Cavendish, George. The Life of Cardinal Wolsey; and Metrical Visions from the Original Autograph Manuscript. Ed. Samuel Weller Singer. Vol. II. Chiswick: Harding, Triphook, and Lepard, 1825. Google Books. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.

Chapman, Hester W. The Challenge of Anne Boleyn. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1974. Google Books. Web. 3 May 2014.

“Condemnation of Anne Boleyn.” The Museum of Foreign Literature, Vol. XVI: January to June 1830: 289. Philadelphia: E. Littell & Brother, 1830. Google Books. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.

Constantyne, George. “Transcript of an Original Manuscript: Containing a Memorial from George Constantyne to Thomas Lord Cromwell. Communicated by Thomas Amyot, Esq. F. R.S., Treasurer, in a Letter Addressed to Henry Ellis, Esq. F.R.S., Secretary”. Archaeologia: Or Miscellaneous Tracts Related to Antiquity. Vol XXIII. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, 1831. Google Books. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

Davies, Ress (editor). The Royal Historical Society Transactions. Sixth Series Vol. 5. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1995. Google Books. Web. 4 Sept. 2013.

Denny, Joanna. Anne Boleyn: An New Life of England’s Tragic Queen. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press, 2006. Google Books. Web. 1 Sept. 2013.

Devereux, E. J. “Bibliography of John Rastell.” Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. British History Online. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.

Dodd, A. (Editor). The Life of the Most Reverend Dr. Cranmer, Some Time Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan; One of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy-Council in the Reign of Henry VIII. Chairman of the Committee for Compiling the English Liturgy, and Martyr, in the Reign of Queen Mary. London: Cook, James and Kingman 1751. Google Books. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.

Dodds, Madeleine Hope, and Ruth Dodds. The Pligrimage of Grace 1536-1537 and The Exeter Conspiracy 1538. Vol II. Cambridge: University Press, 1915. Internet Archive. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

Ellis, Henry. Original Letters, Illustrative of English History: Including Numerous Royal Letters from Autographs in the British Museum, and One or Two Other Collections. Vol. II. London: Harding, Triphook, and Lepard, 1824. Google Books. Web. 3 Jan. 2014.

Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. London: Routledge, 1955. Print.

Elton, G. R. Policy and Police: the Enforcement of the Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Google Books. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

Foxe, John (1516-1587) The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe; With a Life of the Martyrologist, and Vindication of the Work, ed George Townsend, 8 volumes, reprinted by AMS Press, New York, 1965. Reformation.org. Web 2. Nov. 2013.

Foxe, John. “Oration to Saint Anne Boleyn from John Foxe, Martyrologist.” The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe: With a Life of the Martyrologist, and Vindication of the Work, ed. George Townsend, Vol. 1-8. New York: AMS Press, 1965. Reformation.org. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.

Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print.

Freeman, Thomas. “Research, Rumour and Propaganda: Anne Boleyn in Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs.’” The Historical Journal 38.4 (1995): 797-819. JSTOR. Web. 1 June 2014.

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

Friedmann, Paul. Anne Boleyn: A Chapter in English History, 1527-1536. Vol. II. London: Macmillian and Company, 1884. Google Books. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

Froude, James A. The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon: The Story as Told by the Imperial Ambassadors Resident at the Court of Henry VIII. New York: Scriber and Sons, 1891. Google Books Web. 15 Mar. 2014.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: January 1531, 1-15.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 5: 1531-1532 (1880): 10-22. British History Online. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: May 1531, 16-31.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 5: 1531-1532 (1880): 111-130. British History Online. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: April 1533, 11-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Vol. 6: 1533 (1882): 151-170. British History Online. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

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: April 1534, 26-30.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 7: 1534 (1883): 217-236. British History Online. Web. 27 Dec. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: June 1534, 11-15.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 7: 1534 (1883): 311-317. British History Online. Web. 22 March 2014.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: September 1534, 6-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 7: 1534 (1883): 445-450. British History Online. Web. 20 Oct. 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: August 1535, 11-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 9: August-December 1535 (1886): 19-40. British History Online. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

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

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: February 1536, 11-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 108-126. British History Online. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: April 1536, 1-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 240-259. British History Online. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: May 1536, 21-25.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 391-401. British History Online. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Gardiner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: June 1536, 1-5.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 424-440. British History Online. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: June 1536, 6-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 440-470. British History Online. Web. 17 Nov. 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 1537, 11-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 12 Part 2: June-December 1537 (1891): 25-42. British History Online. Web. 29 Dec. 2013.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: October 1537, 11-15.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 12 Part 2: June-December 1537 (1891): 309-324. British History Online. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

Gairdner, James and R. H. Brodie (editors). “Letters and Papers: October 1539, 26-31.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 14 Part 2: August-December 1539 (1895): 137-160. British History Online. Web. 22 June 2014.

Gayangos, Pascual de (editor). “Spain: October 1533, 1-20.” Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 4 Part 2: 1531-1533 (1882): 816-830. British History Online. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

de Gayangos, Pascual (editor). “Spain: April 1536, 1-20.” Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 5 Part 2: 1536-1538 (1888): 79-85. British History Online. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

Grosvenor, Bendor. “Anne Boleyn Regains Her Head.” Art History News. Art History News, 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 May 2014.

Gunn, Steven. “The Structures of Politics in Early Tudor England.” Ed. Ress Davies. Royal Historical Society Transactions: Sixth Series. Vol. V. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 59-90. Google Books. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.

Haigh, Christopher. English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society Under the Tudors. Oxford: Clarendon, 2012. Google Books. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

Hall, Edward, Henry Ellis, and Richard Grafton. Hall’s Chronicle; Containing the History of England, during the Reign of Henry the Fourth, and the Succeeding Monarchs, to the End of the Reign of Henry the Eighth, in Which Are Particularly Described the Manners and Customs of Those Periods. London: Printed for J. Johnson and J. Rivington; T. Payne; WIlkie and Robinson; Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme; Cadell and Davies; and J. Mawman, 1809. Internet Archive. Web. 2 Jan. 2013.

Hall, Hubert (editor). A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents: Part II Ministerial and Judicial Records. Cambridge: University Press 1909. Google Books. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.

Harpsfield, Nicholas, Reverend. A Treatise of Marryage Occasioned by the pretended Divorce of King Henry the Eigth from Q. Catherine of Arragon devided Into three Bookes. “The third book of Doctor N. Harpsfield’s Treatise of Marriage.” Ed. Charles Eyston. Trans. William Eyston. Canterbury: Topliffe, 1707. Google Books. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

Heal, Felicity. Reformation in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: UP 2003. Google Books. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.

Herbert, Edward, 1^st Baron Herbert of Cherbury. The Life and Reigne of King Henry the Eighth. London: T. Martyn, S. Mearne and H. Herringmann 1649. Google Books. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.

Herbert, Henry William. Memoirs of Henry the Eighth of England: With the Fortunes, Fates, and Characters of His Six Wives. New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1856. Google Books. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

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

Holinshed, Raphael, John Hooker, Francis Thynne, Abraham Fleming, John Stow, and Sir Henry Ellis. Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland. Vol. III. London: J. Johnson Publishers, 1808. Google Books. Web. 31 May 2014.

Howell, T. B. and Thomas Jones. A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, With Notes and Other Illustrations including, in Addition to the Whole of the Matter Contained int eh Folio Edition of Hargrave, Upwards of Two Hundred Cases Never Before Collected: to Which Subjoined A Table of Parallel Reference. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816. Google Books. Web. 3 Jan. 2104.

Hume, David. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Abdication of James the Second, 1688. Vol. III. Boston: Phillips, Sampson and Company, 1858. Google Books. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

Hume, Martin A. Sharp. Chronicle of King Henry the Eighth of England: Being a Contemporary Record of Some of the Principal Events of the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, Written in Spanish by an Unknown Hand ; Translated, with Notes and Introduction, by Martin A. Sharp Hume. London: George Bell and Sons, 1889. Internet Archive. Web. 4 May 2013.

Hume, Martin A. Sharp. Chronicle of King Henry the Eighth of England: Being a Contemporary Record of Some of the Principal Events of the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, Written in Spanish by an Unknown Hand ; Translated, with Notes and Introduction, by Martin A. Sharp Hume. “How Anne Was Beheaded, and What Took Place Five Days After the Execution of the Duke and the Others.” London: George Bell and Sons, 1889. Internet Archive. Web. 27 Dec. 2013.

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

Leach, Arthur Francis. English Schools at the Reformation. Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co. 1896. Google Books. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.

Lilly, William Samuel. Renaissance Types. Ed. Jessopp, Dr. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1901. Google Books. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

Lindsey, Karen. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-WESLEY Publishing Company, 1995. Print.

Lipscomb, Suzannah. 1536: The Year That Changed Henry VIII. Oxford: Lion Hudson PLC, 2009. Google Books. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer: A Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Google Books. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

Mackintosh, James. The History of England: The Cabinet Cyclopaedia Conducted by Reverend Dionysius Lardner. Vol. II. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green, 1831. Google Books. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Morris, Sarah and Natalie Grueninger. In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Amberley, 2013. Print.

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

Newcombe, D. G. ‘Skip, John (d. 1552)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online ed., Jan. 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.

Nott, George Fred. (editor). The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the Elder. Vol II. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816. Google Books. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.

“Passionate Love Letter from Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn on Public Display.” The Daily Telegraph [London] 14 Feb. 2009, Culture sec. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

Pocock, Nicholas. The Records of the Reformation: The Divorce 1527-1533 Mostly Now for the First Time Printed from MSS. In the British Museum, the Public Record Office, the Venetian Archives, and Other Libraries. London: MacMillian and Company, 1870. Internet Archive. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Pollard, Albert Frederick. Henry VIII. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1919. Google Books. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

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

Riehl, Anna. The Face of Queenship: Early Modern Representations of Elizabeth I. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian, 2010. Google Books. Web. 3 May 2014.

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

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

Smeeton, George. The Life and Death of Anne Bullen, Queen Consort of England. London: St. Martin’s Church, 1820. Google Books. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.

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

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. London: Chatto & Windus, 2003. Print.

“The Statutes of the Realm”. Vol. 3. London: The House of Commons, 1817. Google Books. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Stevenson, Joseph (editor). “Elizabeth: September 1559, 1-5.” Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, Volume 1: 1558-1559 (1863): 524-542. British History Online. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Strype, John. Ecclesiastical memorials, Relating Chiefly to Religion, and The Reformation of It, and the Emergencies of the Church of England, Under King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary I with Large Appendixes, Containing Original Papers, Records, &c. Historical memorials, Ecclesiastical and Civil, of Events Under the Reign of Queen Mary I Wherein Are Brought to Light Various Things Concerning the Management of Affairs, During the Five Years of Her Government. Vol. III Part I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1822. Google Books. Web. 17 June 2013.

Thoyras, M. Rapin de. The History of England. Vol. 6. Trans. N. Tindal. London: James and John Knapton, 1759. Google Books. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Tyndale, William. The Obedience of a Christian Man. New York: Digireads.com Publishing. Google Books. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

Schauer, Margery and Frederick Schauer. “Law as the Engine of State: The Trial of Anne Boleyn.” William and Mary Law Review. Vol. 22 Issue 1. Williamsburg, VA: William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository, 1980. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.

Stevenson, Joseph Rev. Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series of the Reign of Elizabeth 1558-1559, Preserved in the State Department of Her Majesty’s Public Records Office. Vol. 3. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1863. Google Books. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Sylvanus, Urban, Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle. Vol. CI Part I. London: J. B. Nichols, January to June, 1831. Google Books. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.

Walker, Greg. “Rethinking The Fall Of Anne Boleyn.” Historical Journal 45.1 (2002): 1. MasterFILE Premier EBSCOhost. Web. 2 Sept. 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.

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. Print.

Wilson, Derek. A Brief History of the English Reformation Religion, Politics and Fear: How England was Transformed by the Tudors. London: Constable & Robinson, Ltd., 2012. Google Books. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.

Wriothesley, Charles. A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors, From A.D. 1485-1559. Ed. William Hamilton. Vol. I. Westminster: Camden Society, 1875. Google Books. Web. 22 Dec. 2013.

Zahl, Paul. Five Women of the English Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Berdmans Publishing Company, 2001. Google Books. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.

Announcing Elizabeth’s Birth

Posted on June 18, 2013 by jodmcp

Elizabeth’s Birth Announcement:

In the summer of 1533, as the birth of the child of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn drew nearer, a courtier, John Russell, wrote in a letter to Lord Lisle, Captain of Calais, that he “never saw the King merrier” (Nichols 443). The royal couple were at Windsor until 21 August when they traveled to Whitehall. From there on 26 August, they moved to Greenwich where Anne was to take to her chamber. This required a formal ceremony to be performed. Anne went in procession to the Chapel Royal to hear mass, then to her Great Chamber. She and her guests dined and then ate ceremoniously from a “goodly spice plate…of spice and comfettes.” The Lord Mayor of London provided “a cuppe of assaie of gold, and after that she had dronke, she gave the Maior the cuppe.” Once the refreshments were partaken of, Anne “under her Canapie, departed to her Chamber” and at the entry of her chamber, she gave her Canopy of State to the barons “accordyng to their clayme” (Hall 805). Anne’s Lord Chamberlain called for all to pray for the safe delivery of her child and then Anne and her women entered her chamber” (Hall 805).
King Henry VIII Queen Anne Boleyn

Anne’s chambers would have been altered tremendously to create the lying-in chamber to provide enough storage for multiple weeks of supplies and baby items. Included would have been furniture: beds for the birth, recovery and ceremonies, and the baby cot; plus blankets, pillows and bedding. An altar for religious services would have been included along with candlesticks, crucifixes and religious images. Tapestries would have covered the walls, ceiling and all windows except for one. Alison Weir stated that the tapestries showed St. Ursula and her 11,000 virgins (Weir Six Wives 257). David Starkey, on the other hand, informed that the tapestries would not have depicted animals or humans as that could trigger fantasies in the mother-to-be and lead to a deformed child (Starkey Elizabeth 2). Regardless of the decoration themes, one can envision the chamber as being a “cross between a chapel and a luxuriously padded cell” (Starkey Elizabeth 2).

Greenwich 1533

William Blount, 4^th Baron Mountjoy, Chamberlain to Catherine of Aragon sent to his counterpart in Anne’s household, George Brooke, 9^th Baron Cobham, advice on the correct method for the confinement and ensuing ceremonies. A general procedure had been followed for generations, and it was unlikely that Henry VIII would jeopardize the successful birth of his male heir by altering the steps in any way. That is why the speculation that Henry kept Anne from her confinement in order to dupe the general population about the date of conception does not make sense.

George Brooke, 9th Baron of Cobham and Queen Anne’s Lord Chamberlain

Once a woman entered her lying-in chamber, it was a signal that she did not expect to have her child for about a month. Anne gave birth within two weeks. How and why could there be such a miscalculation? Retha Warnicke speculates that Henry took advantage of Anne’s good health in the summer of 1533 and delayed her entry to her chamber. He wanted to confuse people over the delivery date to convince them that the child had been conceived during the time of their marriage (Warnicke 164). Would Henry do that? Would he risk the health of his male child in such a way? I do not think so. Would he encourage people to assume the date of their wedding was earlier than it was? Probably.

Chronicler Edward Hall insisted that Henry and Anne married on 14 November 1532 on “sainct Erkenwalds daie” and managed it to be “kept so secrete, that very fewe knewe it, til Builyne she was greate with child, at Easter after” (Hall 794). Other sources state the wedding was on 25 January 1533. Eric Ives speculates that the earlier date was used much afterwards to protect Elizabeth’s reputation against being born out of wedlock. If a compromise theory is believed, a commitment ceremony could have been held in November that would “stand up in canon law– espousals de praesenti before witnesses which, if sealed by intercourse, would have been canonically valid …” (Ives 170). Henry would have then held another ceremony, before a priest, in January once it was obvious Anne was pregnant: or could the mid-wives and physicians have underestimated the delivery date? We will never know. What we do know is that on “vii day of September being Sondaie, between thre and foure of the Clocke after noone, the Quene was delivred of a faire lady” (Hall 805).

The fact that the child was a girl was a shock to her parents so sure they were that they would have a son. Tradition tells us that Henry responded appropriately to Anne by saying that all was well since they were both young “by God’s grace, boys will follow” (Weir, pg. 258). Immediately following the birth, a Te Deum was sung and “great preparacion was made for the christening” with the Mayor of London, Stephen Peacock, and chief citizens “commaunded to bee at the Christenyng, the Wednesdaie folowyng” in all of their finery went by barge to Greenwich. “All the walles betwene the Kynges place and the Friers, were hanged with Arras, and all the waie strawcd with grene” the Observant Friars Church was also hung in tapestries. The font was “of siluer, and stoode in the midles of the Churche, three steppes high, whiche was couered with a line clothe … oner it hong a square Canape of crimosin Satten, fringed with golde” and in an area close by was a brazier with a fire in it to keep the child warm. When “al these thynges wer ordered, the child was brought to the hall,” followed by members of Court with “the Erie of Essex, bearyng the couered Basins gilte, after hym the Marques of Excester with taper of virgin waxe, next hym the Marques Dorset, bearyng the salt, behynd-hym the lady Mary of Norffolk, bearyng the cesom whiche was very riche of perle & stone, the old Duches of Norffolk bare the childe” (Hall 805). The child wore, in addition to a christening robe heavy and stiff with gold embroidery…a royal mantle of purple velvet and miniver, with a train so long that it was borne up by a lady and two gentlemen (Tytler 2).

Portrait identified as Frances Brandon Grey, Marchioness of Dorset, Duchess of Suffolk

An enthusiastic Hall continues to describe the scene as the Duke of Norfolk walked to the right of the baby, the Duke of Suffolk to the left and the Countess of Kent bore the train along with other noble ladies. The baby’s uncle, Lord Rochford and three others carried a canopy over her. When “the child was come to the churche dore, the bishop of London met it with diverse bishoppes and Abbottes mitred, and began the observances of the Sacrament” (Hall 806).

One godmother was the baby’s cousin, Frances Brandon, Marchioness of Dorset; the other, who carried the child, was her great-grandmother, Agnes, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, the godfather was Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. The Bishop of London John Stokesley, assisted by other clergy performed the ceremony (Tytler 2). The “childe was named Elizabeth: and after that al thyng was done, at the churche dore the child was brought to the Fount, and christened” (Hall 806).

Agnes, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk

We are told that the Garter Chief King of Arms then proclaimed “God of His infinite goodness, send a prosperous life and long, to the high and mighty princess of England Elizabeth” (Strickland 4). Next Elizabeth was confirmed as part of the extended ceremony. Afterwards servants brought in “wafers, comfits and hypocras in such plenty that every man had as much as he would desire” (Somerset 4). “Then they set forwardes, the trumpettes goyng before in thesame ordre, towarde the kynges place, as they did when they came thether warde, … and in this ordre thei brought the princes, to the Quenes chamber (Hall 806). With Henry VIII in attendance, Queen Anne received her child back while Londoners rejoiced with Court supplied wine and bonfires in the streets but no jousts or fireworks—this was a princess not a prince. Publically Henry continued to reassure that the princess was not a disappointment. Privately, as reported by a gleeful Eustace Chapuys, Spanish Ambassador, the birth was a “great regret both of him and the lady, and to the great reproach of the physicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and sorceresses, who affirmed that it would be a male child. But the people are doubly glad that it is a daughter rather than a son, and delight to mock those who put faith in such divinations, and to see them so full of shame” (Gairdner VI 1112).

How could the predictions go so wrong?

Besides soliciting physicians’ opinions on the sex of the child, astrologers and soothsayers were also consulted. Only one did not predict a son. William Glover wrote to Queen Anne of a vision he had in which she gave birth to a “woman child” and he instructed she “should be delivered of your burden at Greenwich” (Gardiner VI 1599).

Physicians “studied astronomy, astrology, geometry, mathematics, music and philosophy” in the 16th century. “The Tudors believed strongly in the divine plan …. Fate, fortune and goodwill might cure” (Hurren). Included in the studies of sciences, astrology was certainly compatible with religion at this time. Astrology was considered a way to understand God’s plan. Henry VIII received predictions that the child Anne was carrying was a boy—there was no reason to doubt that. God had punished Henry for co-habitating with his brother’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, against the teachings of Leviticus, by not granting living male children to that union. Surely, he could not have misinterpreted the signs of the divine will to divorce Catherine. Sons would come from his union with Anne.

Henry VIII’s astrolabe made for him by Bastien le Seney, royal clockmaker

References to prophecies and predictions were accepted at the time as were the “astrological superstitions of the generation” (Tytler 2). In one of his love letters to Anne, Henry showed a “personal interest in astrology: in attempting to dispel her fears about their forced separation” (Warnicke 165).

“I and my heart put ourselves in your hands. Let not absence lessen your affection; for it causes us more pain than I should ever have thought, reminding us of a point of astronomy that the longer the days are, the further off is the sun, and yet the heat is all the greater. So it is with our love, which keeps its fervour in absence, at least on our side. Prolonged absence would be intolerable, but for my firm hope in your indissoluble affection. As I cannot be with you in person, I send you my picture set in bracelets” (Brewer).

As Lutheran theologian Philipp Melancthon later said in his dedication to the text, Theological Commonplaces, “Henry is ‘the most learned of kings not only in theology, but also in other philosophy, and especially in the study of the movement of the heavens’. Since the king and his contemporaries held ‘a complex view of conception in which both the physical and spiritual’ were intertwined, he may have been persuaded of the validity of the prophecies about the child’s sex because he had personally done all that was necessary for him to earn and to merit a divine blessing in the form of a son” (Warnicke 165).

Theologian, Philipp Melancthon

Theological Commonplace, 1535 which had the dedication to Henry VIII.

“Anne’s skeptical attitude toward the most superstitious of them must have been well-known” as John Foxe later discussed it (Warnicke 165). Foxe recounted a story that implied Anne’s “true faith …for when king Henry was with her at Woodstock, and there, being afraid of an old blind prophecy, for which neither he nor other kings before him durst hunt in the said park of Woodstock, nor enter into the town of Oxford, at last, through the Christian and faithful counsel of that queen, he was so armed against all infidelity, that both he hunted in the aforesaid park, and also entered into the town of Oxford, and had no harm” (Foxe 136). Popular belief maintained that Henry did abide by the use of prophecies.

John Foxe

Certain the child would be a boy, Henry and Anne had selected the names of Edward and Henry and had asked Francis I, King of France to be godfather. In a dispatch to Francis, his Ambassador, Jean de Dinteville, The Bailly of Troyes*, explains how he had been asked to “hold at the font the child of which the Queen is pregnant, if it is a boy” (Gairdner VI 1070).

As an aside, de Dinteville (also as known as d’Intevile Polizy) “chevalier Sieur de Polizy, near Bar-sur-Seyne, Bailly of Troyes who was Ambassador in England for King Francis I in the years 1532-1533” was identified in the late 19^th century as one of the sitters in the Ambassadors painting by Hans Holbein (Hervey 12). Without going into extreme detail, the clues in the painting confirmed what Hervey discovered on a fragment of manuscript. An example would be the seigneurie, an area of manorial influence that de Dinteville held, was Polizy in Burgundy shown on the globe in the painting (Hervey 8).

Jean de Dinteville, French Ambassador

The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein, 1533
Jean de Dinteiville and Georges de Selve

There is no record of whether or not Francis I felt any sympathy for Henry’s disappointment but it was clear he would not be asked as godfather for a princess’s baptism. While de Dinteville showed his “complete allegiance to the Crown of France” (Hervey 41), being ready to fill whatever office would be required even for a princess, his Spanish counterpart, Eustace Chapuys, was interpreting the birth of a daughter to Henry as the divine will that “Misfortune manages well; and God has forgotten him entirely, hardening him in his obstinacy to punish and ruin him” (Gairdner VI 1112).

King Francis I of France

After the ceremony de Dinteville exclaimed “the whole occasion was so perfect that nothing was lacking” (Hibbert 14). Chapuys concluded “the christening has been like her mother’s coronation, very cold and disagreeable both to the Court and to the city, and there has been no thought of having the bonfires and rejoicings usual in such cases. After the child was baptised, a herald in front of the church-door proclaimed her princess of England (Gairdner VI 1125).

Eustace Chapuys, Spanish Ambassador

Prior to the christening, Chapuys claimed that the child would “be called Mary, like the Princess; which title, I hear in many quarters, will be taken from the true princess and given to her” (Gairdner 1112). He had to retract saying “the daughter of the lady has been named Elizabeth, and not Mary” (Gairdner 1125). Obviously, the child was named for her two grandmothers, Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Howard.

So sure were the parents that the child would be a boy, official announcements, which were to be sent throughout the realm and to the Courts of Europe from the Queen listed the child as a prince. One such letter is preserved written to Lord Cobham, Anne’s Chancellor informing him of the birth at Greenwich on 7 September during the 25^th year of the reign of Henry (Gairdner VI 1089). An ‘s’ was added to the word prince (see the facsimile below—the first is in the third line, center also shown in an enlargement—and secondly in the final sentence) which would have altered it enough in the 16^th century to signify the word princess.

Letter of Lord Cobham– the area with the ‘s’ insertion is enlarged below. A transcription is also included.

By the Quene
Right trustie and welbiloved, we grete you well. And where as it hath pleased the goodnes of Almightie God, of his infynite marcie and grace, to sende unto us, at this tyme, good spede, in the delyveraunce and bringing furthe of a Princes, to the great joye, rejoyce, and inward comforte of my Lorde, us, and all his good and loving subjectes of this his realme; for the whiche his inestymable benevolence, soo shewed unto us, we have noo litle cause to give high thankes, laude, and praising unto oure said Maker, like as we doo mooste lowly, humbly, and with all the inwarde desire of our harte. And inasmuche as we undoubtidly truste, that this oure good spede is to your great pleasure, comforte, and consolation, We, therefore, by thies our letters, advertise you thereof, desiring and hartely praying you to give, with us, unto Almightie God, high thankes, glorie, laude, and praising; and to praye for the good helth, prosperitie, and contynuall preservation of the said Princes accordingly. Yeven under our Signet, at my Lordis Manour of Grenewiche, the 7 day of September, in the 25th yere of my said Lordis reigne.
To oure right trustie and welbiloved, the Lorde Cobham.

During a lecture at the Newberry Library in Chicago on November 22, 2003, David Starkey stated that the most important document in Elizabeth’s life was the letter announcing her birth. The Tudor Court needed a male heir. Society held the attitude that a woman would not be able to hold public office and have influence.

Anne Boleyn had disappointed Henry and the kingdom. Everyone was yet to see the significance of the life of this child that began with such an unpleasant shock yet would produce a ruler with “the body of a weak and feeble woman …but the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England too” (Marcus 326).

*The bailly was a French “Crown officer in whose name justice was administered throughout a certain district” (Hervey 38),

References

Brewer, J.S. (editor). “Henry VIII: July 1527, 1-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530 (1875): 1465-1477. British History Online. Web. 02 June 2013.

Denny, Joanna. Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England’s Tragic Queen. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2006. Google Books. Web. 7 June 2013.

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

Eakins, Laura. “Elizabeth Birth Announcement.” TudorHistory. Google+Page, n.d. Web. 2 June 2013.

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

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

Foxe, John. The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe: A New and Complete Edition. Ed. Stephen Reed Cattley, M. A., Rev. Vol. V. London: R.B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837. Google Books. Web. 4 June 2013.

Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print.

Gairdner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: Miscellaneous, 1533.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 6: 1533 (1882): 449-466; 653-680. British History Online. Web. 02 June 2013.

Hervey, Mary F. S., and Hans D. J. Holbein. Holbein’s ‘Ambassadors’, the Picture and the Men. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1900. Google Books. Web. 13 June 2013.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age. New

York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1991. Print.

Hurren, Elizabeth T., Dr., Senior Lecturer History of Medicine Oxford Brookes University. “Henry VIII’s Medical World.” Henry VIII’s Medical World. Wellness Trust at Oxford Brookes University, n.d. Web. 7 June 2013.

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

Lindsey, Karen. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-WESLEY Publishing Company, 1995. Print.

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

Nichols, Francis Morgan. The Hall of Lawford Hall: Records of an Essex House and of Its Proprietors,. London: Printed for the Author, 1880-1890, and Sold by Ellis and Elvey, 1891. Google Books. Web. 4 June 2013.

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

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

Starkey, David, Dr. “Queen Elizabeth and Her Court.” Elizabeth I: Ruler and Legend. Newberry Library, Chicago. 22 Nov. 2003. Lecture.

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. London: Chatto & Windus, 2003. Print.

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

THECREATIONOFANNEBOLEYN. “Anne and Elizabeth: Consulting the Stars for Elizabeth’s Birth.” Web log post. Semper Eadem. WordPress.com, 28 Aug. 2011. Web. 2 June 2013.

Tytler, Sarah. Tudor Queens and Princesses. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993. Print.

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

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

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. Print.

Whitelock, Anna. Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen. New York: Random House, 2009. Print.

The Third Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Catherine Howard

Posted on May 28, 2013 by jodmcp

The Third Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Catherine Howard

Henry was infatuated with Catherine Howard. At Oatlands the two were married on July 28 a couple of weeks after Henry’s marriage to Anne of Cleves was dissolved. The King kept it a secret for many days because he wanted to enjoy his bride before Court etiquette interfered.

He showered his young bride with gifts, gowns, jewels, anything she wanted and did any act which would show his affection. Henry granted Catherine all the lands that had been Queen Jane’s and even had a gold half-crown coin minted to commemorate his marriage to this perfection of womanhood with Henricus VIII, Rutilans rosa sine spina; “Henry VIII, the shining rose without a thorn” (Dye 771). Henry also granted her political protection by passing through parliament the Queen Consort Act of 1540. This legislation allowed the Queen to “act as a woman sole, without the consent of the King’s Highness” (Weir 436). Perhaps Henry felt safe in her devotion as Catherine adopted as her device, Non aultre volontè que le sinne; “No other will than his.”

Gold Crown Coin with Henricus VIII, Rutilans rosa sine spina —the reverse the crown shield of the royal coat of arms.

Many observers did not think he showed such generosity or affection to his other wives. The French Ambassador, Charles de Marillac reported in early September that the “King is so amourous of her that he cannot treat her well enough and caresses her more than he did the others” (Gairdner XVI 5).

The new queen was still a teenager. Most historians calculate that she was about 15 when 49-year-old Henry married her. Physically, Charles de Marillac described Catherine as “rather graceful than beautiful, of short stature, etc.” (Gairdner XVI 5).

Miniature by Hans Holbein After Hans Holbein

Was Catherine, personality-wise, a “frivolous, empty-headed young girl who cared for little else but dancing and pretty clothes” (Weir 434)? Was she simply captivating, pleasant and kind-hearted enough to want everyone to be happy? Perhaps she did let things go to her head and recklessness took center-stage but one could not call her scheming, “lewd, sly, pitiable” (Sitwell 53). It does appear as if Catherine was charming, sensual and obedient–a great combination for Henry.

Also attributed to Hans Holbein

Not only was Henry delighted with his new bride, Elizabeth, Catherine’s seven-year-old stepdaughter, was too. When Catherine was publicly acknowledged by Henry as his queen, “she directed that the princess Elizabeth should be placed opposite to her at table, because she was of her own blood and lineage.” At all the public engagements which continued to celebrate the marriage, Catherine “gave the lady Elizabeth the place of honour nearest to her own person” because, according to Gregorio Leti, “that she [Elizabeth] was her cousin” (Strickland Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest 15-16). Elizabeth Boleyn, Anne’s mother, was a sister to Edmund Howard, Catherine’s father (and to Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk), so they were first cousins. Elizabeth Regina would technically have been Catherine’s first cousin once removed.

Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk

Catherine did not only favor Elizabeth when they were residing in the same palaces, she made a point for the two of them to meet. Based on account records from the Master of the Barge, it has been shown that on 5 May 1541 Catherine arranged that Elizabeth would be taken from Suffolk Place to Chelsea where she, Catherine joined her on 6 May (Gairdner XVI 391).

Besides the attention Catherine showed her youngest step-daughter she also gave her presents of jewelry as shown in November of 1541. Records show that she gave a jewel “to lady Elizabeth, the King’s daughter, being …of little thing worth.” Regardless of the value, it was a kind gesture as when Catherine had “23 pairs of beads minutely described, with crosses, pillars, and tassels attached. One is marked as given by the Queen to lady Elizabeth, the King’s daughter” (Gairdner XVI 686).

Catherine Howard’s fall came after John Lascelles revealed to Archbishop Cranmer the Queen’s sexual activity during her years at the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk’s estate. The Dowager was Catherine’s step-grandmother. Like all children of aristocratic families, Catherine and her eleven siblings, were sent to other households at young ages. Included in the Norfolk household was Lascelles’ sister, Mary Hall, who knew of the goings on in the maid’s dormitory. Many of the young women ‘entertained’ men after hours and Catherine was one of them. She was about 13 at the time and had a physical relationship with Francis Dereham–after earlier being involved with her music teacher, Henry Manox.

Cranmer took the information very seriously. Political, religious and social motivations were all involved here as Catherine was a conservative and Lascelles and Cranmer were Protestants. Cranmer began a full investigation which led to allegations of Catherine’s being intimate with Thomas Culpeper, a member of the king’s privy chamber, after her marriage to Henry.

Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer

Under interrogation (read that as some type of torture most likely), Culpeper admitted to being in love with Catherine, that she had rebuffed him at first then grew to love him. Culpeper “persisted in denying his guilt and said it was the Queen who, through lady Rocheford, solicited him to meet her in private in Lincolnshire, when she herself told him that she was dying for his love” (Gairdner XVI 651-652). The prisoner said that although they spent time alone and in private, they never committed adultery. This did not matter. The Council felt there was enough evidence: Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, Catherine’s Lady-in-Waiting, professed to have helped them arrange their meetings and implied she guessed there was a physical relationship between them (Her cooperation did not save her. Rochford was executed as an accomplice.) and, most importantly, a letter from Catherine found in Culpeper’s belongings. The letter is reproduced below.

Jane Parker Boleyn, Lady Rochford

Master Coulpeper, I hertely recomend me unto youe praying you to
sende me worde how that you doo. Yt was showed me that you was
sike, the wyche thynge trobled me very muche tell suche tyme that I
here from you praying you to send me worde how that you do.
For I never longed so muche for [a] thynge as I do to se you and
to speke wyth you, the wyche I trust shal be shortely now, the
wyche dothe comforthe me verie much whan I thynk of ett and
wan I thynke agan that you shall departe from me agayne
ytt makes my harte to dye to thynke what fortune I have
that I cannot be always yn your company. Y[e]t my trust ys
allway in you that you wolbe as you have promysed me
and in that hope I truste upon styll, prayng you than that
you wyll com whan my lade Rochforthe ys here, for then
I shalbe beste at leaysoure to be at your commarendmant.
Thaynkyng you for that you have promysed me to be so
good unto that pore felowe my man, whyche is on of the
grefes that I do felle to departe from hym for than I do
know noone that I dare truste to sende to you and therfor
I pray you take hym to be wyth you that I may sumtym
here from you one thynge. I pray you to gyve me a horse
for my man for I hyd muche a do to gat one and
thefer I pray sende me one by hym and yn so doying I
am as I sade afor, and thus I take my leve of you
trusting to se you s[h]orttele agane and I wode you was
wythe me now that yoo maitte se what pane I take
yn wryte[n]g to you.

Yours as long as
lyffe endures
Katheryn
One thyng I had forgotten and that hys to instruct my man to tare here wyt[h] me still, for he sas wat so mever you bed hym he wel do et and […]

When the King was notified of the accusations by a document left for him in his church pew, his anger knew no bounds. He supposedly called for a sword to slay her himself as she would never have “such delight in her inconstancy as she would have torture in her death” (Hibbert 23).

Catherine was arrested at Hampton Court and moved shortly afterwards to Syon House. She was there until February 11, 1542, when she was taken by barge to the Tower of London. On Sunday the 12^th she was told to prepare herself for death. In a dispatch to his king, Chapuys conveyed that “she asked to have the block brought in to her, that she might know how to place herself; which was done, and she made trial of it.” On February 1542, Marillac reported, she was beheaded on Tower Green by axe “after the manner of the country. The Queen was so weak that she could hardly speak, but confessed in few words that she had merited a hundred deaths for so offending the King who had so graciously treated her” (Gairdner XVI 44). Chapuys let Charles V know that Catherine was executed “in the same spot where Anne Boleyn had been executed. Her body was then covered [with a black cloak] and her ladies took it away” (Gairdner XVII 51).

Gothic ornamentation remnant from Syon

No records survive of Elizabeth’s reactions to the sudden loss of any of her step-mothers. Elizabeth was too young to be greatly affected by the death of Jane Seymour and her only living step-mother, Anne of Cleves, she still had contact with. What impact would it have had on Elizabeth? Could we go as far as Anne Somerset working from the text of Larissa J. Taylor-Smither’s article, “Elizabeth I: A Psychological Profile” to say that the “shock of Catherine Howard’s execution (when Elizabeth was at the impressionable age of eight) would have been more immediate, for even if Elizabeth had not been especially close to her young stepmother, Catherine’s sudden extinction must at the very least have had a powerful effect on her subconscious” (Somerset 96). With no recorded evidence of Elizabeth’s reaction, nor any evidence of altered personality traits or behavior, this blogger thinks it is best to refrain from any such speculation.

Henry’s reaction to Catherine’s death was made clear. Shortly after her execution, Chapuys wrote that the King has been in better spirits and during the last three days before Lent there has been much feasting (Gairdner XVII 51). Henry found himself in an unusual position—that of widower. Anne Boleyn’s death occurred after he had dissolved their marriage so this was the first time he was widowed.

Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador, reported to his Imperial colleague, Nicolas Granvelle, that Henry “felt the case of the Queen, his wife, and has certainly shown greater sorrow at her loss than at the faults, loss, or divorce of his preceding wives.” He cites a parable of the widow who cries most bitterly at the death of her tenth husband because she had always been sure of the next. Chapuys speculates this is the same with Henry as “it does not seem that he has formed any new plan”(Gairdner XVI 653).

Nicholas Granvelle

Henry, most diplomats and contemporaries assumed, would soon enough be taken up with his matrimonial status. Charles de Marillac did not mince words to Francis I when he observed “It is not yet said who will be Queen; but the common voice is that this King will not be long without a wife, for the great desire he has to have further issue” (Gairdner XVI 44). While Eustace Chapuys explained to Charles V that “Parliament prays him to take another wife, he will not, I think, be in a hurry to marry; besides, few, if any, ladies now at Court would aspire to such an honour, for a law has just been passed that should any King henceforth wish to marry a subject, the lady will be bound, on pain of death, to declare if any charges of misconduct can be brought against her, and all who know or suspect anything of the kind against her are bound to reveal it within 20 days, on pain of confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life” (Gairdner XVII 50).

The King was ensuring that his next bride would not put him in a position of uncertainty which would give cause for him to receive any other letters such as the sympathetic, comforting one from his fellow sovereign, Francis I of France. Francis proclaimed to Henry, concerning Catherine’s behavior, that he “feels the grief of the King, his brother, as his own. Still his good brother should consider that the lightness of women cannot bind the honor of men and that the shame is confined to those who commit the crime” (Gairdner XVI 649).

King Francis I of France

Even though his matrimonial record was not smooth, King Henry VIII was not deterred from acquiring another bride. In a relatively short amount of time, he had provided his children with a new step-mother.

References

Denny, Joanna. Katherine Howard: A Tudor Conspiracy. London: Portrait, 2005. Print.

Dye, John S. Dye’s Coin Encyclopædia: A Complete Illustrated History of the Coins of the World. Philadelphia: Bradley & Co., 1883. Google Books. Web. 12 May 2013.

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

Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print.

Gairdner, James and R. H. Brodie (editors). “Henry VIII: December 1541, 11-20.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 16: 1540-1541 (1898): 671-681. British History Online. Web. 12 May 2013.

Gairdner, James and R. H. Brodie (editors). “Henry VIII: January 1542, 1-10.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 17: 1542 (1900): 1-9. British History Online. Web. 12 May 2013.

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

Hume, Martin. The Wives of Henry the Eighth and the Parts They Played in History. New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1905. Google Books, n.d. Web. 06 May 2013.

Lindsey, Karen. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-WESLEY Publishing Company, 1995. Print.

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

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

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

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. London: Chatto & Windus, 2003. Print.

Strickland, Agnes. Life of Elizabeth, Queen of England, with Anecdotes of Her Court, from Official Records and Other Authentic Documents, Private as Well as Public. New York: Miller, [18-. Internet Archive. Web. 6 May 2013.

Strickland, Agnes, and Elisabeth Strickland. Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest; with Anecdotes of Their Courts, Now First Published from Official Records and Other Authentic Documents, Private as Well as Public. Vol. 6. London: Henry Colburn, 1844. Google Books. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. Print.

The Second Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Anne of Cleves

Posted on May 23, 2013 by jodmcp

The Second Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Anne of Cleves

After the death of Jane Seymour, Henry began negotiations with European Royal houses. Henry was still Catholic in the sense that he did not agree to reforms in the services of worship. In 1539 he had the Act of Six Articles drawn up which kept the traditional church teachings, especially the doctrine of transubstantiation. His advisors such as Cromwell and Cranmer did not relish a Catholic bride and steered Henry toward the Protestant countries and dukedoms. The Duke of Cleves was a mild Protestant and had two unmarried sisters. Anne was the ‘lucky’ bride. She was married to Henry in January 1540 and divorced six months later in July.

Henry VIII illustrated on his Marriage Proclamation to Anne of Cleves, January 5, 1540.

Tradition has passed down that Anne was so disgusting to Henry that he declared after first meeting her that “I like her not”. Anne gets an unjustified description as ‘The Flanders mare’. She was not as unattractive (we will not delve into the issue of painting by Hans Hoblein) as Henry’s supporters and biographers make out (for evidence consult the individual biographies referenced below). Their first meeting did not go well and Henry could not overlook her response. He projected his shortcomings onto her. What had happened was, Henry full of romantic ideas of surprising his bride, entered her presence shortly after her arrival on the shores of England, disguised as a messenger. Anne spoke few words of English, her ladies in waiting were complete foreigners, and no one advised her about Henry’s preference for masquerades which included coming upon ‘unsuspecting’ Courtiers in disguise. Startled by this muddied, elderly messenger acting very familiarly to her, Anne responded coldly and not with the delighted surprise Henry expected.

The (in)famous Hans Holbein Painting, 1539

Miniature attributed to Hans Holbein, 1539

Attributed to Barthel Bruyn, 1540s

Not her features but perhaps the whole package was deemed lacking by Henry—a man captivated by the accomplishments Anne Boleyn learned at the Court of France. Anne of Cleves, on the other hand, was reared to be a practical companion to a man with position and power, her talents of intelligence and common sense lent themselves to being a successful housewife. Dancing, playing musical instruments, and speaking in foreign languages would not have been part of her upbringing. Was she unattractive? That debate we will leave behind. This blogger believes Anne was probably attractive but “had no accomplishments whatever” that Henry found so necessary (Strickland 410).

Ceremonial bedhead created for the marriage of Henry and Anne

According to Gregorio Leti, an Italian historian writing in the late 1600s with access to documents that have since disappeared, Elizabeth wrote to her father about this time asking for permission to meet her new step-mother, Anne of Cleves.

I would like to caution us to accept Leti’s work with a touch of reserve. Mary Anne Everett Wood, a later historian, reminds us “the originals have perished, or are no longer accessible” (Wood 14). Leti would have translated his sources into his native Italian and the only text available of his work is itself a French translation published in Amsterdam in 1694 titled, La Vie d’Elizabeth, reine d’Angleterre. This work was supposedly suppressed in England by royal authority. The letter, which has no date or signature, written when Elizabeth would have been a little over six years old is below.

Madame,—I am struggling between two contending wishes—one is my impatient desire to see your Majesty, the other that of rendering the obedience, I owe to the commands of the King my father, which prevent me from leaving my house till he has given me full permission to do so. But I hope that I shall be able shortly to gratify both these desires. In the meantime, I entreat your Majesty to permit me to show, by this billet, the zeal with which I devote my respect to you as my queen, and my entire obedience to you as to my mother. I am too young and feeble to have power to do more than to felicitate you with all my heart in this commencement of your marriage. I hope that your Majesty will have as much good will for me as I have zeal for your service. (Queen Elizabeth I 21)

Anne showed the letter to the king and he would not let Elizabeth come to court. Henry “took the letter and gave it to Cromwell” ordering him to write a reply. “Tell her,” he said brutally, “that she had a mother so different from this woman that she ought not to wish to see her” (Weir 408). Whether or not the story is true, Henry did not withhold permission for long as Elizabeth was eventually brought to Court from Hertford Castle to meet Anne.

Leti reports that “Anne of Cleves, when she saw Elizabeth, was charmed by her beauty, wit and …that she conceived the most tender affection for her. Anne claimed that to have had Elizabeth “for her daughter would have been greater happiness to her than being queen” (Strickland Life of Queen Elizabeth I 15). This sentiment should not be diluted by the fact that Anne was queen for only six months.

When Henry could not evade the wedding, he became determined to divorce Anne as soon as he could. According to Martin Hume, when confronted about a previous marriage (a pre-contract to the Duke of Lorraine has been mentioned in many biographies but no marriage so I take this with a grain of salt) Anne replied, “Please your Majesty, it is true I was espoused to him, but when the Duke spoke to me about marrying your Majesty, he told me my husband was dead, and I know nothing more about it” (Hume 93). Hume continues that Henry, angry at the Duke of Cleves for giving him a married woman, called together his Council for advice on what to do. The Council recommended a divorce and agreed he should make an allowance for Anne to live on after their marriage was dissolved. “The lady took it pleasantly enough” (Hume 95).

Rare document with the signature “Anna the Queen”

Most signatures are “Anna the Daughter of Cleves”

When the “conditions of her divorce were arranged, she (Anne) requested, as a great favour, that she might be permitted to see her (Elizabeth) sometimes” (Strickland Life of Queen Elizabeth I 15). Henry agreed as long as Elizabeth addressed her as Lady Anne instead of Queen Anne (Lindsey 156). Anne’s relationships and status were established by that new title.
Upon her divorce Anne retained a position in the family and Court with the status as the King’s Sister. She gained a sizable income “secured on the Cornish tin mines,” (Hume 95) plus lands and properties granted to her “to the value of £3,000* a year” (Strickland 419). Anne was given Richmond Palace, Hever Castle, Penshurst, Dartford Castle, a London residence, plus other estates such as the land-hold in Lewes.

Gate at Richmond Palace

Hever Castle

Anne of Cleves House in Lewes, now a museum

Anne experienced considerable freedom and it appears as if she bore the loss of her husband quite cheerfully. She enjoyed her life in England learning to dance and play music, hunting, dressing in fine clothes and having a pleasant relationship with Henry.

Her amiableness is shown in her dedication to Henry in the Book of Hours, Salisbury 1533 “I beseche your grace huble when ye loke on this rember me. Yor graces assured anne the dowther off cleves” (Anne of Cleves). In the modern translation: “I beseech your grace humbly when you look on this remember me. Your grace’s assured Anne the daughter of Cleves.”

Dedication in the Book of Hours in Anne’s handwriting. She gave this to Henry as a gift.

A decorated and illuminated page in the Book of Hours, Salisbury

This daughter of Cleves did have quite a unique status not only in England but in the scene of international politics. Many could not define if she was free to marry and her brother put out feelers once in a while to consider her return to Cleves or create clarity in her position. What I found interesting was the diplomatic dispatch, reprinted below, which the French Ambassador, Charles de Marillac, to the English Court sent to his king concerning the inquiry made by the Duke of Cleves after the arrest of Catherine Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII.

William, Duke of Cleves

December 16, 1541 Marillac to Francis I
Told by the ambassador of Cleves that, upon letters of credence from his master, he sought to speak with this King about lady Anne, but as the King’s grief did not permit it he yesterday went before the Council and, after declaring his master’s thanks for the King’s liberality to his sister, prayed them [to find] means to reconcile the marriage and restore her to the estate of queen. They answered, on the King’s behalf, that the lady should be graciously entertained and her estate rather increased than diminished, but the separation had been made for such just cause that he prayed the Duke never to make such a request. The ambassador asking to have this repeated, Winchester, with every appearance of anger, said that the King would never take back the said lady and that what was done was founded upon great reason, whatever the world might allege. The ambassador dared not reply, for fear that they might take occasion to treat her worse; but came to tell Marillac, because his master wrote that they would beg Francis to intercede. Thinks there are two courses open, either to intercede so dexterously as not to show that it is done with authority, and thus frighten the English into a league with the Emperor, or else to say nothing about it. London, 16 Dec. 1541. (Gairdner XVI 678)

After Henry’s death, the financial situation of Anne of Cleves did change and there was talk of her returning to Cleves. This, of course, came to nothing as she was at Court for Edward and Mary’s rule.

St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury. Anne and Elizabeth spent a great deal of time here.

Throughout Mary’s reign, Anne and Elizabeth were often seen together. Starting on 30 September 1553 when they rode in a carriage during Queen Mary’s coronation procession. They were together at the state banquet later too. “The two of them sat together at the end of the table, Elizabeth now heiress-presumptive to the throne, and Anna of Cleves’ precedence moved up to that of the third lady in the land” (Fraser 409).

Although “Madam of Cleves always paid great honour to Madam Mary” (Hume 92), Anne did create controversy when she joined Elizabeth in not attending the Catholic Mass during the early part of Mary’s reign. The Queen had words with Anne and she afterwards did attend services (Ridley 47). Being so close to the same age, one could imagine how Anne and Mary could get along, but it was with Elizabeth that Anne shared the most affection until the day she died, 16 July 1557 at Chelsea Manor.

Tomb of Anne of Cleves at Westminster Abbey

Anne’s last will and testament was not as bountiful as commentators would have expected. She did leave some items to her step-daughters. To Elizabeth she left some jewels with the hope that one of her ladies-in-waiting, Dorothy Curson, could join the younger woman’s household.

Anne’s influence may have extended further than imagined to the unmarried state of Elizabeth. Somerset implies that witnessing her father’s distaste and rejection of Anne of Cleves and her brother-in-law Philip’s lack of respect and attraction for Mary, Elizabeth did not want to experience the same thing herself. So as queen Elizabeth supposedly told Count Feria, the Spanish Ambassador, that she had “taken a vow to marry no man whom she has not seen, and will not trust portrait painters” (Somerset 92).

*The equivalent of £3,000 in 1540 would be worth £1,508,000 in 2010 currency of the retail price index. This was calculated using the website, Measuring Worth.com.

References

“Anne of Cleves’s Book of Hours.” -Folger Shakespeare Library. Folger Shakespeare Library, n.d. Web. 8 May 2013.

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

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

Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print.

Lindsey, Karen. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-WESLEY Publishing Company, 1995. Print.

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

Norton, Elizabeth. Anne of Cleves: Henry VIII’s Discarded Bride. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing, 2010. Print.

Queen Elizabeth I, Frank Mumby, and R. S. Rait. The Girlhood of Queen Elizabeth: A Narrative in Contemporary Letters. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1909. Google Books. Web. 9 May 2013.

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

Saaler, Mary. Anne of Cleves: Fourth Wife of Henry VIII. London: The Rubicon Press, 1995. Print.

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. London: Chatto & Windus, 2003. Print.

Strickland, Agnes, Elisabeth Strickland, and Rosalie Kaufman. The Queens of England, Abridged and Adapted from Strickland’s “Queens of England” Chicago: Werner, 1895. Internet Archive. Web. 4 May 2013.

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. Print.

Warnicke, Retha. The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocol in Tudor England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 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. II. London: Henry. Colburn, 1846. Google Books. Web. 12 May 2013.

Edward VI Coronation Procession

Posted on May 7, 2013 by jodmcp

Edward VI Coronation Procession

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

On 19 Dec 2012, at 18:23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hertford Castle

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

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

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

Drawing of Enfield Palace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close-up picture of the coronation procession.

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

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

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

Illustrated page of the Liber Regalis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

*Brussels, 9^th September 1785,

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

MONTAGUE (Roundell, 97).

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elizregina

Elizabeth I Regina

Tag Archives: Thomas Cranmer

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part VIII-A

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – C

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-F

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-C

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part IV

The Path to St. Peter ad Vincula: Part I

Announcing Elizabeth’s Birth

The Third Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Catherine Howard

The Second Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Anne of Cleves

Edward VI Coronation Procession