Mary Tudor

by David Loades

  With Philip still pressing surreptitiously for a more effective role in England, it is not surprising that the issue of his coronation became increasingly controversial. As long as there was a prospect of an heir, it was more a matter of honour than substance, but when that prospect disappeared the king’s advisers began to look more seriously at a crowning. In November 1555 he is alleged to have written to Mary saying that he could not possibly return to England on the former terms, and suggesting a coronation as a way of giving him more equality.[292] Opinions varied as to what the significance of such a gesture would be. Renard had long ago written that the crowning was taken very seriously in England – more so than in any other realm – but legally it seems that it would have made no difference. Philip already had the name and style of a king, and the protection of the treason laws, so all that would be added was the oath that he would be required to swear to uphold the laws of England, which of course included the limitations imposed by his marriage treaty. Nevertheless, Philip seems to have set his heart on a coronation, and even wrote to Mary saying that he could not see his way to returning without it, thus causing her further distress. She was perfectly well aware that in some quarters it was being said that one of the main reasons for calling the Parliament was to arrange the king’s coronation ‘by force or fraud’. The issue had become symbolic on both sides. When Mary responded to his demand by pointing out that there was no way in which Parliament would approve such a move, he replied that it was none of Parliament’s business, but rather a matter of prerogative. Technically he was correct, but Mary’s sense of the mood in London and Westminster was also correct, and after the beginning of 1556 the matter was allowed to drop in official exchanges. Philip did not return, but ‘the giving away of the crown’ continued to be prominent in public discourse.[293]

  PHILIP’S CORONATION, 1556

  Is it not to be lamented that our Englishmen, for fear of change of religion, which cometh by God’s ordinance, shall seek to plant such a nation in our country, as do seek the utter destruction of the same? But this is most detestable and abominable that so noble and provident governors as your lordships, should either for fair words, fair bribes, or any kind of covetousness, seek the subversion of our country, the ruin of our realm, the utter decay of our commonwealth, and the destruction of our own blood for ever. For if there might be any of the noble blood remain alive and bear rule, we should have some hope of restoring the realm and weal public. But if they deliver the Crown over out of your hands (I do not mean the Crown of gold only but also the power that goeth with it) ye shall in short time have such a fall as there shall not be left one of your lineage living, that shall be able to defend his [own] or bear rule as his predecessors have done. For this you must needs grant, that it is necessary for the King to work the surest way for his own profit and preservation that can be devised by his own council. And then I am sure there is none of you, I think, that can bear rule in the commonwealth or near the King’s Majesty. For the world speaketh against the detestable treason of our nobility, and therefore the Spaniards might be counted men of small wisdoms if they could not foresee such dangers. But they have provided for that well enough.

  I would to God that your lordships knew as much as I have heard with mine own ears and seen with mine own eyes, or else would credit my words. For then your most prescient wisdoms could provide to withstand their pretensed treasons ...

  Ye say the Queen hath power in her hands, we must obey her. That is true in all such laws as be already made and passed by parliament. But whether ye may lawfully consent [contrary] to the discretion of the whole realm and nation of Englishmen [to the giving away] of the Crown, and disannul the authority that was given by parliament, I leave it to your consciences. If the Crown were the Queen’s, in such sort that she might do with it what she would, both now and after her death, there might appear some rightful pretence in giving it over to a Stranger Prince. But seeing it belongeth to the heirs of England after her death, ye commit deadly sin and damnation in unjustly giving and taking away the right of others. Remember what a miserable estate and end Achab had for unjustly desiring Naboth’s vineyard. I think that you can never forget the unjust enterprise of the Duke of Northumberland and what miserable success it had. Be ye therefore wise and beware by other men’s harms, for ye may perceive evidently that God will take vengeance upon wrongful doers. Otherwise the Queen’s Majesty that now is had not been Queen of England at this present.

  But peradventure her grace thinketh that the King will keep her more company, and love her the better if she give him the Crown. Ye will crown him to make him live chaste, contrary to his nature. For peradventure after he were crowned, he would be content with one woman, but in the mean space he must have three or four in one night to prove which of them he liketh best; not of ladies and gentlewomen, but of baker’s daughters and such poor whores. Whereupon they have a certain saying The baker’s daughter is better in her gown than Queen Mary without the Crown’ …

  [John Bradford, The copy of a letter … sent to the Earls of Arundel, Derby, Shrewsbury and Pembroke (1556). Taken from John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials (1822 edition), iii, p. 129.]

  The Emperor was not pleased by this evidence of estrangement between Philip and his wife. Mary wrote to him, pleading for his good offices in bringing about her husband’s return, and Charles wrote to Philip, urging him to go. There would be, Charles pointed out, no prospect of redeeming the failure of the summer, if Philip did not sleep with his wife. However, Charles had very little leverage, and Philip was not short of other women if he felt that way inclined. That he sometimes did feel so is reflected in the discreet comments made in diplomatic correspondence, usually with the warning that these things should be kept from his wife, ‘who is easily distressed’ (which would have been an understatement of the case should she have found out).

  On 1 January 1556 Philip also took over from his father responsibility for the crowns (Aragon and Castile) of Spain, which added massively to his workload, and helps to explain the minimal attention that he seems to have paid to England over the succeeding months. Charles remained in theory Holy Roman Emperor, but in practice he had already handed over most of the responsibilities of that office to his brother Ferdinand. He did not finally retire to Spain until September, and continued to write letters of advice to his son and others, but there is little evidence that anyone was paying attention to them.

  One of the first consequences of the handover in Spain was the Truce of Vaucelles with France, signed in February. The war had been going badly for the Emperor, and why Henry II of France was prepared to call a halt at this point is unclear. But when Philip sacrificed his honour by making the first move, Henry responded.[294] In so doing he left the pope temporarily frustrated. Julius III, the architect of the English reconciliation, had died in March 1555, and his successor (after the three-week pontificate of Marcellus II) was Paul IV. As Gian Pietro Carafa he had led the hard-line reformers in the 1540s, and as a Neapolitan he was bitterly anti-Habsburg. Charles and Philip had bungled the conclave that had elected him, and his incumbency spelled trouble. He was preparing to enter the war on the French side when the Truce of Vaucelles supervened. From an English point of view the truce was important, partly because it suspended Henry’s desire to destabilise Mary’s pro-Imperial government, and partly because it later provided a pretext to involve England in the war, when it was renewed (and from which England should have been excluded by the terms of the marriage treaty).

  However, the most immediate consequence for Mary of the suspension of hostilities was that it took the wind out of the sails of what might have been a dangerous conspiracy. This is usually known by the name of Henry Dudley, a soldier and political adventurer who was one of the leaders.[295] The idea was for the English exiles in France, of whom there were between two and three hundred, mostly disaffected gentlemen, to launch an invasion of the south of England with French military and financial backing. A sympathetic rebellion would
be raised at the same time to link up with the invaders, using the unpopularity of the Spanish connection – and particularly the threat of Philip’s coronation – as an incentive. The objective, which was thinly disguised behind the xenophobic rhetoric, was to replace Mary with Elizabeth, and send the former to her husband, wherever he might be. It sounds wild and implausible, and so eventually it was, but in spite of strenuous efforts the English end of the conspiracy was never fully unravelled.

  About Christmas Henry Dudley had been warmly received at the French court and promised generous (but apparently unspecified) aid. When he went back in February he got short shrift. Dudley, however, was not deterred by this rebuff. If he could find the money elsewhere he could still raise a mercenary force for a short campaign. Henry had not refused to allow him to recruit, he had merely refused to pay. In the hands of Nicholas Brigham, teller of the exchequer, there was some £50,000 worth of Spanish silver bullion, and that would do nicely if the plotters could lay hands on it. Astonishingly, they came within a whisker of success. Brigham himself was a man of unimpeachable integrity, but his wife was corruptible and they got an impression of his keys.[296] A small ship, a ‘crayer’, was hired to take the plunder to France where an illegal mint waited to turn it into coin. The thieves even got into the vault, only to find that the chests were too heavy to be moved, and they lacked the tools to break them open. Before they could try again the plot was detected, and on 18 March about twenty of the conspirators were rounded up and sent to the Tower. Henry Dudley and many of the other leaders were in France, but without money they were helpless, and the plot collapsed. Christopher Ashton and several of the other gentlemen turned their attentions to piracy instead, and made a considerable nuisance of themselves until they were caught by the queen’s ships in July.[297]

  Most of those whose complicity in the plot was proven were minor figures, but they did include Sir Anthony Kingston and Richard Uvedale, the captain of the Isle of Wight. There was dark talk of major noblemen, even councillors, being implicated, but nothing was ever proved.[298] The opportunity was taken to remove one or two of Elizabeth’s servants from their posts, but the princess herself was merely informed that her name had been taken in vain. The plot collapsed principally because, after the signing of his truce with the Emperor, the French king was no longer interested in so provocative an action.

  A CLIMATE OF FEAR AND SUSPICION

  GIOVANNI MICHIELI, VENETIAN AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND, TO THE DOGE AND SENATE, 14 APRIL 1556.

  The suspicion induced apparently by the conspirators on the Isle of Wight* has caused the government … to send thither the Marquis of Winchester, the Lord Treasurer, and Lord Howard of Effingham, Lord High Admiral. The latter … has had a large amount of guns and ammunition conveyed thither … while the Marquis of Winchester, being a personage of great esteem and authority … will consequently be better able than anyone to ascertain whether clandestine designs in favour of the conspirators were on foot there …

  Besides the precautions taken in the Isle of Wight … it is told me that all the nobility and gentry of the country have been desired to keep on the watch, and ready to present themselves on the first summons; many persons adding that an order has been issued for the recall of all English absentees, both those who have permission to reside abroad and those who have not, without any exception, and that the proclamation will soon be printed.† And a certain rumour purporting that the conspirators had a special understanding with the King of France has been more rife than usual … [because he fears] that the Emperor and the King his son will by force endeavour not only to render themselves stronger and more secure than they are at present, but to make themselves absolute masters of this kingdom … a friend of mine … having lately seen a letter from M. de James [sic], French resident in Luxembourg addressed to the French ambassador here, telling him that in that neighbourhood … ten companies of infantry have lately been raised … all which are to serve in England, the King intending to bring them with him, having to return hither. For the guard and security of his person, and he gives a preference to German and Flemish troops, because they are less hateful to the English than the Spaniards, or any other nation … If, as premised by me, the advices be true, there would be cause for anxiety in every respect.

  In the meanwhile here, not only does there not seem to be any expectation of the arrival of King Philip with these fresh troops, but on the other hand an irritation and anger is manifested against the Most Christian King …‡ [because] of the harbour which it is understood he gives to English rebels, contrary to the agreements and express treaty between the two countries.

  I am told that the Lord Paget will settle the mode to be observed in the heading of Patents and Public Acts, which all commence with ‘Philip and Mary’, enumerating first of all, the titles of their realms according to their order, it not seeming by any means proper to the English ministry that amongst these titles the Kingdom of Spain should take precedence of those of England and France.

  [Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vi, pp. 411-12. The original ms, in Italian and partly in cipher, is in the Vienna Staatsarchiv]

  * The Dudley conspiracy. The Captain of the Isle of Wight, Richard Uvedale, was involved.

  † No such proclamation survives, or appears to have been issued.

  ‡ Henry II.

  For a while the council was seriously alarmed by the Dudley conspiracy. The regime had lost credibility since the previous summer, the succession was uncertain, and anti-Spanish sentiment was a force of unknown potential. Castro, Philip’s confessor, who had left England in December, had later painted an alarming picture of ‘foul language uttered by the English, indicating their ill will towards his majesty and the Spanish nation’.[299] There was, he observed, the greatest possible contrast between Mary’s longing for her husband, and her subjects’ rejoicing at his absence. Was Castro seeing spooks? And if not, what would it take to turn such ill will into action?

  Renard had finally left England in the previous September, and he had not been replaced.[300] Without his self-interested but indefatigable reports, our picture of English politics during 1556 is relatively sketchy. In March, while the investigations into the Dudley plot were proceeding with feverish intensity, Thomas Cranmer, the highest-profile victim of Mary’s mission against heresy, was burned in Oxford and Reginald Pole succeeded him as Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer’s death, though, was another setback for the crown – and a completely unnecessary one. After his trial and conviction for heresy he had recanted, reluctantly but fully, and could well have been consigned to oblivion as a failed prophet. The damage that that might have done to his cause is incalculable. Instead, Mary was determined to have him dead, partly because she regarded his sins as unforgivable and partly out of personal revenge. His recantation was disregarded, and his execution duly proceeded. Having nothing to lose, he publicly and spectacularly renounced his surrender and reaffirmed his Protestant convictions – thus dying as an unlikely but extremely memorable martyr.[301] He was not the only person to die in that cause during these months, but he was by far the most conspicuous. Eight or nine gentlemen also died for their part in the Dudley plot, as the alarm gradually subsided and the hunt was called off.

  In the midst of these depressing events, Mary made another attempt to persuade Philip to return. Sir John Mason was instructed to enquire pointedly whether the ships that were on standby to escort him should be stood down. In a direct message she pleaded that she needed him, and that he should not despair of getting an heir – although she was not getting any younger. He responded with excuses, and bland professions of affection. He certainly had enough to occupy him in Europe, but that was not really the point. In spite of all his efforts, and notwithstanding Mary’s hints to the contrary, the government of England was managing perfectly well without him. The council of state continued to send him its reports, but in truth there was not very much to say. There was no Parliament during 1556, and although anti-government polemics,
both Protestant and secular, continued to appear, there was nothing new in that. Philip himself continued to be the main object of attack, but conspiracies to ‘give away the crown’ and hand over the kingdom’s fortresses to strangers hardly represented creative or original opposition.[302] Moreover, Philip was listening to other voices. His own servants were able to see no reason why he should do anything to gratify a wife who did nothing for him, or spend money and effort in England to no purpose.