by David Loades
10. Van der Delft to the Emperor, to July 1547. Cal. Span., IX, p. 123.
11. Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Edward VI, II, p. 20.
12. TNA SP10/6, no. 10. Deposition of John Fowler, January 1549.
13. APC, II, pp. 84, 86, 92, 100, 120, 122, 141. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 138-9.
14. APC, II, pp. 63-4,13 March 1547. Jordan, Edward VI, pp. 72-3.
15. A J. Slavin, ‘The Fall of Lord Chancellor Wriothesley: A Study in the Politics of Conspiracy’, Albion, 7 (1975) pp. 265-85. Loades, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (1996) pp. 92-5.
16. Burnet, Historie of the Reformation, II, p. 115, reproduces the text of the protector’s letter.
17. Ibid. Gardiner’s views on the same subject can be seen in letters that he wrote from the Fleet Prison between 14 October and 4 December 1547. J. A. Muller (ed.), The Letters of Stephen Gardiner (1933), pp. 379-428.
18. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 144-5.
19. Van der Delft to the Emperor, 16 June 1547. Cal. Span., IX, p. 100.
20. For a full discussion of the failure of the protector’s policy in Scotland, see M. L. Bush, The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (1975), pp. 32-40.
21. TNA SP10/6, no. 21.
22. TNA SP10/6, nos. 7-22. Depositions taken relating to the charges against the lord admiral.
23. G. W. Bernard, ‘The Downfall of Sir Thomas Seymour’, in G. W. Bernard (ed.), The Tudor Nobility (1992), pp. 212-40.
24. He had been sent to the Tower in June 1548, having preached before the king on the 29th. He remained there until released by Mary in August 1553, having been deprived of his bishopric in 1552. J. A. Muller, Letters, p. 439. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, pp. 285-90.
25. APC, II, p. 291.
26. Mary to the council, 22 June 1549. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 146. She did not claim that her conscience was superior to the law, but that the law was defective owing to some (fictitious) pressure that had been applied to Parliament.
27. Emperor to Van der Delft, to May 1549. Cal. Span., IX, p. 375.
28. Jordan, Edward VI, pp. 206-9. Cal. Span., IX, pp. 406-8, 19 July 1549.
29. Bush, Government Policy of Protector Somerset, pp. 73-83. Ethan Shagan, ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: New Sources and New Perspectives’, English Historical Review, 114 (1999) pp. 34-63. Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation (2003), pp. 270-305.
30. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 149.
31. For a full discussion of the circumstances of Somerset’s fall in October 1549, see Loades, John Dudley, pp. 130-39.
32. Dale Hoak, The King’s Council in the Reign of Edward VI (1976), pp. 54-61.
33. BL Add. MS 48126, ff. 15-16. H. James ‘The Aftermath of the 1549 Coup, and the Earl of Warwick’s Intentions’, Historical Research, 62 (1989), pp. 91-7.
34. BL Add. MS 48126, f 16. Loades, John Dudley, p. 145. There has always been some doubt about the reality of this ‘plot’, which rests upon the evidence of a single source, but Van der Delft, writing on 19 December, noticed the change of atmosphere in the council. Cal. Span., IX, p. 489.
35. Van der Delft to the Emperor, 14 January and 18 March 1550. Cal. Span., X, pp. 6, 40.
36. W. K. Jordan, Edward VI: The Threshold of Power (1970), pp. 120-22.
37. Van der Delft to the Emperor, 2 May 1550. Cal. Span., X, 80.
38. Cal. Span., X, pp. 124-35. Charles had approved the plan on 21 June.
39. Dubois report, ibid., p. 127.
40. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 156-7. Rochester had, apparently, been consulting astrologers who had told him that the king would die within the next year – hence his anxiety about the succession.
41. W. K. Jordan (ed.), The Chronicle and Political Papers of King Edward VI (1966), p. 40.
42. Conversation between Bassefontaine and St Mauris, 28 July 1550. Cal. Span., X, p. 145. This appears to be the first mention of a marriage between Philip and Mary. At this point he was twenty-three and she was thirty-four.
43. APC, III, p. 171.
44. John Foxe, Acts and Monuments of the English Martyrs (1583), pp. 1,335-7.
45. Scheyfve to Mary, January/February 1551. Cal. Span., X, p. 428.
46. Jordan, Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI, p. 55.
47. Loades, Mary Tudor, p.163.
48. Dudley did not take the title of protector, partly because it was discredited by Somerset’s incumbency, but more, it would seem, because he was anxious to promote the view that the king himself was making decisions. This can be seen not only in his dealings with Mary, but also in the ‘political papers’ that Edward was encouraged to prepare. It is still uncertain whether there was any reality behind this façade. Loades, John Dudley, pp. 180-229.
49. APC, III, p. 336.
50. ‘… my father made the more part of you almost from nothing.’ This was true, but not really relevant. APC, III, p. 347.
51. Ibid. To the modern observer Mary’s flamboyant obstinacy, together with her behaviour under pressure, suggests a degree of mental instability – but no one suggested that at the time.
52. Cal. Span., X, p. 377.
53. Ibid.
54. Jordan, Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI, pp. 89-91. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 168-9.
55. Fourteen was the minimum age of co-habitation within marriage (for a boy), and kings of France came of age at fourteen. The age had no particular significance in English law.
56. When he was himself under sentence of death in 1553, Northumberland confessed that many of the charges against his rival had been fabricated. BL Harley MS 787, f. 61.
57. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 169.
58. Statute 5 & 6 Edward VI, c.1. Statutes of the Realm, IV, pp. 130-31. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, p. 286.
59. Inner Temple, Petyt MS xlvii, f. 316. Printed and edited in J. G. Nichols, Literary Remains of King Edward V1 (1857), ii, pp. 571-2. Jane was the eldest granddaughter of Henry’s younger sister, Mary – known as ‘the French Queen’.
60. Cal. Span., XI, pp. 8-9, 17 February 1553 Henry Machyn, The Diary of Henry Machyn, ed. J. G. Nichols (1848), pp. 30-31.
61. BL Lansdowne MS 3, no. 23.
62. Loades, John Dudley, p. 239.
63. E.g. Cal. Span., XI, p. 50. ‘… the sputum which he brings up is livid, black fetid and full of carbon; it smells beyond measure …’
64. Inner Temple, Petyt MS xlvii, f. 316.
65. The Emperor’s instructions to messieurs de Courrieres, de Tholouse and Simon Renard (his special envoys) are calendared in Cal. Span., XI, pp. 60-5.
66. Ibid.
6 Mary the Queen
1. Noailles to Henry II, 28 June 1553. Cited by E. H. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary (1940), p. 43. A recent and highly detailed account of the events of this crisis, makes a case for the legitimacy of Jane’s claim, but admits that few outside the council accepted it at the time. Eric Ives, Lady Jane Grey: a Tudor Mystery (2009).
2. Ambassadors to the Emperor, 13 July 1553. Cal. Span., XI, pp. 72-80.
3. ‘The Vita Mariae Reginae of Robert Wingfield of Brantham’, ed. D. MacCulloch, Camden Miscellany, 28 (1984), pp. 203/251. Loades, John Dudley, p. 259.
4. ‘Vita Mariae’, pp. 203/252.
5. Ibid., pp. 205/253.
6. Loades, John Dudley, p. 259. This information was given out in the general letter announcing Jane’s accession.
7. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Molyneux MSS, p. 609. Ives, Lady Jane Grey, pp. 191-2.
8. Machyn, Diary, pp. 35-6.
9. ‘Vita Mariae’, pp. 206/254-5.
10. Ibid., pp. 210/259.
11. Cal. Span., XI, pp. 84-6. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors, pp. 49-50.
12. ‘Vita Mariae’, pp. 206/255. There are several discussions of the formation of Mary’s council: Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor (1991), pp. 18-24; A. Weikel, ‘The Marian Council Revisited’, in J. Loach and R. Tittler (eds), The Mid-Tudor Polity, 1540–1560 (1980), pp
. 52-73; D. E. Hoak, ‘Two Revolutions in Tudor Government: The Formation and Organization of Mary I’s Privy Council’, in C. Coleman and D. Starkey (eds), Revolution Reassessed (1987), pp. 87-116.
13. Arundel had been dismissed from office and from the council following the supposed plot against the Earl of Warwick (as Dudley then was) in December 1549. He had been harassed again, imprisoned and fined for his supposed involvement in Somerset’s ‘treason’ in 1552. His fine was remitted and he was recalled to the council only in early June 1553. Loades, John Dudley, p. 262.
14. J. G. Nichols (ed.), The Chronicle of Queen Jane (Camden Society, 1850), p. 10. Machyn, Diary, p. 37.
15. BL Lansdowne MS 3, f. 26. The story of large scale desertions from Northumberland’s force before his final arrival in Cambridge is rejected by Ives, who claims that they only took place after the Duke had given up his campaign. Ives, Lady Jane Grey, p. 205.
16. Loades, John Dudley, pp. 264-5. R. Tittler and S. L. Battey, ‘The Local Community and the Crown in 1553: The Accession of Mary Tudor Revisited’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 136 (1984), pp. 131-40.
17. None of these men had ever served on the council before, or occupied anything more than local offices. Loades, Reign of Mary, pp. 18-24.
18. Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 14.
19. Ambassadors to the Emperor, 16 August 1553. Cal. Span., XI, p. 172.
20. Loades, Mary Tudor, pp. 193-4.
21. Chronicle of Queen Jane, pp. 53-6.
22. Ambassadors to the Emperor, 2 August, 8 August, 31 August (Cal. Span., XI, pp. 129-34, 155-8, 374-5), etc.
23. Renard to the Bishop of Arras, 9 September 15S3. Cal. Span., XI, pp. 227-8.
24. P. L. Hughes and J. F Larkin (eds), Tudor Royal Proclamations, II (1969), pp. 5-8.
25. 1 Mary, sess. 2, c.1. J. Loach, Parliament and the Crown in the Reign of Mary Tudor (1986), pp. 78-9.
26. Pole to Mary, 2 October 1553. Cal. Ven., V p. 419. Loades, Reign of Mary, p. 69.
27. Cal. Span., XI, p. 60.
28. Cardinal Reginald Pole was also mentioned as a possibility in some quarters, as he was only in deacon’s orders, and could therefore have been dispensed to marry. This would have been to resurrect an old idea, but in 1553 neither Pole nor Mary showed any interest in it. Loades, Reign of Mary, pp. 59-60.
29. Renard to the Emperor, 31 October 1553. Cal. Span., XI, p. 328. She felt, she said, ‘inspired by God’.
30. M. J. Rodriguez-Salgado, The Changing Face of Empire (1988), pp. 82-5, considers Imperial attitudes to the marriage.
31. Loach, Parliament and the Crown, pp. 79-80.
32. David Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies (1965), pp. 12-24.
33. M. R. Thorpe, ‘Religion and the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt’, Church History, 47 (1978), pp. 363-80.
34. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors, explores this involvement thoroughly in chapters 4 and 5.
35. Renard to the Emperor, 18 January 1554. Cal. Span., XII, p. 34.
36. Noailles to Montmorency, 12 January 1554, cited by Harbison, Rival Ambassadors, p. 119.
37. TNA SP11 /3, no. 18 (i). Testimony of Sir Anthony Norton.
38. J. Proctor, The History of Wyats Rebellion (1554), reprinted in A. F. Pollard, Tudor Tracts (1903), pp. 229-30.
39. ‘And touching the marriage, her Highness affirmed that nothing was done herein by herself alone, but with consent and advisement of the whole Council upon deliberate consultation …’ Proctor, History, p. 239. There is no evidence of any such consultation until after the decision had been made.
40. The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 49. The author was not overly sympathetic to the government.
41. Rodriguez Salgado, The Changing Face of Empire, pp. 82-5.
42. The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 54.
43. Ibid., pp. 73-4.
44. 178 out of nearly 30,000. G. R. Elton, Policy and Police (1972), p. 389.
7 Marriage
1. AGS Patronato Real, 7. A secret instrument ad cautelam is enclosed with the copy of the marriage treaty preserved at Simancas. Cal. Span., XII, p. 4.
2. Rodriguez Salgado, The Changing Face of Empire, pp. 85-8.
3. Renard to the Bishop of Arras, 7 January 1554. Cal. Span., XII, p. 15.
4. For a discussion of the position of the femme couvert and her property rights, see The Lawes Resolution of Womens Rights, or the Lawes Provision for Woemen, by ‘E.T.’ (London, 1632).
5. Loach, Parliament and the Crown, pp. 96-7.
6. Commendone had come on behalf of Geronimo Dandino, papal legate in the Low Countries, the previous September. For a general consideration of the progress of the religious reaction, see E. Duffy and D. Loades (eds), The Church of Mary Tudor (2006).
7. Loades, Reign of Mary, pp. 124-6.
8. Cal. Span., XII, p. 216. Loach, Parliament and the Crown, pp. 97-9.
9. Ibid., p. 98.
10. Cal. Span., XII, p. 251.
11. Renard to the Emperor, 13 May 1554 Cal. Span., XII, pp. 250-4.
12. Thomas F. Mayer, Reginald Pole, Prince and Prophet (2000), pp. 60-1.
13. TNA SP11 /4, no. 10.
14. Cal. Span., XII, pp. 297-9.
15. Ambassadors to the Emperor, 22–25 May 1554. Cal. Span., XII, p. 258.
16. ‘The officers appointed for his Highness’s service have been living at Southampton at great expense for a long time, and are now beginning to leave that place, speaking strangely of his Highness.’ Renard to the Emperor, 9 July 1554. Cal. Span., XII, p. 309.
17. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 223.
18. ‘John Elder’s Letter, describing the arrival and marriage of King Philip …’, Chronicle of Queen Jane, Appendix X, pp. 139-40.
19. Ibid., p. 140.
20. Ruy Gomez (Philip’s secretary) to Francisco de Eraso, 27 July 1554, commenting on Mary’s appearance and demeanour during the wedding service. He also added that she had kept her eyes fixed on the sacrament throughout, and was ‘a perfect saint’. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 2.
21. In Spanish, ‘Que yo no quiero amores, / en Ingalterra, / pues otros mejores / tengo yo in mi tierra …’, Fernando Diaz-Plaja (ed.), La Historia de Espana en sus Documentos (1958), p. 149.
22. The Chronicle of Queen Jane, Appendix XI. ‘The Marriage of Queen Mary and King Philip’ (the official heralds’ account).
23. Ibid.
24. The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 170. Edward Underhill’s account.
25. Tres Cartas de to sucedido en el viaje de su Alteza in Inglaterra (1877), Primera Carta, p. 111.
26. Ibid.
27. Tres Cartas, Tercera Carta, p. 102.
28. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 11.
29. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 177.
8 A Woman’s Problems
1. Judith M. Richards, ‘Mary Tudor as “Sole Quene”? Gendering Tudor Monarchy’, Historical Journal, 40 (1997) pp. 895-924.
2. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 11.
3. Glyn Redworth, “‘Matters impertinent to women”; male and female monarchy under Philip and Mary’, English Historical Review, 112 (1997), pp. 597-613.
4. S. Anglo, Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy (1969), pp. 56-98. The pageants offered on that occasion had been a tour de force of humanist imagination.
5. ‘John Elder’s Letter’, Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 146. See also Anglo, Spectacle, pp. 327-38.
6. ‘The ambassador,’ he wrote, ‘gets everything in a muddle. However, I do not blame him, but rather the person who sent a man of his small attainments to conduct so capital an affair as this match, instead of entrusting it to a Spaniard.’ Renard was a Franc-Comptois, and the dig is at Antoine de Perrenot, Bishop of Arras. 23 August 1554. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 35.
7. Ibid., p. 33.
8. Machyn, Diary, pp. 69, 72.
9. Archivo General de Simancas, CMC la E, legajo 1184.
10. Redworth, ‘“Matters impertinent’’’. Mary had instructed the select council that they were to ‘tell the king the whole state of the realm’, but t
hey seem to have used their judgement in interpreting that.
11. For a discussion of Philip’s impact on the court during 1554–5, see D. Loades, Intrigue and Treason: The Tudor Court 1547–58 (2004), pp. 178-213.
12. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 28.
13. William Forrest, A Newe Ballad of the Marigolde (1554).
14. Cal. Ven., VI, p. 10. A memorandum on developments concerning Church property.
15. Cal. Span., XIII, pp. 63-4. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 236. For a full discussion of this negotiation, see Rodriguez Salgado, The Changing Face of Empire, p. 97.
16. Cal. Span., XIII, pp. 92-5.
17. House of Lords Records Office, Original Act, 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c.18. Loach, Parliament and the Crown, p. 106.
18. The text of Pole’s address is preserved in Biblioteca Vaticana, Rome, MS Vat. Lat. 5968, which is available on microfilm. A translation was printed by J. Collier, An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain (1714), II, pp. 372-3.
19. Donato Rullo to Cardinal Seripando, 1 December 1554. Carlo de Frede, La Restaurazione Cattolica in Inghilterra sotto Maria Tudor (Naples, 1971) p. 57.
20. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 117.
21. Feckenham had urged that, no matter what the dispensation might say, the possessioners were in conscience bound to surrender their gains. He was interviewed by an embarrassed council on 29 November. Cal. Span., XIII, p. 108. APC, V, p. 85.
22. Priuli had no knowledge of English law, and sometimes missed the point of the discussions. BL Add. MS 41577, ff. 161-6. Loach, Parliament and the Crown, pp. 109-111.
23. 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8. Loach, Parliament and the Crown, p. 111.
24. Loades, Reign of Mary, pp. 167-8.
25. Machyn, Diary, p. 76.
26. Ibid., p. 80.
27. Ibid., p. 79.
28. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 248.
29. Cal. Span., XIII, pp. 165-6.
30. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 249.
31. Machyn, Diary, p. 81.
32. Ibid., p. 82. Renard to Philip, 5 February 1555, wrote: ‘Some of the onlookers wept, others prayed God to give him strength … not to recant … others threatening the bishops …’ Cal. Span., XIII, p. 138.
33. D. Loades, ‘The Marian Episcopate’, in Duffy and Loades, The Church of Mary Tudor, pp. 33-56.
