Once the Lincolnshire Rising was over and the Pilgrimage of Grace was underway, Pope Paul III wrote to Francis I and exhorted him not to help the King of England. Dr Ortiz advised the Empress Isabella in late November that the pope had ordered the Bull of Privation to be printed but had yet to publish it. A few days later, he wrote to her again and reported that the rebels numbered 70,000–80,000 and were quite capable of defeating the king’s troops. No doubt the numbers were exaggerated – most estimates were nearer 40,000 – but the force was, indeed, far larger than any the Crown could field.34 Ortiz said that the rebels wanted the king and pope to be as they used to be before, that Katherine’s marriage should be declared valid, and hence Mary legitimate, and for the dissolution of the monasteries to cease.
Shortly afterwards, the Bishop of Faenza, the papal nuncio in France, was of the opinion that the pope could easily publish the censures against Henry in England by deploying Reginald Pole. Pole, he stated, had great influence in the country and Faenza believed that the people would ultimately murder the king if he persisted in his errors.35 However, in December 1536, the negotiations between the emperor’s Privy Council and Rome shed a revealing light on the pope’s true assessment of the situation in England. It was reported that the pope could not help effectually and had no real interest in the matter. Still more surprising was the revelation that:
… it might be that he himself would not be so sorry for the death of the Princess now as he might be after her father’s deprivation, by which he might be enabled to dispose of England at will in virtue of the Papal sentence, whereas, once in England, the Princess might easily defend her rights.36
One wonders about the accuracy of this report and how the staunchly Catholic Princess Mary would have felt had she known.
By mid-February 1537, both the Pilgrimage and the renewed revolts of Bigod and Hallam were also over. At this juncture, Faenza asserted that the Scots abhorred the ways of the King of England and also that the pope should use every opportunity to show himself against Henry.37 The commons involved in the post-pardon uprisings were not alone in their distrust of the king’s motives. Cardinal Reginald Pole was not, perhaps, the most objective of commentators on the Henrician Reformation but he seems to have been shrewd in his assessment of the situation in England in early 1537. In a letter to Pope Paul III on 7 February, Pole stated:
It may be that the king has sought, by asking for the people’s petitions, and pretending to approve them, and promising to accept them, to escape their fury, with the intention of not observing anything when he is out of danger, and of getting rid of the authors of the sedition upon one pretext or another.38
Pole was obviously of the opinion that Henry had played the Pilgrims false with his promise to hear their petitions. Pole also spoke of the necessity of an expedition to show support for the ‘manly and Christian demonstration those people are making’. He argued that what was desired in England was for the king to turn back and for the accustomed obedience and authority to be restored. He also suggested that the people needed someone to exhort them in the pope’s name to stand firm, and requested money.39 Obviously, by the time Pole wrote this, it was too late to harness the initial enthusiastic zeal of the Pilgrimage and this lends further support to the contention that the Pilgrimage was not the result of some Aragonese conspiracy.40
In March 1537, Faenza reported that Henry allegedly said that he knew the pope would revoke his title of Defender of the Faith and give it instead to his nephew, James V of Scotland. There is no indication as to how a papal nuncio in the French court should know such information. However, Faenza went on to say that, according to his sources, the people were enraged with a treacherous king, who daily put them to death.41 Faenza’s rhetoric is openly and consistently hostile to Henry, as might be expected, but he is a prejudiced source and as such, his evidence needs to be treated accordingly.
The pope’s rhetoric was succinct and somewhat chilling in a Bull that appointed Cardinal Pole legate de latere (temporary Papal representative) to the King of England on 31 March. Pole’s remit was to exhort Henry to return to the faith and Paul III’s summary of Henry’s behaviour was that it was, perhaps, driven by Satan:
It may be that the enemy of mankind has such a hold upon the king that he will not be brought to reason except by force of arms. It is better, however, that he and his adherents should perish than be the cause of perdition to so many.42
The pope went on to explain that he hoped that those people who had lately taken up arms against the king would ‘do so again’ if they saw that the hope that he gave of returning to his right mind was illusory. Further, he prayed that God would be a shield to them in that war, and promised full remission of sins to those who fought in it. Fine, stirring words, it can be said, but also an example of empty rhetoric because the papacy gave very little practical support in waging a ‘Holy War’ in England. Pole lamented the scarcity of money to Cardinal Contarini in March and Contarini approached the pope, ‘who was sorry for Pole’s difficulty … but was unwilling to increase the sum of 500 pieces of gold a month usually given to ultramontane legates lest it should be taken as a precedent’.43 Pole lacked the money, men and arms that would have given disaffected conservatives a fighting chance of success. Charles V commented that there was little appearance that Pole was provided with money or men and that he might arrive too late.44 In any event, it was too little, too late.45 The Post-pardon Revolts had been crushed by 31 March 1537 and the initial euphoria and impetus of the Pilgrimage of Grace had not been capitalised on.
However, in April, Pole advised the Cardinal of Carpi of the state of affairs in England and spoke about his mission to:
… bring an island fluctuating in dogmas and tumultuous with all kinds of sedition back to its ancient stability? When, therefore this disease had from the head overflowed the whole body of the island, to remedy which there were two methods, one by surgery (to speak medically) and the other by diet, and when many advised the first method for so inveterate a disease – indeed, many in the island showed this was their opinion by taking up arms.46
Pole here uses a physician’s analogy in the same way that the king and Cromwell did, from vastly different perspectives. Here, the Pilgrims are not traitors or corrupt members of the body politic. Instead, they took up arms in an attempt to surgically heal the diseased head (i.e. Henry) in order to prevent the infection from spreading all over the rest of the body (the island). Pole then went on to assert that Henry, by nature religious, observant, benign and liberal, had been persuaded to ‘alter dogmas, rob churches, overthrow monasteries, vex the ministers of the church’ and to ‘slay those who were the greatest ornaments of the island (not Rochester and More only but all the rest who have been murdered)’.47
Writing to Cardinal Contarini in June 1537, Pole again succinctly summarised the perception of the Henrician innovations in conservative opinion in the aftermath of the northern uprisings. Pole despaired of the state of the English Church and suggested a four-day fast to pray for its conversion and return to the fold. He then wrote revealingly of the leadership being shown within the Church: ‘What health is to be expected there where Lee and Tunstall, otherwise most grave and learned men, take the lead in vomiting lies from the pulpit and impugn the decrees of the holiest fathers?’ The king and Cromwell were described as wilful and selfish men and the country as ‘a branch broken off from the true vine’.48
Despite the pope having made Cardinal Pole legate de latere in March 1537 and Paul III’s damning assessment of Henry’s character, Pole was provided with little in terms of practical support. The emperor was of the opinion that no declaration should be made against Henry without the strong appearance that it could be backed up by force. Charles was of the view that popular movements rarely lasted long, especially in the case of England. The risings in the North, however, had taken a period of five months, all told, and Charles’ assessment was made almost six months after the initial outbreak in Lincolnshire. It was too
little, too late.
This reinforces the argument that the Pilgrimage of Grace was absolutely not the result of some conspiracy hatched by an Aragonese faction, aided and abetted by Chapuys. Charles justified his own inertia by stating that he was preoccupied with the ‘important’ affairs of Christendom. His priorities were the King of France, the Turks and ‘other infidels’ (by which he probably meant the Lutheran German princes). He felt that he could not provide the assistance which would be necessary for a successful enterprise against Henry.49
Reginald Pole attributed the Kildare Rebellion in Ireland (1534) to the cause of religion and, as Professor Steven Ellis has argued, the rebellion was couched in religious terms in order to obtain foreign support, most notably from Charles V, Paul III and James V of Scotland. However, although Charles was initially enthusiastic about the prospect of intervention in Ireland, his support, as in the case of the Pilgrimage, was ultimately insubstantial. Ellis has stated that it appears that Kildare received ‘very little more than prayers and promises from Charles V and Paul III’ and that this was also the case with James V.50
There is some evidence to suggest that the Irish later viewed the precedent of the Pilgrimage of Grace as an opportunity for rebellion and acquiring foreign support. A document detailing the discussions of an Irish canon in Rome referred to England as a land divided because of the Royal Supremacy, and described the Pilgrimage (though not by name) as 50,000 against the change. The canon’s opinion was that very few of the king’s subjects of England would be quiet until they made peace with His Holiness. The canon had, according to the document, been received with compassion by the pope and had stated that he believed the Irish were all ready to rise against the King of England at the bidding of the Apostolic See, because they would not be governed after the order of the Church of England against that of the Apostolic See.51 (An Apostolic See is any episcopal see which can attribute its foundation to one or more apostles of Jesus. In this case, the canon was referring to the see of Rome which was founded by Saints Peter and Paul. Henry, of course, persisted in referring to the pope as the Bishop of Rome.)
However, the correspondence of Cardinal Farnese sheds further light on the papal position. A letter from him to the Cardinal of Brindisi on 8 January 1539 is illuminating.52 The letter speaks of the new and great impieties and heinous offences of the King of England which had disgusted the Christian princes, especially the emperor and the French king. According to Farnese, His Holiness hoped that God would work some good effect for the reduction of that realm. He confirmed that the Bull had been expedited, which, however, was to be kept private or only shown to such as were prudent and trustworthy. Farnese maintained that the pope would do everything possible. Cardinal Pole had been sent to the emperor, and would proceed afterwards to the French king to rouse them to the punishment of ‘wicked’ King Henry. It can be argued that the new, heinous offence that Henry had committed was the spoliation of the shrine of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury. This is an example of the late Henrician attack on shrines and relics which was part of the power struggle between the State and the papacy. To this day, there is a space in Canterbury Cathedral where the shrine of Becket was once placed.53
In April, the Bishop of Verona wrote a warm letter to King Henry and assured him that ‘His Holiness desires as much good for the king as for himself, and sends on this account Cardinal Pole, who I know, loves the king’s salvation as his own’. The bishop went on to say that if the king meant to be the pope’s adversary, His Holiness only desired to cure him of error, and could have no greater consolation in the world than that the king should accept his holy mind to his own salvation. The bishop referred to the ‘tumults’ in the North, but only in so far as to confirm that Cardinal Pole’s brother, Lord Montague, had played no part in them.54
Pole was sent on his mission to rally the Catholic powers, and in early 1539 England was on a war footing. Around this time, Chapuys reported to his master that Henry had been allegedly named as a tyrant in Francis I’s council. The result of this was that Cromwell had informed the French ambassador that there had been no innovation in religion except that which concerned the pope’s authority. Cromwell added that one who legally punished traitors did not deserve the label ‘tyrant’.55 The pope, meanwhile, was in discussions about the English ‘mission’ with the Emperor Charles and was concerned with the possibility that Henry might assist the Lutherans ‘with the money he robs from the churches and monasteries’.56
The following month, Aguilar, the emperor’s man in Rome, wrote regarding the remedy and punishment of the King of England. He stated that Francis I was very content to forbid commerce with England. He also was of the opinion that it was ‘easy to conquer’ that kingdom with three armies – the emperor’s, the King of Scots and his own – it could then be divided into three parts. If the enterprise was potentially so easy, one wonders why it was not undertaken previously, when approximately 30,000 Englishmen had been roused to revolt as a result of the king’s actions. However, Charles V was quite unwilling to take any action against Henry57 – for all his posturing and empty rhetoric, the fact of the matter was that England was a low priority for the emperor. Henry’s matrimonial entanglements and resultant religious machinations were not enough to rouse this Habsburg into action. Charles, quite simply, had bigger fish to fry.
Richard Morison’s official government propaganda and the unashamedly biased later account of the Tudor chronicler Edward Hall have been examined. It is now time to consider the perceptions of another individual whose view is somewhat at odds with the ‘official’ line. Robert Parkyn’s Narrative of the Reformation was first published by A.G. Dickens in 1947 and Dickens, tellingly, described it as a work affording ‘a fairly satisfying picture of the conservative opinions and archaic culture of this curious writer’.58 Parkyn was the curate of Aldwick-le-Street, near Doncaster, and composed his work at various dates during the middle of the sixteenth century.59 What did this priest record?:
Be itt knowne to all men to whome this present writttingge schall cum, se, heare or reade, that in the yeare of our Lorde God 1532 and in the 24 yeare of the reigne of Kynge Henrie the 8 thes grevus matters enewynge first began to tayke roote: and after by processe of tym was accomplisshide and browghtt to passé in veray decade within this realme of Englande, to the grett discomfort of all suche as was trew Christians.
The last sentence is unambiguous and Parkyn makes his position clear with regard to the grievous matters which took place in the 1530s; they were of great discomfort to all who were true Christians. Parkyn continued:
Fyrst the Kyngs Maiestie was wrongusly devorcide from his lawfull wyffe gratius Qweane Katheryn and mariede Ladye An Bullan, wich was crownyde Qweyne of Englande on Whitsonday. … The Pope of Rome with all his authoritie & power was abolischide qwytte owtt of this realme, & then the Kyngs Majestie was proclamyde Supreme Heade next & immediately under God of the churche of Englande & Irelande thrughe authoritie wherof he began to depose religious howsses.
Parkyn is unequivocal. Henry wrongly divorced the gracious Queen Katherine in order to marry Lady Anne Boleyn. This was followed by the abolition of the pope and his powers and authority. Henry then took the title of Supreme Head and one of his first acts, in this account, was the dissolution of the monasteries:
Then in the yeare … 1534 … the good bischoppe of Rochester and Sir Thomas Moore two verteus men & great clerkes wolde nott consent to the Kynge that he scholde be Supreme Heade of holly churche, therfor thay were both headyde in the monethe of Junii at London with thre monks of the Charterrerhowsse
Unsurprisingly, Parkyn is sympathetic to opponents of the Royal Supremacy. The Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, and Sir Thomas More are lauded as virtuous men and great clerks. They, together with the monks of the Charterhouse, were beheaded because they did not agree that Henry should be Supreme Head of the Church. Parkyn then continued:
The abovesaide Queyne Anne beheadyde for hir wretchide carnall lyffinge and in Sep
tembre & Octobre was great commotions (for maintenance of holly churche) both in Lincolneshire and Yorke shyre, butt disceattfully that were browghtt downe with treattie, withowtt bloode sheddynge, specially att a grownde namyde Scawsbie leas nott farre from Doncaster.
Here Parkyn deals specifically with the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace. The risings were, in this version, solely for the maintenance of the Holy Church. Parkyn is clear in his interpretation of events: the movement was defeated by the deceitful treaty at Doncaster. It is also interesting to note Parkyn’s unashamedly biased view of Anne Boleyn’s demise – it was due to her wretched and carnal living.
Parkyn returns to the subject of the dissolution. In this account all the monasteries were suppressed by 1539. The abbots and virtuous religious people were ‘shamefully’ put to death. There was blame attached to one person, Thomas Cromwell: ‘And all this ungratiusnes cam thrugh cowncell of one wreatche and heretike Thomas Crumwell, and such other of his affinitie, [all of the ungraciousness was the fault of this wretch and heretic; aided and abetted by others of his affinity] wich Crumwell was headyde for highe treason in the yeare after.’60 Parkyn then takes the trouble to record that Cromwell was beheaded in the following year, 1540, but does not expand on this.
Parkyn’s narrative continued until the death of Queen Mary in 1558, but we need not concern ourselves with the remainder for our purposes here. Dickens has derided Parkyn’s version of events between 1532 and 1547 and stated that as ‘such numerous inaccuracies’ are present, it must have been compiled from distant memory or hearsay.61 This is to miss the point. The account is a northern clergyman’s perception of the Henrician religious changes and the Pilgrimage of Grace. So Parkyn admittedly recorded some dates incorrectly and tended to date important events to the year prior to their happening (e.g. the fall of Anne Boleyn and the Pilgrimage being in 1535), but the essential facts and developments are true. It is the perception of these events which is crucial to our understanding. After all, Parkyn was a minor clergyman based in the periphery – he hardly had access to details and documents from the core, i.e. the Court.
Insurrection Page 23
