Mary Tudor (48 page)

17.
Letters and Papers
, VII, 1208.

18. Giustinian to the Signory,13 March 1533,
Cal. Ven
.,
1527–33
, p. 863.

19. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 72.

20. BL Harleian MS 6807, f. 7.

21
. L&P
, VI, 1186. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 74-5.

22. BL Arundel MS 151, f 194.
L&P
, VI, 1126.

23. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 78.

3 Trauma

1.
L&P
, VII, 296. Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, pp. 247-8.

2. For a more detailed account of some of these abrasive encounters see Eric Ives,
The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn
(2004), pp. 197-9.

3. Expenses of the Princess Elizabeth’s Household, 25 March 1535.
L&P
, VIII, 440.

4. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 82-3.

5.
L&P
, VII, 1206 and 1336. Despatches of 30 September and 31 October 1534.

6. Ibid., IX, 596.

7. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 86-7.

8. Statute 25 Henry VIII, cap. 22.
Statutes of the Realm
, III, pp. 471-4.

9. She claimed that Mary’s ‘ennuy’ had cleared up completely after a visit from her father as early as 1529 – which is directly contradicted by the evidence of the accounts. Marillac to Francis I, 12 October 1541.
L&P
, XVI, 1253.

10. Ives,
Life and Death of Anne Boleyn
, pp. 194-5.

11. Mattingly,
Catherine of Aragon
, p. 309.

12. David Loades,
Henry VIII and His Queens
(1997) pp. 90-1.

13. Ives,
Life and Death of Anne Boleyn
, pp. 296-8.

14. For a full account of this thesis, see Retha M. Warnicke,
The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn
(1989), and for a refutation, Ives,
Life and Death of Anne Boleyn
, pp. 296-7.

15.
Cal. Span
.,1536–38, p.137.

16. Ives,
Life and Death of Anne Boleyn
, pp. 326-7.

17. For a full list of the sources describing Anne’s execution, see ibid., pp. 419-20.

18. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 98. Even Chapuys admitted that there were murmurings in London about the manner (and speed) of Anne’s despatch.

19. MacCulloch,
Thomas Cranmer
, pp.158-9.

20. There is a portrait of Jane by Hans Holbein in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, which has been frequently reproduced.

21. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 98-9.

22. Ibid., p. 99.

23.
L&P
, X, 968.

24. BL Cotton MS Otho C.X, f. 278.
L&P
, X, 1022.

25. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 101.

26. Ibid. None of the documents surviving from this crisis are precisely dated, so the timetable is reconstructed.

27. Chapuys to the Emperor, 1 July 1536.
L&P
, XI, 7.

28. Mary to Cromwell, probably 30 June 1536.
L&P
, X, 1186. For Susan Clarencius see
ODNB
.

29. BL Cotton MS Vespasian C. XIV, f. 246. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 106.

30. Ibid., p.104.

4 Restitution

1.
L&P
, XI, 132. Ives,
Life and Death of Anne Boleyn
, p. 198.

2. There are many discussions of the Pilgrimage of Grace, and of the Pilgrims’ attitude towards Mary. The most recent is R. W. Hoyle,
The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s
(2001), especially p. 347.

3. Thomas F. Mayer,
Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet
(2000), pp. 62-78.

4. When asked to adjudicate the rival claims of the Duke of York and Prince Edward in 1460, the House of Lords had declared that they had no competence ‘in so high a mystery’.

5. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 110.
L&P
, XII, 445.

6.
The Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary
, ed. F. E. Madden (1831), p.1.

7.
L&P
, XII, 637, 1314.

8.
The State Papers of King Henry VIII
, (1830–52), I, pt. ii, p. 551.

9. Edward Hall,
Chronicle
, ed. H. Ellis (1809), p. 825.

10.
L&P
, XIV, 655. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p.115.

11. Retha M. Warnicke,
The Marrying of Anne of Cleves
(2000), p. 174.

12. Hazel Pierce,
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, 1473–1541
.
Loyalty, Lineage and Leadership
(2003), pp. 115-40. Dr Pierce concludes that the evidence against the Poles and the Courtenays, although not strong enough for any modern court, was sufficient to force the king to act.

13. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 116.

14. Ibid.

15. Chapuys to the Queen of Hungary, 17 December 1542.
L&P
, XVII, 1212.

16. There is a portrait attributed to Wilhelm Scrots in London’s National Portrait Gallery, which is the only authentic likeness. Loades,
Henry VIII and His Queens
(2000), pp. 137-8.

17. Catherine’s
Lamentations of a Sinner
, which was not published until 1548, is unambiguously Protestant in places. However, nothing so revealing was published in Henry’s lifetime. By the time that it appeared, Mary had left the queen dowager’s household.

18. Nicholas Udall,
Paraphrases of Erasmus
(London, 1548); preface to Luke.

19. The only source for the story of the conspiracy against Catherine is John Foxe,
Acts and Monuments
(edition 1583), pp. 1,242-4. For a discussion of its provenance, and of the possible role of Stephen Gardiner, see G. Redworth,
In Defence of the Church Catholic. The Life of Stephen Gardiner
(1990), pp. 232-7.

20. Statute 35 Henry VIII, c.1.

21. Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII
, p. 448.

22. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 123-5.

23. Marillac to Francis I, 27 December 1539
L&P
, XIV, 744.

24.
L&P
, XVII, 371.

25. For a full discussion of Pole’s views, and of his role in the Council of Trent, see Mayer,
Reginald Pole
.

26.
L&P
, XXI, 802.

5 The King’s Sister

1
. L&P
, XXI, 675, 684. Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII
, p. 495. Neither Catherine nor Mary had been admitted to his chamber since Christmas.

2. T. Rymer,
Foedera
(1704-35), XV, p. 117.

3. W. K. Jordan,
Edward VI: The Young King
(1968), pp. 52-3.

4. Charles returned the greetings that were sent to him in the name of the new king, without acknowledging his title, writing to Van der Delft: ‘We went no further than this with regard to the young king, in order to avoid saying anything which might prejudice the right that our cousin the Princess might advance to the throne.’
Cal. Span
., IX, p. 38.

5. The Act of Succession (35 Henry VIII, c.1) had specified that the king’s will should be ‘signed with his most gracious hand’, whereas in fact it had been stamped. This was a fully recognised method of authenticating documents when the king was incapacitated, but it was challenged by Maitland of Lethington in 1566 in the interest of Mary Queen of Scots. G. Burnet,
The Historie of the Reformation of the Church of England
(1679), I, p. 267. See also E. W. Ives, ‘Henry VIII’s Will: A Forensic Conundrum’,
Historical Journal
, 35 (1992), pp. 779-804.

6. College of Arms MSS, I, 7, f. 29. J. G. Nichols (ed.),
The Literary Remains of King Edward VI
(1857), I, p. lxxvii.

7.
APC
, II, p. 16.

8. TNA SP10 /1, no. 11. This is a rough draft, with proposed grants of land also inserted.

9. TNA SP10/6, no. 14. Deposition of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton, January 1549.

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.