Mary Tudor (49 page)

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.